Good evening everyone.

Good evening, everyone.

May I have your attention.

City Council Finance Committee is called to order at five o'clock.

First order of business.

I need a motion to accept the minutes of the finance committee agenda from October 20th.

So move.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any questions?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

On the finance committee and need a motion for the acceptance of the minutes on the October 20th meeting.

So move.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

So we're gonna go right to PCR 127-25 bids.

The first item up is 2026-256 one.

That is the Button Woods Avenue Pipeline replacement.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Christy Morredi Public Works.

Um the water division is requesting um to engage in professional services with Stantec Consulting for the Buttonwoods Avenue Pipeline replacement in Brushnet Cove.

Um this is a pipeline that runs from I forget, but it goes to Ogam Beach anyway.

Um it goes through Brutt Brushnet Cove.

The pipeline is actually leaking and it's a mean that services um the Oakland Beach area.

And um it's uh if it's not repaired and water is um only rooted in one way, it will affect the pressure, water quality, volume, and fire protection for areas of Oakland Beach, obviously uh densely populated.

So with that, we are requesting to award to Stantec in the amount of 199,500.

Thank you, Christy.

Um why has it taken four years to deal with this issue after it exploded this is Buttonwoods.

Sorry.

This is this is um in brushnet cove.

This is not uh there was a uh there was a problem.

Um they had a water main break that was repaired, they were able to do that on the peninsula.

Um, but this is the pipeline that runs under Russia like through brushnett cove.

That didn't it didn't Lincoln Avenue exploded.

What please?

Lincoln Avenue did the Lincoln Avenue transmission main.

That's the one that we had a major problem with but it says here from background that the pipeline has been leaking for some time, and in 2021 it was determined that it was leaking at a rate of 30 gallons per minute, and from 2021 to 2025, it's because it wasn't addressed.

Um now it's leaking 7,000 gallons per minute.

And then of course it was taken offline.

That was my question.

Why did it take four years to react to it?

I I couldn't speak to that.

Um the the uh there was a different director in charge.

Um, I think for probably um a portion of uh the beginning of it in 2021, and then obviously um when Ty do Patroller was the director.

So I don't know um all the details of why this wasn't addressed previously, but we are requesting to address it now.

It says further on the scope of services um that the new pipeline will be installed via directional drilling to minimize environmental impacts.

What would those environmental impacts be?

So with directional drilling, um, there's a little less environmental red tape to work through.

Um, and that means that if they do the directional drilling, the water and the shoreline will not be affected.

Um, rather than if they tried to sleeve the pipe, that would be uh much more involved as far as environmental impact as well as um permitting and things like that.

So there's um a lot of obviously different what ifs that go along with this, but um it says all soil investigation will be conducted in accordance with ASTA STM standards.

If refusal is encountered at a location, drilling will cease and will move to a new location.

Who would be the one refusing?

I'm sorry, where where are you reading that piece?

Oh, I'm sorry, yeah.

On the page on page four, the last paragraph, the page four now comments from Stan Tech.

Okay.

Uh Eric Earls, Public Works.

Uh the refusal would be whether or not it hit like ledge or something like that.

It wouldn't be like a person that determines that, it'd be whether or not we can actually push through at that location.

So it's not necessarily a an entity or a body or a group of people that would have.

No, no.

I mean, you can understand, right?

If you're trying to push through one direction and you get refusal, obviously you got to relocate and try a different location.

That's all that says.

Okay.

It also says um will include taking soil samples by method of choice.

What is the method of choice?

Uh that's typically a function of of where you're collecting the sample from.

You know, sometimes you have to bore down and collect the sample deeper, sometimes you're collecting surface samples.

It's all a matter of where you're taking the sample from that would dictate how you collect it.

Further on, it says that for the cost that we're looking at now, Stantech will prepare and submit to war 60% design plan specifications.

Um what happens with the remaining 40%, but when do we get the remaining 40%?

Uh Stantec's role in this is to uh provide the design.

Um, also assist with uh selecting a contractor and ultimately to assist with construction oversight as well.

So those other pieces would be within that 40%.

Okay.

But Stantech controls that other 40% as well.

Correct.

Okay.

Under assumptions and exclusions, number five, it says it is assumed that the water mains will remain isolated for the project work and that no temporary bypass piping design will be required.

So assumed is always a word that people get concerned with.

And what happens if it can't be isolated?

Well, I think the the assumption part is if there were some catastrophic issue where water couldn't be fed to Oakland Beach from the other way.

So the water is a loop, right?

And right now that loop is not being connected there.

So if there were an issue on Oakland Beach where something happens with the other side of that loop, then they would obviously have to re-establish this connection so that in the emergency to get water to Oakland Beach.

That would I think that would be the only way that it wouldn't stay isolated if there was some kind of anomalous event like that.

And further on, it says Navagansett tribal coordination will be handled by the city.

Has there been um communication or discussions with um the Navagansets?

Um I'm not familiar if we have any communications at this point.

I don't I don't think we have.

I that would probably come after um after we have the design before we start construction.

Is there anything that is anticipated as far as any Native American artifacts or um significant findings or any of the kind?

We would not anticipate anything.

Um especially considering most of what we're proposing is going in the area that's already been disturbed.

But again, you know, that's that can be a bit of a wild card as you know as well as anyone.

Sure.

Eric, it says um the city of Warwick will obtain a written right of entry permission from the landowner owners for LEC, its agents, and staff to perform site inspections in wetland delineations.

How many individual property owners will the city have to get uh right of entry permission from?

I don't know exactly, but I I I don't think it's I don't think it's many if any.

That might be more like standard language they put in just in case we do need to um, but most of this occurs within city right away.

Okay, and of course, the reason that um you want to do this with Stan Tech is because of the previous experience you have with them and some of these other projects.

Yeah, Stantec has an intimate knowledge of our system, and so they can hit the ground running.

Okay, that makes sense.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from oh here?

We go.

Thank you.

Is Michelle, I'm not sure if the mic is on.

Hold on.

Thank you.

Michelle Comar, good evening, Chair, President, Council members, and director.

Uh, I'm not familiar with the existing route, but it goes under brushnet cove.

And looking at alternatives that may have to be presented or eliminated through the CRMC permitting.

Um, and this may be a good time to have the consultant look at alternate routes to avoid going through brushnet cove, which is not a conventional um route to take.

Usually we're in city streets or on dry ground somewhere.

So I was just gonna ask if the contract included looking at alternative routes.

Eric?

No, no, there's really no other way to get across there and connect that, make that make that a loop.

Anything you do to try, I mean, now you're again that there's no real way to make that connection without this.

That piece.

Okay, thank you, Director.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the public hearing none?

We will move on to item number two, 2026 237 alpha.

Purchase various new tires found on page 11.

Go ahead, Christy.

Uh public works is requesting toward the bid for the purchase of new tires to Sullivan Tire in the amount of 140,000 for a one-year period, January 1, 26 to December 31, 26.

And um, Councilman Laddis, sir.

I'm gonna steal your thunder.

Yes, we are aware that the percentages do not match up.

I had a conversation with the vendor.

Um they uh responded to me today, and the list the net excuse me, the net prices are correct.

The uh what happened with like the um the percentages is when they were populated into the Excel sheet that they did, it rounded either up or down.

So the prices are off by a few dollars either way.

Um they sent me a corrected one.

So, you know, if you take the number one, the list price is 1440 uh and 25 cents.

The percentage off is actually 53.619 to get the 668 dollars.

So that has been corrected, and we acknowledge that the net price that they um included are correct.

Thank you.

And that will um not that it's not our department, but that also applies to the police department as well.

Um so it's been acknowledged across the board bear with me one minute.

Bear with me one minute.

Okay, I don't think.

Oh, Christy, on these tires.

So this bid for 140,000.

This is for the purchase of new tires.

And this is on an as-needed basis.

Yes.

Does the department inventory any new tires?

Do we inventory new tires?

The new tires need any on on in stock.

We don't we don't keep tires in stock.

Um the only tires that we have in at our facility are um there are two different size tires for the garbage trucks.

We keep uh six of each, so we keep six of the the steering tires, which would be the front tires, and then we keep six of the rear tires, which are the recapped ones.

So we have 24 tires at any given time in stock, strictly for the the garbage trucks, but we don't we don't keep anything else on hand.

We send the the vehicles to Sullivan to have them changed.

And is there a written inventory on those new tires?

Yes, we uh you know it's the the invoices they all say what vehicle uh what tires they change, the size and all that kind of stuff.

And has the department implemented a written inventory on the used tires that you have in that big back building.

The ones at the compost facility, yeah.

The the tires that come off of as an example, the um that tractor trailer thing that you're gonna be replacing.

There's almost new tires on that one, and then the second truck next to it has um used tires on it.

And no, this isn't going off topic because we're talking about tires.

So um that's my question.

Is there a written inventory on the used tires?

So we don't generally change the tires out.

Um it would be the automotive chief will decide um what we're gonna do with the tires um on the on like that tractor trailer.

If we can use them on something else, then they would take them off.

Um but the the bin back at the compost facility that the majority of those are from people bringing used tires in.

Um they have to take them off the rims so residents can drop off used tires and put them in that bin.

That's not uh necessarily from from our department.

Okay, any questions from members of the committee?

We have any questions from members of the council.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number three found on page 21.

Various replacement automotive parts for police vehicles.

Good evening, Councilman Robert Hart for the police department.

The police department went out to bid for various replacement auto parts.

A total of six bids were received.

The police department recommends that the contract be split between action auto parts, Elliott Auto Supply, East Coast Terminals, Raps Napa, and O'Reilly's.

Splitting the contract between these vendors would allow us more availability of parts, minimize time that a vehicle is down for maintenance.

In addition, one vendor O'Reilly's is open late at night, which would be beneficial for uh our evening mechanic.

The department is seeking spending authority amount of 110,000 dollars from budget code 30-330 for a two-year period.

Major, you have excluded um ATEC, correct?

Yes, sir.

They only bid on one or two items, and on your on your pots list one through 25.

Oh, Riley didn't give you any list price.

All they gave you was a 41% or better discount.

That is correct, sir.

So how do you how do you know what the price is gonna be?

The list price can change on a daily basis, so it goes by the percentage that's off of that list price.

What please?

The list price could change on a daily basis.

So they give us a percentage of what they're always gonna give off, whatever that list price is.

So but you have no idea what the starting price is today.

I understand the list price is subject to change, but today you have no idea what the list price is because they didn't tell you.

That is correct.

Okay.

But they did provide you with a list price.

Yeah on these other items.

They left the 41% discount straight through.

I I assume they do have a net price.

So at least you have a starting point there.

We do, and also the finance director, purchasing director just advised that on the bottom of that page, that price sheet is a website for us to log in and get the list price on a daily basis as needed.

So who's gonna be the one on a daily basis getting these list prices?

Well, as needed as when the fleet manager needs to order something, he can check the prices.

Say that again, please.

As needed, the fleet manager, when he needs to order something, can log in and check the price.

So when invoices come in for any one of these items that you don't have list prices on, the fleet manager is gonna take that invoice, go to the computer, open up the computer, and see what the list price is, and then do the math to make sure you got 41% off.

Is that sure he would probably check for the price when he orders it that day?

He's familiar with what he orders on a regular basis, so if he sees a price that is unusual, I'm sure he would find some other place to purchase it or check one of the other vendors Elliott Auto Supply of course.

They they did the same thing, they don't provide any list price.

Another factor there is these items one through 25.

A lot of those are just generic items, so the price could also change based on what car it's for.

The filter might be a different price for explorer to a tourist to a crown vic or what have you.

So that's probably their rationale for doing that as well.

But I noticed action autops, they did take the time and effort to go through the exercise of providing a list price and a discounted price.

They did.

So in terms of these items that you do have pricing on.

Who do you plan on giving priority to for ordering first?

Generally, uh Napa here in Apenog is obviously the closest and quickest.

Uh so again, we could check that price and see where they are, but they're usually the the most um reliable because they're just across the street from Napa.

Uh wraps Napa.

Oh, okay.

Got it.

And from what I see.

But particularly on the Ford Explorer interceptors, they're gonna be holding the price on those items, or at least no, they are they're holding these prices will remain the same for a period of two years.

I'm sorry, Calceman, I can't hear you.

On I on page 14 with Napa, it's police intercept the number 30.

It says from items E through E, they're gonna hold the prices on those items for two years.

Correct, and this is a two-year bid for everybody.

Right.

Okay, um, as you've all heard me say in the past, uh it does it makes like no sense to me buying something when you don't know what your starting price is, but apparently um other people feel different.

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, we'll thank you, Major.

We'll move on to item number four, found on page 44 2026, 257.

It's state street pump station.

Jerry Willett, Chief of Water.

Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon.

Oh, could you speak into the mic, please?

It's it's difficult.

Water department would like to retain beta group for engineering services.

For the state treat booster pump station, um the amount of 83,775.

And um, I believe this work needs to be completed by December 31st, 2026.

It's been put on hold due to material shortages.

Um that that has been addressed with the engineer.

So if it you're talking about the uh December 31st deadline in this in this paperwork here.

So the project has been put on hold?

No, um, the project is going forward, but we're waiting for materials.

That's why it hasn't started yet.

So if it goes beyond the December 31st deadline, um this will be extended.

Yes.

Okay.

And I see where the city is only requiring, or at least I guess this company is offering uh employers' liability insurance of a million dollars.

Do you feel that's adequate?

A million dollars?

I believe so.

That's pretty standard.

It's pretty standard.

I believe so, yeah.

Okay.

If you're comfortable with it and the city's comfortable with it, who might have question it?

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do I have any questions from members of the public?

Um, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Moving on to item number five, found on page 55.

Mail machine lease.

Go ahead, Chris.

Public works is requesting to um utilize Pitney Bows for a five-year lease for a mail machine.

Um, this would be under the source ball contract.

The that's the cooperative uh contract that we've utilized on multiple occasions.

This is a five-year lease that will begin um from date of award and um obviously five years in the amount of 59,563.

And Christy, how old is the machine that you have now?

The machine we have now um we acquired under a five-year lease in 2018.

So that least expired in 2023, and um then we owned that machine.

We have not had um any real sort of well, I shouldn't say that.

We've had service lately, we've had issues with it.

Um so that this machine that we're gonna get is actually um comparable to the one we have, but better.

It has like a 30-pound scale in case we need to send any kind of packages, it has a mail stacker and um we can print our own labels like uh shipping labels, things like that.

And um, oddly enough, when we did the last lease, this this one is actually 525.60 cents less than the one we did in 2018.

Christy, does the new machine have um intelligent mail in DCR?

I think it is IMI um compliant devices.

Not really sure what you mean by that.

I was hoping you did, because I don't it has uh it has like e-delivery um for like certified mail.

So if uh you know the collector's office sends something out certified, they can get an e-recei.

Um there's no there would be no more green cards, no more uh, you know, it got lost or anything like that.

So the technology is in this machine for us to move forward and with the volume that we process on a daily basis.

Um, like I said, we've have had some issues with the machine we have now.

So um this is uh this would be great for not really sure how public works also does all the mail, but uh we do everything but fight fires and be police officers, I guess.

Believe me, it kills me to ask you a question that I didn't have the answer to, but admittedly um, I did seriously, I did some research on that, and the age of your machine falls right into the information that I received as far as the age of the machine should be replaced, et cetera, et cetera.

But that was one of the things that um was presented to me.

Is that you should it should have that IMI, whatever that is?

This one's very technology forward for us, so it'll be a step up from what obviously from what we have now.

So um it'll be we'll be able to process the mail much more efficiently.

And do you feel that it's um more advantageous to buy the machine as opposed to lease it?

It would it would cost us um I think leasing it is a better way for us to go based on the volume that we send out and um you know the direction that I mean things can be done electronically, but it's it's under a thousand dollars a month that we're leasing it for.

And and I think in this case, um it wouldn't make sense for us to buy it because in five years we can look at it and say, all right, we that we lease to own it and we keep it, or we can go into another lease, and at that point, that's when we'll make that decision.

And with your lease, it also includes supply service, technical support, etc.

Right.

So everything's included.

Is there any resale value on the old machine?

That I don't know.

No.

Okay.

Any questions?

Thank you, Chris.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Questions from the council.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Uh did you have any discussions or look into other options with competitors of Pitney Bows?

We did not.

Um, this is a source well contract.

So it source well, what they do is they competitively bid um for uh state and local governments, and um, so this was competitively bid because we have a relationship with Pitney Bows, it's a it's an easy transition for us to go to to just continue with their machine.

And with this type of machine, the prepaid mail.

Uh I take it that the city is we're not exactly paying retail price for stamps as if we walk down to the post office, it's a reduced rate because of the prepayment.

