Good evening, everyone.

Let the record indicate it is now five o'clock, and the work finance committee is called to order.

First item is approval of the minutes from the finance committee agenda.

I need a motion, please.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any questions?

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed, none.

Thank you.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any questions?

All in favor.

Aye.

And there are no item in the bid package, and the only one that we have over fifty thousand is item number twenty twenty-three two oh eight.

Specialist in real estate to prepare and conduct tax sale.

If awarded, the current contract would end on January 28th of 26.

Thank you for that.

Last fiscal year we spent 193,259.53 cents between all three accounts.

I'm sorry, 192,000.

193 259.53.

On these codes, um 22 323.

I see where it says um RIMV valuation commission committee.

Um what is that?

22 is the tax collector's portion of the tax sale bid.

323 is only our tax sale bid.

84 is for water, and 80 is for sewer.

80 is for sewer, and 84 is for what, please?

Water.

For water.

Okay.

Do you know what the postage was for this last year?

Because I see there's an exclusion in here where it says accept for postage.

I don't have that broken out of our totals separately.

So postage would be something you would be invoicing us in addition to.

No, it's in that total of 193.

It's just their postage is um whatever the mailing rate is at the time that they send out the bills.

So they they can't hold that amount.

So they they've included postage at the rate of today.

The day that they mail it, yeah.

Okay.

Because in this letter that they had sent you, um, attorney Andreoni, he says our services under the initial agreement and pricing in parenthesis, except for postage.

Right, because they can't bid out postage, so they usually just leave that whatever the current rate is.

And um we have tax sale duties, fees, and performance dates.

The very first item is set up charge is $20 per parcel.

Are these items that are in this spreadsheet?

Are those already included in their bid, or are these all additional?

That's what they charge us each individual parcel that gets those letter notifications during the tax sale process, which is then added to the taxpayer's account.

So this is um a pass through that it shouldn't cost the city any additional funds for a tax sale.

It is all um passed through to the delinquent taxpayer and the title the person who buys the tax title.

Uh a bit further down, excuse me, it has um third-party notice charges $13.90 plus $74 cents per notice.

Um be mailed.

So that's another additional charge, or is that part of their bid?

It all comes out to the total of part of the bid.

It depends how far in does that process will get charged according to uh Rhode Island General Laws.

All lien holders on a property have to be notified, so that third party is like your mortgage company, or if anyone else has a lien holder on it.

Some properties get just two letters to the homeowner and the mortgage company, and some people have multiple liens on the house, so they'll get like six letters to cover all the lienholders.

And even further down, it has under letter I first advertisement, then the very next line is J, third subsequent advertisement.

Is there no second or was just second eliminated from this?

So we advertise in the beacon at the 40 day at the 20 day mark, and then that's the the ad that you see all the names and the addresses and the parcels in, and then subsequent notifications, like just a little paragraph of blurb every few days after well every few weeks now, because the beacons twice um only once a week instead of twice.

So there's um three more ads after the initial that get placed in the beacon that we pay the beacon separately.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

All right.

Um thank you, Director.

Thank you.

Moving on, are there any items under 50,000 that any members of the committee would like to have pulled aside?

Anything from members of the council that you would like to have pulled out?

Councilman Ricks.

Yes, the item relating to the uh ice skate rink uh rental.

Okay, that would be number two.

And the page is page 11, and that's ice skate rental services.

Is that correct, councilman?

It is okay.

Anything else that you would like held out?

Councilman?

Uh that's it.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, I have several item number six found on page 40, 2026, 204.

Repair pots for snow plows.

Item number seven, found on page 44, bid number 2026 203 replay repair pots for sand and salt spreader.

Item number eight, found on page 47, 2026 202 sweeper brooms.

Item number 10 found on page 58.

Material, I'm sorry, it's item 2025 506, material testing.

And item number 12, 2026, 228, found on page 68.

Does any members of the public have any items that they would like to be held out?

Any items from members of the public.

Okay.

Hearing none, councilman Ricks, I'm gonna refer it to you.

Um with respect to the ice skating rental services.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Tom Rock, Department of Public Works, uh, Greenwood Credit Union City Hall Plaza Supervisor.

Uh the Department of Public Works is seeking council approval for the only bid submitted for the Greenwood Credit Union City Hall Plaza skate rental.

The DPW recommends Ava Corp, Ava Corp Incorporated, doing business as Sandy Lane Sports on 12 Whitford Street in Warwick, Rhode Island.

Sandy Lane Sports has been a part of the city of Warwick since 1972 and have been family-owned since 1984.

They have a retail store across the street from Thayer and Warburn Ice Rinks that have provided skate rentals and outstanding customer service to the families for over 25 years.

The agreement with Sandy Lane would be for a 10% profit share for the city uh for the skate rental purchases only.

The cost for the skate rental is $10, and this agreement is for two winter seasons.

Thank you, Director.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

My first question is how did it come to be that uh this recommended uh recommended vendor was the only one that bid was there outreach to other potential vendors?

Yes, there was.

I had sent out there was four that were listed, two in Rhode Island, Sandy Lane being included, and there was also two in Massachusetts that we had also reached out to.

And was there any follow-up with those other four?

Yes.

I I had sent emails out to them asking them why they did not provide bids, and some of them were there was a just a lack of history or lack of financial data because it's a brand new rink.

Um, and the other one they just weren't interested.

There were small groups and they were not interested in expanding and spending the money that's needed to uh to fund the the ice rink.

Okay.

The latter I can certainly understand the former reason I'm a little bit surprised because it is the sort of thing where a brand new ice rink, one would think would be uh attracting attention in lieu of having a history of uh a history there.

I suppose well, I have a few concerns about this bid.

I should start from the beginning.

Uh why was there a decision to go out to bid on this particular service rather than uh take care of it in-house?

So the decision to to put it out to bid rather than to keep in-house?

Is that the question?

I'm sorry.

Kind of hard to hear.

Uh right, right.

And basically, why wouldn't the city go ahead?

Uh bulk order, a number of uh ice skates, and otherwise uh come up with the a plan for employees to be providing those uh rental services, operating that till uh sharpening the skates, uh the other items that are in the uh the specs.

Sure, yeah, that's and it's a good question because the list goes on, it's not you know, repairing of the skates, training someone to do that to sharpen the blades.

Um this way, going out to bid, we have a functional expert.

The city will not have to spend money for all of the skate rentals.

It's not just the skates themselves.

You have to understand there's blade replacement, there's laces.

What type of skate is it?

It like there's also a ratchet strap that you could also use for convenience for the skater.

So if those were to break those cost money, and who do we know that can repair them efficiently?

Um, this is where Sandy Lane sports can come into play for as long as they've been doing it, they can provide their functional expertise.

They'll save the city money in staffing and training and also that equipment as well.

How does this generally speaking?

Uh and I'm gonna try to be careful with this question.

In fact, I suppose for purposes of open meeting, uh, I'll build a little bit of a uh foundation here.

The uh generally speaking, it's my understanding that the plan for the ice skating rink is for it to bring in enough revenue in order to uh support itself more or less in the long term, right?

Yes.

Yeah.

So uh with the city if it were to accept this bid, only receiving 10% of the revenue from the skate rentals.

Uh how does that fit into the bigger picture here?

Is that necessarily going to help us or hurt us when it comes to reaching uh reaching that goal of the skating rink being self-supporting?

Yeah, I feel that will help us.

Uh the uh with this proposal, the city is not coming off of any money whatsoever.

It's not costing us anything.

This would be just strictly revenue generated.

Um that's in my opinion, that's going to help us going forward.

It may not be an overwhelming number where it's impressive, and and this is gonna cover an X percentage of the rank, the operational cost.

However, it is not an expenditure.

So this is this will be part of it bringing in revenue.

Taking a look at the addendum to the bid.

I'm looking at uh item 10, uh, where a vendor had asked the question as to entry ticket sales.

What is the cost of a cost for admission if not renting skates?

And the response uh was in order to enter the ice, the participant will need to pay for an admission ticket.

There will be no charge to observe the skating participants.

The admission price has not been determined yet.

The vendor will receive no revenue from admission sales, only sales from skate rentals.

So my question is coming up on the ice skating rink opening pretty soon.

What's it going to look like in terms of?

I'm not sure if it's been determined at this point, if it wasn't determined at the time of the addendum.

What would it look like for the price of admission separate from the ice skate rental?

Uh so correct.

At the time of the addendum and and when this was put out, there was no decision based on the admission admissions at that point.

Um, I'm in the plans now with the administration of finalizing that.

We just haven't come come to a full agreement yet.

Would it be premature to uh say on the record here in front of the city council a general idea, a general range?

If it would be premature, then I don't intend to be putting you on the spot.

No, no, no, no.

Not premature.

I I think I can give you a range.

I mean I'm we're looking at anywhere between five and ten dollars per admission, somewhere in between there.

Okay.

So excuse me, councilman, make sure we just stay on on target on the skate rental fee itself.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was uh uh for the record, I was asking that question to see uh as to the typical type of uh entry.

Uh how much a share the city would tend to receive from uh from a casual skater who's not bringing their own skates uh in total when they're going in there and also renting.

Yeah, I suppose that this isn't a question.

Part of my concern here is that effectively the uh when one is going in there, uh here we have a vendor operating one till, we have the city operating another till, two different people.

Uh seems a little bit uh redundant, possibly on some occasions, uh especially during the slower times.

Just a couple more questions.

So in the addendum, I also had a concern as to some of the language here where item number five on the addendum, the question from the vendor being can we have additional products to offer the public, like uh skate trainers and helmets in addition to rental skates.

And the response was yes, you may sell other products and merchandise, skate aids will be provided by the city.

Uh if you may be able to elaborate on that, my concern is that the bid for this particular item going out to the all of these different vendors was specifically for ice skate rentals.

And I'm concerned that maybe it would potentially change the calculus for some of those potential bidders if they uh were thinking that there was uh second or multiple revenue streams for them to benefit from in this two-year contract versus uh if they were limited to just the one income stream of the skate rentals.

Uh so I'm not sure if you could elaborate on this uh selling of other products and merchandise.

Sure.

So for the vendor, as far as the skate aids, yes, the city will be providing those.

However, if they have other merchandise they wish to sell, whether that's pertaining to the skates, um laces, you know, things, things of that nature.

Um, you know, that as long as they have the city approval, you know, they would certainly have that option to do that.

So whatever merchandise they feel would be appropriate for the venue, and those types of approvals that would all be separate.

And uh selling other products, that's something that would also go through the same process of coming in front of the city council.

Not familiar with with that part of the process, but if that was what was required, then certainly that's what we would do.

Okay.

Uh forgive me, I'm not entirely familiar with all of the terms.

Uh, what exactly are skate aids?

So for those that don't know how to skate, whether it's kind of like a uh some places you probably see milk cartons, you can stack up milk carts and you know the the uh the kids can skate with those, and sometimes you'll see the walkers that you usually see at some uh some nursing homes, things of that nature, which is what we'll be we'll be using.

And aside from any I'll I'll rephrase that beyond the vendor uh keeping 90 percent of the revenue and one minute, councilman.

I'll uh I'll defer to the chair.

No, I'm sorry, you still have one minute.

Thank you.

I'll I'll reserve my minute.

I'll uh uh send it back to the committee.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mewtwo.

Thank you.

Uh well, I think uh councilman uh Rex was going, and I had the same concern, which was not just the the revenue from the skating, uh the 10% other merchandise that's sold within this uh area.

I'm assuming it's gonna be an area where we have uh skating, clothing, things of that nature.

Is there anything in this bid package that uh also gets a revenue share on other merchandise that is sold?

That they sell no is strictly the skate rental.

Follow up to that, are they renting the space?

No, they're not.

Okay.

The space that they're using to rent skates, sell their wares, et cetera, is um as we're sitting here, behind the ice rink?

Correct.

How is it they're there for free?

So with with there being no previous numbers for for any of this whatsoever, we felt was advantageous for both parties if it was more of a profit share than it would be for fermenting.

So we have a vendor that is gonna be conducting business in a city space and not paying rent.

Correct.

Interesting.

So that's something that uh apparently I'll have to pursue later, because that makes no sense to me.

The 10%, who who came how was 10% derived from how did the city come to an agreement of 10% versus 15% or 20%?

There was no conversation with with the vendor as far as what the percentage was.

That was what was proposed to the city as far as the 10% profit, but there was no conversations with the bidder beforehand on what the percentage would be, is what their proposal was.

Okay, so the the bidder just told us that we're gonna give you 10%, and that's it.

We didn't try to negotiate anything different.

No.

Okay.

So with the I know it says in here that um maximum capacity for the ice rink is 140 people per session.

There will be five sessions per day of potential revenue of 700 per day.

That would be assuming that first of all, 140 people show up every day, every session, and it would assume that all hundred and forty people have to rent skates and don't bring their own.

Correct, yes.

It's all based on assumptions, yeah.

Okay.

So in all likelihood that revenue of $700 a day is um is on the high side estimate.

Correct.

That would be the best possible outcome.

Okay.

The skating, so they'll also they would be there, this Sandy Lane Sports, they'll be there also when if this rank ever gets used for roller skating as well.

No, this is strictly for ice, strictly for ice.

Strictly for ice, so it'd only be for those through November, uh, November through March.

So they're rent they're there rent-free November through March.

Okay.

Okay, those are the questions that I have.

Excuse me.

Oh, council president?

I just wanted was revenue slash profit sharing in the RFP?

And I guess that would be probably for the city.

That question.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Repeat the question, Mr.

President.

Was it part of the RFP for bidders to weigh in on as to whether or not there'd be revenue or profit sharing?

For it was profit share in the RFP.

It was in the RFP.

Was there an amount stated in the RFP?

No, there was not.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from members of the council?

Uh Councilman Rix, please.

One minute.

You have one minute, sir.

Thank you.

How does this compare to other ice skate rings of this nature around the state or around the region, such as the outdoor skating rink in Providence?

So I'd reached out to multiple rinks and some of those that were privately submitted would were not willing to talk based on proprietary information.

So I unfortunately wasn't able to get a lot of um information, I guess inside information if you will, a lot of the information was based on what they put on their public website.

And if you could elaborate on that information in terms of uh prices, price sharing that sort of thing.

I couldn't find anything as far as price price share like I said there was really no information out there and no one was willing to to speak to the rinks that I had reached out to based on their proprietary information.

As far as skate rental price um I was pulling it from their from their websites on what that average price would be and depending on the rank they were all pretty well within two or three dollars for for skate rentals which lined up with this bid here this with the $10 per skate is is is well within line when looking at the skate rental prices did you also look at the uh whether there was a separate admission price there is those okay and so that all of that's being considered as part of this as well correct.

Okay.

And uh let's see last question for the moment uh the telephone there's a reference to the telephone and the Wi-Fi uh the telephone number that would be a city telephone number and the vendor would have uh no rights to that phone number that that is the city is not providing the vendor with a specific phone number or otherwise phone service to a number that the vendor has correct correct yeah no there's no no is no city supplied phone no okay no city supplied phone uh vendor is not receiving anything from the city when it comes to a phone number aside from access to a phone I believe there'll be a phone on the the premises somewhere but yeah I okay I only ask that because it's referred to in the addendum so uh Wi-Fi telephone and utilities is part of the things that the uh city would provide here uh I know my time's up I'll uh uh yield any balance of time thank you thank you councilman uh director I have another question um so we're working essentially it's I'm gonna refer to it as a commission from where I come from um they rent the skates for say 10 bucks we're getting um you know a commission of a buck per skate um per pair of skates who is keeping track of how many skates are rented and how much money are collected this is kind of like a two maybe three part question who is keeping track of that how is that verified by the city and at the end of a day who leaves with the money to make a deposit someplace uh repeat the first the first part of that question actually the first part of the question is who is keeping track of the amount of rentals per session per day and who is tracking the monies collected that's the first part of the question hi Christy hi Christy Maretti Public Works so I can answer all of those questions um the vendor has to have a system that um puts each each sale so if someone comes in and renters rents four pairs of skates you know they would it would log that four pairs of skates um at the end of each month they have to submit a report to the city of Warwick with our uh 10% share um via check so it has to go to the the treasurer's office so um basically that's how the city will get paid so the city's not depositing any money from the skate rentals um the vendor has to pay us once a month okay so once again who is verifying the amount that they say for skate rentals it will be at part of the report that they submit with how many skate rentals they had for each session um that public skating was held and then that or will be submitted to the treasurer's office so it will go to the treasurer or someone within that office um to to verify and and ensure that the check is correct do you know if receipts will be given to these renters of skates I think um nowadays a lot of people uh like to use Apple Pay a lot of people use Venmo if that's something like or like the tap to pay like the square so I think that if that's something that the vendor chooses to to do um because you can generate reports from that it would be um

Do you know if receipts will be given to these renters of skates?

