Good evening, everyone.

Let the record indicate it is now five o'clock in the World Finance Committee, City Council Finance Committee's called order.

Okay, we have a motion.

We need a motion on the consent calendar for the meeting of November 3rd.

We have a motion favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to PCR 132-25.

The bid package.

First item up is tire repairs and recapping.

Hi, Christy.

Good evening.

Go ahead.

Uh public works says requesting to award the bid for tire repairs and recapping to Pete's tire barns in Sullivan Tire in the amount of 160,000 for a one-year period, January 126 to December 31, 2026.

Okay.

Do we have any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Christy, what did we um spend in this line item last year?

133,000 67.22 cents.

And why are you looking to increase 27,000?

Our um budget, uh this we have a specific line item in our budget for this these items.

It's a hundred and uh excuse me, it's budgeted at 160,000 dollars.

Um, you know, we just never know what what can happen um with recaps because they they do wear down and um come off and then repairs.

It's you know, like uh uh road repair.

So if they have to come to us for something, if we have to have loader tires changed or something on um anything like that where they have to do a road call for us, they have to go to the landfill for us.

Um encompasses all of that kind of stuff.

So and is it safe for us to assume that the um first right of refusal, so to speak, will be at Sullivan Tire as opposed to Pete's tire bond, who is 65 percent more?

Yes.

Okay, actually, I think there's a couple of them that they're like 75 percent or 70 percent more.

Okay, so the first choice will be Sullivan Tire second choice on um emergency needs, so to speak.

Okay, yeah, so for some reason Sullivan can't get to us.

Um, we have an alternative.

Okay, sure.

No, I I understand.

Any questions from excuse me, members of the public?

We have any questions from members of the public.

Hearing none, thank you, Christy.

We will move on to item number two, 2026 244 tablets and vehicle monitoring found on page 12.

Go ahead, major.

Uh good evening, councilman.

The police department went out to bid for rugged windows tablets to be used in police vehicles along with associated mounting hardware cables in henna's a total of three bids were received.

The police department recommends the contract be split between the three vendors, tech advanced computers, whaley computer associates, and newcom wireless.

Uh tech advanced had the lowest pricing for the tablets.

Whaley associates at the lowest pricing for cables and accessories, and newcom had the lowest pricing for the vehicle mounting brackets.

The department is speaking seeking spending authority in the amount of 70,000 dollars from budget code 3231 computer supplies.

Thank you, Major.

Do we have any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the council?

Major, how many tablets are you um projecting or anticipating on purchasing?

Uh at least 20.

I have several that are about uh uh that are older, about 2018.

So they're about seven years, seven-eight years old.

The average lifespan is about five years.

We've had some issues with the Windows 11 upgrades, not working on some of the older tablets.

So we're looking at at least about 20 tablets over the year.

And as part of this bid, will these tablets be included in used for the 13 new vehicles that were just approved?

Some of these will be, yes.

We'll reuse whatever we can, and new ones will go into these cars.

So some will be transferred from other vehicles?

Correct.

Into the new vehicles.

Okay.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item number three, 2026 289 air walls training wall system found on page 20.

Thank you, Councilman Robert Hart from the police department.

The police department is requesting a 566 exception to bid.

For a sole source tactical training system that is comprised of rugged inflatable walls.

This airwall air wall system is comprised of various height walls, doorways, and windows that can be configured in any layout to mimic uh the floor plan of a house, a business, a school.

Sorry about that.

They usually do that to my mic.

Um, this system will allow for realistic training, pre-planning scenarios.

It's capable of withstanding impacts from simulation rounds, airsoft rounds, various impact type uh rounds, etc.

Um, it's being completely funded through a competitive bid at the department won through the uh the JAG uh grant.

Uh and the total cost is 67,195.

That includes shipping and and freight and accessories.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Uh councilman Foley.

Just for my edification.

Is this a physical building like structure or is it online virtual?

So they are physical inflatable canvas structures, like canvas walls that actually for simplicity almost velcro together and are weighted down, and they're inflated by pumps that you plug in.

Um you can move the walls around, change doors, change walls, so it's different uh every time, and then when you're done, you can deflate it, roll it up and put it in the storage container.

It's like your bounty house.

I didn't want to say that.

But but along that line, when you get this, would that be something once you have it inflated that we could see?

I think we would give you a simulation gun and give you a try.