Correct.

Yeah.

And uh very much appreciate that the uh the machine lets mail get processed a lot faster.

I've seen the difference between these different systems.

So all of this makes sense to me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number six, the final item above 50,000.

And it's found on page 60.

There'll be number 2026, 229.

Uh Robert Hart for the uh police department.

The police department would have to bid for police personnel uniforms.

A total of two bids were received.

The police department recommends the contract be split between both bidders, Barney's uniforms of Princeton, uh, and a new bidder, American Fire Gear of Warwick.

Uh Barney's is our usual vendor and is bit has bid on a majority of the items on our list.

Uh while American Fire is a new bidder and bid on several items that normally go unbid on.

Uh the department is speaking seeking spending authority in the amount of $50,000 from budget code 30-260 police uniforms for one year period.

Thank you, Major.

So excuse me, going through these documents.

Um you say that it is recommended that Bonnie's uniform will be awarded the bid for all items except 27, 66, etc.

etc.

etc.

Um, in my binder, I don't have any bid from Bonnies on numbers 21 through 25.

And in addition to that, I don't have bids from them on items 31 through 34, 40 through 44, 50 through 54, 86 through 90, and 97.

So I don't know how you want to award them bids when I don't have council.

Can you just uh give me one of the last numbers you had?

I'm sorry.

One of the last item numbers, please.

The last number?

Any of the last numbers like a look it up.

Um let's start with um 21 through 25.

21 through 25 were bid on by American Fire.

It's what, please?

We're bid on by American Fire Bid on by American Fire.

That's Bonnie's, right?

No.

No.

American Fire is the other bidder.

Second one.

I understand that.

But you're you said here it is recommended that Bonnie's uniforms will be awarded all the bid items except for starting with number 27.

That means Bonnie's going to be awarded items 21 through 25.

Unless I misunderstand something.

And you're awarding American Fire 66, 67, 68.

But yet Bonnie's, I don't have a bid in my binder for 31, 32, 33, or 34.

You said items 31 through 34 had no bid.

Um it goes, hold on.

It goes from number 30, hat in oak leaf clusters, and it jumps to 35 class A dress code.

So there is no bid from them on those items 31 through 34.

I think the numbers might be off because I don't have those four items in my package, do you?

That's what's the term.

We don't have it.

Yeah, we don't have that on our it was a those numbers were just omitted from the actual uh sheet.

There are no items and numbers.

Yeah, I can show you on number two.

So when it jumps from item number three to item number eight, those items were just intentionally eliminated on Bonnie's, but on American Fire, we have all of them.

Three.

Right to eight.

Well, I have it here.

So click in okay.

Major, just as a point of order.

I think what it looks like on items 31, 32, 33, and 34, those are optional items.

Perhaps those are optional relative to the officer themselves, so that they're not covered under this bid.

That is that is correct.

So the officer purchases it on their own, it may be a certain type of detail shirt or hat or what have you that uh they can purchase and wear as an optional item, and they purchase that on their own.

However, we still put it on the bid sheet to try to get best pricing for them if they wanted to purchase it themselves.

So is that possibly why Bonnie's didn't include that in their package when they sent it back to you?

Possible, but um so 31.

No, because like number 32 would be something that he would normally bid on.

So I'm gonna take this back.

So those items that are missing in Bonnie's bid compared to American Fire, they're not supposed to be there at all.

Were they intentionally eliminated?

Now I have the purchasing director right here.

So let's hold on, bear with me, Major.

So here's what we got.

Right here, we have item one two and three.

Then it goes to item eight.

So it's missing four through seven.

It's where it's on here.

That was a um a copier issue then.

It's on where?

It's on the website.

So it is actually.

I don't go to the website.

I go to the website.

That's on my why aren't you?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm asking.

Does anyone else have it?

Yeah, it's right now.

So he has it.

So councilman, if you look at the bid package from Barney's, yes, you're right.

Say three through.

Excuse me, excuse me.

Hold on.

Let's do this one person at a time.

Okay, we're not gonna have three different people.

Major, you have the floor.

So if you look at the the sheet from Barney's, the bid response from Barney's, which is the horizontal pages the way he did it.

Um three through seven are missing.

He did not bid on those.

And Bonnie's did not bid on those.

Correct.

No, actually Bonnie's bid on three on number three.

That's the flag for eight bucks.

Major, um, this there's uh just way too much missing here.

Um we have different things all over the place.

I think that this is something that unless you have some serious deadline that I would like to hold this until the next meeting so that we can get on the same page.

We have items in here from one bidder that are missing, and we have items for another bidder that are complete.

Is there any problem with that holding it till the next meeting?

So we can get actual information, and the next meeting will be the 17th.

I think we can do that.

I think this is going to be easily explained.

I think it's just the way it formatted for some reason.

Well, I don't think it can be easily explained to me because I go by the book, this book, what I get in the binder, and it's not in here, and I'm not sure if it's anywhere else, but I don't have it.

And I have it's not just those items, there's a lot of items in Bonnie's that is not here.

So do you have a is there a problem holding this till the November next to the November meeting?

I have no problem holding it.

I'll defer to the purchasing director as well if we're okay with that.

Okay, okay, holding it to the next meeting.

You okay hold it?

Give me a motion.

Yes, I make a motion to hold to the 17th.

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

Got it.

Yeah, thank you.

PCR 12925.

Thank you, madam clerk.

So motion to hold PCI.

We have a second from Councilman Napper.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, need a motion to hold all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, Major.

Okay, we have the remainder of the items um seven through twelve under 50,000.

Is there anything any members of the committee would like to have pulled aside?

Councilman Mudo.

So since we're holding the other police personal uniforms, I recommend 2026.

Sorry.

Since it seems to relate to the A above that we just held.

Um just let me look at that one minute, please.

Um I don't I don't have any issues with that particular one, Councilman.

Does anyone else have any concerns with that item?

Okay, okay, thank you.

Um I'm going to hold out item number nine found on page 100.

It's police motorcycle repairs.

Any I actually I have two.

Um item number 12, 2024, 286 found on page 107.

Does any members of the council have any items they would like held up?

And any members of the public have any items that they would like to have held out.

Any members of the public have any items they want held out?

Okay, thank you.

Um police motorcycle repairs.

It says the war police department does have a fully staffed garage with certified mechanics, although none of our mechanics are certified in the repair of Holly Davidson motorcycles.

Uh given the fact that you have currently seven motorcycles.

Is it anything that the department is considering sending out one of your mechanics to get certified?

Um it has the idea has been talked about in the past um before I was in this position.

Um I don't know what the cost involved in that is, but it's something that I would definitely be willing to look at to see what the trade training is like.

I don't know if it's uh a matter of a simple few courses or if it's rather extensive, I'm not sure, but sure.

Something we can definitely look at.

Yeah, I would be interested in saying if if the if the effort would be worth it uh to have someone on staff that is certified.

Thank you.

That's that's all I had on that.

On item number 12.

Sorry, any anyone else have any questions on that item?

Members of the council?

Any questions?

Any members of the public have any questions on the police motorcycle repairs?

Any questions on the police motorcycle repairs?

Thank you.

We'll move on to item number 12.

Windshield replacement found on page 107.

Uh Major, I'm looking through uh the numbers and um your original bid, which expires March 31st, 2026.

You say you have 385 dollars remaining out of the 7,000.

It says you replace between seven and nine windshields during the winter months.

You're asking for an additional five thousand dollars to get you through uh the remainder of uh the months or the remainder of the bid, I should say, which is five months.

When I run the numbers, it appears as though you're you're spent an average of three hundred and forty-eight dollars and sixteen cents on each windshield.

And if we're doing seven to nine windshields between now and the end of this season, you're looking at three hundred and thirty one hundred and thirty-three dollars minus the two three hundred and eighty-five in your account, and I come out to twenty-seven forty-eight.

Um not five thousand.

So I sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Um, I took the worst case scenario of the most expensive windshield, which is over 550 dollars, by about nine windshields, we would guess over 4,000.

So I figured $5,000 would be a safe give us some wiggle room just in case we have a bad winter.

So did I just understand you right?

You said if you have to buy nine windshields, it's gonna be about four thousand dollars.

It was over four thousand, I think four thousand and two hundred and fifty dollars or something like that.

And of these seven to nine windshields that you had to replace throughout the remain uh prior to this contract.

How many of those were new windshields?

I'm sorry, what of the seven to nine windshields that you speak about in here having to replace between seven and nine windshields?

How many of those were new windshields as opposed to just repairs?

I understand your question.

The majority of them are new windows.

We did have um uh one sixty dollar repair, one hundred and twenty-five dollar the repair, but most of them are new windshields.

Okay, all right.

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?

No.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes, Councilman D.

Louise.

Thank you.

Um, I just had a windshield replaced on my vehicle a couple of weeks ago.

And does the city have my I didn't pay a penny out of my pocket because my insurance I had glass coverage?

So they came to my house, they put the windshield in waited 24 hours.

They had to calibrate it for all the safety features in it.

Does the department have insurance that covers glass?

And if not, why don't they?

Uh the trust does not have glass insurance.

I'm being told.

Okay.

All right, so glass is not covered.

Not covered.

All right, because it's something that I never had before, and my insurance, she said no, you're all set.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other questions from members of the public?

Thank you.

So let's vote on items one, two, three, everything except item number six.

Need a motion, please.

Second.

We have a motion favorable we have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Next we will go to abatements, PCR 12825.

Good evening.

Hi.

Neil Depuy, director of assessing.

This month we have abatements in the amount of 20,794 and 52 cents.

Uh the majority of them are uh personal exemptions that they qualify for, but there are a few tax appeals that were granted as well.

I didn't see anything particularly unusual on this.

Um we're still far below where we had been in the past.

So any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Ricks thank you.

I know that many of us get the hard copies of the binder.

I take it that a copy with the full regular basically the document we normally get every meeting.

This comes up with a list of all of the persons getting the abatements.

It was included in the hard copy.

Okay.

Use the mic, please.

Use the mic, please.

I can't hear what you're saying.

Yeah, if I could just get a hard copy, looks like it might not have been posted online.

Uh I don't need that immediately, just before the full council vote is all.

Thanks.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Uh before you proceed, uh, Council President Snappy has a couple that need to be voted separately.

So if we could assign a separate PCR to uh four particular items um and have them voted separately so he can recuse uh on a conflict check.

Okay, so you want to do a PCR on the four particular or just vote yes or no on the whole thing, or uh whatever sure.

It's probably easiest if we uh assign a PCR for four items that I'm about to read.

Okay, this would be number one seven three two nine six regarding Gregory Maynard, a senior exemption for four hundred and fifteen dollars and twenty cents.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that was PCR 173.

Say that again.

No, no, no.

I'm sorry, on the um the reference number.

The the reference number is one seven three two nine six, and this is Gregory Maynard, a senior exemption in the amount of four hundred and fifteen dollars and twenty cents.

And madam clerk, that PCR is what, please?

We're gonna uh we can vote all these together.

All right, cool.

The second item for PCR 130 uh 25 would be reference number 17301.

This is regarding Michael Medeiros.

It is also a senior exemption in the same amount of 415 dollars and 20 cents.

The third reference number is 1732.

This is regarding the uh is it PAPS or Papas Family Trust Papas Family Irrevocable Trust, also a senior exemption in the amount of 415.20 cents, and the final reference number to be voted as part of this PCR is reference 13173 uh regarding Patricia and David Thompson.

This was a granted appeal in the amount of 300 and 99 cents.

So the total amount for PCR 130 25 would be 1,546.50.

How many cents?

All right, double check that for you.

That amount solicitor is one thousand five hundred and forty-six dollars and fifty cents.

300.99.

Uh 1546 and 59 cents.

59 cents.

Thank you.

So if the committee will make a recommendation on that PCR first, and then we can proceed back to the remainder.

And that PCR is 130-25.

Okay.

Okay.

So we need a motion on PCR 130-25.

Eliminating, or I should say um calling out those four items, which total of 1,000 four 1546 and 59 cents.

Motion for favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

I'm sorry.

Okay.

That's good.

All in favor.

Thank you.

So those amounts would be reduced from PCR 128.

That's uh 25.

That new amounts would be 19,247.

19,247.

What 93.

Thank you.

I need a motion on PCR 130 25 as amended.

Move favorable action.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second by councilman Napa.

Any further discussion?

All in favor on the amendment.

Aye.

Aye.

And we'll move forward as amended.

Move favorable action.

Amended.

Second.

And the new total is $19,247.93 cents.

We have a motion for and a second as amended.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Councilman Knapper has to have stepped out for a couple of moments, but we will continue on.

Next item up is PCR 126-25 resolution ratifying the collective bargaining agreement between the city of Warwick and the Warwick Firefighters Local 2748.

IAF AFL CIO for the period of July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028.

If everyone could just be cognizant of speaking into the mic, this chamber does not have the greatest acoustics, and it's difficult to understand.

Please, thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

President Sapphi, honorable city council.

It's going to be a very short statement.

Be ready to answer your questions.

Our finance director, Lynn Project will be here to answer any financial questions that you may have.

And our city solicitor Microsoft will answer any legal questions.

Chief McMichael and Deputy Chief Umbenhauer will answer any technical questions.

The council could do one of two things tonight.

Thank you, Mayor Picosy, and um thank you for this time, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Council President, members of the council.

So as the mayor mentioned, um the matter before you this evening is going to be voted up or down on the merits.

Um hopefully voted up, but if it's voted down, the next step would be arbitration.

And as you heard, the mayor wanted me to just give you a little bit of a primer on what that would consist of.

I'm experienced in this.

Um the last time I was involved in such an arbitration was for the City of East Providence.

It was pre-COVID.

So the first thing to remember about arbitration is that it is only a one-year contract.

So the reality is once that process begins, it'll probably extend for three, four, six months.

And by the time you actually get to the contract, the next contract year is up.

So it's not in a very efficient process, but it's there.

When you go to arbitration, there are three arbitrators.

Um, and the arbitrators are directed by statute as to what they have to take into consideration.

I will mention two of the most critical and the most important um things that the arbitrators have to look at.

Number one is a comparison of wage rates and hourly conditions of employment of the fire department in question with the way wage rates and hourly conditions of employment of the fire departments in cities or towns are comparable size.

When um Bruce Kaiser comes up, he will provide you with statistics on what other fire department contracts are presently paying.

And um, we will see from those numbers that what is in this contract is very similar to or actually less than what other similarly sized fire department salary increases are.

So that's number one.

Um number two is comparison of a compute of a community's ability to pay.

So that basically means um what type of financial situation the city is in, whether or not um it is um capable of making the payments, um, how much um can it continue to raise the tax rate to make such payments, etc.

Basically, the only time this comes into play is when a municipality is in distress, um, meaning that they can't make their financial commitments.

The city of Warwick, thank God, certainly is not in distress.

So in looking at that comparison of communities' ability to pay, um, that would be something that um the arbitrators would look at, and as they say, this city is certainly not in financial stress.

The cost of arbitration, um, again, the last one I did was pre-COVID.

Um at the time I got involved, it the cost was already 125,000.

Um, what could it cost?

It's certainly going to be six figures.

Why is that?

Because each side has to pay um half the cost of the arbitrators who are all sitting there at 350, 400, 450 dollars an hour as they go through not only the various hearings, but also as they do their deliberations and write their decision, etc.

So the multiple hours add up times three.

Additionally, the city would have to uh hire experts, including um an accountant, someone from an audit firm, um might be um and additionally um an economist to look at um all the various factors because all the evidence would have to be put in by experts.

So point being it's um a laborious process, it costs a lot of money.

At the end of the day, it's only a one-year contract, but most importantly, the law already states what the arbitrators will be looking for in terms of the main thing being comparison to what other fire departments um are receiving.

So that's just a quick overview of that process, just so you're aware, and I believe now Bruce Kaiser will come up to go through it with you and to give you some of those statistics that I was just referring to.

Thank you.

But before we go to Mr.

Kaiser, I'm glad that the solicitor is here from the city.

Um, before we get into the um the content of the contract, I do want to hear from our solicitor, attorney Walsh.

I had discussed with you earlier today um the three um questions that were sent to me actually by several people regarding the legality of some of the contents of the contract.

And one of them is I'm just gonna read it off the way I have it.

Um section five, inconsistent terms, section three amendments, section two substitutions.

I want to have it put on the record as to what your legal opinion is regarding these issues before we move forward with anything further.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

The it is well established that uh no contract can uh be enforced to do something illegal.

So I'd start with that benchmark so that if there even were, which I'm not uh which I'm about to explain that I don't believe there is if there were an illegality or a conflict in this contract with uh existing laws, the contract would not be enforceable.