I think um nowadays a lot of people uh like to use Apple Pay, a lot of people use Venmo if that's something like or like the tap to pay like the square.

So I think that if that's something that the vendor chooses to to do, um, because you can generate reports from that, it would be um you know, uh like a lot of them are get emailed or text message receipts.

So it records all of that in any sort of accounting system.

Um it has a uh a transaction list, if you will, that should be printed out for the city.

I'm gonna yield to Councilman Nappa.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just uh is Sandy Lane providing their own POS platform?

Yes, okay.

That was all so then as it stands now, the city is going to uh rely on whatever the reports are that uh provided to you at the end of a month in terms of what their sales were and that what do they send a check to the city for the case?

Yes, that's what I said.

They send a check with the report to the Treasury Department.

And where will that whatever it is per month, where will that be shown um in the budget?

It would have to go into a revenue code that's established by the finance department.

And that line item will show revenue from skate rentals?

Yes.

It's not just gonna be in a big hospage of revenue.

Um as far as as far as the the plaza rink, I'm not sure how they'll set it up, but the the whether it's individual revenue codes, one for rentals, one for um sorry, excuse me, let me clarify one for skate rentals, and then if you have one for rentals and public skate mission and and those types of things, or they put it all together, but either way, it will be shown in the budget under a revenue code, whether there's one or there's four, that's where it'll show up.

So if someone on this council or a member of the public um wants to know, or someone does a public information request, what was the total amount of skate rental received by the city?

You'd be able to tell us, or someone would be able to tell us from the city.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Members of the council.

Any questions from members of the public?

Please just identify yourself for the record, please.

Yeah, we supply the venue and we get 10%.

That's that's a real smart business move.

That that's something I would do.

So here's a quick question.

Did you happen to ask Sandy Lane Sports what they do on a daily rental for skates at Faye Arena?

Do you have that data?

Sandy Lane Sports doesn't have any um they just are located across the street from us.

We don't have anything to do with their skate rentals.

No, I I know that what I'm saying is did you ask them?

No.

Okay.

So so we didn't even ask them, hey, on a regular basis, because you got two ice rinks across the street, how much do you do in rentals?

Right.

So you know the this, you know, to to your point, Mr.

Ladisore, as far as the money, I would suggest, since this is going to be such a huge windfall of money, and we've already spent 32 minutes on this.

I would strongly suggest possibly a brinks truck and an armed guard to take care of the revenue that we're going to get from renting ice skates at the outdoor rink.

People don't rent skates anymore.

But what really bothers me is the fact that the city enters into an agreement when we provide a multi-million dollar venue that we're going to get 10% of probably 10% of nothing is nothing.

Right?

This is the level of business acumen that we have running the city of Warwick.

And we've just spent more time on ice skate rentals than we did on a 26 million dollar fire contract a couple years ago.

This is ridiculous.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to the next item number six found on page 40.

Repair parts for snow plows.

So Christy, um I just want to point out that this item is late coming to us.

I just want to point that out with two other items following, too.

Um can the department recommend awarding a bid to Cape, um, sorry, yeah, to Cap City of Rhode Island when they have not included the list price on anything.

Correct.

The um the bid did not go out with any uh parts lists.

Um ultimately um at you know, when we received the when we received the bid submissions, um as it says stated on the bottom, it says please note that the discounts indicated must be held firm, must be held firm for a one year period.

So that's what we look for on our on our invoices that we have an 18% discount.

So how is it loss in product included a net price on a bunch of items?

So how do they get those items?

Those are just the fastener pieces.

Those are not those are not the those are not the the pumps or anything like that.

Those are just the the fasteners that we need the lock washers, the nuts, the bolts, um, stuff like that.

That's that's what those pieces are.

They offer those.

Um Cap City does not, so we'd have to buy all of our, those are basically to attach the plow blades to the to the plow.

Um that's what all those fasteners are for.

But once again, Cap City didn't do anything, they didn't put in any price, whether it be a nut, a bolt, or a plow.

They didn't put in any price.

Right.

Uh Lawson products did.

And Lawson is not providing us with any of the plow parts that are associated with the plow, other than the ones that we use to attach the plow bait.

So Lawson isn't providing any um you know, strobe lights, deflectors, any pumps, anything like that.

They're just strictly fasteners.

I understand that.

But my point is for months and months, we have been asking to have a list price, not just a discount.

Because with just the discount, nobody has any idea whether you're getting a good price, a bad price, or if your discount without a list price is more expensive than someone else's that does have a list price.

And here we are, it's coming to us again without any list price and just a discount.

The discount is what we look for.

That's what needs to be held firm, not the price of the part.

So it's and and actually we have we have two bids.

We have one bidder that bid only on fasteners, and we have one bidder that bid only on the plow parts.

So we actually need both of them.

Christy, the discount means nothing if you don't know what the list price is.

If you don't know what the beginning number is, somebody could give you a 90% discount.

You have no idea what that cost is.

So that discount without a list price means absolutely nothing to me.

And this is why we ask for the list prices so that these things can be compared and we'll know what we're getting for a price.

And as this stands, we have no idea.

I I understand that, and that's a function of our office when we get the invoices, we review them.

So we make sure that we are being charged the appropriate price.

In this particular case, there's nothing to compare it to.

They're the only bidder for the Fisher parts.

Correct.

The same parts as Lawson products, bid and itemized.

This company didn't do anything.

Councilman, if you look at if you look at the bid submissions, Lawson products, but not applicable on the Fisher parts and only bid on the fasteners.

Cap City bid 18% on the Fisher parts and did not bid on the fasteners.

So we still need both vendors in order to ensure that our plows work properly.

Okay, so then we're just gonna pay them whatever the invoice is.

Okay.

Um let me have a PCR on this, please.

2325.

I have a question before you move on.

Council President, just to confirm what I heard.

Um Christy, you said that when the invoice comes in, you all check it to make sure it's reasonable before paying it, correct?

Yes.

Every if it was unreasonable, what happens?

I I would I would send it back.

Just like um, you know, there was a quote that came across my desk today with some work for a rescue that can be done in-house, and I told them to revise it and get us the price for what we can't do.

That's my job.

So I make sure that the city is paying the lowest price possible.

Got it.

Thank you.

Question.

Uh Councilman Napa.

Christy, when you're evaluating something like these Fisher plow parts, what do you use to evaluate whether it's reasonable or not?

Do you have a like a something from Fisher that says what the prices should be?

So it's sorry, that's okay.

In the automotive industry, um, the the price, the parts prices fluctuate, unfortunately, that's that's how it is.

So you know, if if automotive comes to me and says, you know, hey, I can get, and this has happened on multiple occasions.

I can get um an ECM fire commander for a fire engine, and it's five thousand dollars from this company, but I can get it for three thousand dollars from this company that's not on the bid, or if it's under you know, two twenty five hundred.

That's my job to say, okay, we're not gonna go with the the company that has the bid because we can get it cheaper from someone else.

This is what I do all day long every day.

So um, you know, if if Cap City is gonna charge us uh six hundred dollars for a plow pump, I'm gonna send it back to them and say, okay, you need you need to sharpen your pencil because we know it's not six hundred dollars.

Um, there are programs that the automotive division also uses with um there's one called all data, and um, there's another one that the name escapes me right now, but they can plug in information and and get some data for whatever they're fixing and um get like you know, estimates for parts or you know, whatever like so not so much um the OEM parts, but like the variable, excuse me, the various um repair parts that we use, like the O'Reilly's the actions, the NAPAs, we have logins for their system, which gives us our price, you know, and we we even shop those around because even though you know a widget might be 20 bucks from one vendor, we'll go to another vendor and see if we can get it cheaper, and we get it for 16 over here, we go over here.

So that's that's what we do.

We're very good stewards with taxpayer money.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're using technology to check in real time what the prices should be, because I think what the chairman's concern is, and I would have the same concern if Cap City was just mocking up their prices 18% and just giving us a 18% discount.

Yes, I mean, and the automotive chief too is also very diligent about um you know providing information to me so we can make a decision, and he'll he'll do that as well.

You know, he'll shop it around and find if we can get something cheaper from somewhere else.

Okay, but you know, certain certain areas, um we you know, obviously, snow plow parts are not something that everybody carries, and especially when you're looking for a particular brand, we have a lot of fisher plows, so we use the fisher parts.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

So you reminded me on the the OEM parts.

We're talking about list prices.

This is what got me on a roll for this years ago when we were awarding bids with just the list price, and then the I'm sorry, with a discount, and it was no list price.

So we had someone with a discount of 52%, somebody else 40%, somebody else 46.

Nobody had a clue who had the best price.

The assumption was 52% is the best deal.

What I did was I went around to, I think it was three of the automotive pots places here in the city of Warwick.

And that's when I learned, particularly with OEM pots, there could be four or five different list prices.

And their answer to me was when I asked them, why aren't you bidding?

Because tell me which list price you want me to bid.

So there is nobody in this chamber currently that would go any place in the candy store or wherever and buy anything without knowing what the list price was.

I don't care what the discount is that you get, nobody would do that.

And that's why I keep pushing on this issue.

And it is about taxpayer dollars.

Um thank you.

I don't anyone else have anything else on this matter.

Item number seven, 2026.

Sorry, members of the public.

I thought I had asked.

Anyone from members of the public have any questions?

Thank you.

PCI, you did a PC out.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um I need a motion.

Move favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

No.

Okay.

Um motion passes.

Three yes, one no.

Item number seven, repair pots for sand and salt spreaders.

Um not going to take up any time asking questions.

I just want to point out this another item that's late.

2026 202.

Sorry, any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

No.

Do we have?

Do we have I can see?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number eight, 2026 sweeper brooms found on page 47.

Uh, this is same thing.

I'm not gonna bother asking questions.

Um, this is just another item that is late coming to us.

20 no item number 10, 2020.

Any questions?

Sorry, Councilman Napa.

I just I have a question on six, seven, and eight, kind of as an aggregate.

Those I'm sorry, councilman.

What was that?

So I have a question on six, seven, and eight as an aggregate.

Those are each um allocated to line item sixty-five two five eight, at least in part or in whole.

Uh some of them are two-year bids, some of them one year bids.

If I'm doing the math correctly on it, I think we're allocated about 20,000 or no, sorry, 15,000 over budget for 65258 over a one-year span.

So these bids um cover two fiscal years.

So they start November of this year, expire November next year.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, Councilman.

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?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number 10, found on page 58.

Good afternoon, Robert Hart from the police department.

Good evening, Major.

Good evening.

Major, in your position paper, you are referring to Coral Engineering, who is providing third-party independent construction material testing and observation services for this building.

Could you define observation services for us, please?

Um, they're regularly on site checking the workership of the of the of the building.

Are they inspectors?

They're engineers, they're engineers who are testing the materials being used in the building.

Okay.

And it said these services typically include, but not limited to soil compaction testing, concrete strength testing, etc.

etc.

etc.

Were these items not performed before we started putting this building up?

This building is is reasonably completed now, right?

The building started, I believe, back in uh February or March of this year.

It is uh mostly completed at this time.

Um they've been doing testing throughout the entire process.

And you need an additional 7500 because uh right now we have some outstanding bills currently that is going to exceed the current spending authority.

So now we're asking for an increase in the spending authority to cover any additional testing.

The remaining of the testing should be uh mostly with soil compaction as we do in trenching for the utilities right now.

Um, and I think maybe some more concrete testing.

So these inspections that you don't have the money to pay for.

Were these inspections that were above and beyond what was anticipated in the first place?

I believe so.

I believe it was mostly with the concrete testing.

Okay, thank you, Major.

That's all I have on that.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, move on to item number 12.

That is going to require um an amendment, major.

Yes, on the resolution docket.

I believe the price is incorrect.

The actual price should read 292 dollars and fifty cents, correct?

So what we have um listed on our bid package is two thousand nine hundred and ninety-five dollars and fifty cents, and the request of the administration is to amend that to twenty nine hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty cents to refer back into your actual presentation, right?

Correct.

Okay, and that is going to become PCR 124-25.

Thank you for that, Major.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, I need a motion on PCR 124-25.

Move favorable action on the amendment.

Second, we have um any other questions on the amendment.

Hearing none, I need a motion on the amendment.

Move favorable action on the amendment.

Second, we have a motion, we have a second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Move forward, please.

Move favorable action on PCR 124-25.

As a yes, as amended.

We have a second on that.

Councilman Necker has seconded it.

Any other questions?

Hearing none, I need a motion as amended.

Move favorable action as amended.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

And I think that's all that nope.

We do.

We those who hold up.

We did that.

Okay, got it.

Okay, the next item we have is PCR 118-25.

Oh, we need the full consent.

You gotta move the full consent calendar first.

I'm sorry.

Okay, we need a motion on the full consent calendar.

Move favorable action.

We have a motion favorable.

We have a second.

Second.

Second.

All in any questions?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, now we'll move on to PCR 118-25, which is 2023-458 engineering services.

We'll show up this.

Thank you.

Okay, Christy, go ahead.

Uh Chris, we're ready.

We request to withdraw.

I'm sorry?

We request to withdraw.

Okay.

We have a request by the administration to withdraw.

We have any questions from members of the committee.

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

I need a motion to withdraw.

Motion to withdraw.

Second.

Second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

And that concludes the finance committee at five fifty-seven.

Got me.

Next up is the ordinance committee.

Okay, time is five fifty-nine.

The ordinance committee is now in session.

First order of business is accepting the minutes from the committee meeting held on August 18th, 2025.

Move to approve.

Move to approve by Councilman Rick's Do I have a second?

Seven.

Second.

Second by Councilman Delouise and Councilman Gebhardt.

All in favor?

I moving on to PCO six dash twenty-five, an ordinance to prohibit through trucking on Orchard Avenue, documented by Councilman, uh Council President Senep.

Can we hold this till December 15th, please?

Okay.

Council President is requesting to hold till December 15th.

We have a motion.

Move to hold.

Move to hold till December 15th.

We have a second.

Second.

Second by Councilman Deloues.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Our question was that to hold until December 15th.

Okay.

Thank you.

I say second.

Okay.

Next order of business is PCO thirteen-twenty-five, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title property.

Councilman, Council President Snappy on behalf of Mayor Picosi.

So can this please be held until November 17th?

Do I have a motion to hold till November 17th?

Second.

Aye.

Okay.

Whipping right along here.

I think that is all the business before the ordinance committee.

Six oh one.

We stand adjourned.

Next up is the intergovernmental committee.

Good evening.

Time is now six oh one ordinance committee, uh, intergovernmental committee comes to order.

Uh first up is acceptance of the minutes from the committee meeting held on October sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Motion to move favor on approval.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Hi.

Okay.

First up.

First up an appointment to the land trust commission.

Edward Rajiri Jr.

Uh from Ward One, Mr.

Rajiri.

Good evening.

Hi, Jane.