That said, the provisions that have been raised uh have been part of the existing agreements for some time and are not being proposed for modification at this time, so it's just for folks to be aware.

Uh it's a somewhat confusing part about how um major reforms that are collectively bargained get uh updated, and so it's a more of a I would argue a process uh section of the contract that explains how the um existing pension ordinances which outline when read together um what types of pension plans we have.

We have fire one, we have fire two, we have two different tiers under fire two, and it can be somewhat confusing because not everything is spelled out in this contract, but it raises points that says where there's discrepancies, but also where terms are omitted.

The ordinance um does take pri precedence.

Um it's a long way of saying I understand there can be some confusion, but I do not see any illegality in the existing contract, and would say that it's a available for the you know for the council to consider, um, and certainly welcome many other remarks from my uh colleague, Mr.

Osillo as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Walsh.

I would like to hear the comment.

And by the way, um what you just heard from Councilman Walsh, uh sorry, Councillor Walsh is um pretty much verbatim of the conversation that he and I had this afternoon.

However, I want to make certain that we are on uh legal footing in pursuing or going into this contract any further.

Solicitor, what's your opinion?

Thank thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um may be surprising that I actually agree with uh counselor walsh, two lawyers agreeing that's that's a major accomplishment.

You know, the the issue with the um references to the the pension and the language that says that if there are any inconsistencies, this contract will um take precedence.

That is all written in there on a prospective basis in this sense.

Um if in fact there is um something that's agreed upon in a collective bargaining agreement, and again, this this particular language goes back at least two or three agreements.

I don't know exactly when probably a lot further than that, um, other than the reference to 2018.

Um that language is in there to prevent the city from after signing a contract, then changing the ordinance to say something else, and then having the city say, well, the ordinance supersedes the contract, so therefore what's in the contract is not void.

This this gives the um the union the opportunity to say, well, that then violates the contracts clause of the constitution, state law, etc.

So that language is really in there to protect them going forward, so that in fact the language on pensions that was agreed to between the two parties remains um in place going forward.

So that's in that sense very consistent with the observation that ordinances take preference precedence over contracts.

But again, this is all prospective, it's it's not going backwards.

Okay, thank you.

Um I feel that these type of things that are brought to our attention are important that we and it's important that we get it on the record.

Sure.

Uh thank you.

Okay.

Um any other questions for me, or we bring Bruce.

Uh yeah, I do have one question for you.

Um, when was the last time to your knowledge that the city of Warwick ever went before arbitration for anything?

I well I've only been here for the past three years.

Um I am not sure if either police or fire.

2019 was the most recent.

2019 was the most recent.

2019.

Okay.

Yeah.

I I'm I'm just obviously not aware.

And that's still pending, I believe.

Is that is that what you're talking about?

No, no.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Kaiser.

Bruce Kaiser, uh, director of economic development, uh, council president, uh, council members.

Uh I was chief negotiator along with uh several members of the staff, including the chief of staff uh uh Bill Facenti, who couldn't be here uh this evening.

Um Mike gave you the Sister Sillo gave you the uh parameters within which we we operate for all the contracts uh or public safety contracts, arbitration is an option for police and fire as uh has just been discussed.

Um granted that it's important that uh we control our destiny the best we possibly can with respect to what the outcome of the contract is going to be, as opposed to leaving it in the arbitrators' hands, um, that we don't know what the outcome is going to be.

Uh Mike importantly uh pointed out that uh um one of the key elements uh under state law uh that the arbitrators consider is what are the neighboring departments um doing in the area.

We have the uh contracts from uh Providence and uh Cranston, they're the two largest other departments.

East Providence, they're currently in negotiations, so we weren't able to obtain any data from them.

But with Providence, they're just in FY26, they'll be completing a five-year deal, four percent a year.

Obviously, that compounded you know, each year and so forth.

Umston is uh on the same cycle that we are, and uh their contract going forward through FY28 is uh 425.

Now that they split their just as we have in this contract, we'll explain in a second, uh they split their raises July 1, January 1 in each of those uh contract years, different um formula it was used, but you know, used the same uh staggered system.

Uh annualized Cranston's uh uh increases were 425, 45, 45.

Um our increases as proposed are 425 4545.

Um the cost of those contracts uh for for the um for the year are outlined in the uh fiscal note that uh Lynn Proger, our finance director has prepared.

Uh but budgetarily the percentage increases, what we're the appropriation necessary to fill those contracts is uh because it's July 1, January 1 increases is uh 3.64 percent in the in the first year, uh FY26 that we're currently in, 3.89 in the second year, and 3.89 year in the third year.

Uh importantly, one of the elements key two key elements comprised the the uh basis for the negotiations with the uh fire union in the for this three-year contract.

One was they insisted major demand that they put on the table was that they wanted parity with uh with what the police contract is.

As Mike pointed out, that's something that the arbitrator is going to consider as well.

What is the other public safety union get in the city?

So this contract is equivalent to what uh was awarded the police with the ratification last January.

Um, in addition to you know the outside contracts that I just mentioned.

But in addition to contract wage increases, um the other key element for the city was uh ensuring that OPEB, 2% OPEB uh employee contribution is continued at infinitum into the future.

This the police uh contract and the municipal contract that you ratified back in um in uh January has a schedule of one third, one third, one third each year getting to that two percent.

The fire contract, which three years ago was ratified, called for a two percent increase as soon as the other two unions came on board, so that every was on everybody was on an equivalent basis because the other union agreements uh that we were able to reach, phased in those uh OPEP contributions by the employees.

We had to go to an we'd amend or get to a memo memorand of agreement with the fire union earlier this year to synchronize that agreement with what the uh municipal and the police contracts uh uh contain.

That contract or that agreement expires in FY27.

If we don't get a three-year agreement uh with this uh with the IAF, not only does the uh the OPEB for fire disappear, but because all the contracts uh are looking for equivalency, they all disappear.

So we would have to be in the position of having to renegotiate uh an OPEB from square one.

If we go to arbitration, the arbitrator is not going to consider a three-year agreement.

They're gonna, as Mike just explained, we're on a one-year deal.

That puts entire OPEB in jeopardy because we have to go back to the table with all the unions again.

And yeah, as you know from the conversation we have with the uh regarding the uh police and fire or police and uh municipal unions it's a give and take.

Yeah, that we we were looking for the OPEP contribution to get that program kick started with the employees uh participating significantly.

Um and we had to trade off some salary increases in order to achieve that.

Um so should we end up going to arbitration in this case, and we lose OPEB and have to go back to the table back to square one, everything's back on the table with respect to the pay increases that they'd be willing to agree to, given the fact that they've got more leverage and so forth.

So very we believe as administration is very critical that we were able to lock in a deal with uh um with the fire union, meaning all three unions at this point, uh, for the well, obviously add infinite item with respect to uh the two percent OPEP until that would be new renegotiated uh sometime in the future by potentially a future administration.

So those are the key elements to this contract.

The contract uh raises in parity with uh internally with the police department and externally with uh comparable uh fire departments.

So those those are lynch really the linchpins of uh of the agreement.

Um as uh fiscal note indicates, what is the cost annually to the uh city for the the body of the contract, as uh Lynn has pointed out.

The uh first year is uh 987,000.

Uh this is net of the employee uh OPEB contribution, which displaces what the city appropriations have been in the last couple of years.

Um $949,000 in the uh second year of the contract, $915,000 in the third year of the contract.

So we were just under a million dollars each year.

Uh what does that mean into because obviously the the important element to the council to the administration and larger and yeah, more importantly to the uh community is what does this cost the taxpayer.

Uh I've spoken with uh our tax assessor, and the in order to raise essentially about a million dollars.

If it were to come out if that if uh funding this contract were entirely through property taxes opposed to some other outside sources of revenue that might come in from our other non-property tax revenues, would be five a nickel on the tax rate.

Um current median uh uh residential home is taxed or is assessed at about 400,000.

So we're looking at 20 dollars a year for the median homeowner to fund this particular contract, absent any other non-property tax revenues that may become available um in the future.

Um that's that's the that's the the uh central elements of the contract.

Beyond that, uh as noted in uh Linlin's memo, there are other cost items that are included in the contract.

Um just to go through a few of them.

The uh clothing and maintenance allowances are each up uh $50.

Uh each of those caught um each of those will cost uh uh $10,000 apiece annualized, so $20,000 for the clothing um uh allowance and the clothing maintenance.

Uh there's a berthing policy.

Um Chief uh McMichael can explain how he for envisions yeah that playing out with respect to time off and uh light duty uh for birthing.

Um family sick leave uh is uh granted 292 hours, but that comes out of their sickly balances.

Um importantly, the fifth year rescue was been memorialized into the contract.

Um finance director can talk about the cost of what that is, but that's city had already committed policy-wise to maintaining that uh fifth rescue for uh response times and public safety purposes.

Um fire retirees will be eligible to uh buy uh well the those uh uh newer firefighters that are only eligible for individual health care in the future will be able to buy up when they eventually retire to a family plan at their cost, not the city's cost.

And then uh finally, just notice my minor item, the uh DTL pay, both non-civic and uh um civic details.

The we fire union uh negotiated the city to raise that rate from uh um uh to the captain's OT rate of pay.

That's going from 72 dollars an hour to sixty dollars an hour.

I mean sixty dollars an hour to seventy-two dollars an hour approximately that's paid by outside entities anyway.

Um and on civic, uh we're instead of stage straight time will pay uh overtime rate.

So those are central cost items associated with the uh contract.

Any further questions?

Happy to answer them.

Uh thank you for that.

Um going to um let you know that the council president has asked Maya Chairman.

I'm sorry.

Um, at every other contract we brought before here, the uh finance committee is always asked if the union wanted to make an address, and I forgot to I forgot to bring that up in my remarks.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said.

In every other time I brought up uh the contracts before the council, um the finance chair has always asked the union to come up and make a statement, and I kind of forgot about that.

Oh, I will.

I didn't okay.

I will, no worries.

My error, I'm sorry, no worries.

Um the council president has also asked me to recess this committee at 620 because of other time constraints that we have, and I am happy to honor that wish.

So um we will recess until such time as the council president tells us to come back.

Thank you.

Much obliged.

Uh thank you.

With the finance committee in uh at ease and recess, uh, we would ask the public properties uh land use and community affairs committee to come forward as we need to uh address a zoning matter uh before the full council.

The city council committee on public properties, land use and community affairs comes to order at six twenty-three p.m.

Acceptance of minutes from committee meeting held on October 20, 2025.

Do we have a motion?

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We have two items on the docket.

First up, PCO 27-25 and ordinance amending appendix A, zoning ordinance of the City of Warwick regarding fences, drive-through window overhead clearance and special use permit lot size standards for duplexes.

City of Warwick, petitioner citywide.

This is Council President Sinapi on behalf of Mayor Picosi.

Council President, I take it that you would uh request that this be moved to the floor uh for uh for public hearing.

Yes, please request public hearing.

Thank you.

We have a recommendation.

Do we have a motion to move to the floor without recommendation?

So move.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

I we have one last item on the docket for this meeting.

Item two PCR one oh eight-25, a resolution in observance of native Native American Heritage Month.

This is my resolution.

It looks like we have enough time for a discussion before the full city council meeting at 6:30.

So I'll open the discussion by stating that I think it's important, similar to the various other heritage and history months we have recognized throughout the year to recognize the contribution of Native Americans to this country, to this city and state, and make a statement that people of all races, all backgrounds are celebrated here in Warwick, and their appreciate and their their work, their contributions, and the diversity are appreciated here in the city of Warwick.

Uh any further discussion, members of the committee.

Any discussion, members of the council?

Any discussion, members of the public.

Do we have a motion for favorable action?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

There being no further business before the committee.

Next up, would the intergovernmental committee please convene?

Good evening.

Time is now six twenty-six, and the intergovernmental committee comes to order.

First order of business acceptance of meeting uh of the minutes from the committee meeting held on October 20th, 2025.

Do I have a motion?

No, you do not.

Make a motion to accept the minutes.

Second.

All in favor?

I uh and our first piece of uh business is PCR ninety-three twenty-five resolution amending the rules of the city council for the twenty twenty-five-2026 term.

Uh the sponsor is Council President Sinapi.

Uh, he has requested that this be held to 17th, please.

Uh to what was that?

November November 17th.

Uh, do I have a motion to hold?

So moved.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Uh there being no further business of the intergovernmental committee.

Uh we close at six twenty-seven.

Next up, the city council will convene.

It's in about two minutes, six thirty p.m.

No, I I brought some.

I'm sorry, what is the insurance citizenship?

My she actually got me my old insurance wanted to go up a hundred and thirty a month.

My agent got me a month.

So I'm paying, instead of paying a four hundred and thirty a month, I'm paying two ninety-five now for two cars with glass coverage.

No, I'm sure.

Yeah, yeah.

I I don't know.

I just had got my car, and I was behind a truck, kicked a rock up, and I heard something, then I didn't notice the crack till the next day.

They said, so I call Sonia, my agent.

She said, Well, they'll come right to your house or whatever the car is.

They it was great.

She said you won't have to pay anything.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

Yeah, they yeah, yeah.

No, no, I'm just gonna case.

Yes, that's what we have.

So at six thirty-one PM, council will convene.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Here.

Mr.

DeLouise.

Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gebhot.

Here.

Mr.

Kirby.

Here.

Mr.

Lattice.

Here.

Mr.

Mudo.

Here.

Mr.

Napa.

Mr.

Rex.

Here.

Nine president.

If Councilman Mudo can please lead us in the salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

First up is general communications, announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Does anyone have anything for general communications?

Seeing nothing, we move on to executive communications, to which there are none acceptance of minutes from council meeting held on October twentieth, twenty twenty-five.

Does anyone have any objection to approving the October twentieth, twenty twenty-five minutes as presented?

Seeing none, so approved.

And then next we go to referred business.

First is PCO twenty-seven-twenty-five, an ordinance amending appendix A.

Zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick regarding fences, drive-through window, overhead clearance, and special use permit lot size standards for duplexes, city of work petitioner, citywide.

So administration take it away.

Oh wait.

Oh, first we need someone to open a public hearing, though.

Do we have a motion for such motion made by Council McGebart?

Seconded by Council Amito.

All in favor.

All opposed.

Alrighty.

Good evening, Tom Kravitz, uh city planning director.

The driving force behind the amendments you have before you is really the additional table that we have in the special use permit section.

Um this table uh was in in the zoning ordinance actually uh prior to our amendments that we made last time.

Um what we did was at that time we in the council agreed we would require duplex units to be reviewed under special use permit by the planning board.

Didn't make much sense to have such small scale developments come before the council.

Uh and there are quite a few of them.

So when we made that change, um, inadvertently, uh, there was a table uh in the PDR section that had particular standards for duplexes, it was deleted.

We tried it for a year to see how it would go.

Um we we think the the staff at the planning department, the duplex units we're seeing on on the eight within the A7 zone district, uh, is just a little too dense.

Um we're seeing some overbuilding in neighborhoods, and the feedback we're getting from residents isn't great.

So we want to put this table back in, and all it simply does is mandates slightly larger lot sizes in each zone district for duplex units.

So the planning board will still review them, especially use permit, but we will have this table back, which should give us a little bit more literally breathing room, if you will, with these proposals when they come forward.

Um the other two changes are pretty straightforward, as I'm sure you've read about fences.

Speaking with Alder Court, it just doesn't make sense to have mandatory uh permit requirements and zoning for fences anymore.

Um very few communities do it.

Um, and we made a small minor change to a minimum height requirement for drive-throughs for canopy height.

Um that you can see in there as well.

So we are still requiring permits for fences, I should say, in historic districts and national registered properties, as well as providing notice to abutters in those situations, just to be sure they could coordinate fence types in case you have a situation where both property owners are looking to put up fences.

Uh, trying to get people to work together on the type of fence that might be erected in those situations.

Uh, with that, really, I have nothing else to say.

I'll try to answer any questions you may have.

Council president, if I may.

Hold on, one moment, please.

So, Senator Walsh can chime in.

Uh, thank you, members of the council.

Just want to put on record there's uh two uh grammatical errors on page one line 44.

Uh the word height is missing a T and the word within has a G on it.

We would correct those uh with your approval uh after the hearing.

All right, Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So without uh without uh throwing any shade here, no offenses intended.

It was incredibly very much directly as intentional as intentional can possibly be.

When I introduced the amendment to set forth the zoning as to two family houses, sometimes referred to as duplexes.

I thought that I had made that very clear in the amendment itself last time around.

I thought that I stated that logic in the argument for that amendment the last time around.

And that amendment, if memory serves, was passed unanimously by the city council at the time.

The logic being that we live in a city, there is a housing crisis, as long as all of the other zoning restrictions, that is height, set back, lot size, etc.

etc.

are all being met.