Um if you'd like to step up, we can uh make sure the microphone is on.

It is.

Okay.

Good evening.

Thank you for joining us.

My pleasure.

Uh so uh we have been made to believe that you would like to uh be a part of the land trust.

Well, I've been in that large member for the last six plus months or so.

So this is moved to ward one.

Okay.

Tell us a little bit about yourself and your work on the land trust so far.

Uh very quick, kind of as uh a bio.

I retired last year after approximately 40 years in technology and banking.

Um then with Councilman Foley's uh uh input.

I uh spoke with Jane a number of times and um sat in at a few meetings and decided I'd I'd it'd be my pleasure to join the land trust.

So I've I've I admitted uh right up front, you know, it's learning for me.

I don't bring specific experience and and land trusts uh matters in my background, but it's been a great learning opportunity.

I'm hopeful that I'm adding value to some of our conversations.

I appreciate the kind of advisory or consulting kind of function that they provide.

Um so I look forward to continuing that.

Yeah, that's that's great.

I mean, it takes takes all all kinds to help one run one of these um commissions um successfully.

Obviously, uh Miss Austin has the extensive uh environmental background, but we we need folks from from all walks who want to get involved and um get invested in there.

No, and that was when I again when I came here the first time, that was kind of my thought as well.

I bring a lot of program project management and technology experience.

Hopefully, that will translate to some extent as we uh continue our endeavors.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Uh, do any of my colleagues on the committee have any uh questions for Mr.

Giri?

Councilman Muto.

Hi, Mr.

Rajeri.

All I just want to do is uh congratulate you or hopefully congratulate you, but also appreciate it.

But also thank you for stepping up and uh you're participating in the process and uh you're working with Jane.

Uh she's gonna she's gonna work too hard, which is awesome.

No, Jane.

Jane is a rather impressive individual.

Thank you.

Uh very much again, my pleasure.

Any other members of the committee?

Uh Councilman Foley.

Uh just quick.

I want to thank Ed for a stepping up when I first asked him to, and then when the ward one position opened up, I reached out again, and Jane uh was talking to him too about taking over this spot, and there is a net large spot available, and we're out there looking, but thank you again for your commitment.

Appreciate it.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

And it is it is nice to that we got you into the into the the ward uh specific seat, um, and that gives us more flexibility in terms of finding someone else across the city who may be interested.

So that's great.

Any other members of the council.

Uh seeing none, um uh do any members of the public have anything to say?

Ms.

Austin Thank you.

I will just be very quick.

Um, I have certainly appreciated the fresh and kind of new perspective, very thoughtful that perspective that Ed has brought to the to the council.

Um Ed, along with a number of other at-large candidates have given us the uh the wider scope um now to kind of organize some of our activities.

So in fact, Ed is involved in a uh work group that's looking at kind of tree canopy and the area of forested land throughout the city.

And so I would just put one plug in.

There are a couple um ward seats that are still empty.

And if we had a few more numbers, um that would just help us from significantly.

Can you remind us uh which uh which seats you have available right now, just so I can update my notes.

Yes, the ward seats um ward number three, um seven and nine.

And ward number four, um Leslie Derrick, who is was a longtime chair, has indicated her interest in um in stepping down once there's a replacement there.

So that is a another opportunity, and I would say that it is a great place for somebody to come in.

We need a wide range.

If you just want to learn about government, you're young and you're interested in your community or haven't done a lot of this before.

Um it's a good place to start.

That's great.

And then you have the the one at large seat uh available as well.

Now we do, yes.

Okay, yeah, especially with all the development that's happening in the city.

Uh I know that that is one thing that the land trust, in addition to the other work gets involved in, is is looking at those proposals and giving comments and feedback.

Um really is a unique perspective on what's happening in the city.

So uh thank you.

Uh thank you.

Any other members of the public have anything to add?

Okay.

Seeing none, uh, do we have a motion?

Motion to move favorable on appointment.

Second.

All right, motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next up, PCR 12125, a resolutions of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management approving the city's city work submission to the 2026 outdoor recreation grant program.

Council President, on behalf of Mayor Bacosi.

So, first, I think there's an amendment.

So I don't know if you want to do the presentation first or the amendment first.

Happy to put the clarifying amendment out there uh for the committee in public consideration.

It is that DEM has since last time we've undertaken this measure, the matching requirement has moved from 20 to 25 percent.

Uh there's a reference at the bottom of page one, line 41 that we would need to update uh as part of the resolution.

Good evening.

Good evening, both mayor's chief of staff.

Good evening.

Every uh so often put this.

I guess I speak louder than most.

Um every so often DEM puts out a request for grant proposals this year.

Um, the 2026 outdoor recreation grant program is um open for both small and large grants.

Large grants are 500,000 and more.

Um total cost, the total grant cannot exceed 500,000, and the small grants are 125,000 maximum grant.

As the uh council solicitor mentioned, the cost share is 25 percent.

Normally it's 20 percent.

Um we've selected a few of the playgrounds in the city that have some outdated equipment that have not had um upgrades in some time, and those playgrounds that have a high volume of um neighborhood use.

And um we're gonna answer any questions you have.

We've been successful in this grant application um on two separate um neighborhood uh facilities, actually, three, I'm sorry.

Um, Apenag Playground right in back here, the Bishop Um Park playground.

Um, although unsuccessful, we were able to get um some uh funds and CDBG funds into that.

And then the last successful one was the Oakland Beach splash pad and playground.

And you were saying those projects are all grant funded, or they were all uh DEM recreational grants.

So the two uh Apenag and um Oakland Beach splash pad were grant funded um through this program.

Oh, through this program.

We applied numerous times for Bishop Park, but we're unsuccessful.

It's a very competitive process.

Um, although we're applying for um five different facilities, um we'd be lucky if we get one.

Um so and uh do you apply specifically for a size grant?

Like you'll include the dollars uh with each other.

Yes, the the planning department um there's a staff in the planning department that has expertise in designing playgrounds and playground improvements.

He's done most of our public facility improvements over the years, um, doing um designs and layouts and making sure that they meet um accessibility requirements is not just accessibility of the playground facility, it's also accessibility of getting from the street to the playground.

Um so that's what we look to see if we can we can get the most bang for the buck on the playgrounds.

Okay.

And okay, so the is the only modification we would need to entertain this evening uh on page one uh line 41 moving that uh required minimum grant funding match of 20 percent uh to 25 percent.

And okay, so the is the only modification we would need to entertain this evening uh on page one uh line 41 moving that uh required minimum grant funding match of 20 percent uh to 25 percent correct okay okay uh I'll open it up any members of the committee any questions comments concerns gripes kudos no members of the council councilman Lattice sir thank you chairman Chief uh I know you it specifies which recreational areas will be um considered for this grant so how were these five selected and how many others were not selected so off the top of my head I can't tell you how many weren't selected we selected we went through our inventory of playgrounds um and looked at the ones that had like I said have not had improvements in quite some time um have either some accessibility issues um equipment that is needs to be upgraded for various other you know compliance issues and things like that we looked at those and these were the six excuse me the five that that really stood out um and obviously we're going to try our best to get as much as we can um and as many as we can but like I mentioned earlier these are highly competitive um we've applied for three and four at a time uh in past and we were got one or zero um we could apply for a hundred and just water down them all um or we can target to the ones that we feel are the most needed and do you have any idea how much grant money that you may receive that we may receive I have no idea it's it's based on DEM's allocation and their recommendation and their committee um review okay so like I mentioned the large applications are capped at 500,000 and the small ones are 125000 is this similar to what we had last year sorry to interrupt you uh last year or the year before when we were able to eat various members of the council were able to make application to qualify for is this the same same thing or something this is different this is different okay yeah okay don't believe there was a grant um in 2025 I remember there was a we were successful in 2022 unsuccessful in 23 and successful in 24 I believe so um Apenag Playground was one of the first and then the Oakland Beach splash pad and playground that was a multiple multiple grants combined into one does media income come into play with this like on the C D G B grants yeah that that's a criteria it's not a requirement um but you get bonus points for being in low mod income areas okay thank you thank you chairman any other members of the council have questions councilman meadow actually something occurred to me you you mentioned that we have an inventory of our of our I know you guys don't want me talking uh you mentioned for this particular item we have uh an inventory of various parks uh and playgrounds throughout the city so our our city box of recreation and field maintenance has um box and playgrounds that they cut grass at and then we have our facility people look at them and evaluate them uh do we also have the same inventory for what's in up oxy rec such as fields and things of that nature well we have yeah we have it's pot usually their their playgrounds are part of the fields okay I appreciate that you'll be getting a request okay for that list uh any other members of the council councilman rix thank you I'd like to thank the administration for including the Norwoodfield playground on this list also known as uh ruby field the but more commonly known as Norwood Field so uh there have been some discussions on this in the past I did not know that uh Norwood Field playground was going to be included on this list until I saw this item being posted so uh I do appreciate it being included here I just wanted to make sure to state on the record on this one that there have been some discussions in the past about improvements to the Norwoodfield playground and from those previous discussions I'd want to uh if these grants are awarded and if Norwood Field is included as part of this one of the particular concerns

So I do appreciate it being included here.

I just wanted to make sure to state on the record on this one that there have been some discussions in the past about improvements to the Norwoodfield playground.

And from those previous discussions, I'd want to if these grants are awarded and if Norwood Field is included as part of this.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other members of the council?

Seeing none, anything to add, Chief?

Okay.

Seeing none, um we have a motion.

Uh oh, yeah.

Uh we can amend it.

Amend it before we amend it here.

Uh members of the public, any questions, comments?

Okay.

Yeah, so we'll take uh a motion on the amendment.

Motion to amend uh from 20 to 200.

From 20 to 25,000 as a matching contribution from the city.

Thank you.

Okay, all in favor of the amendment.

Aye.

And then uh as amended.

Uh do we have a motion?

Motion to vote favorable as amended.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries four zero.

Okay.

And lastly, um PCR 9325 resolution amending the rules of the Warwick City Council for the 2025-2026 term.

Uh Council President Sinapi.

So we're gonna hold these to the next meeting, please.

Okay.

Motion to hold to November third.

Second.

That was a second.

Yeah.

All in favor?

All right.

Uh there be no there being no further business before us.

Uh intergovernmental is adjourned at 621.

I had a little bit tonight, so it's okay.

I I thought you were correct.

You're correcting it.

Uh next up is the public properties land use and community affairs committee.

The City Council Committee on Public Properties, Land Use, and Community Affairs comes to order at 62.

First up, acceptance of minutes from committee meeting held on October 6, 2025.

Do we have a motion to approve?

So move.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Two items on the agenda.

First item, this is Councilman Day Louise.

PCO 16-25 and ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the City of Warwick.

Three kids LLC applicant 1112 West Shore Road Assessors CLAT 333 lot 103.

This is for second passage.

Councilman Daily Louise, do you recommend uh favorable action on second passage?

I recommend favorable action on second passage.

Thank you.

Uh do you move to the same effect?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Members of the committee.

Questions, comments, members of the council.

Questions, comments, members of the public.

Questions, comments, members of the public.

Hearing none, uh, we have a motion.

All in favor, favorable action, second passage.

Aye.

Aye.

Second, this is Council President Snappy on behalf of Mayor Picosi.

PCR 120-25, a resolution authorizing a tower communications site lease extension at Warwick Fire Station number five, four five zero cohesit road with T-Mobile Northeast LLC.

Council President.

So I defer to the administration on this one.

Thank you.

I see someone is here to speak on behalf of the administration.

And pardon me, I see a member of the public is here.

Any uh questions?

Or pardon me.

Uh good evening, Tom Kravitz, uh City Planning Director.

Um this particular lease um is actually up in 2029.

Um it's one of the cities, I think it's the city's highest gross, you know, producing um tower by revenue.

And we're the city's the city stands to receive in excess of five thousand dollars a month with a three percent annual escalator for this particular site.

Um Dan Gegan of my office, uh, who handles all these, did a great job with this, and he's put it forth uh for your endorsement.

It's really pretty straightforward.

I'm here to try to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

And so I take it that uh you are satisfied with the terms that the city negotiated, and this it is in your opinion a good deal revenue generator for the city.

Very much.

Any questions?

Members of the committee.

Questions, comments, members of the council, councilman Nappa, or pardon me, council president.

Uh if I was missing you.

No, you're good.

Okay, I see the lights.

Councilman Lattiser.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Director.

I I um had an opportunity to speak with Dan earlier today, and he was as usual very informative.

Um, certainly brought some things to my attention um by his phone call that I probably wouldn't be privy to.

Um, the rental fee that you're referring to, I believe is um five thousand a month.

A little more a little more than that.

It's what, please?

Slightly more than that per month, yeah.

Okay.

Um, and it's one of the highest, if not the highest tower that we have in terms of income.

Yes.

Okay.

And I believe that we have excuse me.

We have also some spots on that tower for the city.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I'll be supporting this.

I I think this certainly is um, this is a good revenue stream.

And uh this tower has been there for some 20 years, right?

Correct.

The other thing that um was a question, and Dan was good enough to explain it.

My question was, why is it coming to us so soon?

And if you could, Director, I would prefer you explain or provide that answer as opposed to me disseminating it.

Yeah, Dan actually he gave it to me as well.

Um it's it's much needed by uh T-Mobile.

And if it doesn't get renewed, they have to go out and secure a new location.

So that's the issue, and that could take years to do.

That's really the driver.

The amount per month, actually, I just looked up, it's five thousand sixty-four.

You're correcting me for sixty-four dollars?

Five thousand.

I made corrections for three dollars.

That's a good one.

Thank you.

Chief likes that one.

Um the um the problem here is for uh team mobile, in this case, they've been there, you know, for so many years.

If for some reason, if this is not approved, um obviously it's going to be an issue for and for many respects.

But for me, I'm completely fine with coming to us three years in advance because of the problem that they would have going somewhere else out.

So if we're gonna if they're gonna have an issue, they want to know now.

Right.

But that's fine.

I just wanted to put that out there.

I will be supporting this, and uh again, I thank Dan for reaching out to me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Any further questions, comments, members of the council?

Questions, comments, members of the public.

Seeing none, I'll just very briefly state that I'd also like to give my kudos.

Excellent job here, similar to these other towers.

It's a benefit to the people of Warwick who use these surfaces, benefit to the city of Warwick in getting this revenue.

I think that the lack of opposition here tonight by the public speaks values in itself.

Great job all around in getting this done early.

Okay.

We have a motion.

Okay.

Second.

All in favor.

I the committee adjourns at six thirty.

Next up is the full council at the call, the president.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

How are you?

Is there a pen here?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, clerk, when you're ready, please call the role.

Mr.

Snappy, Mr.

Deloues, Mr.

Bowley, Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lacsa, Mr.

Nuno, Mr.

Damon, Mr.

Rick.

All right, uh, Councilman Gethard, please lead us in the salute to the flag.

Pledge allegiance to the flag, right?

The United States is to the Republican which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible liberty, justice for a whole.

Announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Councilman Latisser.

Oh yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

I would like to ask for a moment of silence for a very good friend of mine, also a long time former employee and a wark resident William Clark, who passed away over the weekend.

Does anyone else have anything from congratulations, condolences, or community events?

Seeing none, we can move on to the next item.

Presentation regarding scope and results of the City of Warwick's fiscal year, twenty twenty-four audit by Jennifer Cook, CPA slash Clifton Larson Allen.

This is information only.

Great, thank you so much.

Um Jennifer Cook, um, signing director with CLA.

Um I just want to start off.

I know this is the first time that we're presenting in front of the city council, so um, in the future, if you would like different information presented, um happy to adjust that going forward.

Um so quickly, I'm I'm going to hit on the audit scope, um, our audit opinions, the required communications, um, some financial statement highlights, um, as well as some um upcoming GASP standards.

Right into it.

Oh, thank you.

All right.

So first is our audit scope.