I don't see anything, say, morally objectionable or otherwise degradational to the character of the neighborhood when it comes to a two-family house being on a conforming lot that's traditionally known as a single family size lot.

Part of that, and I'm not going to repeat the whole speech from I believe it was a year or two ago.

Uh when my parents became divorced, my father rented an apartment in the neighborhood.

Now, that apartment, that three family house, my God.

Do I hear any gasps of horror that there could be a three-family house in a residential neighborhood in Warwick?

I didn't think so.

So he moved into a three-family house, rented an apartment there.

And you know what?

Everything worked out like that.

There were there was no moral outrage.

It was it was fine.

You can have a neighborhood with primarily single family houses and have some duplexes mixed in, and it's not going to destroy the neighborhood.

It's going to increase the housing supply.

It adds to the character of the neighborhood.

It's also, especially these days, I understand that there are some trends, some correlations.

Now more than ever, we're even seeing many single family houses being bought up, rented out, whether it's Airbnb or long-term rental.

And we see a lot of that, of course, with duplexes as well.

But with duplexes, we also see the trend of a family being able to buy a house, live in that house on one side of it, and then rent out the second side of it in order to afford it.

And there you have it.

Owner occupied residential housing.

Not that we should necessarily be making judgments here, either about ownership, v rental.

Neither one of them is immoral.

Just saying.

So here we are in a housing crisis.

We have a city that is already very much built up.

And then we also have various state laws that are affecting our local housing stock as well, with accessory dwelling units.

So we effectively have de facto two family housing by state law.

Except a lot of the cumbersome nature of accessory dwelling units is that they wind up having to conform to some pretty odd rules and the like, which I think are gonna just be a bit of a regulatory mess and the like.

So for all of those reasons, I don't want to keep going on about the morality of duplexes.

For all of those reasons, I think it's important that we keep this as it is, as to the duplexes.

After all, we're in a housing crisis here.

Let's not be adding to any of that.

Those changes are perfectly fine with me.

They seem to be well thought out, well reasoned, and I would support those two other items.

So after discussion, I would intend to introduce an amendment to uh remove the changes, proposed changes to the duplexes while keeping the other two reforms.

Thank you.

All right, so before we get to council people first, is there anyone here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning amendment?

Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning amendment?

Michelle Comar, good evening.

I live in ward one.

Well, I've had an opportunity to rub elbows and get into the trenches of people that are affected by this without the change going forth that we need.

We need it because people are affected mainly in ward six.

I have friends out in ward six that are that do speak forward about this.

We had a meeting at the planning board level, and there were objectors there where there was one existing house.

The developer came in because I'll just call this this loophole and put four family units in.

One family, same property, four families.

And they were very aggressive in getting it done before this change came before you, such that they're not gonna wait.

And the moratorium on a new road pavement and do new, and no cuts are allowed, they're gonna put propane gas there because they don't want to cut the pavement and go through the gas company and the moratorium on new pavement.

They're in a hurry to put up these units.

This is a loophole that didn't exist at one time, and it unadvertently just came and it was overlooked, and we need to repair what was there before.

That's all this is.

Now I do read the province journal about our housing crisis, and it's reported over and over again.

Rhode Islanders don't have enough income to buy the new houses.

That's in, and they had a list of municipalities that includes Warwick.

It's people from out of state are coming in to buy our new houses.

So all we're doing is replacing Rhode Islanders with out of state people.

No offense, that's fine.

I have friends that live in Massachusetts as well.

As the point is the people that live in Warwick are going to be displaced.

I don't know where we get this concept.

There is a housing shortage.

Is Rhode Islanders can't afford the homes that are here?

There's nothing in our zoning ordinance that says, oh, we have to have these duplexes be affordable housing.

I think the affordable housing definition may not catch a lot of Rhode Islanders.

May not catch a lot of people in Ward 6 that want their kids to live in the same place they grew up.

This is a needed repair.

It's a repair.

Now I get calls from people who live in these places.

They're affected by this, and they know I've lived in the city for 20, 25 years.

So I reached out to as many people as I could to come here and tell their experiences.

But to see one house being replaced by four, you know there's going to be added traffic impacts that are not really considered.

If you just say we can allow duplexes anywhere, so the whole density of the city can change.

Nobody's talked to the sewer authority, at least at the last planning board meeting when one of these projects came up on ward six.

Are we increasing the sewer capacity beyond what can be handled in each substation?

These are all unknowns.

So I'm in favor of this ordinance amendments.

Um, the fence amendment is is great.

Um I'm in support of that as well, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning zoning zoning change?

Hello.

My name is Roberta Ridoni, and I agree with her.

I actually live in ward six on Pinehurst Avenue, and there are two duplexes going up on one lot, so that's four families, and it used to be one family house.

So I'm concerned about that.

Okay.

Can you just do us a favor and repeat your name?

My apologies.

Roberta Idoni, I live at 54 Pinehurst Avenue, and the two duplexes are on one oversized lot at 73 at the corner of my street.

And I moved into the neighborhood because it was a nice quiet neighborhood, and now there's going to be four families on one lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning modification?

Is John's here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning modification?

Is there anyone that's here to speak in favor of the proposed zoning modification?

Is anyone here to speak against the proposed zoning modification?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposed zoning modification?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposed zoning modification?

Is there anyone here who just wants to speak on the proposed zoning modification?

So neither yay nor an A.

Anyone else here to speak on the proposed zoning modification?

Anyone else here to speak on the proposed zoning modification?

See none.

Can someone move to close the public hearing, please?

So moved.

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

All in favor.

Mr.

President.

Pardon?

We still have so we're gonna go to the council right when the public hearing closes.

So all in favor of closing the public hearing?

All opposed.

You're gonna make me do the other one.

Before we close.

Before we close.

All right.

So public hearings here by closed.

So now Council President, if the council would like to entertain uh a motion to uh fix the grammatical errors as read into the record page one line 44.

So moved.

So this is just to fix the two grammatical errors noted by Solicitor Walsh.

Councilman Rick says made a motion for such, seconded by Councilman Gebhardt.

All right, the clerk would please call the role on that.

This is just to do the grammatical changes.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuiz, Mr.

Bowling, Mr.

Gapot.

Yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Buddha, yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

All right, very belatedly now.

Councilman DeLuis.

My timing is impeccable.

Sorry.

All right, we'll go to Councilman Latisser first.

Thank you.

So director, what is the problem that you're trying to solve with this change?

I think that the duplexes that are being proposed that I'm seeing in the different neighborhoods in Warwick are a bit out of character with what's there historically.

The development is a bit too dense.

You had a couple, I think, in your ward, if you remember last year, it was contentious.

Contrary to what Councilman Rix has said, I am seeing people buying houses.

Ward six has a lot of old housing stock that hasn't changed in 80 years.

People are buying up those homes and they're proposing duplexes on small lots, and it's kind of a shock to the neighborhood.

So we figured we would put back the table that was in the zoning ordinance to begin with.

And we're we're building housing units.

So I think I think it'd be good to put it back.

And with respect to an ADU, if an ADU is added on to a single family home, will this now classify them as a duplex?

No.

Okay.

No.

And to get to your first question, councilman, uh, and for the audience, you know, by way of example, the table we're putting back in, uh you you're considering for that anyway.

In the A7 zone, 7,000 square foot lot, minimum lot size, the table would require 105, 10,500.

A 10 requires 15,000, a 15,000 square foot lot in an A15 would have to be 225.

And then in the southwestern portion of the city, which is primarily suburban single family, the A40 zone, you would have to have a lot size of 60,000 square feet.

So just you know, over an acre, an acre is 43,560.

So you'd need 60,000 square feet to meet the special use permit standard to put a duplex there.

Just by way of keeping special use permits with the planning board, it's still gonna go faster.

I mean, to come to the council and do zoning change amendments every time you propose a duplex, that takes three weeks just to advertise it, it's gonna take two months just to get through here.

That's still off the table.

The planning board will still review these as special use permits, and I think that's a good thing.

That's accelerating housing construction consistent with what councilman Ricks wants.

I just think that this table would make it a little more in keeping with the neighborhoods that are primarily single family.

Um, as we try to do that.

So I just want to reiterate if someone puts on an ADU, it will not be considered a duplex.

No, that's an ADU.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Councilman Gebhart.

Uh, thank you, Director.

Um, just a quick question.

Is um is the inclusion of this table in any way inconsistent with any of the new state housing laws that that govern this type of activity?

No.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman DeLuis.

With all due respect, Councilman Ricks.

Um, I have to disagree with what you said.

I was on the zoning board for six years.

Um a lot of times, approvals that shouldn't have been approved, possibly got approved.

And uh it's just time that developers, I believe they try to put these giant houses on postage stamp uh lot sizes, 3500 square feet, 4,000 square feet, and you know, the the use of the land is it says not for profit, but nine out of ten times uh these these houses and multifamily units are for profit.

I mean, that's what developers do.

So I uh respectfully um disagree with what you've said.

I think I like the table, and hopefully it works.

Councilman Napo.

Thank you.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Was was your test?

I wasn't here at the previous council when this was removed.

Is this the exact same table that's going back into the ordinance?

Yeah, it is.

No, the contemplation of excess size needed for a duplex that seems to be about like one-third extra the original space, so zone space third.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

Now given that this is slightly extra.

Well, not slightly 50% more space needed to qualify under this table.

What was the justification for removing it the first time?

Because I doubt that it was just inadvertent.

No, it wasn't advertent.

The what we dealt with that night on 12, 20, 23, was the entire legislative changes.

We made a ton of changes to the zoning code and taking duplexes out of PDR again, away from the council, having to essentially bother you with the duplex every other month.

Everyone agreed, yes, let's bring it to planning board as special use permit.

The table wasn't carried over with it.

Unless councilman, you knew that and you didn't want the table in.

I don't want to speak for you.

Maybe that's okay.

Okay.

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, yes.

If fine, it was incredibly intentional.

So when you have a special use permit request before a planning board, there has to be particular standards in the special use section.

I'm simply trying to put this table back into that section so the planning board has the ability to deny them in certain circumstances where they feel it's appropriate to do so.

Absent of that, we have to just default to the zoning minimums, A7 and so on.

And if they can fit these things in there, then they'll they'll be approved.

So without this table, did the zoning board not have the ability to disapprove a duplex application?

Um, the zoning board had the ability to do so when the table was in place, but in the context of a PDR, though, at that time, zoning never saw these.

They go from planning board.

Planning board gives the advisory recommendation to the council to make the zone change.

They handled as a zone change every time.

So it was the planning board dealing with them, not so much the zoning board at all.

I I suppose I misspoke.

Did the planning board have the ability to disapprove a duplex?

No, not without this table in there.

No, so there was no disruption.

It was just right.

There's no, it's it this table serves as the primary you know, special use permit standard now, dimensional standards that we hope to put back.

There's a number of these in the queue that you haven't seen.

Um you may have seen some housing demolition on certain properties.

Um there's a number of these already approved that you'll see off of West Shore Road that are gonna be built.

I have um two relatively significant applications in my office now that are have already been submitted because of this change is coming.

So it's uh it's an active application, if you will.

We see these duplexes a lot.

So we just thought my staff and I thought we should put the table back because things are kind of every time we have a meeting with these, it's a bit of an eruption in the neighborhoods.

So we're just trying to uh maintain the community character.

A lot of these neighborhoods are single family neighborhoods, you know, they never don't even have any duplexes in them.

I think that's kind of the shock.

So when you see a number of them coming, it's it's a it's a bit of a shock.

I know how much housing the city is building, so I'm comfortable.

I can stand there and tell you we have a lot of housing units that have come online that are gonna come online, even if we make this change, it's not gonna stop duplex development.

In the A10, A15, and A40 neighborhoods, how many?

I don't know, you probably don't have an exact number, but are there a fair amount of lots that would conform to these minimum lot areas needed, or does this effectively exclude those properties?

I'm looking, I mean, I think specifically for the A15 and the A40, those are massive lots, especially the A40, 60,000 feet is this is a number in the A15 and A40 as well.

I think we're seeing it in the A7 and the A10 so much because those are the zone districts where you have the older housing stock, Oakland Beach neighborhoods, uh where it's worth buying a house and just knocking it down and putting up duplexes.

You're not going to see that so much in the southwestern part of the city with the A40.

Okay.

Thank you.

To clarify, if there is a an undersized lot, let's say it's in an A7 zone, whether it's 3,000, 4,000, even say 6,999 square feet undersized.

Can a duplex rather I'll rephrase that in any type of undersized lot?

The uh the board would have the ability to reject a special use permit, correct?

That is under the ordinances as they exist now without this amendment.

Not if it conforms to all the setbacks within that respective zone district.

And you can fit a duplex in there.

So lot size as so are you saying that the lot size is essentially meaningless so long as the setbacks are met.

The problem is it's required by special use permit now.

So absent of any standards, the board really has to approve these.

So to clarify, if the lot size doesn't matter, then what are we even doing here with this?

I think my position is.

I mean, we can deny them, but they'll be appealed and we'll lose every single time because we have no standards and special use permit.

Well, we do have standards.

A7, 7,000 square foot minimum.

So you're asking us for a change to the lot size because then why allow it by special use permit?

Just make it by right.

Councilman, you have 30 seconds left.

Thank you.

So this is the way to have some sort of enforcement mechanism to trigger a hearing in front of the board.

And the board has discretion.

If the person is asking legitimately for a variance, the board does not have to automatically grant a variance for an undersized lot.

So if we're talking about, and this is a complete counterfactual, uh, if lot size doesn't matter, then why are we even having this discussion whatsoever?

We could bump this up to plus a million percent and everyone gets through, or we could bump it down to uh one square foot, and it would make absolutely no difference.

Of course it makes a difference.

That's why we're here.

And of course it makes a difference that the board has discretion and the board can reject based on a failure to meet that minimum lot size.

So what I'm saying is that if neighbors are having an issue with a duplex built on a postage stamp lot, they should go to the board, and the board already has full authority to reject that under the ordinance as it exists today.

I'll also just add briefly that no, two duplexes cannot go up on a single lot, and there are protections there when it comes to uh subdividing of lots too.

That also has to go through a process.

So I just find this whole presentation, pardon me for this, but it's it's a big old boogeyman.

And that is just smacks of NIMBYism, and that's the last thing that we need baked into these standards when we already have so many restrictions, and I'll just echo myself from the previous meeting a year or two ago when we approved this in the first place.

This is America, people have property rights, and I think that Americans should be able to build a duplex on their own land so long as all of those setbacks and the minimum lot size requirements and all of those are being met.

Let's solve this housing crisis.

Let's let people build on their own land as long as it's meeting all of these other restrictions.

Thank you.

So good news, councilman.

Uh, I misread my timer.

You had more time left.

Bad news, you used that time.

So uh councilman Mudo.

Hi, director.

Uh unfortunately, I I am the recipient of a lot of the undersized lots and the duplex and double duplexes on the lot.

Right.

Will you just clarify for me uh and the rest of the council why we need this change to avoid some of the uh unintended consequences for some of these lots?

Because applicants are making applications to the planning board as a special use permit.

That's how they're allowed right now.

And you need standards and to grant special use permit.

So this is what the table represents.

To councilman Ricks's point, if you all agree with him, just change it to be allowed by right and not special use permit.

Then the planning board can just look at dimensional relief in each respective district.

It's this special use permit type of application that's triggering this.

They either gotta go together, you get allowed duplexes by special use permit with this table in that section, or just make it allowed by right for duplexes, and we wouldn't put the table in the section.

I think that's a fair way to characterize you you can't apply dimensional relief in special use permit circumstances as the only measure of relief.

So by answering your question, yeah, sort of, but then I started seeing Rick's uh councilman Rick has had agree.

Are you agreeing with this?

Well, no.

No, he's not this as it's written.

My suggestion to change duplexes to be allowed by right.

That would be a little why in the use table.

You know, that's one thing.

That's not how it is today.

It's an S today.

And if it's gonna remain an S, we should put this table back in the special use permit standard section of zoning.

So one more follow-up question.

If somebody wanted to build a duplex, they're not stopped by doing it, it's a different process.

Certainly.

Right.

You're not selling me on this.

You gotta sell me.

What's they gotta go?

They gotta go to the planning board for a special to obtain a special use permit.

Okay, under the current status.

Okay.

Thanks.

Councilman Nappa?

Director, if this was changed to make it allowed by right, how would the process change?

If you could just expound upon that just so I have a clear understanding.

Applications would simply go to the zoning board.

Or they can come to the planning board, which can act as the zoning board now under something called UDR unified development review board.

And in that instance, would the zoning and or planning board then be able to use discretion as to whether they approve or deny the application?

Only if dimensional relief was necessary.

But if they needed, you know, side yard setback or something like that.

We we could uh ask the board, you know, the board could not approve those situations.

Would the administration have any opposition to that change that you suggested?

I think you should do it the way I'm asking you to do it here.

I'm not gonna change on that.

But you guys, I think you obviously can do what you want.

Um, that's you haven't I would the you danced around the question.

Would the administration have an objection to that change?

I'm sorry, I'm I'm hard time following from here.

Which change are you asking if they can have an objection to?

The director suggested a change to make the duplex a right by right by right.

So basically the what councilman Rick's wants, you're asking if the administration would object to that change.

All right, I'm with you now.

Sorry.

I mean, I would uh so I can't speak to other people's wards.

I know I can speak to mine.

Uh I know duplexes are uh definitely a point of controversy.

It seems by and large that majority of residents who at least speak up about it in my ward don't want duplexes and will actively fight against it.

And that's not me saying yay or nay on them, I'm just saying feedback given.

Uh and I know no, that it's not a fair comparison, so I won't make it, but it definitely is fair to say that residents do have an aversion, again, at least the residents that speak up to duplexes coming into their neighborhoods for what it's worth.

Councilman DeLuise.

So I just want a clarification.

So if we were to make approval of duplexes by a person's right, would that allow them to put a duplex on a lot that's 4,000 square feet or 3,500 square feet?

No, they need dimensional relief.

Right, but it is possible though.

If they require I've seen, I mean, I've seen things that got approved that you know, because it's it was a person's right for the use of their land, things were approved by the zoning boards by zoning boards.

Oh, yeah.

No, they would have to go to the zoning board to request the relief.

Right.

And to your but it is possible that you could put up a duplex on a lot that's 3,500 square feet.

Yeah.

Well, that doesn't have the problem.

And then you got drainage issues, you have you have a lot of issues.

Yeah, if the boards approve it, yes.

Uh as a dimensional variance.

That's it.

That's all I have.

Councilman Gebart.

Um, now that we're getting further down this road, um, you know, you know, the the majority of of my particular area um runs on septic systems and does not have access to sewers.

Um how does that how would that factor into the decision to approve or deny a duplex on a lot, let's say in Potawamit or something like that.

Um yeah, in those situations, the boards would likely rely upon the DEM approval of the OWTS on-site wastewater treatment system, and if that's granted by DEM, you know, I'm sure the boards would probably look favorably upon those situations because you're not showing an adverse environmental impact.

Yeah, and I think not to I'll go with you know, not to say that anyone's up to anything nefarious, but I think what we see a lot in those applications is all of a sudden a one-bedroom duplex, you know, with two offices gets approved for uh a one-bedroom septic system or a two-bedroom septic system, and then all of a sudden, once it's built and then becomes rented or occupied, now you're stressing the the size of the of the septic system, especially near near coastal, etc.

So I I don't always take complete comfort in you know that DEM approved the septic system based on the information they had at the time, but the use sometimes changes over time.

And um for me personally, whatever puts the most um review uh on these that's permitted um within you know a completely acknowledged councilman rix's perspective that and and not just councilman rix, this sort of statewide perspective that hey, we need more housing stock.

Okay, I'm in favor.

Um, but there are other considerations um in various parts of the city um that that make some of these decisions more more complicated, and I I don't want to open uh it sounds like we opened a bit of a Pandora's box a year ago, yeah.

Um, and it's gotten somewhat out of control, and so um while maybe a creative solution might be what you all were talking about, but adding uh by right, that seems like it could open a second Pandora's box versus now you've had a year of experience based on that experience that you live day in and day out.

You've made a recommendation, you brought the recommendation to us, and you're asking us to authorize the recommendation.

Um is that is that essentially what you're here for tonight?

That's exactly right.

I live this day in and day out.

Yeah, so I I think I think this is a good solid, you know, half measure for today.

And if we want to have a more you know longer, more thoughtful dialogue about duplexes and their place and and how they fit and and what rules we should wrap around them.

I think we should do that.

Um, but I think this is meant to be somewhat more of a uh you know um something that was missed in the prior iteration.

Um that has exposed issues in the process that we need to resolve.

Um and tonight's the opportunity to do that.

So um, I would go with the planning director's uh recommendation.

That's that's where I'm gonna stand on this.

So thank you for all the information.

J just by way of you know, just looking at the existing use uh dimensional table in the A7 district, you only need a side yard setback of eight feet.

So if you allow them by right, you're gonna see a lot of duplexes in the A7, and we won't have to notice anybody because they won't need relief a lot of them, yeah.

All right, so uh do we have so you're out of time, Councilman Rick, so I'm not sure.

I understand.

I was not going to further discuss, but rather move an amendment.

So you'd like to make a motion to amend.

Yes.

And that's to change the from a table to make the table whatever it needs to say to be as a right, correct?

Uh correct.

The by right language.

And I do understand that we're not going to redraft this.

Have that all tidied up this evening.

But I believe that if this is the direction that this council is willing to go, then we may as well move the amendment now, keep the process rolling.

So there was a proposed amendment made.

Is there a second?

Second for discussion.

Second made.

Any further discussion on this that hasn't already been stated.

All right, see none clerk will call the role on the proposed amendment, which would make the duplexes as a as a matter of right as opposed to utilizing the table.

AKU councilman Rick's preference.

Mr.

Snappy, no, Mr.

Delouise, no, Mr.

Poley, Mr.

Gephon.

No.

Mr.

Carving, Mr.

Louds, no, Mr.

Muno, Mr.

Muno.

You said no.

Mr.

Nama.

No.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

One yes.

All right.

So we're back to where we were.

Councilman Foley.

Councilman Foy has moved the question.

We have a second.

Second by Councilman Gephardt.

Any further discussion that hasn't already been stated?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

This is favorable action and a recommendation from the director as amended for the grammatical issues.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Cole, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

All right.

And now we will revert back to finance committee to finish public comment and testimony.

Brian.

Do you need a minute or you're good to start?

Okay, let the record indicate it is now seven twenty-one and finance committee is back in session.

And we had just heard from Mr.

Kaiser.

I didn't know if there was anything further that he wished to say.

I couldn't hear you.

I'm sorry.

I couldn't hear you at all.

I said we had just completed a conversation with Mr.

Kaiser, and I wanted to know if there was anything else further that he would like to say.

If not mayor?

No, Chairman.

We're all set.

Then I would like to hear from I assume Mr.

Craven.

Thank you, Committee Chair, members of the finance committee.

Thank you, Mr.

Craven.

And then once you've completed, then I will ask to hear from uh Director Praja.

Absolutely, sir.

I would like to thank and acknowledge the finance committee and the members of the council for the opportunity to speak on behalf of local twenty seven forty-eight walk five footers.

What we're here today to discuss is the aspects of our fire contract that's coming before you this evening at finance level and at ratification tonight.

What we look for is sustainability when we come to the negotiation when we come to negotiating tables with the city.

All we are looking for is parity with the other public safety unions.

If you look, we negotiate a year after the police department had their contract ratified.

They're the ones who set the pay scales within the city of Warwick for the public safety sectors, it's not the work fire department.

We've established our long-term relationships here.

I've been part of the last six contract negotiations here.

We have seen our benefits remodeled to fit what is good for not just the city and the members of the community, but also works for the members of local twenty seven forty-eight long-term standing.

Um like the people behind me have spoken regards to the contract.

We look at communities around us and what they bring to the table.

What we are looking for is a very fair and equitable contract based on what the communities around us have received over the last year and looking forward into the future.

It is not a um a push or a heavy ask of the community or the council for ratification.

It is just what the members deserve, as they are the second largest city in the state of Rhode Island, the second busiest.

We do our job day in and day out with fair representation for all members of the community here in the city of Warwick, and all we are looking for is to be able to maintain our livelihoods to provide for our families and the services at the city level.

I'd be happy to answer any questions or comments that you may have for me in regards to the TA in the process that brought us here today.

Thank you, sir.

And I want to thank you and your colleagues for meeting with me last week.

We had um rather lengthy discussion on this.

Some of the questions that I'm going to put out there.

Or comments will be things that you've already heard.

And excuse me.

Before I put this first issue forward, I just want to be in full disclosure that with regarding health care.

I have taken it since the day I was elected.

I do pay my 20% copay.

I do not have a 5% cap, nor does anyone else on health care on the council have that cap.

And I would put forth that any bargaining group in this city increase their copay by 5%.

I'll increase my copay by 10%.

Any bargaining group wants to increase it by 10%, I'll increase mine by 20%.

So with that said, has there been any change since the last contract regarding the 20% copay, the cap on prescription drugs, addressing lifetime free lifetime health care for new hires when they retire?

I reiterate new hires when they retire.

And a copay on retirees.

Is there anything in this contract that changes that?

There is not, sir.

If you look at the contract as it stands, we can go back to the history of the fire department and we can look at the fundamental changes that have been made to the health care.

Uh as you've seen when everybody has taken this job, they're hooked.

Most of the members in the room, the healthcare co-pays initially upon stop, was either zero or a fixed rate of 11 across the board for a single or a family plan.

We've seen those numbers increase as the need for the health care to be addressed.

When we speak of the members going forward, we had seen drastic change to our health care when we gave up family health care for our members in retirement.

They have it while they're active.

They no longer have that in retirement.

Now I understand it was in the previous contract, and thank you for making it clear as to what this doesn't do.

In addition to that, um there was no change in the 5% cap on the increase of the copay, correct?

The 5% cap remained in place.

Okay.

Uh co share goes up every year annually, sir.

So I just want to make it clear.

Um, and I'm using round numbers.

Um, perhaps the director can or the personnel director could correct me, but I'm gonna use around number of 22,000 on a family plan, the cost.

And as I understand it, we had an 8.6 percent increase on the cost of health care this year.

That would compute to $1,892 with the 5% maximum increase on the fire department's co-pay.

That $1,892 would only represent $220 on the 4400 that is the copay now, and the rest of it, $1,672 has to be borne by the taxpayers.

The um the parity between the fire department and the police department.

I hear what you're saying, but also something that wasn't pointed out is with parity between the two departments.

Is the police department doesn't have the change of shifts that you the fire department have?

So you know it's let's put out all the parodies if we're gonna put them out there.

Absolutely, sir.

Okay.

I'll address all other parodies if you would like me to.

The police department contract has a lot of other benefits outside of the pay scales.

Sure.

I mean, the very simple basic math is a first-class police officer makes 117.47 cents more than a first-class firefighter on the fire department.

In the last 13 years of contract cycles here in the city of Warwick, the police have outpaced us at 3.5 percent.

That is money that will never come back to the fire department.

In percentage, not in not in terms of percentage, not in gross wages.

Well, 3.5% is reflected in salary increases over the last 13 years.

So, yes, that has a direct reflection to salary, sir.

Okay.

Direct reflection.

As far as other benefits that go beside along with that, if you want to talk about those, there's additional vacation day caps that are in place for them.

There's additional holidays that they reserve receive that we do not, they have 15.

There are additional things that they get like second shift pay differential, third shift pay differential.

We work those shifts as well.

We do not receive that money.

Okay.

On page 51, I had asked you the other day what medical emergency rider was, and you weren't sure what that was.

Have you researched that?

We did look into it, sir.

It seems to be older language that we have not had clarification on at this time.

It's what, please?

We have not had clarification on that, sir.

All the language that has been in place.

All right.

And that's why that has gone unanswered.

Okay.

In this contract, you are calling for a new rescue or an additional rescue battalion.

That is negative, sir.

I'm sorry.

Negative.

There is no additional rescue battalion in the CBA, sir.

In this contract, aren't you?

There is no rescue battalion chief in that CBA.

There's no what do you what are you calling for in here for a rescue?

An additional rescue.

Yes, not a battalion.

This additional rescue, you had explained the other day that it would increase minimum manning by eight people.

Correct.

Okay.

As an operating rescue, not as a battalion chief.

Okay.

I didn't say a battalion chief.

I heard I heard that.

I'm sorry.

No, I didn't I didn't say that.

I said is this is going to be referred to as a rescue battalion.

No, it is not referred to as a rescue battalion.

It is a fifth rescue.

An additional rescue.

And if approved, it's going to require an additional eight personnel.

Correct.

Okay.

Including benefits, et cetera, obviously.

Correct.

Okay.

You also mentioned to me that 80% 86% of the runs in the city are with the rescue.

86% are EMS based.

Okay.

You're striking the language in here of the Boston schedule on a portion of it, which is true.

Just strike that out that it can be no consideration to stop it.

Why?

That language was there for a one-year window that passed at the ratification of the last cycle, sir.

That language has been memorialized, and that language no longer needs to be in there.

So that language can be removed as on the as a shift schedule now reflects what is referred to as the Boston schedule in the 24 hour system.

Okay.

And I also realized that I was on the council when that time frame was occurring.

And admittedly, that had moved on without my recall.

Um curious as to why that wasn't discussed or brought up by the administration.

But obviously, that's too late.

Correct.

With the closing clothing allowance, we're increasing it to 1,100 and an additional 500 on um is it the additional 50 towards the maintenance.

Maintenance and 50 on the clothing allowance.

Correct.

So it's a total of 1600.

Is that is that paid to them in their income?

Is that like a one-time payment as part of their income?

Or is it a month?

I'm sorry.

They receive it in their paycheck.

In a one you asking if it's becomes what's that, sir?

In a one-time 1100 and 500 in one time.

The allowance is received at a separate time, maintenance is received in October.

It's two separate checks, maintenance and allowance.

Okay, and but it is part of their income.

It's in their paycheck, right?

Correct.

If you want to receive it as part of their income, yes.

I'm asking that because I'm going to um revert back to the director to find out or ask if that income was also included in the um fiscal note.

Well, we can also have the language about the gear bags being removed from um the clothing as well.

Gear bags are at a cost to the city as well, and that item has been removed.

Sure.

And additionally 76 pending grievances in regards to that.

So that has a financial cost.

That has an impact on the fiscal note.

Absolutely.

I'm fine with that.

With the issue of the change of shifts.

You had said that instead of using accumulated sick time.

has been removed sure and additionally 76 pending grievances in regards to that so that as a financial question that has an impact on the fiscal note absolutely i'm fine with that with the issue of the change of shifts you had said that instead of using accumulated sick time someone could use change of shifts instead of calling out if they're sick is that correct it is possible to utilize change of shifts for that purpose sir yes there's nothing nefarious or malicious about it substitutions as they are called in the C VA are a contractual right and it's a mutual exchange of time there is no financial cost to the city in regards to substitutions or change of shifts there was a couple of items in the current contract that I had asked you about which um in section nine on page 44 it speaks about fiscal fitness and I had asked who are the members of that committee and are there minutes of the appointments and meetings I recall I said they were not formalized committees correct okay so that has not been formalized.

Excuse me chair you have two minutes thank you um I will yield to my colleagues um on the committee at this point and um circle back when it and if it comes to the floor so I will yield um councilman fully thank you every contract that comes in front of the the council since I've been here I bring up these points because on the council I believe I am the only former union member or I'm sorry the only former union president that has oh moon moodlighting mood lighting um anyways that has better union present negotiated contracts and realize a contract that you TA now is not a standalone that's a contract that has evolved over the last five 10 20 30 years when I was at Davies Career Tech in the union president I taught there for 30 years and after my first eight years I was on either the negotiating team or the union president and negotiated 20 years of contracts understanding that when members talk about health benefits or what percentage you guys you your members are paying that somewhere along the line you did not get a pay raise maybe you asked for five and you got three so that you could keep the benefit that you had the health benefit so that you kept the percentage where it was so that your membership did not feel the pain of skyrocketing health cost as they you know wait for an alarm to go off to go running into a burning building or the police officers and our emts two weeks ago into water that they can't even see in to try to rescue people so it's a give and take over the cost of time it's not a standalone so yes maybe there's a five percent cap on what your health care benefits can increase to but somewhere along the line you might have given up a half a percent of a pay raise well if you do math and you know the effects of compounding if you gave up that half percent 20 years ago today that's not a half percent because that would have been compounded and if you want to read something go google what would you rather have right now in your hand a commitment of a hundred thousand dollars or a penny a day compounded for 30 days and it will show you what you actually gave up I commend you I will be supporting this when it gets to the full floor thank you for your time thank you thank you councilman any other members of the committee councilman mudo thank you thank you noah um and uh I I want to just express my uh gratitude gratitude for the courtesy and the time that you mike and that intern that you have Kyle that how to make friends uh you just to let uh let the folks know I hit the uh I hit them with seventy eight

And I want to just express my uh gratitude for the courtesy and the time that you mike and that intern that you have, Kyle.

That to make friends.