What were we engaged to do?

Report on the city's financial statements to provide reasonable assurance that this financial statements are free from material misstatements, as well as evaluate the internal controls around financial reporting.

We do not provide an opinion on the effectiveness of these controls, but we are required to communicate if we identify material weaknesses or significant deficiencies around those controls.

We also have required governance communications, which I will specifically go through the acquired the required components of that.

And then we also do a report on internal control over compliance as well as compliance with the federal programs.

So audit results for 24, we did have an unmodified opinion on the financial statements as well as unamid opinion, unmodified opinions on the federal awards.

Regarding as I mentioned, the internal controls, we did identify one material weakness surrounding the review reconciliation and timely reporting at the school department.

The federal awards, we did not identify any material weaknesses.

However, we did have two significant deficiencies and compliance findings related to two of the programs, which I will get to at a later slide.

So required governance communications.

If you look and note one of the financial statements, that really goes through your significant accounting policies.

One of the key things is GATB 100 was effective during fiscal year 2024, and that around errors and in financial statements as well as changes in reporting entity.

And we consider the two highest uncertainty around OPEB and pension.

The last thing is the modification to our opinion.

There was a restatement to the prior issued financial statements, and that is fully described in note 20 of your financial statements around the reflection of payroll withholdings at the school department.

Quickly, I just wanted to go and kind of show a trend of what we call the governmental funds fund balance as it relates to the last five years.

I know that probably is not a shock, but you can see the trend related to the fund balance to the deficits reported over the last five years.

Total governmental funds, that includes all your special revenue capital projects.

So you'll see big swings there.

For instance, in 2022, that large jump specifically relates to bond issuance before the spending occurred.

So it's more really meaningful to look at your general fund and school unrestricted fund.

Significant disclosures around net pension liability.

As you can see, the discount rate has stayed the same the last two years.

And then what the measurement date, the everything is measured as of June 30th, 2024, with the exception of the state plan, which is measured one year behind.

OPEB liability is the next significant disclosure.

Again, I put the note uh number for reference if you were to look at the financial statements.

Um, you'll see a decrease in the city's liability, um, as well as you I wanted to put the net position as you establish the trust a few years ago.

Um, you're continuing to increase that balance and and it affords the an increased discount rate on your on your assumptions because it is um taking into consideration the future funding of those liabilities.

Um as it relates to the school, the school does not have a trust, and therefore they have to use the municipal bond rate.

Um, so they'll tend to have a lower rate as it relates to the OPEP assets.

Um related to the single audit um for fiscal year 2024, there was approximately 23.6 million in federal spending.

We audited four programs as a result of our risk assessment, and that was the uh coronavirus state and local government fiscal recovery funds, or more commonly known as ARPA funding.

Um we had one finding around reporting, um, and that's around the accuracy of reporting, and that has been corrected.

Um child nutrition cluster, better known as your school lunch program.

We did not identify findings there.

Um the safer grant, uh, we did not identify any findings in that program.

And congressionally mandated projects is um a few new grants that the city has received, um, and again around um reporting, which has been corrected.

Um lastly, I just want to make uh the council aware of some upcoming GASME standards that's going to impact your future financial statements.

Um so the biggest one is GASB 101.

Um, that's going to be effective for your June 30th, 2025 financial statements.

Um, and really this takes a look back at an understanding what liabilities are reported around compensated absences and brings into this more likely than not.

Um, typically what we're recording is what you're obligated to pay, you know, at a point in time.

Now it's saying what are you likely to pay, and we'll will require the city to establish assumptions around what that liability looks like, as well as requiring liabilities for known leaves that are that are occurring as of year end, such as parental leaves, military leaves.

Um, so we will be working with management of both the city and school regarding the implementation for the 2025 audit.

102 is also um in effect for um the June 30th, 2025 audit, and this really is enhanced disclosures about um certain risks or um concentrations that uh the city has.

Um an example is if there was one employer that was a significant amount of your you know tax revenue and they notified you that they're going to leave Warwick, right?

That there needs to be a triggering event that would require disclosure.

Um so we'll work with again management to determine um if any of those identify are identified.

Um Gazby 103 is not into your fiscal year 2026 audit, um, and this is really just to create some more consistency.

Um the biggest impact I would say is MDNA requiring more information um related to that, as well as your presentation of proprietary funds and how certain revenues and subsidies that would be presented.

So again, we will work with management about um how this could will impact uh the city going forward.

Lastly, is GASB 104.

Um, and this is just again to create some consistencies on how some of the previous standards, so the GASB 87 around leases, GASB 96 around subscription-based assets, how they're presented in the financial statements, and how they're disclosed to make sure it's consistent uh consistent among communities.

So, with that, um that's the end of our presentation.

I know that um, like I said, I would love to continue to do this and and take feedback um in the future about what's important that you want the can what us to report on each given year.

Thank you very much.

And fellow council people keep that in mind about the feedback to send my way.

Consider this pretty much a trial run of what we'll do, hopefully, going forward moving along for executive communications.

We have none.

Yep, what's up?

Uh to clarify the presentation we just heard was informational only.

So there are not going to be uh questions at this time.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Next up is acceptance of minutes from the council meeting held on October 6, 2025.

Does anyone have any objection with accepting the minutes as presented?

See none, so accept it.

Next, we have public comment rule 41 after general communications and prior to the consent calendar at the last regular scheduled meeting of the city council each month.

There should be a period of time not to exceed 30 minutes during which citizens may comment about work 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, the 30 minutes will be split evenly amongst speakers.

Time shall not be transferable amongst speakers.

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

City council members will not respond to questions during the public comment period.

The public comment session will terminate at the expiration of the earlier of all speakers, including their allotted time or 30 minutes.

Waiver of this provision requires unanimous vote of the council.

First up, we have Rob Cody.

All right, we'll circle back at the end.

Next up we have Lisa Cotlin, and I apologize if I'm butchering pronunciation.

Okay.

I'm here because I um had spoken.

I apologize for interrupting, but before you start, just say your name for the record for people Lisa Cotlin.

Thank you.

And it's with a K.

I had spoken with our council person Brian Maple, who's been very helpful.

Uh we live, we're condo owners at Forest Pond condominiums, and we're having a lot of problems with trash and debris in the property.

We have approached the site manager numerous times.

We watch the landscapers they've hired blow trash and debris, not just to the perimeter of the property, and it just blows right back in, but to the to directly down the hill to Forest Pond.

I took a lot of pictures.

We've been there now two and a half years.

Nothing's being done.

Um we're concerned.

I don't know who else to come to, but the council.

Um we just recently, and Mr.

Napai just gave you some information on that.

Uh we they just recently replaced all the mulched gardens in the entire complex with crushed stone.

They hired a company to come and dig approximately six or more inches down into all of these plots, and we watched as commercial size um wheelbarrels were again taken to the edge of the property down to the stream.

I don't know what else we can do but come here.

Um there aren't enough trash containers for the amount of residents.

There's 42 units in Forest Pond condominiums, and we have two trash dumpsters and one uh I'm sorry, two recycle.

The second mixed recycle was added a few months ago because we complained about all the trash being everywhere.

Uh we get appliances and furniture and things that are not supposed to be dumped there, mattresses will stay there for months.

The residents are getting better.

Um there are only seven on-site condo owners.

Three of the con individual condo owners rent out, and the other 32 units are all renters, and they rent from Forest Pond developers.

Again, I I don't know where else to go.

I've myself have put up signs.

Uh we asked that the uh flaps be repaired on the dumpsters because people were dumping air conditioners on top.

We're central layers, so I don't know where the air conditioners were coming from, but it's it broke a lot of the covers.

Um instead of fixing them or replacing them, they've been torn off.

So we have no covers along the front of the dumpsters.

The critter situation is not pleasant, and the trash situation throughout the complex.

We're elderly.

I'm tired of picking up trash.

Um, it blows constantly.

There is a corral, but it's not encased.

So that was all I wanted to do was come here and talk to the council.

You have one minute, Mrs.

Cotlin.

Yep, that's it.

I mean, I have if anyone wants, I do have pictures.

Um I made copies.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Next is Laurie Mance.

And again, I apologize for pronunciation.

Hi, yes, you got it right, Laurie Mance.

Um, also live at Forest Pond, and my concern has pretty much been um pointed out by Lisa.

Um, my biggest question is how do we get the covers that are on those um trash containers repaired and replaced?

Because that in itself would take care of a lot of the problem.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Michelle Comar.

Michelle Comar, good evening, Council President, Councilman.

Uh, hopefully, I get to squeeze in two topics tonight.

Um, thank you, Council President, for inviting the auditors to do the report in the presentation today.

Um, I see in your council rule amendments that might be an annual basis.

That would be wonderful.

Um, I hope that those presentations will be on the technical reports.

We get to the meat of the matter, and that I hope they're held at public hearings so that the council people, as well as the public, can make comments, ask questions, give input.

Um, that would be a really good thing to have.

We have the um other financial consultant come in during a public hearing.

I think both groups should be before the council and the and the public to take questions.

Um next topic is the street rights at Hoxie Four Corners, which I think is in the border of Route 2 route uh ward two and ward three, I believe, or ward four.

Um so everybody's conscientious about the speeds and the cameras, and I've learned on my way even coming here.

Uh I watched the um work avenue right turn onto airport road.

That's a right on red legal turn.

However, when the green arrow comes on, there's no yellow after it.

So people get photographed actually going through a red.

And there's a lot of concern from the public that they're going to be fined for this maneuver now that we have cameras everywhere.

Uh I don't know if anyone's contacted DOT with this issue.

That would be Warwick Avenue Southbound turning right onto airport road to check that traffic signal and request that DOT add a yellow arrow to give people the chance to clear the intersection and not get caught in a red picture, a red light picture.

Thank you for your time.

Bye now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And circling back, Rob Cody.

Apologize for being late.

I have a few comments, but I wanted to show you guys this chart.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

I I know it's tedious.

Can you just please state your name?

Rob Cody, Ward 7.

I want you guys to take a look at this chart.

This is what happened since Chief Peter McMichael took over the Warwick Fire Department with sick with uh overtime.

It's going from 1.7 million to six million.

So in any municipal department, the department has responsibilities to manage the department in the safest and most cost efficient method, and in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Let me give you some statistics on the management skills of the Carbon War Fire Department Chief Pete McMichal based on opera requests.

Since he was hired overtime is increased from 1.7 million in 2018 to 6 million in 2022, and currently 4.6 million now in 2024.

That's with cost overruns from what was budgeted.

He's used 8.8 million dollars over and above what's been budgeted every year.

Sick time is increased from 1,100 days to 1700 days.

Change of shift is increased from 1200 annually to 2,666 and 24.

It's clear by the official documents that since the unused sick time scheme was ended in May of 2019.

An immediate revolving sick out has taken place, fleecing the tax pays of millions of dollars.

Now, although the chief will make the statement, as other chiefs have in the past that the change of shift has no impact on the schedule, he of course is blatantly lying.

He would tell you that's a mutual exchange of time.

So let me tell you why it's not.

As an example, Cameron Boyesian took off 50 days changes of shift.

He gave back zero.

He was paid for 50 days for not working over 20,000.

Gabriel Silva took 30 changes of shift, but he came in and worked 74.

Does anybody really think that out of the kindness of his heart he came to work for 44 days for free?

He didn't.

So what's taking place?

Oh, and as a matter of fact, on that note, um Victoria Gaverno with changes of shift in sick time between 2022 and 2024 missed 183 days of her regularly scheduled shifts.

So in Warwick, we have a volunteer fire department.

You come in when you want, when you want to work, you don't.

You call your buddy, and your buddy goes and covers for you while you go when you work your side gig.

Well, how do I know that?

Because interestingly enough, the warrant firefighter, an honest guy, reached out to me and explained the entire scheme, how they pay each other to come in and work for them.

They pay each other under the table and they don't report the income.

That's another story, and then they go to work on their side gigs, and they pay each other electronically, and sometimes they pay each other cash.

This is a fact.

This is what's going on.

I've been telling you guys this for years.

You know, I have to tell you that something's gonna change.

I understand that councilman Foley is out stumping for the fire department, talking to council members, even pressuring them.

You gotta vote for this.

Why?

Why are we doing this?

In the last contract, it stated if we move to the Boston schedule and it shows an increase in operational costs, the city will revert back to the original schedule.

Why didn't the mayor catch it?

He didn't catch it.

Massive overtime increases.

City council didn't catch it.

The prior city council got 10 monthly reports, newness reports, and three quarterly statements, massive overtime increase.

He didn't do anything.

Why is the mayor pushing this unbelievable contract coming up?

One minute, Mr.

Cody votes.

He needs votes because he's incapable of making any other income.

So I want to say something to you guys.

I implore the council, particularly Mr.

Snappy to scrutinize this contract and demand accountability on the abuses that I continue to showcase in both the number of sick days and the changes shift and hold the fire chief accountable for his complete mismanagement of this department.

This council only needs three things to manage the city.

One the ability to recognize a problem, two, a problem-solving skill set, and three most importantly, the balls to take action.

That's what your constituents want.

Show some guts, stand up to what's wrong, stand up to the abusive.

These are the facts.

You can't deny the facts.

That's from official city documents.

You guys need to do something about it.

The mayor won't look at it.

He can't comprehend the math.

In the meantime, we're getting fleeced.

Mayor fire chief and the council has ignored the contract stipulations, and you need to focus.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes our list for public comment.

So we move on to appointments requiring confirmation.

Land trust commission.

We have Edward Rogerio Jr.

This is intergovernmental.

So councilman Gebhardt.

Uh committee recommended favorable action for action, Councilman Foley.

Second.

Motion made and second.

Any further questions or comments?

See none.

Oh, Mr.

DeLoes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattiza, Mr.

Muno.

Yes.

Mr.

Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

And yes, appointment.

Next.

Next we have the consent calendar, but first.

Council solicitor.

Councilman Latticer has asked to uh have a one more item voted separately from the package.

So if you would like, I can it's yes please mid-2026 216 uh regarding the ice skating uh rental revenue with the um is now PCR 12525 and will be voted separately from the uh consent calendar.

Thank you.

All right, so first up is PCR 122-25 resolution relative to bid.

This is finance committee, councilman Latticer.

Committee recommends favorable action for action, councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action second, and yeah, the report on the items removed, please.

Uh yes, we have um three.

We have item 2026 216 now PCR 125 25.

We have item number six repair pots for snow plows.

That is now PCR 12325, and we have item number 12 2026 228, which is now PCR 124-25.

Any questions on the consent calendar that weren't already asked during committee?

Seeing none, we have a motion.

We have a second.

So clerk will please call the roll on the consent calendar.

Mr.

Sunapi, yes, Mr.

DeLuise, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Muto, yes, Mr.

NAPA, yes, Mr.

Webs.

Yes, and yes, consent time.

All right, and now the items removed.

First on my list is bid 2026 to the 20.

Let's try it again.

Bid 2026 204, PCR 123-25.

Councilman Lattice.

Uh yes.

Um, the committee had recommended favorable action.

All right, for action.

Uh based on the committee vote, councilman Appa for action.

Motion move favorable.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Any further questions or comments on PCR 123-25 that weren't already made in committee?

Uh yes, um, Mr.

President, I'm gonna be voting no on that as I did in committee.

And the reason is this issue of just awarding bids because of a percentage of discount, and nobody knowing what a list price is, or at least list price on the uh items that are most commonly used, makes absolutely no sense to me.

As I said in committee, there's no one in this chamber that would go out and buy anything and buy it predicated upon a discount without knowing what the net costs are, and I think that is just um it's a it's a dangerous precedence, and it's something that it appears as though it's starting to return.

Uh at one point in time, it had stopped, and every bid were was coming to us was having um anywhere from 20 to 25 items showing a list price with a discount, and that's the only way you can have bids fair and encourage vendors to bid.