Just to let uh let the folks know I hit the uh I hit them with 78 questions uh throughout the contract.

Um did I agree with everything?

No, but it as a whole, at least you gave me the respect and the time to ask the questions and get answers.

I will share with you, I got none of that from the administration, and we'll be going through that uh very briefly.

I will be submitting it to record the questions I did submit to the administration uh and received no response for.

However, while I have you there, uh two questions.

Um when we spoke about a year ago, one of the considerations or one of the concerns that your body had was the newbies and the loss of the newbies going to other fire departments because of the scaling.

Can you share with me what that uh what that was?

Yeah, I'll happily discuss that.

So we're a fire department that's currently as of today is comprised of 217 uniformed firefighters, three of which are administration, so 214 line firefighters for the city of Warwick.

In our career as firefighters up until the last three years, you never saw people leave the Warwick Fire Department to find gainful employment anywhere else.

Over the last three years, we've saw a great number of individuals come to the fire department, but we've also seen 10 members of the Warwick Fire Department leave to go to other departments and two straight up resign from the fire service.

So 12 people in three and a half years have resigned.

When you look at where a department of 200 will, for ease of use, say that 5% of the fire department has chose to leave.

They're leaving here because of financial strain that they feel in the city of Warwick.

And understandably so, we talk about this contract and the merits to it.

There is the ability to earn better sources of income outside of the city.

So for the first time in three and a half years now, we are seeing members of the Warwick Fire Department choose to go elsewhere to provide their service.

We are losing very good, very highly trained quality people here.

And to lose people like that based on honesty, short money is insane to do in the city of Warwick when we've lost so many, so many good members to Providence.

It's just shameful.

And that just leads me to the question of what happened.

This this has been an issue for you guys for three years.

We're losing uh good people, uh, like you said, for short money.

How come we couldn't address this in this in this concept?

So this contract cycle, if you look at what happened at the 22 to 25 contract, um, and it was a great ass from the city side, we'll say it.

Their savings.

It used to be two years to become a first-class firefighter in the city of Warwick.

That was to get to top step and earn good money.

It's four years to get the first class now.

It's two years and third, two years as second class.

That's a great financial savings to the city of Warwick.

But when you can go to Providence and become a top step firefighter with six weeks on the job, why wouldn't you?

You can make what a first-class firefighter in the city of Warwick makes six weeks on the job in Providence.

We paid for their training, we executed their career path, and then we released them to another city.

Sounds shameful.

Um other question, you may have already answered this, but I have a short-term memory.

On page 63 on miscellaneous provisions, number three, a committee shall be created, consisting of the fire chief or designee, union president, council president, finance director, and so forth for the purpose of this committee to conduct a study of fire apparatus replacement issues.

I would love to say we have an apple and apparatus replacement committee in place.

What we have is a health and safety committee on the Warwick Fire Department that works very well with our fire department administration.

Um, I've been on this executive board for 17 years.

There have been times where we haven't been able to keep up with apparatus replacement.

We currently have a city council, a mayor, and a fire chief that supports us in the purchase of apparatus.

So the apparatus concerns have tapered off a little bit, if you will.

To say that the committee shouldn't be in place.

That's on behalf of everybody in this room, council level, administration level, and union level.

I can tell you the administration on the fire department, they are there.

They work with that the health and safety committee on the war fire department that has a union delegate as part of it.

So if the you know city council want their member on that committee, they should facilitate that.

But we would happily work with anybody.

Um what we're looking at is $800,000 engines that six years ago cost 400,000.

And we make very good budget conscious decisions when we buy for apparatus.

Well, I just looked behind me, and someone I believe gave me eyebrows that says he's interested.

So I would definitely encourage behoove anybody to get involved.

That going forward.

Um, I will actually yield the rest of my time till we get to the administration, but thank you very much for all your help and assistance.

Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um president, I just want to use you to illustrate a point here.

So I apologize.

I'm gonna put you on the spot a little bit.

Nope.

Um, so you had mentioned that we're losing members of the fire department or have lost members of the fire department to other districts.

And my understanding is that because we utilize the state system to train up our personnel, they have the ability to do the lateral slide.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Yes.

At one time, Warwick did have an in-house academy.

Is that also correct?

We did.

Okay.

When we did the in-house academy, were members of the fire department able to lateral slide thereafter.

They were not.

Okay.

Police department just did a successful in-house academy.

Is that correct?

They did.

To your knowledge, correct, they did.

So if Warwick entertained the idea of the fire administration would entertain the idea, and the administration wouldn't entertain the idea of having an in-house academy again.

We could accomplish two things.

One, keeping our personnel in in department because they wouldn't have the ability to lateral slide.

And then two, train them up in a way that's consistent with the morals policies, procedures, and SOP of the work fire department.

Is that correct?

Fair to say.

I would say yes.

Okay.

That's that's my only point.

Um, I'll finish with a couple of things.

I want to recognize the fact that you and your colleagues on the eboard took a significant amount of time to sit down with councilman Ricks and I almost three hours to go through line by line every page of your contract.

And I was impressed by a couple of things.

One, the depth of knowledge that you have in both prior contract negotiations and your ability to articulate the changes and the rationale behind all of the changes line by line of that entire contract.

So I want to thank you for your time that you clearly spend and the efforts that you put in along with the other members of the e board to know you're to have a good knowledge base in what you're presenting and to take the time to actually present that and deliver the information in a way that made us all feel like we could rely on what you're putting out there.

And the second thing, and I echoed this in our meeting, was that I um I support the work fire department, I support all of our public services.

When the work fire department shows up, they're squared away, they deliver a good product, they do it across the board no matter who the patient is, and they do the job right.

Those are some of the reasons why I chose to buy a house here in Morwick.

I've known many members of the Warwick Fire Department for most of my life.

I trust that if they do, and some of them have ever come to my house to deliver care to my family and my children, that it's going to be done to a level to which I expect without question.

I know that's gonna happen.

So I support your contract, I support all the changes you made.

I support the administration's decision to keep us on pace, at least with other communities.

I would hope that the fire administration and the city administration at least considers taking the fire uh the fire academy back in-house.

But you will have my support, and I hope that my colleagues support that uh contract as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Um, just one point of and information.

The personnel supplement states and calls for 225 firefighters.

So when the budget was approved, it was approved for 225 firefighters.

So that leaves room for adding on as well.

We love the union labor, sir.

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Ricks.

And then we'll move to the finance director.

Thank you.

So, first, I would like to thank you and all members of the fire department here.

Thank you all for your service.

I'd also like to thank you.

Uh union as the union president and your leadership team, uh, several members for sitting down with myself and councilman Napa, taking the time to go through the budget.

Uh, that is, I'm sorry, the tentative agreements line by line.

But also, as I made clear at the start of the meeting, before we started opening the packet and going through line by line, I'm going to be focused on the big picture, those bottom line numbers.

Because uh my vote tonight is not going to be determined by items such as clothing allowances or things like that.

All of those add up.

It's important to make sure to have that thorough process, get everything ironed out through the tentative agreement, of course.

And I have completely complete respect for that uh that process.

However, at the end of the day here, I hate to put it in these terms, but like I've said it before, it's really not a matter of what people deserve so much as it is what the city can actually afford.

I'll just give an example.

So the uh in the current fiscal year, the approved budget, uh what I'm let's see, if I have the actually come to think of it, I might not have pulled up the right budget document.

But in any case, I believe that the uh pension contributions on this the city side, not counting the contributions from the members directly, are about a little bit over five million dollars.

The uh the members, of course, contribute as well.

And so, for example, hypothetically here, not going to happen, of course.

If there were no pension, then salaries would go up tremendously, or could go up tremendously if all of that money were redverted.

Of course, nobody wants that to happen.

Everyone wants the pension to be there.

And personally, I think that pensions are entirely appropriate, as opposed to 401ks for uh for employees such as firefighters, and really for every employee who has a pension here in the city of Warwick, I want to make sure that that pension is there, and you get every dime, every single employee gets every dime of that pension that they are entitled to that they were promised, and that those contracts are completely 100% honored.

And so I would pose this hypothetical.

If someone came along from the city and said, okay, we'll have the pension in the contract.

We just won't fund it, but we're good for it.

Don't worry, you can retire and during those many, many decades of your happy retirement.

Don't worry, we'll uh we'll figure it out, we'll pay for it.

Do we have a plan?

Uh a plan as to how to pay for it exactly.

Uh and then they stutter, and it becomes clear that there is no real plan.

It's a matter of kick it down the road.

Kick the can down the road.

Don't worry, they'll they'll figure it out in a decade or two.

Where I'm going with all of this is that's basically what was going on with OPEB for many, many decades.

We've started to take some steps in the right direction there.

But similar to pensions, OPEB, retiree health insurance.

Members are depending on that just as they all do and should depend on their pensions to be there, because the city made a promise, put it in the contract, and that's part of the bargain here, just the same as salaries and any other benefits.

But for so many decades, it simply was not being pre-funded.

And so then the liability grows and grows and grows, and uh according to the actuaries, I think we're getting up to about 300 million dollars unfunded on that.

300 million dollars.

But yeah, the city has the ability to go ahead and fund that.

Uh, we're paying as we go, and you know what?

If that was the only thing we were paying as we go, we'll be fine.

But it's not the only thing we're paying as we go.

We also have all of these hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds and hundreds of millions of dollars in other different pension unfund unfunded or pardon me, underfunded liabilities there too.

And that adds up.

And that adds up I think depending on the precise measurement and accounting standards, we're getting close to a billion dollars in underfunded long term liabilities.

And so it seems to me we really need to have a plan to pay for this because just like that crazy ridiculous example that I gave out earlier of okay someone's gonna try to sell a bill of goods here you'd laugh in their face you'd say you're telling me I'm gonna get a pension but don't worry we don't have to pre-fund it that's a farce anyone would call that out.

But something similar is going on here to a little bit of a lesser extent but dangerous all the same with the lack of proper funding for OPEB.

Right now we're at two thirds of one percent I have a major problem with how all of that happened because if the contingency had been met the last time around the last time that we approved the contract the city council that is and I voted for the contract that night January 30th of 2023 and I watched that video and anyone can pull that video up on YouTube and I asked President Carrero a series of questions that I had sent to him days in advance and he was being a little bit cagey with me.

I I couldn't quite understand it because it seems that everyone was on board and the contingency should be met.

Councilman you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Lo and behold the contingency wasn't met and here we are with two thirds of one percent coming in for OPEB instead of it being at the two percent level and I would have hoped that in this contract we would be able to build on that to get it to say maybe four percent and that way if the pension excuse me the OPEB funding funding for the retiree health insurance is coming in it's becoming more sustainable it doesn't wipe out that mountain of hundreds of millions of dollars that's continue going to continue to grow but we start to stop that leak there as to funding from current active employees that's the way that we'll at least start to address all of this but if we're not making meaningful meaningful progress there if we're not going to fund something then why do we expect to have that benefit there in retirement it seems to me that if it's not going to be funded the last thing that I want to do here this evening is to cast a vote for a benefit a promise contractual commitment that all of you all of you firefighters are going to have retiree health insurance as it says in a contract fully knowing that there is no plan here there is no plan here I cannot in good conscience vote to ratify this tentative agreement because there is no plan and I don't see a pathway being plotted here to get us to a place where we can have any level of certainty that the money is going to be there.

I refuse to do that one minute thank you.

So I do have a question for the administration on this please tell me is there a plan here other than pay as you go please pause my time while the question is answered.

Well the administration in cooperation with the uh council several years ago going back to the uh first uh contract the now expiring um buyer contract established the first foothold in OPEB obviously that's the plan and we have funding level at this point that by the end of 20 uh eight will be at two percent um so we phased in to make it lessen the blow annually on the employees by not taking the two percent um uh out of out of wages the first year but just you know the one third one third one third so it would be two percent at that point uh our actuary presented a um uh pension slash OPEB plan uh and an ordinances that were uh adopted uh year or so ago uh showing how we could smooth both a pension plan demands annually to two and a half percent and uh equally fund OPEB we shifted from the initial uh uh exclusively administration uh or city appropriation to opeb obviously gradually being bases I indicated that's the plan there's also in that plan um based on pension actuarial analysis that there's gonna be a drop off in some of those

We shifted from the initial uh uh exclusively administration uh or city appropriation to opeb, obviously gradually being based as I indicated.

That's the plan.

There's also in that plan, um, based on pension actuarial analysis that there's gonna be a drop-off in some of those uh city funded plans um based on you know what the uh requirements would be going on in the future of several million dollars under the uh the actuaries uh uh uh plan that freed up pension money was to go into OPEB to give a another boost to um the the funding of uh of OPEB.

So, yeah, that's the plan at this point in time.

Every contract, no one can speak to this as well.

We negotiate again.

You're suggested four percent, maybe is a more uh uh viable number in order to shorten the period where we reach some 50 percent level of OPEB.

25 years down the line.

This is a long, long-term plan.

Uh, but uh we made the first steps, and uh that's how we're proceeding at the present time.

Follow follow-up question, with all due respect, it's not a plan, it's a half a plan.

We used to receive a five-year forecast showing, okay, if we have a vanilla budget, this is what the anticipated tax increases would be.

As part of the plan, did the actuaries present uh to us any numbers as to anticipated tax increases.

I I did uh councilman roots, I didn't quite hear that.

So years ago, we received a forecast five-year forecast with anticipated tax increases necessary to maintain city services, it's uh debt service, et cetera.

The actuaries never presented to us, the city, city council, any of those forecasts as to the taxes we would need to raise to conform to this plan, correct?

Uh no, I don't I don't believe that that's the case.

Last five-year forecast that was provided by uh uh director uh Schaeffer would have included the actuarial uh projections uh that our actuary had provided to us.

So I think it did.

However, unless councilman, councilman, your time is up.

Uh motion for three minutes.

I'll make a motion for three extra minutes.

We have a motion, we have a second.

All in favor.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Three minutes, councilman.

Thank you.

So that plan that plan did not look at the rest of the city's budget, correct?

Yes, it did.

Why to have an obvious?

Yes, but I'm saying the actuary did not look at uh uh did not prepare a final financial forecast for the citywide.

He prepared a plan showing us what the uh projected requirements would be for pension and OPEB funding going out six or seven years.

That um projection was utilized by the uh uh finance director in his uh uh last five-year forecast as to what the one of the demands would be on the city's uh annual uh expenditure requirements.

So it was it was blended in uh by virtue of having that projection available.

So, you know, I honestly I'm just gonna make a statement here.

You don't have to answer this.

I can completely understand why we are no longer doing what we used to do in terms of getting those numbers back because the numbers were scary and depressing, and we no longer like to be told negative things because it makes us sad and it makes us realize how deep we are into this.

My God, they used to tell us we had actuaries come in front of us telling us that as a technical matter, term of art of accounting, we are beyond the point of no return.

And that's depressing, and that's scary, and I don't think we want to hear that.

So we stopped asking them.

That's not a plan.

We have a half a plan, but you know what?

It's not a whole plan unless you look at all sides of the ledger.

So moving on.

God, I am not going to promise and sign my name on a commitment that benefits are gonna be there when I have zero confidence that we actually have the money or the plan or the wherewithal to get there.

I am not going to promise and sign my name on a commitment that benefits are going to be there when I have zero confidence that we actually have the money or the plan or the wherewithal to get there.

One more question to the uh uh to the finance director.

So page three of the introduction to this year's fiscal year 2026 budget.

I'm reading from the third page.

It says, quote, uh, this is from the mayor's address.

Councilman, one minute.

Thank you.

In fiscal year 27, it is likely that debt service will increase by at least another eight million dollars.

A maximum tax increase.

That's nine million dollars more or less, right?

Correct.

And we have other contractual commitments and the like, and inflation is a thing, and health care inflation is a thing too.

So are those all gonna add up to more than a million dollars?

Uh fiscal year 26 to fiscal year 27.

I mean, it's it's a rhetorical question.

I'm sorry.

The answer is yes.

Yes, of course, the city's budget is increasing.

And yes, of course, that eight million dollars that I refer to just reading the mayor's budget presentation from earlier this year, that does not even include any additional money to the schools when we know that they're gonna be coming to us looking for money.

We have various other contractual commitments, health care costs are going to go up, so on and so forth.

So I'm not sure that we can even afford this contract, unfortunately, within the three years here without being put in a position of going to the General Assembly to shamefully beg them for additional authority to increase taxes on the citizens of Warwick.

Councilman.

Unfortunately, we can't afford this.

You deserve it.

We can't afford it.

I don't see how.

Thank you.

I speaking about some subject matter, Councilman Rick.

Sure.

Sure.

Just identify yourself again for the record, please.

President Local 2748, Noah Craven.

So you brought up a lot of issues in your in your speech, gentlemen.

Um, going back to we'll say the pension systems and the OPEBs, and we can address those fundamentally throughout the time change that has occurred in the fire department since 1992 when they went away from pension one to pension two.

The system was addressed, it became a closed fixed number, fixed rate pension system.

Pension two is reflected by an actuary every year.

The rates go up, the rates go down.

We all know rates never go down.

In 2012, the city tried to implement pension two tier two.

It didn't come to fruition for the fire department until 2018-19, the year we went to arbitration and we agreed to the terms in pension two tier two.

That changed again the benefit for all of our new members in the room.

The percentage that they're allowed to get is less.

The percentage of time they have to be here is longer.

You're talking about these issues after not being addressed in your you use the word danger, sir.

This is not a danger situation.

What all of the uniform firefighters in this room room do day in and day out is danger.

They put their lives on the line for the city for the promise of what's contained in their CBA.

1992, we addressed it.

2012, we readdressed it.

We continue to address it every year when the actuary comes back.

If I looked to finance and asked them today, if it's in the ballpark of 88% funded, Gabriel Rhoda Schmidt, is it 88%?

Give her 85%, one of the top three four in the state of Rhode Island.

Warwick has consistently with the members of this council, the city, finance, the mayor's office, and the unions addressed these issues.

We've held our line, and we've gave the benefits up along the way.

You mentioned the OPED, and you make us sound like we didn't do our due justice in the 2022 to 2025 contract.

The language as it reads, when the other unions contribute at least two percent.

You know what we did when the mayor's office called and said we want this rolled out sooner than later?

We went back to our members and we asked for a vote, and we sold to take more money out of their pockets two years earlier than they had to stop this OPEP.

And you're telling us the issue is not being addressed.

The issue is being very heavily addressed, it's being addressed before the fire department even has to address it.

I can tell you in 2012, the walk fire department approached the city in negotiations and talked OPEBs.

2015, it was brought up again.

2018 in arbitration, it was brought up.

The language wasn't squared away.

Look at that contract, it was in there.

2022 to 2025, it was implemented.

All unions are on an equal page because the plan that the mayor utilized to get us all to roll out to get to that 2%, so that nobody was left out, standing alone without an OPEB in place for them.

2% is an ass.

When you look at communities around the state of Rhode Island, as far as the big three go, Providence, Warwick, and Cranson, you know who has a percentage?

Warwick.

Providence doesn't even have an OPEP.

Mr.

Craven.

Could you just wrap it up, please?

I'm just addressing the issues that he had, and to address the fact that these long-term problems have been addressed over the last 20 to 30 years, if not longer, with the restriction of our benefits, both health care and pension-wise.

The line is there.

We've towed it.

You've supported us.

You've done the right thing.

And I have faith that you'll do it again, sir.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman D Louise.

And after Councilman D Louise seeing no other lights, we will call for the finance director.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I don't have any questions.

Um I just like to uh thank you and your colleagues for meeting with me and other councilmen.

Um just to clarify.

I had some issues with certain questions, and the clarification was it it was good for me because it it helped me.

So for that, and I admire what all you people do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

I would just like to thank you all for the time that you spent with us.

It goes both ways, and we do appreciate it.

And Councilman Nalatosa, thank you for and Latisaw.

Councilman Foley, thank you for your union work, sir.

Heavily appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Um, I would like for you to speak to the fiscal note, please.

Uh, I think Bruce actually spoke to most of it.

Um there were the biggest components of this, of course, are salary.

I'm sorry.

Salary is the most costly component of this contract.

Um, there is a raise on July 1st, January 1st for the next three years.

The first year being 3%, then one and a quarter, three or a quarter, one and a quarter, repeat.

Um there's also a component increased with the uh clothing maintenance, clothing allowance.

And there's a large component involved in the OPEB contribution that goes up to two percent by the end of this contract by the end of this three-year contract.

I'm estimating the cost will be about 2.8 million dollars of added expense.

Director, does this fiscal note include the step increases that each get it does?

The way that the where does it show it in this?

The assumption, well, the assumption is that there were 225 employees per budget.

There's currently 219 to kind of factor into for any attrition.

We've I put in this four percent vacancy rate, which the previous finance director used as well, and was a number that I thought made sense.

The step increases are built actually into the budget.

Everything is built from this year's budget.

And does this fiscal note that we have in front of us does it include sick days?

Yes, it does.

Yes, okay.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Muto.

Thank you.

First, thank you for actually standing up and asking some answering some questions.

Okay.

Uh, first thing I want to do is enter into the record.

Uh, several attempts to ask these questions uh prior.

Um was repeated that we have total confidence in the notes.

So let me ask you a couple of questions more of yep, just says see completeness and accuracy.

All right, let's start with completeness.

That's a real easy one.

So when we look at the clothing allowance, why is there no clout clothing allowance in uh fiscal year 27 or 28?

Uh this note is about the increase from year to year.

So they don't they only get an increase on the first year, not the second year and the third year.

It's just the first year, so it's not added on top of that.

Okay, all right.

Even even though it's an additional well, they don't get an additional increase in the other years.

So your base salary of 19 million.

So I'm looking at second column base salary of 19,597.

Where did that number come from?

Budget.

Yep.

Before or after the increases, pardon?

Before the increases or after the increases?

Before.

Before?

Okay.

If you look at the budget, that's actually the after.

The before number is doesn't represent that.

So let me get that for you.

So when you look at page 23 of 35 of the uniform fire budget of 2025-2026, the annual allowance for that fiscal year is 19 million five ninety-seven eight thirty-one.

So that would so that would equate to that was after.

That was that was before the raise per contract.

This was no con no raise.

I fact checked it by pulling current salaries for current employees.

But the budget you put in the what was in the budget that we approved was 19 million five ninety-seven eight thirty-one.

So you're telling me that the budget number that we approved in May is lower than what your projections are.

What our our bud our budget is 19.

Yep.

597.

Yep.

Yeah.

And that was about without the.

No, you didn't find a typo because the 26 base on July 1st without raises is that amount.

And I went and proved this all out with the if so you're on page 23 of the personnel supplement.

Yep, 23.

And I and this represents 2025 to 2026, right?

The full fiscal year.

And the full fiscal year dollar is 19 million five ninety-seven eight thirty-one.

So are you telling me that is the number as of July 1st, 2025 or June 30th, 2026?

It's the same thing because no raise was enacted on July 1st.

But your budgeting, so you're budgeting the 19 million dollars for the fiscal year in the HR.

Without a raise.

Without the the raise is in the budget, it's actually um on page.

Do you have a budget document in front of you?

It is page.

What page?

I have page page 42 of the budget document.

Page 42.

Okay.

Which line there's a line 75 198 city contractual obligation.

That's the line where we budget for any potential um contract.

So this year there's there's 500,000.

Last year there was one million, and that was for the police and the municipal contracts.

Okay.

And that is a reserve forin that so what you're telling me is that the personnel budget for the fiscal year does not include the full budget.

There was no contract signed.

So not knowing what the raise may be, we budget in the personnel supplement, like there is no raise.

But at the end of fiscal year 25, which would be the beginning of fiscal year 26.

If you go back to that budget, that number is different than what you put there.

So when you're looking at the budgets, it looks like there is an increase in the personnel budget.

So okay, you are on page 22 of the budget looking at the projected for the year end of 25 on 35105.

Is that where you are?

I am at page 23 of 45.

Yeah, so that does say 17,842.

Projected the budget, the prior year for the same year would have been 19.4.

So with 26 being 19.5, that's a hundred thousand dollar difference.

Is that what you're talking about?

No, that's not.

Um let's see.

It would have been really nice if we could spend the same number of hours that the um at the fine uh the fire department said uh gave us so we can go over line for line.

It's very difficult to do in six minutes, but I know that is your plan.

Um the other uh let me just move on with a couple of other items.

Can you explain why OPEB is a negative versus a positive?

Uh it's it because it's a dot, it's a deduction off paychecks, as you are aware of, but also means we will contribute, you know, we have our required contribution through the actuaries for the OPEB.

The plan is to offset that with this contribution, so it actually pulls the OPEB contribution down a little bit because this offsets it.

So that to me that uh says that you have already put money or you will put money into OPEB, and this will deduct from that.

So make the make the numbers round half million dollars, city puts in this the firefighters put in half that would show a negative, but I don't see a contribution by the city to offset that negative.

The contribution for the city in the budget is over in I think 85 page page 44 of your budget document line 85196 OPEB trust funding.

Awesome.

Awesome.

All right, so again, my question is is this a decrease in what we've paid in the past?

So is it truly a decrease, or is it an increase on the employees side?

I mean, it's it's both.

There's a there's the deduction that's what comes off employee checks, but like I said, that offsets what the city agrees to fund in OPEB.

Okay, all right, and can you share with me your approach to uh you say you didn't use a straight line of the 3.6438 percent, and you were able to take into account uh the um the step payments on page 47.

Councilman, you have two minutes, yes?

I'm sorry, we'll don't take that time because I have to repeat.

So you're I'm stopping here.

You are you sure?

Okay, I'm gonna ask for 10 more minutes anyway.

So uh the question is your salary approach averages out to 3.6438 percent, pretty much uh first year than 3.8953 percent the next two years, it's more of a straight line approach.

You're claiming that you took it out at the personnel level that included the step increases, and the step increases would naturally be higher when you include them of the overall percent that you have for the increase in salaries.

So my question to you is how are the step increases calculated to uh you know in that in that uh in those dollars of 78,008 seven thousand and ninety thousand when it just reflects pretty close to just a standard increase of the June and January one minute.

So the way that I I calculated this out, I did not take each individual employee and track out exactly where they were gonna go on in their step.

What I did was I did it in a in a bigger crayon approach and took the budgeted amounts with the idea that we have a younger group that have come in with the safer grant.

I know the pile of retirements that are in personnel right now.

So anybody going up a step is actually filling a vacancy going forward.

So I did not use the minutia of taking exactly every single employee and figuring out what step they go up to every single second.

When we prepare the budget, that is one of the steps that we do.

So to double do that was not, I did not find it material to go through each individual employee with their start date and their end date.

So what your administration, what the mayor's administration is claiming, is that the rigidness that we are putting in on the school department to fix and to adjust for benefit steps, health care, and all that good stuff is not being followed by the administration.

We absolutely do that through the budget process.

We go through with a fine-tooth comb.

Okay.

Well, we'll we'll see on May.

Last question.

Um health care.

Why wasn't health care included?

Did health care go down?

There's no this contract does not impact the cost of health care.

Does health is health care increasing in cost?

Probably.

But the co-share is remains the same.

Yeah.

That's saying so.

So it does not increase the cost.

But of course, healthcare is an increase in cost.

So what you're saying to me is a fiscal note is not taking into account all of the implications to a budget.

The fiscal note is about all the financial implications of the contract.

And the health care is independent of that.

It's independent of that.

Okay.

I mean, it's relevant to our health care bids and and all of that, but it is not.

There's no change to health care for this contract.

Okay.

I'll yield.

Obviously, we're not going to get anywhere with an hour.

Time is up, Congressman.

Director, um, health care from what personnel has recently told us went up 8.6%.

Yeah.

So yeah, healthcare cost of health care did go up.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Gebhop.

This is just the time for questions, right?

We'll have the opportunity to speak again when this comes to the floor.

Yes.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Chairman, welcome.

Good evening, Chairman.

Good evening, Mr.

President.

Good evening to my councilman, Councilman Napa.

My name is Timothy Howe.

I'm award three resident.

Good evening to this honorable body.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, and to your staff and to the firefighters in this room.

Before I begin, some facts I want to make clear and put out there as a point of uh open government.

I served on this council from 2017 to 2025.

During that time, I refused all city health care.

I refused city hundred a city funded pension and did not receive such because I term limited myself to only eight years, where to be vested, it requires 10.

Why did I not recu re accept the health care or the pension?

Because quite honestly, I'm not a hypocrite.

I do understand that there are full-time workers that commit their time and they're put their energy and their profession and their qualifications on the line 24 hours a day in our city to then complain that the city cannot afford health care for basic services.

Local government has many responsibilities.

One of its biggest is the safety of our citizens.

When I served on the council, my number one call was for safety, whether it be traffic studies, whether it be rescue services, whether it be roads that this can be paved so that the rescue service can access the citizens.

Not one phone call was called about the cost of health care that we are paying.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant.

I'm not saying it's not important.

What I'm saying is we have a responsibility.

Health care is a national issue.

And yet, for some reason, here in this council, we just throw rocks at each other and at our employees and at the people who wake up every day and serve our citizens instead of conducting or calling it out to the federal government, to the people who are responsible for ensuring that health care is affordable and safe.

Kind of odd I bring that up at this time during the federal government, correct?

But to beat each other up in this city is kind of like I heard the conversation about we're paying for bonds.

Just a little side note.

When we're talking about the costs and the bonds of the schools, rides the Department of Rhode Island Education has a 2.8 billion dollar budget.

Not one employee at ride walks into our schools and teaches our children.

But yet we're gonna fight and beat each other up in these council chambers, and you all are gonna get accosted for thinking about the future of your children for 350 million dollars, which is a big amount, but 208 billion dollars.

The federal government, 297 billion dollars.

Back to what we're talking about.

These are the things we have to concentrate on.

These are the things we have to look at as a city council.

We have many responsibility.

We have always and the city of Warwick has a high graded, high-rated city services of safety.

Congratulations to the colleagues on the Warwick City Council.

Congratulations to the mayor and to the great citizens, and a sincere and heartfelt thank you to the Warwick firefighters and the Warwick Police, as well as the citizens that serve our country, whether our city, whether it be volunteer services or even the DPW city workers that are working, the people in the library, all the nonprofits, wallet Hub named us the number one safest city in the country.

The number one, we are first in the country when it comes to safety of our citizens.

This is a direct result, the decisions that are being made here today.

Uh emergency response was one of them.

We want, we deserve, and yes, our citizens demand the best trained, best equipped.

I have to open my paper now, and highly qualified first responders to start the process.

For eight years that I served on the council, I would speak to the chief, I would speak to the previous chiefs, and I would say, what is the process?

And honorable members of this council, I can tell you the process from application to being hired and being put on the force and with all the J OJT is one year.

One year it takes for a firefighter to get trained, and then years of learning upon that.

We cannot compare when it comes to health care costs, Mr.

Chairman.

We cannot compare and councilman foley, thank you.

You cannot compare health care that I may receive as an educator in a public school to the health care needed for the fire department.

You cannot compare the health care needed uh for uh any uh contractor, it's different health care needed for the police department, different health care for DBW, different health care for this council.

We are sitting in a chair and we are part-time or the council of part-time workers every day a uniform is put on, and to wear that uniform, there's requirements, there are safety requirements, federal oversight, state oversight, training that is required, certificates that must be maintained.

That burden falls on the city, that burden falls on the fire department.

We are committed to the best trained uniform service that responds to structural emergencies, waterway emergencies, emergency transport.

Uh and we can't forget the big donut in Ward 3, Councilman Knapper and International Airport.

They get so many calls on the international airport that by the way does not pay in to our taxes.

And as of a few years ago, I believe cut $500,000 uh a year of pilot money as they built the cargo facility.

So again, we put a big burden on these firefighters.

We put a big burden on all the services in our city, but to the citizens are moving and flocking to the city by great numbers.

When they said Rhode Island has the highest surgence of house costs, one of the reasons is the high demand in the city of Warwick.

People are moving here because we are taking care of our citizens.

That is your responsibility.

I I'm I apologize if I'm gonna sound repetitive, but I said waterways.

Does anyone know the mileage of waterways?

How many miles?

I chief, thank you for verifying with this this for me today.

How many miles of waterways?

So not only do they have to train on emergency response and on a fire, emergency response within the city, emergency response, um whatever functions going on in the city, they are responding to thirty-nine miles of waterways.

That's a lot of training, that's a lot of time put in.

That is worth the investment.

My initial motivation for running for city council was I did not want to lose the services, besides wanting to have the roads paved.

I did not want to lose the services.

I like the services I pay for.

I like that I make a phone call as a fire station within my ward.

I like that we have nine fire departments.

I like that we have the best equipped, best trained police department.

I like that my city services when it snows, the snow is plowed, the garbage is picked up, and that's why I'm here.

I'm not here.

I'm no longer on this council.

I'm here as a taxpayer, council chairman, as a taxpayer, as someone who wants to keep these city services going.

With that, thank you so much for your time.

And I ask you and I implore you, approve this this contract.

Thank you.

Always good to hear from you.

Always good to hear from you.

Anyone else from the members of the public would like to be heard on this.

Any other members from the public would like to be heard on this.