That was why years ago when we're having difficulties getting vendors to bid, particularly on autopots as an example.

It was because there was this uh feeling that um why bother city just goes with whoever the highest discount is, but you have no idea what your starting point is.

And we had changed that, and we were getting bids showing what discounts were, and I think that's a reasonable ask.

I think that's a reasonable um business model to do so, and I think it's unreasonable and unwarranted to just go ahead and approve something because somebody gives you a discount and um will take a look at it or check on it later.

That is not prudent business, and this is why I will not be voting in favor of this.

It's not because we don't or I don't feel we need the pots.

I do, but I feel that the process is flawed with the way it is.

Thank you.

So again, for people going forward, we're looking for any comments or concerns not having been raised in committee.

So councilman Muto.

Uh I'll defer to Councilman.

Oh, Councilman Gebhardt.

Oh, thank you.

Um just so that we don't uh I just want to make sure what I heard from the the uh business director of the DPW was that there is an extensive parts list that we are making purchases against and and the availability of an online portal that provides all of the pricing for all of the items that we could ever imagine purchasing, and that those items and their prices prior to any purchase are reviewed to find the most advantageous price for the city.

So I think that the characterization that has been made is patently misinformation, and I think the committee saw that, which is why um they made a favorable recommendation and why I will uh support this uh when it comes up to a vote.

Thank you.

All right, so are you still deferring or you want to come back?

Somebody else has something to go for it.

I got no other lights, so it's just me.

So councilman mudo.

Thank you.

Uh I understand the uh the difficulty that councilman Latticer has mentioned, as well as uh the points that council uh that other council people in the and the director has said there must be a way uh that we can get some assurances, maybe maybe it's just an education, maybe we need to see what what the process is.

Um I will be supporting this for tonight, but I believe there should be uh some confidence building communication uh for future uh endeavors of this nature.

All right, seeing no further lights, and we have a motion for favorable action that was seconded.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Oh we're reaching for mics, Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLoise, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, no, Mr.

Muno, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex.

No seven two motion passed.

Uh next we have bid 2026-228, which is now PCR 124-25.

Councilman Latticer.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, this was a request of the um administration, uh, primarily major hot uh to correct the typo in the amount and that amendment was to change the dollar amount from 2995 dollars and fifty cents to 2992 dollars and fifty cents, and that was um with favorable action from the committee.

All right, so for action, Councilman Latticer, do you want to make that amendment?

Move favorable action on PCR 124-25 as amended.

Second, we have to make the amendment.

All right, so this is on the amendment as a motion and a second to amend any further question on the amendment.

So seeing none clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Bowling, Mr.

Gethot, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lassa, Muno, yes, but Mr.

Race.

Yes, nine yes to amend.

All right, and now councilman Latticer has amended.

Move favorable action on PCR 124-25 as amended.

Second motion made and seconded.

Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Bowley, Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattison, Mr.

Navarro, Mr.

Ray.

Yes.

Nine yes as amended.

All right.

Next we have bid 2026-216, which is now PCR 125-25.

Uh Councilman Latticer, you had wanted this pulled out.

Well, yes.

Um thank you, Mr.

President.

So this was assigned PCR 125-25.

Um I'm not quite sure how to proceed from this point.

So I received a favorable recommendation, right?

So let's do it.

We'll do that part first.

Uming and able to move it favorable as recommended, and then we can move on to discussing.

Motion move favorable as recommended.

Motion made and secondary.

All right, for discussion, councilman Latticer.

Uh thank you.

So in considering this more since the meeting, as I had pointed out during the committee meeting, the vendor is going to be utilizing and occupying city property.

And doing so at no cost.

So the more I think about this, the more concerned I get, and the question comes to mind: does the administration have the authority to allow a vendor to use taxpayer property on a consistent basis at no charge?

I think the fact that rental income has just been dismissed, that alone unto itself is a concern, but I question the authority.

Is this opportunity for a vendor to use city property at no expense?

Something that should have come before the city council for approval.

The other concern I have is nothing was mentioned about insurance or liability.

So you have a vendor with at least no lease, no rental agreement, no occupancy agreement, utilizing and conducting business in a city space, city property.

What is the liability that the city could face as a result of someone getting injured in that booth?

Someone getting injured on the skates.

So just so I'm clear, are you asking for a legal opinion from our solicitor, or are you asking the city to give their because their attorney is not here, so give the lay answer?

Um, well, if nobody can answer, then perhaps we should hold it until someone can answer.

Well, that's why I'm asking exactly you're looking for an answer for because we have our council solicitor.

Not just an opinion from the I'm looking for a legal opinion, not just an opinion that says, yeah, we we think we can do it.

So council solicitor in reflecting on your question, it it would appear that they are providing some benefit to the bargain.

They are giving a share of revenue for the right to do an activity in a place to generate money.

So they are part of a compromise of sorts between the two.

They are paying in some sense, they're sacrificing their foregoing revenue that albeit in this case 10 percent, they are paying for some right to use these facilities.

That's paying like with penny candy.

The this monetary amount that we're talking about is nowhere near the value of that space per square foot.

So how does that value just get brushed aside and say we're going to go ahead and allow that space to sit there because they're giving us a commission and they're using the space without any compensation or rent?

I shouldn't say compensation without any rental.

Respectfully, I would suggest that it may not be a legal issue, but it's a business decision that is pending before the nine of you to decide as to whether that benefit of the bargain is worth what it's so your opinion is that it is legal for them to just arbitrarily allow a vendor to use city property for free.

That is not my opinion.

What is it then?

My opinion is that there have come to an arrangement through a publicly bid process that you can decide whether that value proposition is worth it or for you or not.

But it is in order, it is available for you to proceed to the body wish.

So I'm not getting the answer to my question.

Respectfully, I the the framing of it I think goes further than what I would opine.

Um and we're into semantics between the legal and the prospects or political.

So I'll so if we can't get it and if I can't get an answer here tonight, where do I go to get an answer?

I mean, I I believe I've answered the question, just not in the words that you would like.

So that's that's what I was going to say.

That this it's like a two-part issue here.

One you you received an answer, it's just not so much what you're looking for, it's just not necessarily put in the way you prefer it be put.

But as far as else wise, as far as getting an answer, I mean just like anything else, we're entitled to submit questions or to ask anything of the administration now or thereafter.

And obviously, if you submit it, said question and it somehow was not lawful, even though by all accounts, based on what the solicitor said, it is, then they wouldn't be able to proceed anyway, regardless of what we do tonight.

So as I said when I asked for the PCR, this is something that came to mind again during questioning in the committee.

So I guess we're saying that it's it's okay for the administration to allow someone to use space here in City Hall if they you know want to contribute pennies, and it's okay to use space in the sawtooth building with no rent.

That's what I'm hearing.

I mean, it sounds like you're hearing what's already the process, such as any entity or person can request to use city space at any time and potentially be given the right to do so various entities on occasion, well, not just occasion, regularly utilize city space, and at times charge an entrance fee and entrance fee for that space or various fees for the content of what's happening within that space in the city collects none of it on a regular basis because of the nature of the permitting process and the ability to grant use of space.

This is a not abnormal practice.

Generally speaking, I'm not saying the specifics that we have before us because obviously we don't have this particular kind of structure until well soon.

With with all due respect, Mr.

President, in the 13 years I've been here, I have never seen the city allow anybody to use city property, which is being supported with taxpayer dollars for free.

I can cite several.

I know the Greater World Lions regularly uses city property, and we charge for entrance into said property for uh car show.

Yeah, we have raffles, we do all sorts of stuff.

That's just one of the many entities, all of which regularly have events and whatnot.

I mean, various soccer leagues, you name it.

There's a there's a lot.

Those are a one-time issues, those are not a business relationship that is in uh continual, a continual relationship.

I mean, some of them in fact are.

Hence again, I'll use the example of the Greater War clients, which is the same thing.

I mean, I don't need to tell the city, but and any of you who've already been, you know, it's there a set schedule every year and has been, geez, for decades now.

I'm old.

Um it's weird to be able to say decades.

Sorry.

Personal.

And I assume the city is going to or have already attained the appropriate insurance certificates, uh, hold harmless agreements or whatever else is necessary to protect the city from another lawsuit.

Uh Bill Facente Chief Staff, it's in the bid as a requirement.

That the vendor has liability, general liability, and workers' comp insurance.

This is an actual business that has a bricks and mortar store across from the rink.

I know in business for 25 years in Walk.

So they have all their liability and general liability and work as comp insurances.

We will be getting a certificate as listed as a certificate holder as required in the RFP.

Okay.

I'm done.

If I'm not already councilman Gebhardt.

As I as I sit here, I have to chuckle because I could only imagine the outrage if the proposal tonight was to hire multiple attendants to be stationed in the rink to purchase several hundred pairs of skates to then manage that entire process, collect fees, and all of that before we even know what the attendance will be like, what the demand for skate rental will be like, etc.

etc.

That scenario, which I think would be laughed out of this room is the alternative to what we have before us tonight.

And so I think it's an incredibly responsible move on the part of the city to say, hey, we have a new facility, we have no real benchmark to know how what the revenue is going to be.

Um we have no real benchmark to know how many skate rentals we're going to do, what the hours are going to be, how many staff we're going to need, so on and so forth, what the expertise is required to fit the skates and sharpen them and refurbish them and all of the things that go along with that.

And so for two years, we will have the opportunity to observe a professional run a skate rental shop out of our brand new facility.

We will know exactly the volume of rentals because we will be getting a uh 10% share um of whatever happens there.

Obviously, having skates at a skate rink is part of the sort of cost of doing business of having said skate rink.

And so this is just part of what we need to do in order to open this facility.

And I think that this indemnifies us of all risk because we we are not hiring staff, we are not buying skates, we are not doing anything except opening the opening the doors, letting someone who knows how to do this activity do the activity.

If we look at it a year from now or a year and a half from now, and we say, Man, those guys are making money hand over fist renting skates at the skate rink.

Then I think we could consider should we staff one or two people?

I mean, I'm just doing back of the napkin math.

If we're open 15 50 hours a week at $15 an hour, it's about 40,000 a year for one attendant.

Now there may be peak volume where you need two attendants.

So, you know, is the alternative that we add a hundred thousand dollars to the budget to to fund staffing that the skate uh rental shop.

I don't know.

It just it's to me it it feels absurd.

Uh so I think this is uh a responsible move, gets the facility open.

We can see what kind of usage we get, and we can make uh a wiser decision down the road.

Um that's just my two cents.

Thank you.

Councilman Napoleon.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I'd like to just echo Councilman Ghard, he thinks he makes some valid points.

Uh, I think Councilman Lannister also brings up some c valid concerns.

I think the issue of pushing this uh idea that the city is giving away the space for free is sort of a misleading.

We don't need to bifurcate the agreement and allocate one thing specifically for rent and another thing specifically for revenue share.

I would assume that was contemplated and it was uh purportedly agreed upon by the city that the 10% share would associate with some portion of usage of our space, so the city space rather, and uh an adequate share of revenue share included in that 10%.

Now, granted, that's not market if we're looking at square footage rent, but there are I would venture to say absolutely zero people that are going to rent the amount of space that they're gonna use at market rate.

If they rent at market rate and uh they're renting out skates at $10 a piece, they're gonna be in the hole.

So that would be a terrible business proposition for whomever would be interested in getting that space.

We would never be able to fill it if we were trying to rent it at market rate to yield that amount of revenue, and then also take a profit share off of the skates they're renting.

And like Consulman Gebhardt said, this is a good test of a litmus test of let's see what kind of revenue actually comes in the door, what kind of volume we get and who is renting these skates, and we can take next appropriate steps.

If we have a bad deal, then we can renegotiate when the time comes.

Whether or not people on the council agree with the negotiating prowess or ability of the people negotiating these contracts, that's a separate uh issue aside.

But I think the what's in before this council tonight is a very good first step to get in the door and say we're getting something in return for what we're allowing someone to come into our facility and run for us.

It's a no cost to the city, it's only revenue generating.

And if it goes well or poorly, we can adjust accordingly.

But like Councilman Gebort said, we have no basis to operate from, it would be assumptions only.

So I would fully support the administration's effort on this to get this ball moving forward.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, I have to respectfully disagree with a couple of my colleagues.

I hope that they are open to uh some additional information and feedback here.

Uh first I have a lot a lot of hesitation here because we only received one bid, and it happens to be a bid from a vendor who works with the city.

It uh when there's a lack of competition, lack of different uh numbers coming in, that's always going to make me hesitate a little bit.

So I did run some of the numbers here as well.

Now, I understand some of the numbers that were just stated, but I do have to question those because this is essentially an operation for a little bit over four months per year.

I think it's a grand total of uh at maximum barring inclement weather, I believe it's around 124 days, but there will be inclement weather.

Let's brown down for a moment to 120 days.

If it's 120 days, then at $9 a skate, if it were at the absolute maximum capacity, then uh we're talking $6300 a day.

Of course, we can't expect maximum capacity because there are going to be some people who bring their own skates.

And on any given day, especially weekdays, you're not going to see the maximum number of people showing up anyway.

So in a low turnout scenario, and this is unfortunately another area where I do disagree.

If it's a low turnout scenario, and we only really need one person that's in the ticket booth, guess what?

The city is already putting one person in that ticket booth to operate one cash register, and with the vendor there, at all times, there would be at least two people operating two different cash registers.

We already have someone there.

We can consolidate the operation.

So what I'm saying is that the city has a competitive advantage over any vendor in a low turnout scenario because we already have someone there.

And if it turns into a scenario where multiple people are needed, weekend days, great weather, we need a second person there, well, that's also doable.

Now, every job involves skills.

Uh, so-called unskilled work, no such thing.

All work that's paid involves some level of skill, of course.

But the level of training that's needed to get someone to be able to sharpen a pair of ice skates is less than the level of training that would be necessary for someone to say replace an engine in an automobile.

We have people in the city who are fully capable of sharpening ice skates and teaching a new person how to sharpen ice skates.

Right.

Even with our uh fire department, police department, we have people who play recreational hockey.

A lot of people, I'm not one of them, but a lot of people know how to sharpen ice skates.

And I don't think it's necessarily going to be an incredibly difficult skill that's necessarily a lot more difficult than how to sharpen knives.

A little bit different, but we're not talking about training someone training someone to do incredibly highly skilled specialized work.

So in a low turnout scenario, the city has the competitive edge here.

And then instead of a vendor getting the cash cow here, the 90%, the city is getting that money.

The city can also buy skates in bulk.

There's many places that that can be done.

Ice skates when bought in bulk, when guess what?

We're not expecting this ice rink to close a year from now.

We're expecting many, many years of operations.

And if the ice skates, if they uh, you know, if they get relatively little use in the in uh given year, well, guess what?

Less wear and tear, they'll last for more years.

So that's the low low turnout scenario.

The high turnout scenario, wonderful.

Even more money for the city.

We also heard that the city would charge a separate attendance fee of between five dollars and ten dollars.

There's still some decisions being made.

So if it's at the low end as to the attendance uh, you know, the ticket to get in, then it makes all the more sense for the city to be taking care of the rental operations because that's where the money is.

It hardly makes sense for the city, in my opinion, to be allowing for a majority of the money to go out the door.

The way that the ice skate is rank is going to generate money is from the people attending who are entering the rink, paying their admission ticket, paying for the ice uh ice skate rental, and also, of course, of course, the city is bringing in some money from other ways, but we want this rink to be self-supporting.

And the ice skate rentals, that's a huge part of the potential revenue coming in on this.

So I think that in either of the scenarios, the low turnout, the high turnout.

I think that the city is probably best positioned here to just handle the ice skate rental portion in-house, along with handling the admissions portion.

And for those reasons too, especially because this is the very first year of operations.

I'm not so sure it's a great idea to have a two-year bid.

I'd be a little bit more comfortable with a one-year bid, but when we're putting out a two-year bid, only getting one response back.