I know that sort of sounded like good old days.

Second Favorable action to the floor.

Okay.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

No.

I said I.

Okay.

We have three I'm sorry, I'll I'll retract that.

I will move favorable to the floor.

Okay, we're adjourned.

We are adjourned and it is sorry.

What I forgot.

Just on the official record, there was a motion for favorable action.

It was a two-two tie.

It automatically goes to the floor with no recommendation.

It was four four-o.

You did change it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Floral.

Favorable to the floor.

To the floor.

For further.

Thank you.

We're adjourned.

Eight thirty-seven.

Does anybody see film?

Anyone see filming.

There you go.

My mic is dead.

Well, it's it's dying.

Don't tell us that we have a lot of things.

All right.

The full council will go back into session now at eight forty seven PM.

First things first is the consent calendar, PCR one two seven dash two five.

Resolution relative to bids.

Committee recommended favorable action.

For action, Councilman Lattice.

Move favorable action on PCR 128-25.

Second.

All right.

And there was four items pulled out there, which are now combined.

PCR 130-25.

Does anyone have any questions on the abatements minus the ones that were pulled out?

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes.

Mr.

Muto.

Mr.

Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Nine yes consent passes.

All right.

Next to the items that were pulled out.

First bid 2026-229A.

Now PCR 129-25.

This is Councilman Latticer.

Uh, yes, Mr.

President.

That was um the motion from the committee was to hold PCR 12925 till the next meeting in November.

All right.

The request is to hold till November 17th.

Is there any objection to that?

Seeing none so held.

And the other item is PCR 130-25, specifically the abatements of uh Maynard, Midaros, the Papus Trust, and Thompson, Councilman Latticer.

That was uh no, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong one.

What was that one again?

Uh PCR 130-25, which consisted of the abatements of Maynard, Mitterrose, oh yes, trust, and Thompson.

We have um an abstention on that, I believe who is you, Mr.

President.

Yep.

And um move favorable action on the on the motion.

Second, second.

Uh motion made and second in favor.

Any further questions or comments on PCR 130-25?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the role.

Mr.

Snappy recuse.

Mr.

D.

Louise, yes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, Mr.

Mudo, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rix.

Yes.

Yes, one recuse.

Next on to unfinished business, PCR 93-25 resolution amending the rules of the Warwick City Council for the 2025-2026 term.

This is intergovernmental.

Councilman Gebhardt.

Uh asked us to hold this.

Hold is requested till November 17th.

Is there any objection to the requested hold?

Seeing none, so held.

Next is new business, PCR 108-25, a resolution in observance of Native American Heritage Month.

This public properties, Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Recommend favorable action.

For action, Councilman Ricks.

Move favorable action.

Second by Councilman Foley.

Any further questions or comments on PCR 108-25?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes.

Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephawk, yes, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, Mr.

Muto, Mr.

Napa, Mr.

Rix.

Yes.

Nine yes motion costs.

Next we have PCR 126-25.

Resolution ratifying the collective bargaining agreement between the city of Warwick and the Warwick Firefighters, local 2748, IAFF AFL dash CIO for the period of July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028.

This is finance.

Councilman Latticer.

Yes, Mr.

President.

The committee recommended move to the floor favorable for discussion on PCR 126-25.

All right.

So first things first, before we can actually discuss it, we need a motion on the floor.

So is there a motion on the floor?

Or does anyone have a motion in regards to PCR 126-25?

Motion to move favorable action.

Second.

Say that again.

I apologize.

Motion to move favorable action.

There we go.

Thank you.

All right.

Motion favorable action made.

Seconded by Councilman Muto.

So for discussion.

Anyone have anything that has not already been stated.

Councilman Gebhart.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I didn't have any questions earlier, but that doesn't mean that I didn't have uh thoughts.

Um I've been through a number of these contracts uh now, and so uh you know, given that we have uh four uh members of the body that are going through their first uh contract.

I wanted to kind of echo some of uh what we've heard in the past and and some reasons to see some light at the end of the tunnel for the future.

Um so before we get into the details, I just like to thank the members of the administration of the local um for sitting down uh with myself uh and answering all of our questions.

I I appreciate uh that very much.

Um I think it's important to address the or at least to acknowledge the concerns uh that are raised by uh several of my colleagues about healthcare costs, uh retiree obligations, bond ratings, and the city's uh long-term financial health.

Um these are real challenges.

Um, but they're not new, and this contract didn't create them, um, nor will rejecting that rejecting the contract solve them.

I went back and listened to the municipal and police contracts from January of this year, um, into the fire uh contract from January of 2023.

Um the same talking points came up in each of those that we've heard again tonight, that healthcare costs are unsustainable, that our debt threatens our bond rating.

Uh we didn't hear this one tonight, it was on my bingo card, but um, that a state takeover is imminent.

Um, and that we've already reached the point of no return.

Um, but in each case, when we've heard those statements, um, this body went on to ratify fair contracts.

We honored our commitments, and we continued to improve our financial position, including what we have included tonight, which is meaningful progress on our OPEB liabilities.

I was digging through the city's audited financials, which we just had a the auditor come in at our last meeting.

City's bond ratings with Moody's are A1 and with standards and standard and poor is AA.

Unless they're missing something, uh maybe they weren't paying attention to the 10 years ago presentation where the train was off the tracks and we were past the point of no return, but it does not seem to be echoed in their evaluation of our fiscal stability.

Um, usually we hear something about the city's net position, um, which if you were if you flip through the city's audited financials, the city's net position increased by almost 50 million dollars in fiscal year 2024 and 20 million in 2023, um, which are all signs that the steady hand of management in the city is bringing us to a better place.

Would we like it to move faster?

Sure.

But we didn't get to where we are in a matter of one year or two years or five years.

We got here over a long period of time.

And the plan that's in place um will take time to arrive at.

If we want to talk about a fiscal crisis, the fiscal crisis would be failing to ratify this contract.

It would stall the momentum we've built on stabilizing OPEB.

It would send an uncertain signal to the workforce and to the bond rating agencies, and it would risk undoing the predictability that's been key to our recent progress.

Fiscal responsibility isn't about saying no to every agreement, it's about managing our commitments wisely.

And this contract does exactly that.

On the wage side, it's a fair measured plan.

13 and a quarter percent over the life of the contract, just over four percent annually.

Structured, not spiked, it's designed for predictability, right?

We smooth it out over the years.

Umflation has come down from 4% in 2023 to two to three percent today, and national compensation growth for public sector workers remains about four to four and a half percent annually.

So these raises fit right in line with what the rest of the country is seeing in terms of year-over-year wage growth.

One thing, uh, so back at the last fire contract, one of the requests that I had made was this comparison table of the of Warwick Fire to all the other cities and towns across the state.

Um, and they did a really nice job.

It was uh uh former chief of staff Aaron Macasi, I think, uh uh took the the reins on that, but had a lot of help, obviously, from the rest of the team.

Uh it's a really helpful tool if it hasn't been disseminated again this time.

I think even the even though we're gonna vote tonight, I think it's a useful tool just to have um it probably needs to be updated as all these municipalities go through additional contracts.

Um, it probably needs to be updated as all these municipalities go through additional contracts.

Um the pieces, so what you'll find is that Warwick tends to be towards the top in terms of pay, um, but continues to make contributions to the long-term benefits that are part of their package.

Uh, nearly 15% has contributed to retirement costs.

That's that one third, one third, two or one third, two-thirds uh plan that we have that uh director Kaiser talked about last time.

Um, and that's a much more balanced share than you'll find in a lot of other Rhode Island communities.

Uh, and so you know, to to what uh the chief and and to what the union president um have said, I'm sure he said it to you, but one of the things we talked about when we had lunch um was that you know you'll get a new recruit who will sign on in in Warwick because the the off the uh number on the job offer looks great, and then they get their first paycheck and it's deduction to deduct deduction deduction because uh a big chunk of that pay is going to offset the um you know both generous but also contributed to benefits that are part of that package.

Um I'll just close by saying that we've heard the warnings before, yet the city has continued to meet its obligations, maintain our services, and improve our financial standing.

The true risk and the true financial crisis would be to walk away from progress and stability when we finally have both.

The agreements fair, keeps Warwick on the path of fiscal stability and steady governance.

So I would I would urge my colleagues uh to support this agreement tonight.

Thank you.

Councilman Foley.

Seeing no new light, I call the question.

Yeah, yeah.

So there's once everyone's getting the chance to speak, absolutely.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So to briefly address that, the last couple of years, say 2023, 2024, SP 500 returns of over 20% each of those years.

Recently, the city had the benefit of tens of millions of dollars in one-time ARPA funds, as well as on the school side getting those one-time ESSER funds.

Tell you what, if we continue to get ARPA funds forever, and we continue to get 20%, you know, these stock market booms with 20% plus returns for the SP 500 forever, yeah, our problem is solved.

Or the federal government comes along, passes universal health care.

That solves OPEB.

That's a silver bullet right there.

I think Harry Truman was calling for universal health care in the 1940s.

There was an effort in the 1990s with Clinton.

They tried under President Obama, didn't happen.

Let's not count on a silver bullet to save us.

Let's not count on there never being a financial downturn in this country that severely impacts the pensions.

I mean, that's why we don't look at just last year's returns when it looking at the pension funding in the first place.

That's why you look at the returns over an extended period of time.

And so, sure, last couple of years, Warwick's financial position, it's on the right trajectory.

But you know what?

There's a crash, or we start doing average.

Looking at the average, the city is digging itself deeper and deeper and deeper into the hole here.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist.

I was not the one who came up with that technical term past the point of no return.

That was a technical term that the accounting firm, the actuaries that the city previously hired were using to describe what would happen if the city continued on its trajectory of uh of raises and not changing the structure or contribution to benefits that even if we had four percent maximum tax increases every single year, the city would still go bankrupt and the employees, retirees would have the rug pulled out from under them in retirement and not get the full pension and the retiree health insurance that they were counting on.

That even if we had four percent maximum tax increases every single year, the city would still go bankrupt.

And the employees, retirees, would have the rug pulled out from under them in retirement, and not get the full pension and the retiree health insurance that they were counting on, contractually committed to by the city.

And so let's take a longer term look at this.

I can tell you that it is absolutely unsustainable for the city of Warwick, which has an annual budget of under 400 million dollars, including the school side, to have nearly one billion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

That that's the underfunding of the liabilities as it stands right now.

And it continues to get much, much worse with just average stock market returns and the like to the tune of tens of millions of dollars every year.

The whole keeps getting deeper.

I'm not gonna sugarcoat this.

I'm not gonna lie to you and pretend that, oh yeah, everything's fine.

That would be easy for me to take the easy way out on this and say, oh yeah, you deserve this.

Let me put my signature and stamp of approval on it.

Oh, yeah, it'll all be there for you in retirement.

But I don't know that.

Council refrained from saying the same statements you made prior.

Okay, please don't be redundant.

I'll uh I'll move on.

So there was a comment earlier, and uh I actually texted, I hope that you don't mind texted a little with the union president, and uh, you know, I could have I should have had a better choice in words when using the word dangerous.

Uh the the union president, uh he enlightened me on that.

I was not thinking in that context in that moment, and so I apologize.

I don't want to make light of a situation here.

I will tell you that in my day job, I see people and I represent people who they're staring down eviction, they're looking at medical debt, they're trying to pay the bills, and so in my day-to-day life, when I'm talking to people and seeing these kinds of struggles, that's something that's what scares me in my day job, is hearing those stories, and it's very real, and I don't want that to happen to anybody here that they are counting on a certain income, they're counting on this insurance being there in their retirement, and then the city turns around and says, We overpromised, can't do it.

Receiver says we don't have the money, and I'm not confident that we can avoid that unless through the collective bargaining process, we make some of these larger changes to make sure that we're shoring up those funds, and we have a fully baked plan that's looking at both sides of the ledger here, not a half a plan that, oh yeah, if we have the money, then uh here's the plan to pay for it all.

Well, wait a minute, where's the money?

Let's let's go back to having those five-year forecasts.

That's I'll yield the remainder of my time.

Councilman Latticer.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

You know, we can talk about it all night or all week or all month, that doom and gloom is talked about, and it's not here, and the physical failure is is not here, it's never gonna happen.

Um, I think it's more like uh never happened on my watch.

And there's a big difference between whether or not reality is going to show up.

And I think it's pretty easy to understand that if you continue to run up credit card debt and all you do is pay the interest, at some point in time, you're gonna be bankrupt.

We talk about pain.

How about the pain on the taxpayers?

How about the pain on our senior citizens?

How about the pain on our veterans on our homeless?

And it seems like um, oh here we go again.

Yeah, you're right.

Here we go again because I've been saying this for years.

I voted no on the municipal contract.

I voted no on the police contract, and not just once.

And I made it clear years ago that I would not vote in favor of any contract that does not increase the costs of the co-pays on health care, increase the cap on prescription drugs, increase the I'm sorry, eliminate the lifetime health care for new hires.

I never said a word about taking health care away from anybody.

That was never said, was never discussed, and it is not accurate.

Blue Cross recently announced that they are going to be discontinuing a lifetime health care for their retirees because they can't afford it.

Well, I also have to stand tall in front of my constituents, those younger folks, the older folks that live from paycheck to paycheck, that are not experiencing a 34% salary increase over the last six years, that don't have the benefit of free lifetime health care when they retire, who are going to have to pay the bill for this, what is projected as a 350 million dollar school project.

And we'll see if everyone is still in denial when that comes to be.

Wonderful things should happen when you have 38 million dollars of COVID money to spend on things that other administrations and city councils didn't have the benefit of having.

So seeing none, I'll just I'll give my two cents and then we'll call the vote.

It's not necessarily a wise method in the long run.

And thankfully, with that in mind, both the administration and the union have chosen to agree to pre-funding and to continue that effort.

But it is unfair and inaccurate if anyone attempts to state that pay as you go is not an accept it method.

It is, it has been for decades.

Again, it's not necessarily the preferred method or the best method, which is perfectly fair point.

Uh before I forget, I will do want to mention that I would like between now and next fire contract, whether I'm here or not, for it to be discussed as part of the negotiations, the concept of the going back to an internal training because there seems to be a correlation with not just what was mentioned, but also with the rise in overtime, likely due to having members poached posts the external training.

And this was switching in internal training helped a great deal.

So odds are it would help here as well.

Just would like y'all to consider that and talk about it wherever which you choose to.

That any day we were gonna go under, never happened.

In fact, quite the opposite.

Things have picked up based on almost every metric that we are doing better than ever.

And it is odd to hear others state otherwise.

It is fair to point out there are costs on the horizon, such as the new schools, absolutely.

But it would be somewhat foolhardy to pretend that the administration hasn't prepared for that.

And as a reminder, this vote is not a yes on the contract or no, go renegotiate.

It is a yes on the contract or no, go to arbitration, which has a cost involved.

So even if arbitration is utilized, which would be fascinating for the arbitrator to have an agreement before him that both sides already agree on.

But blowing by that part.

More involvement in the process of negotiation, not derailing a contract when it's only up for us for ratification.

If and only if we can demonstrate that we actually should be in the negotiation process.

And the saying the sky is falling every year for a decade is definitely not the way to achieve that.

And for those who are wondering what I mean as far as part of the negotiation process, I'll happily address that elsewhere.

It's not part of today, unfortunately.

But I don't I don't need to state the obvious, but I'm going to anyway.

The contract for what it's worth is a good one.

It's on parity with the police.

People have stated what their expectations are going forward when it comes to OPEB and otherwise, which is both the wise and prudent course of action.

And clerk will please call the vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Bowley.

Yes.

Mr.

Gepaughn.

Yes.

Mr.

Carvey.

Yes.

Mr.

Laza?

No.

Mr.

Milo.

Yes.

Ms.

Nava?

Yes.

Mr.

Ray.

No.

Yes or no.

Fantastic.

On to referral and advertising.

PCO 28-25.

An ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick, Anthony Albany's bridge group LLC, applicants nine post-road, assessors plat 291, lots 31 and 32.

And PCO 30-25, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick, Alexander and Courtney Bucci, applicants 85, Tollgate Road, Assessors Plat 246 lot 191.

On to unanimous consent.

Does anyone have anything for unanimous consent?

Seeing none.

Since there's no further business in front of this honorable body, I move to a doctrine session.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor of going to the docket session?

Aye.

All opposed.

By the way, if I get to you and you can't hear me, just wave frantically.

Ward one, docket ward two, pass.

Ward three.

Ward four.

Ward five.

Ward six.

Ward seven.

Pass.

Ward nine.

And then I have one special election.

Intergo.

Special election being docketed for intergovernmental.

Special election.

Seeing as there's no further business.

We conclude at nine nineteen PM.