So, Councilman Rick, just so I'm following you don't want the bid, but if we do have it, you want it to be one year.

I would like, I would prefer it to be one year.

I'd be open to that.

I do have some other concerns here too, because in the response in the addendum, the whole bit about the ability to sell merchandise, that scares me a little bit.

I'm not so sure that that's uh the best practice to be putting that out there, and there's a bit of a lack of clarity as to whether the city would be getting 10% of that, whether that's merely a matter of the city being open to further negotiations on that point and any uh any say addendum of this 10% cut contract, if uh that would be something that would come back separately to the city council.

Uh so that that is a bit of a legal question right there, because I don't want us to be in a situation where a different vendor comes back to us and says, hey, wait a minute, there was a second revenue stream here, and if I had known that, then I would have bid or well, I mean that the whole thing is a little bit loosey goosey from uh from that, and I think that uh the bet the better practice would have been to just stick clear for of that and say could be considered possibly in the future, but it's not part of this bid, or so some other way to dodge that rather than to open up that possibility.

It's it it scares me a little bit with the city's potential liability there, and for that matter, would that necessarily prevent the city from competing with the sale of those uh of certain additional goods?

Uh the city shouldn't be competing with its own vendor after telling the vendor that yes, you can do this.

So that's another set of concerns here.

I mean, all in all, I think that it simply makes sense for the city to uh handle this in-house, but uh I suppose that I'd be a little bit more comfortable with a one-year contract.

Unfortunately, a one-year contract is not what's in front of us.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you.

Um, I'm a little torn on this myself, however, it is low impact.

I want to say financially for the city.

Uh I'm more in favor of it because it is a wark business that is uh taking this over.

My only concern is I will share with with uh councilman rix is the length of the contract or at least an option.

Uh but again it's low impact, so I'm not gonna die in the vine there.

But the second part is more of a concern of what guarantees do we have that the you know the low turnout, they have to come up with the body.

Will that body be there?

And if the body isn't there, what are our repercussions?

That's actually probably the biggest concern, but other than that, um you know uh it's a uh you know low impact for me.

Councilman Foley.

No one else having a light on.

I move the question.

All the lights on, questions been moved.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Standing, yes, Mr.

DLC, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, yes, Mr.

Carmen, yes.

No, Mr.

Ves, Mr.

Nanam, yes, Mr.

Red.

No.

Next we have PCO 16-25, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick 3 kids, LLC applicant 1112, West Shore Road, Assessors Plat 333 Lot 103.

This is second passage, public properties.

Recommend favorable action, second passage for action, uh councilman DLouise.

Do you want to move it?

Yes, move favorable action.

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

Any further questions or comments?

See none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinavi.

Yes.

Mr.

D.

Louise, yes.

Yes.

Ms.

Alassa, Mr.

Muno?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Next, PCO 6-25, an ordinance to prohibit through trucking on Orchard Avenue.

Uh any objection to the request to hold till 1215, 2025.

Seeing none, so held.

Next is PCO 13-25, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title to property.

The recommendation was to hold till November 17, 2025.

Any objection there too?

Seeing none, so held.

Next, we have all right.

Now we're on to the items from while back now.

First is PCR 98-25.

No one has bid 2026-212.

Purchase of E.

All right, try again.

Purchase of eight police vehicles.

This went to the floor without recommendation.

Is it 566?

Uh administration.

Do you want to speak on this before we get going?

Good evening, Robert Hall from the police department.

Uh again, the police department is requesting a 566 uh exception to bid to purchase eight police, eight Ford police utility vehicles from a government MHQ as part of the Greater Boston Police Commission master price agreement and cooperative bid.

Uh these vehicles are in stock and ready for upfitting.

These 2025 police package vehicles will be assigned to the patrol officer section of our fleet.

And we'll be replacing various career vehicles that'll be reissued within the department.

The total pricing for the vehicles is 524, 892.56 cents, and that includes upfitting and equipment installation, and if approves to be funded through the city lease purchase funds, budget code 4990449 as part of our fiscal year 26 police capital budget.

All right.

So before we can get into discussion, we first need a motion.

Is there a motion councilman for motion favorable action?

Second.

Motion made and seconded for favorable action now for discussion.

So first, we discussed this ad nauseum last time.

Please do not feel the need to repeat yourselves.

I know not everyone has the best of memories, may include it, but they're not that bad.

So if you have new stuff to say, please say it.

You know, don't feel like you can't.

Uh if you feel compelled to bring up what you stated last time, please just summarize it.

Please don't do a verbatim repeat.

That is not worth even your time at all, anyone else's time.

So first light on.

We have Councilman Lattice.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

As I had made quite clear at the last meeting, um will not be supporting uh voting in favor of eight vehicles.

Uh a compromise was suggested by actually by myself for four vehicles, and a counter compromise was made by Councilman Louise for six.

Um compromise is fine.

Now the last thing I'm gonna say, I'm gonna read this into the record because it's something that was just um presented to me or actually sent to me earlier today, and this is from um Michael D Biazi, president and CEO of RIPAC.

Quote Rhode Island continues to rank among the higher spending and higher tax states in the nation as revenue growth slows.

Policymakers will need to focus their energy on controlling spending and promoting competitiveness and economic opportunity in the ocean state.

Understanding where we overtax and overspend relative to other states is an important starting point in that effort.

Policymakers should be asking why we are mockedly outspending not only the nation, but also other New England states and areas like public safety, government and government administration.

It is also critical to folk on areas of underinvestment that support economic growth like higher education.

So whether people want to admit that we have a spending problem, is entirely up to you.

I think we do, and I think that controls need to be reined in this spending.

So to proceed cautiously with this, I think it's quite appropriate to have a compromise.

Obviously, many of them are not, but I didn't leave there feeling that we need to vary from what has been stated by the administration and the police department that the rotation of vehicles is anywhere from five to six years.

We do not have that now.

That is not what is happening now.

This is not a rotation every five or six years.

I believe it was stated that this rotation right now is actually like three and a half years.

Interestingly, this morning I was at station four fire department, looking over their equipment, and their rotation of vehicles is 15 to 20 years.

I guess one could argue who has the head of the hottest use on the vehicles.

But this is about spending, it's not about revenue, it's about spending.

The police department also made me aware that day that after the first of the year, they're gonna be coming to us for two motorcycles and also another dive truck.

So somewhere along the line.

People need to look at this credit card debt that we're running up and ask yourself where is this gonna end and where are we getting the money to do it?

And that's on the back of the taxpayers, on the back of taxpayers who are seniors who are veterans.

Some of these folks are homeless, they're working paycheck to paycheck.

So I would be willing to support a fair compromise on this, but I will not be able to support eight vehicles because it doesn't meet up with the department's very own requirements for rotation.

And by the way, the last time I had some um comments will say, well, it's the capital budget.

We approved it, it's the general fund budget, we approved it.

Here's my definition of the capital budget.

The capital budget, in my opinion, is a wish list.

This is what we would like to do in the upcoming year.

We would like to do this, we'd like to do that.

We'd like to buy this, we'd like to buy that.

That does not mean that this city council has to take out the pen and sign the check.

The capital budget to me is a wish list.

It's something that okay, we'd we'd like to do this, but it isn't something do or die if we don't do this, or if we do something in between the legislative branch of government, we are actually responsible for finances, whether you like it or not.

And at some point, we all have to answer to our constituents.

So I rest my case on this.

Um, this is where I am with it.

I will support a reasonable compromise.

I will not be voting in favor of eight vehicles.

I just don't think it's prudent right now, and I just don't think that it's um fiscally responsible.

Thank you.

So again, if you're gonna repeat any of the prior stuff, please do it in summary form.

And I think I don't want to have to get to the point where I start gabbling people because they repeat themselves during their uh oration.

Frustrating for everyone if I have to do that.

Uh I don't want to, but I will if I need to.

Councilman D.

Louise.

Okay, so uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, over the last week or so, I've gotten some information um as to how the police department works and operates.

So basically uh each vehicle has a cost of about 65,611 and 50 cents.

So the life expectancy of these vehicles is about 15 years.

Now, it's not 15 years of hard service chasing down criminals and you know, responding to you know, emergency situations.

So the vehicles are repurposed so that basically, if you break it down, I'm just gonna be brief.

Um 15-year life expectancy at that last year of that vehicle, it might be doing something like um you know going to uh you know a football game, and the and the person driving the car might might just be I don't know, using that car as not a chasing vehicle.

I I don't know if I'm saying this correctly, but the cars are repurposed, they're not just discarded after five years.

So if you look at it that way, the 65,611 dollar vehicle is costing about 4300, 40 4,374 per year.

If you break it down like that.

I mean, if they were using the cars for like three or four years and just discarding them or you know, putting them out to auction, then I might feel differently.

But when I you know, I I learned how things actually work, um, I got a little bit of an education.

So yeah, that's that's all I have to say about that.

Councilman Meadow.

Thank you.

Um, I'm also hesitant of supporting the full uh number, and the reason is uh again, we looked at the capital budget.

Sorry, I'm I'm not interrupting to be brutally.

We can't hear you, or at least it's not coming through the mic.

I thought you liked it that way.

Now I can just do that.

Okay.

Uh in the capital budget, we looked at the six-year uh useful life at the time, six-year useful life uh more as police rotations.

Um, when we're looking at the purchases and replacement of the 50 units that we talked about last time, and when we met at the yard, uh the number of vehicles within that category uh was uh in excess of the typical rotation of a six-year useful life.

Uh also based on automobiles that were purchased in assets that were purchased over the last several years.

Uh the useful life in the purchase of more than uh 10 per year is actually excessive.

So when I looked at historically as well as what was put into the capital budget, and I did approve and voted yes on the capital budget with that in mind, because a typical capital budget with a stated useful life of six years, you do the rotation, it is 10 units per year, and we're asking to purchase more than that without any other explanation.

Also, when I was with you uh during that time, uh you know, we're trying to get more information as far as what those rotations were, were there exceptions to those rules and and so forth.

And at this time, I have not received that that follow-up information.

Councilman Foley.

As Council President said we discussed this at nauseum uh in front of us is uh the proposal of eight vehicles, and seeing no lights on, I call the question.

So just to wrap things up, first administration, do you have anything any parting words you want to add or no?

It's okay if the answer is no, not no pressure.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I appreciate it.

Excuse me.

First of all, the capital budget's not a wish list, Consulman Lattice.

We work in that capital budget for four months.

We've move a lot of things in and out as the needs arrive, arise opportunities and whatever.

The lives of these cars are far more than six years.

These cars go down after patrol, they go down to ACOs, SROs, um, community police officers, uh, details, which are very important because they generate a create a tremendous amount of revenue.

Back 10 or 15 years ago, previous administration, previous council decided to go this route.

Let's do more with less.

Let's let's get more miles out of them.

Let's do let's spend less money.

And what they created was a nightmare that I found five years ago.

We got 39.5 million dollars in opera money.

We spent the lion's share of that.

Instead of redoing Mickey Stevens, putting roofs on, we had to buy vehicles, we didn't have garbage trucks, we didn't have fire trucks, we didn't have police cars.

If you go in the yard, go and look at the detail cars.

You'll laugh at them.

They look like clown cars.

We have plastic hub caps on them.

We've gotten them used.

I mean, we do everything we can to save money.

This bid is for eight, and that was the pricing on this.

Now, you're also gonna see later tonight.

Blazers.

I wasn't a fan of the blazes.

I wanted the explorers.

They talked me into the blazes of better deal.

They were smaller than an explorer, and I didn't see how they would fit in being moved down, but they told me they can save enough money on it that it makes it worthwhile.

After the police are done with these cars, they go to the DPW, they go to building inspectors, they go to tax assessors.

When I got here, one tax assessor she showed me her car.

It had a stop sign for a floor because it's so rotted out.

None of them would pass inspection.

I a woman wanted to rip my face off because one of our building inspectors had leaked oil in her driveway.

That is a terrible shame for the city.

And we had to buy cars for the first time probably ever in this in the history of the city at that lower level for the inspectors and for the what the city council and the and the mayor did 10 or 15 years ago cost this city millions and millions of dollars in overtime, poor service, fixing junk cars, which tied up our mechanics when they so they couldn't do the preventative maintenance on the other cars, especially in the DPW yard.

We were so busy putting duct tape on on garbage trucks to get them more picking up garbage that we ignore things.

We couldn't do grease jobs, so then the ball joint's gonna go.

I'm asking not to repeat those mistakes.

We came here, we asked eight.

This is from a lot of research from people that I respect and I I have all the faith in the world.

Um, our fleet mechanic, our police, they know what they need.

We're not here asking for wishes.

We wouldn't want more cars.

I mean, I don't know if you think we have parties in them, whatever.

This is what's necessary to maintain the speed that is still in the middle of that fleet, depleted from the past years.

We still don't have enough cars for for details.

We have a hard time getting them out there.

And I don't know if you're aware, the officer gets paid by the construction company, whoever, but the city charges for the car.

We generate an awful lot of revenue for that.

It goes in the general fund and it goes to a long way towards paying our initial investment.

So I'm asking you to have faith in us.

These people, me, my staff, we run the city day in and day out.

We know the needs.

As I said, we work on that capital budget for four years.

I see we're going to have a rescue this year.

No, we had to move it to year three because we need a police cars or whatever this year.

That's how we do it.

But it's not a wish list, it's what we need to maintain what we have.

And that's why we put in the capital budget, and that's part of this year's budget.

Everything we're buying this year, any vehicles especially comes out of the lease purchase program that I instituted five years ago.

That would have taken forever to straighten out what we had wrong.

ARPA money came.

It was a gift from the government.

It is never coming back again.

If we blow this again, if we don't learn from our past, 10 years from now, this city's going to be in horrible shape again.

I'll be gone.

Most of you will be gone.

That money is not coming back again.

We still have a little bit to go, but we have to maintain now.

I mean, every every morning I get an email from um sanitation.

Those things used to be horrible.

We have six trucks on the load road today.

We're gonna have to do day and a half pickup.

I get them now and be and we didn't buy the only trucks, but now our mechanics are freed up because we have enough good trucks where they can fix and work on the other trucks.

Every day I have 14 trucks on the road, 17 available.

We rotate them in and out when we have to do maintenance.

That's the way to run the city efficiently.

Instead of tripping over a hundred dollar bills to save a quarter.

Okay, maintain what we have.

We're not going over what's in the budget this year.

The tax rate was set what's in this budget this year.

We save money wherever we can.

A few months ago, you may have noticed there was some F 150s for the police department on there.

I pulled them off because I didn't like them.

I didn't think they were gonna have a long enough life down there.

They weren't so we just don't rubber stamp with the police department wants.

We have long, lengthy conversations.

As I said, they know their stuff.

So I trust them.

The people trust them.

I'm asking you to trust them.

Like I said, they run, they run the city day in and day out.

They don't want more cars than they need, but they want what they need to have, and especially in public safety, is not the place to start skimping.

Thank you.

I went on longer than I'm supposed to have.

I'm sorry.

All right.

Uh the mayor stole some of my thunder for what I was gonna mention.

Uh I guess to each their own as far as their interpretation of the capital plan, but it would be unfair at best and duplicates at worse to on the one hand demand a thoughtful cohesive, detailed capital plan, and then on the other hand, say, but that's just a wish list.

Uh it's just for my perspective, that doesn't work again to each their own.

Uh and yes, I'm intimately familiar with the whole spend less mentality and the consequences that resulted, and many of us are, and many of us still are.

We wonder why our schools got to the condition they were in.

Well, that's one of the many reasons.

Uh it was similar with the vehicles.

We were all in a what to say, abysmal position, and then it took slash is taking years to write that particular ship.

And bear in mind the direction of spend mess was taken because of claims of financial cliff, disaster, gloom and doom, which was at the time speculative and turned out to be no more than that as the years went on.

There was no reality to that.

So we have a motion for favorable action.

It was seconded, and someone has moved the question.

So the clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapney.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Pauly.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Mr.

Dana, yes.

Mr.

Rex.

No.

Next, we have PCR 99-25, uh, from the Bid 2023-132, municipal police, municipal police, and fire employees term life insurance.

This went to the floor without recommendation.

So, administration, do your thing first, and then we'll repeat the process we just did a moment ago.

This is a request uh to extend the contract for three years.

We were able to negotiate a three-year freeze on premiums for uh insurance.

And that's the nature of the request, and I have one uh amendment to make the we're reducing the uh reducing the request to 308,100.

And that was here last time.

The initial request was 369.

Would I like to amend that request to three three hundred and eight thousand one hundred dollars?

uh insurance and that's the nature of the requests and i have one uh amendment to make the we're reducing the uh reducing the request to 308 100 and that was here last time the initial request was 369 would i'd like to amend that request to three three hundred and eight thousand one hundred dollars and this is a three year freeze on our premiums for uh health insurance i'm sorry for life insurance for municipal active municipal police and fire employees all right so similar to the last time first things first we need a motion before we can get into this so is there any motion for favorable action on this item councilman foley last the motion for favorable action is there a second councilman gebhart all right now discussion uh councilman gebhart you'll let up uh am i reading this um correctly this is essentially a pass through to the city that um this is the ability for retirees to purchase at our at the cost extended to the city their own and then they fully reimburse the cost of that insurance one portion of this the fire retirees are can purchase the insurance 100% their own expense and uh we pay the bill and they reimburse us through their retirement checks over the next uh two pay periods uh next they buy their buy monthly checks all the other people uh the active police active fire and active municipal employees the city pays for base $50,000 plan and we do get reimbursements for municipal employees only if they want to scale it up another 10 or 20 thousand that again is done at their own expense uh and and we but we pull the money uh re get our reimbursement through payroll deductions okay so we we provide a certain base level of coverage yes um to actively employed active employees yes uh anyone who wishes to buy up pays the the full incremental cost of buying up and anyone who is retired uh who wants to adopt this coverage pays it full freight uh on their own that's correct and are is the coverage that we're providing part of a contractual obligation that we have to those active employees yes it's in all three of the contracts okay uh that that's all my questions thank you council the Napa could you just restate the amended number one more time sure um I'd like to amend it to the three years three hundred and eight thousand one hundred dollars so we talked at length last time about gross versus net and why there was a discrepancy in the budget and how calculations were different and I just want to restate that no one is taking away the efforts that your department or whoever else was involved to secure the rate lock excellent work on that end does the does the amended number reflect the net expenditure that the city is putting out no because I've been instructed to never do that again uh yeah this is the gross amount but I did prepare a memo that shows the cost the the predicted cost to the city uh the member reimbursement and then the cost to the city the approximate cost of the city after members reimburse so the 308100 is the gross amount we will get a reimbursement and I calculate that at the end of the three years what the city will pay after reimbursements is about 149,100 149 over three years or is that per year that's the three year amount that's a three year amount okay so I suppose my question remains why would we authorize spending authority for a gross amount that we will not spend because the testimony that we received the last time you were here was that we only pay out month over month the net cost of the city so why does the city need spending authority for the gross amount if we only actually pay the net amount that's that that hasn't been made clear yet if we could get an explanation on that Bill Vicente Chief Staff.

So councilman think of this as a uh a rebate or a uh grant reimbursement the city is laying out the 308100 in the spending authority so it's the gross amount we go to council for the gross amount when I award a bid for a playground reimbursement or playground I'm asking for the entire cost of the playground let's take one particular 5000 dollars we may be getting 2500 in a grant but I'm asking for spending authority up to 5000 because it's coming back in a grant we need to categorize it because there's outlays that come through our system of 308 approximately based on the census the members reimburse out of the payroll deductions the city it's like when you go buy a washing machine you spend a thousand dollars you get a hundred dollar rebate you still spent a thousand dollars but you got a hundred dollars back so you actually

We need to categorize it because there's outlays that come through our system of $308,100 approximately based on the census.

The members reimburse out of the payroll deductions, the city.

It's like when you go buy a washing machine.

Spend a thousand dollars, you get a hundred dollar rebate.

You still spent a thousand dollars, but you got a hundred dollars back.

So you actually spent 900.

Your credit card still says a thousand.

It's the same scenario, it's a it's a rebate from the total cost.

That's how it's categorized in the system.

We that's why we're spending asking for spending authority of the 308,100 over three years.

So you're what you're telling us now is in direct contradiction to what the director told us the last time we were here, which led to the confusion.

When I asked the question, what does the city actually expend every month?

The answer that I got at that time was the net correct.

The city this so the city is the general fund is one part, employee contributions is another part, but the check still comes through the city.

So the city is spending the total dollar amount, it's coming from two pots of money.

I well, so I understand that premise.

But that's I believe that's what the director stated or meant.

Right.

So when this when I say the city, the city is is both the city personnel office, let's say, or finance, as well as the municipal employees.

So the check that goes out the door reflects the gross amount.

Correct.

Okay.

So that was the I think that was either misstated or misunderstood from the last meeting that the testimony we received made it seem as though the check that goes out the door from whoever writes the check was the net amount.

No, it's it's it's the gross amount, and then we get the reimbursement.

Okay, so that's more clear than how it was presented the first time.

Thank you.

Councilman Maddison.

So why was the amendment made tonight to lower this amount by I don't know, 80 grand?

So when this was presented originally, we had um, I believe it was the August statements, and I believe we've gotten some additional statements of over after the September meeting and now the October meeting.

So that's what we feel is the required amount because we're it's based, it's based on the number of employees active and fire retirees.

So I still can't buy into this because if I recall at the last finance committee meeting, I believe that there was an amendment made to this to stay with the current process for three years.

I believe that was the recommendation from the so this is this is the current vendor for three years.

They offered us this three-year price freeze.

Initially, when we got this information, it was sent to us, and it says there is no price increase, everything's the same.

They're holding a bid for three years.

Then we look at the numbers, and the numbers go from 133,000 to 380,000.

Council, if you look at the per unit cost from secure and financial, the prices have not changed for police, current police and fire and municipal, the only difference is the fire went up 47%, I believe, and that's 100% reimbursed by the firefighters.

So if you look at the costs, the current rates, it's this is the document that I'm referring to at the little table.

The current rates per month per thousand are the same in the current rate we're paying now, and going forward, except for fire retirees, which is a hundred percent reimbursed by the fire retiree.

So, chief, with all due respect, you didn't let me finish what I was saying.

The administration said to us in the bid package that there was no price increase, the numbers were the same.

That was 133,000.

Then as I look into the bid package, it's showing a request of 380 some thousand.

And that didn't sound like no price increase to me.

Now there was no explanation provided to us in this binder.

Certainly no explanation.

Nobody picked up the phone and called me to explain how did we get from 133 to 380 with no price increase.

It was only at that time when I dug in and presented the question to you.

How does this work?

How did this happen?

That someone had to get back to me and say, Oh, by the way, we're changing the way we do business.

That's not transparency.

We're changing the way we're doing business, but nobody explained anything in that document back then.

And I still haven't received any reasonable explanation as to why we're changing from that to this.

So for those, and I know this there's arguments all over the place.

Not because I'm voting no on providing life insurance premiums to any of our employees.

Absolutely not.

Completely supportive of doing that.

I'm voting no because of the process.

I'm voting no because of the lack of information that is provided to us on some of these items.

This one in particular.

That's why I'm voting no.

Totally support life insurance as required by contractual obligations.

Thank you.

All right.

So there are no more lights on.

However, we have an amendment first to make, if I'm not mistaken.

So for the individual that moved favorable action, would you be opposed to instead moving to amend?

I already forgot who moved favorable action.

Was it councilman Foley or someone else?

Councilman Foley.

Would you be all right with moving to amend, assuming you're okay with whatever the solicitor states?

So what would it be?

Uh it's in order to proceed with the requested amendment, which is to uh change the three-year award to a total of three hundred and eight thousand dollars, three hundred and eight and one hundred dollars.

308100.

So councilman Foley, if you're okay with that, as of that.

All right, so there's a quest to amend before us, seconded by councilman Gebhardt.

Is there any further discussion on the request to amend?

Seeing none clerk will call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuis, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Carmen, yes, Mr.

Laza, Mr.

Muno, yes, Ms.

Denamba, yes, Mr.

Ray, yes, yes, all right.

Now this stands before us as amended.

Councilman Foley.

All right, motion by councilman Foley.

Is there a second so that we can discuss if there's any discussion?

Councilman Gebhardt, Councilman Napo.

Uh sorry, councilman Gephardt seconds, councilman Nappa, your lights on.

Just one question so that I can make sense of this.

So these are this these expenditures come out of line items 75, 177, 178, 179 for municipal police fire, respectively.

Those line items were only budgeted at $57,144 total for fiscal 26.

So if the expenditure even at a net is 149, 149,000.

That's for three years.

149.

It's the net would be 49,700 per year.

So we're so we're still like my question, if you let me finish, was we budgeted in the budget for net.

We're and this is where I get hung up.

We budgeted for a certain amount of money.

Mid-year, midterm here, mid, whatever you want to phrase it, we've decided to switch our accounting practices to a gross.

How do we how does the city plan to reconcile the fact that we budgeted for 57,000 and some change, and now we're tripling the spending authority for those line items?

That's where this needs to make more sense for me.

So the the line item you're referring to is 57,000 or 52,700.

Yeah, I mean they're each total is 57,000 changes.

In that budget, it was it was budgeted at the net amount.

So that net amount to the city is estimated at 49,700 right now.

So that's budgeted at the net amount.

Yeah.

So we're below the we're below the budgeted amount.

I understand that, but we're but the request is for the spending authority.

Triple that.

And I understand why.

For 102,700 per year.

You're looking at one year, right?

One year.

So that's where that's where I'm getting hung up.

Is that we're so it comes up to asking for spending authority well beyond what was actually budgeted for?

And how does that get reconciled on the city end?

Correct.

So when we did the budget, we budgeted for the net amount.

It was brought to the our attention that it should be the gross amount because that is how much money is going out the door.

So that's why we're asking for the 102,700 per year.

So the next budget you're going to see in 2027 will have a budgeted line item for 102700.

Can't change the budget now.

I know that.

So the the 53,000 estimated 53,000 is coming out of the employee deductions, the payroll.

So the budget, the budget line item may show a negative, but it's actually not.

It's an it's an accounting can we stop with the with the packages.

It's more of an accounting issue.

It may show that the line item is overdrawn, but it's actually it's actually not.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no further questions, and we have a motion pending with a second.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinabin.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gabot.

Yes.

Mr.

Kerman.

Yes.

Mr.

Laza.

No.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Now.

Yes.

Mr.

Rev.

Yes.

Yes, one notion.

Next, we have PCR 100-25, 2026-213 is the bid.

Purchase 5.

Shepherd Chevy Lasers.

This came to the floor without a recommendation.

So 566.

Uh so same thing as last time, everybody.

Excuse me.

First, we'll go to the administration, then next we'll need a motion so that we can discuss.

So administration have at it.

Robert Hart, the uh police department.

Uh again, this police department is requesting to purchase five Chevrolet Blazer mid-sized SUVs on a 566 exception to bid using the uh greater Boston Police Commission Master Price Agreement Cooperative bid.

These 2025 SUVs would be assigned to undercover positions and admin positions throughout the department.

The total pricing for the five vehicles is 206,209.75 cents.

And again, we'd be funded through our fiscal year 26 capital budget.

All right.

So first things first, is there a motion for favorable action so that we can proceed with discussion?

Motion to move favorable action.

Motion made looks like we have a second.

So now that we're there, discussion.

Any lights?

Councilman Lattice.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I will be voting no on this item for the same reasons I stated on the other eight.

I would be open for um a reasonable compromise on these vehicles.

Um otherwise I'll be voting no.

All right, and thank you for being succinct.

It's a genuine thank you.

Uh councilman Ricks.

I echo councilman Lattis, sir.

I'm also open to a compromise on this, but not all five.

That's all.

Thank you.

Oh, wow.

All right, thank the both of you.

All right.

Anyone else want to be nice and succinct?

This is great.

Two in a row.

All right.

Councilman Gebhardt.

Captain Captain, can you remind me?

Was this part of the capital budget or part of the wish list?

This is part of the uh capital budget, councilman.

And that's the capital budget that we approved when we approve the budget.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Any further lights on thank you, Mr.

Is this a new point?

Um, no, this is the same point.

I still hold my grounds on the wish list, and people can make this sly little comments whenever they please, but in the meantime, um, I haven't changed my mind.

Thank you.

All right, see no further comment.

Uh clerk will please call the roll on the motion for favorable action.

Mr.

Sinabin's yes, Mr.

Dillouise, yes, Mr.

Coley, yes, Mr.

Yes.

Mr.

Carvey, no Mr.

Bureau, no.

Mr.

Now, yes.

Yes.

No.

Next is PCR 101-25, formerly bid 2026-103 or 183.

So try it again.

Formerly bid 2026-183.

Purchase 2026 Pinnacle 64 T day Cab Mac.

This came to the floor without recommendation.

It is a 566.

Again, same procedure as last time.

So administration, I have at it.

Good evening, Christy Maretti Public Works.

Uh, we are requesting to purchase one 2026 Pinnacle 64T Daycap Mac tractor trailer cabin chassis in the amount of 177,390 from Ballard Mac Sales and Service.

All right.

So same procedure.

First, we need a motion before we can proceed.

Do we have a motion for favorable action on the proposed bid?

Motion move favorable action.

Second.

All right, there was a motion made in a second.

So now discussion, lights on.

Councilman Laddison.

Last week I was asked to attend a review of DPW regarding this truck.

And it was very informative.

It was actually quite interesting to see what was taking place.

So this vehicle was purchased as a used vehicle.

And if I recall, I was told that we've had it for 20 to 25 years.

That was also discussed when we were viewing this vehicle.

By the way, there's two two of these trucks, not one.

There is two.

Comes to uh DPW.

It's a big piece of equipment.

And it's been pulled by this truck that supposedly has a million three hundred thousand miles on it for the last 20 or 25 years.

And it was bought used.

But now keeping in step with shiny and new, we need to go out and purchase a vehicle that's 178,000 dollars.

And the chief was very accommodating.

He invited me to go look at the meet at the records right then and there, which I did, and they were all prepared.

They're in big old folder.

And that brought me to questions that were very concerning in reviewing those documents.

So in 2010, one of the maintenance records had mileage on it, and I'm not going to remember the numbers exactly, but it was say 350,0050.

That was in 2010.

Different identification numbers on both of these numbers.

And when I asked that question in the first place, it was because of the odometer reading that was provided to us when we purchased this second hand truck.

And I wasn't digging in any further to find out how long.

Sorry, you said speedometer.

Do you mean odometer or speedometer?

Speedometer.

Got it.

Which um the speedometer also, I believe, controls the odometer.

But it passed inspection at some point.

Um the gentleman in charge of the maintenance was very forthcoming.

And he also had prepared for me for alternate prices of used vehicles.

And the one vehicle I remember, I believe was a 2001, I think it was.

And it was a purchase price offer of 450,000.

No, I'm sorry, that's not true.

64,000.

And it had approximately 450,000 miles on it.

So why do we need this 178,000 brand new vehicle that it's not on the road every day?

Matter of fact, it's not on the road all year long for 178,000 when the vehicle we're getting rid of now, we've had for 20 to 25 years, and supposedly it put on over 600,000 miles or somewhere thereabouts.

So this item makes zero sense to me that we're looking to approve taxpayer dollars of 178,000 when you can purchase, they can purchase uh a used vehicle like they did the last time that lasted for 20 years for how many you you guess at the mileage for 64,000 dollars makes no sense, and for the documentation not to support the comments, doesn't make any sense.

So for those reasons, I'll be voting no.

Councilman Muto.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I was at that uh review along with uh uh councilman Latticer.

And I too was very concerned about the record keeping and the statements made as to what the mileage was, what the conditions were and things of that nature, because we rely on accurate information, and looking through your own records, there were so many inconsistencies that I just couldn't wrap my head around.

And for that reason, until we have a better capital plan for this and a real understanding of what we need to use this truck for, I'm not going to spot this measure.

All right, Councilman Ricks.

Just want to say kudos to Councilman Loudiser and Muto for going out there, checking the records, checking out the vehicle.

I thank them for their work and I agree with their conclusions.

Thank you.

All right, any signal the lights up, any parting words from administration.

Um I can't speak to anything that councilman Latticer brought up because one, I wasn't there, so I have no knowledge of you know what any conversations were.

Um but the department does need a new uh tractor trailer cabin chassis to not only pull our grinder, that's not the only thing we use it for.

We have a 40-yard trailer that we also use to haul material around.

And um at the moment we can't do that.

So kind of puts us in a little bit of a bind.

Um, as far as getting used vehicles, yeah.

We we have had experience with used vehicles.

I mean, we bought used fire trucks.

Look where that got us.

So it's not the recommendation of this department to buy anything used.

We are still um standing by a recommendation to purchase the 2026 um day cab Mac vehicle, all right.

Councilman Foley.

us in a little bit of a bind um as far as getting used vehicles we we have had experience with used vehicles i mean we bought used fire trucks look where that got us so it's not the recommendation of this department to buy anything used we are still um standing via recommendation to purchase the 2026 um day cab Mac vehicle all right councilman foley uh I'm not sure if anyone who has not spoken has anything additional to say but if not I move the question all right so councilman de Luis you haven't spoken yet yeah I just I have a question because if if this truck is only used how many times a day is it used when we have it it's used daily but how many times like does it go from here to there like 10 times a day it will haul uh yard waste to the landfill um it's it's not just uh you know we don't just use it around around the yard to pull move the grinder um it's it's used pretty much every single day so if you your best estimate you've been doing this a long time how many miles a day can you put on a truck like that or do you it it depends on the tasks at hand um you know it's I mean I I couldn't I couldn't honestly give you a number of how many miles per day it's a 31 year old vehicle and the reason that and I can't really speak to the the service records because I didn't see them so and I wasn't at the meeting I was actually on vacation um but so even I'm I'm I'm using a large estimate even if it was a hundred miles a day right okay that's about 36000 miles per year say right if my math is correct so I want to know how a vehicle gets to go over a million miles well we use it um you know I'm just I'm just curious how is how do you put a million miles or more it had a significant amount of miles on it when and when we purchased the vehicle and I wasn't in the department at that time so um but it had a significant amount of miles on it when we purchased it we'd never had a from my knowledge a tractor trailer cab we had the grinder we needed to start moving around because we have the compost facility um right and the odometer does turn over you know when you hit 999 it turns over and then you start all over again so with the odometer having you know three and 3000 miles I mean it very likely flipped over that's all right just one I just want to add one more thing which that truck will probably if you bought this brand new and it lasted 20 years say at 1770 so your cost per year for that vehicle is about 8869 to get the life wear and tear out of it.

I mean there'll be repairs and stuff like that but on a 20 year life expectancy it's gonna cost about 870 dollars a year.

Right.

It's a work I just try to look at numbers different ways it's a it's a workhorse vehicle that's that's what we use it for.

You know where we the 40 yard trailer itself is a significant amount of weight when it's full it's you know probably as much as a garbage truck which is 6600 pounds.

So you know if you translate that into tons um I don't have my calculator at the moment but um it's late and I'm tired.

Um but yes it's it's a workhorse okay it's all I have councilman Napa you hadn't spoken yet yeah just one question director you said that we currently can't use the vehicles we have are they broken down and they're not operable we we are not using them to to my knowledge no we're not using them are they non-functional or are we just like what's going on with the ones we have one of them has been out of service for quite some time the other one um if if we do need to use it we don't take it anywhere the the most we would do is if we had to move the grinder but primarily right now it doesn't move um because it should be put out of service.

Okay thank you.

All right uh councilman Kirby you your lights on yes uh this uh tractor is it poor just hauling the grinder in the perimeter of the highway department or is it going to Johnston to haul fill too yes we use it for both it can make multiple trips back and forth to the landfill um you know depending on what we're hauling whether it be um you know yard waste we do take some of that there um you know if we have some extra recycling if we have um you know what whatever yes it does go to Johnston or it could go to uh other places to pick up material you know if we needed a load of gravel or if we needed a load of riprap or anything like that you know we would send it to one of the awarded vendors to pick up material so it it's not just an idle vehicle for us.

Or it could go to uh other places to pick up material, you know, if we needed a load of gravel or if we needed a load of rip wrap or anything like that, you know, we would send it to one of the awarded vendors to pick up material.

So it's not just an idle vehicle for us.

Okay, within the period of a day or a week, how many trips would this truck take to Johnston?

It depends on the it depends on how much we have and uh you know the the workload for us is for that vehicle is is pretty consistent, um, being on the road.

Like they'll take out in the morning, they'll move the grinder if it's in the yard, if that had come in for repair, then they'll send it on the road, whether it's to Johnston or to pick up material or anything like that.

So it it really depends on the needs of the highway department.

So would it be fair to say if you had two of them, you really wouldn't need the two because once you brought that grinder to the uh the recycle that you could use it to haul then leave it, the grinder there and haul to Johnston with the truck because you wouldn't need it to stay there.

Correct.

We we we dropped the grinder at the compost facility, and and the cab chassis disconnects from it and goes about whatever its next task is.

So is it safe to say you really only need one truck?

Yes.

And to be clear, this bid is for one truck.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry, what was that?

And this bid is for one truck.

It is for one truck.

Right.

So we're asking to buy one.

I know it, but you have two right now.

We do, they're they're the same age.

They're both 1994s.

I have the registrations in my office, so yeah.

I mean, no one seems to disagree that the trucks in question are incredibly old and somehow still functioning, and that they have a massive amount of miles on them, even if it might be unclear as to how massive, and that they rapidly accrue more miles regularly, and that these trucks are used frequently.

So whether we like it or not, it sounds like we need another one, unless we're gonna rely on two that are somehow by a miracle, haven't broken down yet, which is fascinating.

Oh, sorry, your lights still on.

Do you have anything else, Councilman Kirby?

I apologize.

Uh well, I'd barely like to say this type of truck.

There's a lot of them.

You can buy used, which uh very good trucks.

A lot of people go into business and they're hauling across the country and find out they can't make it, and those trucks go to auction.

It's another avenue to buy a vehicle like that.

That's still an excellent vehicle.

So for administration, have I assume you looked into used trucks?

We had a hard time hearing Councilman Kirby.

So he had mentioned that there's a lot of this type of vehicle around and that the used market for it is viable.

And I'm gonna put words in his mouth some of it.

Basically, did we look into the used market for this vehicle?

For this vehicle replacement, sorry.

Buying used vehicles has not been favorably for us.

Um so no.

I don't usually have to pull it up.

I'm sorry.

Um, Council President, we have tried to avoid uh we this city, as I said, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

We don't have a good track record with buying used vehicles or equipment.

As a matter of fact, this very grinder was purchased by a previous administration, used 250,000.

It lasted less than a year.

It was useless.

We had to buy a new one to replace it.

Uh a ladder truck they bought.

They had it got a great price on it.

Within two months, they had to put an engine and transmission in it for 75,000.

That ended up on the scrap heap.

We had and before Francis had her little auctions, we had a huge junkyard of things that we tried to buy used, we tried to get more mileage out of, and it didn't work out.

It just, as I said, it cost us an enormous amount of money and labor and parts trying to fix junk.

When you buy use, it's an unknown entity.

When you buy new, you have a you have uh a warranty, and you can maintain it and you go from there.

We're trying to be prudent this way.

I mean, it looks attractive to buy a used one, but we don't know what we're getting.

Someone's selling it for a reason.

All right, and Councilman Gebhard, I don't know, you're not on my list, so you haven't spoken yet.

Go ahead.

I just had a quick question as to whether um a used vehicle uh whether we can use lease purchase funds on a used vehicle, or does that only apply to a new vehicle?

I'm not the expert in this area, but I don't think that we can do that.

But that would be a question for the finance director, and um she's left for the evening.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, countsman, that's an excellent question.

I missed that.

No, you couldn't buy a used.

It has to be approved, it has to be new.

It has to um be tangible, it has to be collateral.

In other words, yeah, so I mean that's really the genesis of my question is that we we didn't we didn't actually budget a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand or five hundred thousand in this budget to buy this vehicle.

We we budgeted a an allocation of our least purchase funds to then amortize the cost of this vehicle over a number of years.

So even if we were if we were to go out and purchase a vehicle, at least in this budget year would cost it would exceed our budget.

I understand that we pay interest on a lease purchase vehicle, etc.

Um, but with the with the lifespan of the vehicle and the utility of the vehicle, um, and with our ability to maintain said vehicle in-house, um, it sounds like you have a good plan.

Thank you.

Council President, if I if I could, I just have two more things that I wanted to add.

What did you try to call child the hour?

I I I just had two more things that I wanted to add.

Is that okay?

Okay.

Um in the fiscal year 26 uh capital improvement program, we estimated 225,000 dollars for this vehicle.

So purchasing it 177,390 saves us 47,610.

Uh so we're under what we estimated.

And the other thing um is that this vehicle is readily available.

We don't have to wait for it to be built.

Um, it can be I don't know what the delivery window is, but um, you know, our our automotive chief is just waiting for the yay or nay to the salesman.

Um but if if if proof tonight, then we'll get the wheels in motion and we'll see this vehicle sooner than later.

All righty, we're gonna take a quick break when we come back.

We'll call the vote because it was already the call previous question already occurred, and there are no new speakers left.

So reconvene in just a couple minutes I mean, so we need to stop.

That's right, I'm the person.

You know how many are sold so far.

They had been told one of them they would have kept me outside.

That's why you said my agreement.

Yep.

But I have a big show.

It was my best shot.

Nice.

Hey, what do you mean?

I said upload more than this.

Yeah, it might be so candy.

No thanks.

Do not leave the windows over.

Yeah, I can imagine.

At least once in probably more than once, but then I hope we got one of the sign.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I thought we moved illegal.

Oh, hey, you know what I was thinking?

Okay.

Oh, they haven't done it.

Oh I couldn't make the warning birds require.

So I either have to send off requests like this week, or we just send them off.

That's my new favorite name, but I just don't want to read.

I don't want to end up having to work out three quarters or fucking records with someone.

Oh, mic is on.

Looks like everyone else has returned as well.

So we can go get back going.

Uh like I said previous question has been moved.

All people who have not spoken have now spoken.

So if clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

DeLouise, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephop.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Latticeah.

No.

Mr.

Mudo.

No.

Mr.

Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Reds.

No.

Six yes, three, no motion passes.

Next is PCR one oh three-twenty-five.

Formally bid twenty twenty-six dash one eight two purchase and Boney model five four six.

Again, went to the floor without a recommendation.

This is a fifty-six six.

And again, we will do the same process.

So administration, you're up first, and then after that, we'll entertain a motion so we can begin discussion.

Sorry.

Just to recap, um, public works is requesting to purchase a model five forty six Amboney for the Thayer and Warburton arenas from the Zamboni company in the amount of one hundred and twenty-two thousand five hundred and eighty-nine dollars and twenty-eight cents.

All right.

And so motion, so Councilman Foy, I see your lights on.

All right, motion for favorable action.

Second seconded by Councilman Napa.

Now discussion.

Anyone wishes to speak, light up.

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Yes.

Mr.

Dillouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Kerman.

Yes.

Yes.

Hold on.

Hold on.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Next we have PCR one oh five dash twenty-five.

Uh, bid twenty twenty-five dash zero one six fire department promotional exam promotional exams.

This was actually favorable to amend according to this.

So Councilman Lattice.

The committee had recommended um moving this to the floor with an amendment.

And that amendment was to reduce the cost from eight from twenty thousand to eighteen thousand, which was made by Councilman Dapper.

All right.

So Councilman Napra, do you want to move the amendment?

Yes.

Uh motion to amend from you're gonna say as stated.

As stated, favorable.

Second.

All right.

So now before us we have the proposed amendment.

Does anyone have any questions on the proposed amendment?

See none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

DeLouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephott, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Ladisa, please.

Yes, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex.

Yes, nine, yes.

All right, now this stands before us as amended.

Does anyone have any questions on the bid as amended?

Seeing no wait first, we need a motion for favorable action.

Motion made and second it.

So now any further questions, comments, concerns.

All right, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Boley, yes, to get part, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Ladsa, yes, Mr.

Murdoch, yes, to Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex, yes, yes, as amended.

Next is PCR 118-25, bid 2023-458 engineering service during Lincoln Avenue Pipeline Rehabilitation Contract 1.

Excuse me.

Uh I have on here the request is to withdraw.

Councilman Latticer.

Make a motion of withdraw 2023.

I'm sorry, PCR 118-25.

Second.

Motion made and second it.

Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes, DeMudo, yes, Denapa, yes, Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

Nine yes to withdraw.

Next, on to new business.

PCR 120-25.

A resolution authorizing a tower communication site lease extension at Warwick Fire Station number five.

450 Cohesit Road with T Mobile Northeast LLC.

This is public properties.

Recommend favorable action.

For action, Councilman Ricks.

Move favorable action.

Second.

Motion made and second.

Any comments or questions?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes.

Mr.

DLOES.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Nine yes will be.

Next we have PCR 121-25.

A resolution to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management approving the city of Warwick's submission to the 2026 Outdoor Recreation Grant Program.

This is intergovernmental.

Committee recommends favorable action.

And my understanding is that an amendment was proposed and recommended.

Is that correct?

That is accurate.

All right.

So does anyone want to move the first the amendment from what looks like 20% to 25% for the match?

I will uh make a motion uh for favorable action on an amendment to improve include increase the city's reimbursement uh or city's share from 20 to 25 percent.

Second we articulate that right on our end, all right.

So motion made second as far as for the two amend.

Any questions or comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

D.

Louise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kerming, yes, Mr.

Ladisa, yes, Mr.

Mudo, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rick.

Yes, nine yes to amend.

And apologies, councilman Gephardt.

The articulation that wasn't regarding me understanding, so not you stating it.

Uh so now it stands before us as amended.

Uh is anyone would like to move this?

Move favorable action, second motion made and second it.

Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

DeLoise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Gephot.

Yes, yes, Mr.

Latisa, yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

Next is PCR 93-25 resolution amending the rules of the Warwick City Council for the 2025-2026 term.

This is going to be held until November 3rd, 2025.

Unless there's an objection, there are two.

Seeing none, so held on to unanimous consent.

Does anyone have anything for unanimous consent?

Seeing none.

Does anyone like to move us to the docket session?

Since there's no more business in front of this honorable body, I move to a docketing session.

And we want to do the the second, or do we want to stay here?

There we go.

We got there.

All right.

Any objection to move to the docket session?

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right.

To the docket session we go.

Ward one.

Pass.

Ward two.

Pass.

Ward three.

Ward four.

Ward five.

Did you say pass?

I'm sorry.

Ward six.

Pass.

Ward seven.

Pass.

Ward nine.

Pass.

All right.

And ward eight, I have two, because of course I have to be the one.

Uh ratification of collective bargaining agreement between the city of Warwick and the International Association of Firefighters, AFL dash CIO, local 2748 for the period of July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2028.

This is on behalf of the mayor.

Finance.

All right.

And again, on behalf of the mayor, amendments to code of ordinance chapter 20-291 rescue service fees generally.

Ordinance.