Thank you.

I thought you were gonna say play.

Thank you, sir.

Um councilman Mutal, did you have a question?

No, I'm good.

Okay.

Councilman Nappa.

Any questions from members of the council?

Thank you.

Councilman DLouise.

We can't hear you, sir.

So uh Major, are these um walls it says they're able to take um ammunition rounds?

Is that what it is?

Uh simulitions.

What is simmunition?

Simulitions are um projectiles that are made of like wax or like a small rubber, uh, where an officer would wear a protective suit.

You can actually engage in training fire.

Okay, so you have um men that are in the field, and they're like say a scenario is where there's uh perpetrator behind the wall, something like that, and you would go in to train your um officers uh in that type of scenario, and that these walls can be you know differently configured.

Um and what so the the walls, how long is the the life of of this uh this unit?

So can they last 10 years or you know I'm not sure the exact life of it, uh but I can tell you that this program is used by the US military for various different types of um walls like this?

They even have inflatable tanks and planes, so they use them on a pretty uh so it's it's uh it's an efficient way to train individuals.

Um as of like years ago, I remember the uh the fire department used buildings that are actually vacant to and they would set fires, and the the firemen would go in and you know practice whatever and train with these actual buildings.

So I was just wondering if this would be more efficient to take the place of that training.

Yes, again, these walls can be inflated, deployed however you like to mimic uh you know a root house with multiple rooms.

You can change the layout on the fly, move things around so it can be different every time you go through it.

It's reusable and reusable and reusable.

All right.

I just wanted that clarified.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Major, what is in that JAG grant account now?

Uh the total JAG grant was uh $95,000.

Uh we've spent uh about six thousand dollars on various items, including a tent for the range, heaters, different miscellaneous items that were part of the original grant.

Um this after this purchase, there'll be about 22,000 dollars remaining in the grant uh for other purchases that were outlined in the initial application.

Okay.

Can this grant be used for other type of expenses?

No, it's very specific on what it can be used for.

We had to submit an application with these items on it.

Um, and it was reviewed by a board here in the state, made up of the different police chiefs and other um attorney general's office, and they said this is what you're gonna spend the money on based off of this application.

Okay.

To follow up on um Councilman D.

Louise's question.

Uh, in the past, and granted it's some time in the past, I believe the police department used to use New England Tech for um some of this training.

And why isn't that considered?

Well, there's always the we can still use other facilities, but using simulations and other rounds could cause damage.

We don't want to damage anyone else's property.

If it was as the councilman's head, a vacant building that was being torn down, then so be it.

Um but these these these walls are meant to withstand these impacts, essentially be washed off, cleaned, uh patched as needed, um, but it's not damaging anyone else's property.

As a follow-up again, uh my question was why aren't we using buildings such as Waldridge?

That's an empty building, uh still still owned by us.

Um, the school administration building on Warwick Avenue, a multiple level building, um, lots of different spaces over there, and even some parts of Draper.

As opposed to going this route for almost 70,000 dollars.

Well, two things.

Um, one officers have complained about the conditions of those buildings because we have used them.

Uh they were not happy with the the conditions of what they're they're turned into.

Um, second, this can be configured to whatever we need it to be.

So if they're planning an operation for some specific building, they can mimic that building.

They can get the floor plan and they can change it and then move this and move all these walls to mimic exactly what they're going to encounter based off the the plan.

With that said, um, I would assume that being able to train with moving these walls around different configurations.

I would assume that includes dealing with perhaps um hostage situation.

Absolutely.

Whatever situation you can uh come up with, they could uh translate it into how this is laid out.

Okay.

And what's the warranty on this product?

Yeah, I don't have that in the brochure here.

I can look it up and email you.

Okay.

Um, yeah, I'd like to know what what the warranty is in terms of time, whether it's pro-rated, non-pro rated, and specifically what it does not cover in the warranty.

Sometimes that's easier to describe than what is covered.

So you'll be able to get that to us.

I can look that up.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the public?

Sorry.

Oh, Councilman Ricks.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I noticed in the award letter that it provides it was a pretty short period in their period of performance, June 25th.

Councilman, we can't we can't hear you.

I don't know if your mic is off.

Looks like my mic is running out of battery.

If I could borrow one.

Thank you.

I noticed the award notification letter, there was a period of performance stated of June 25th through September 30th, both of this year.

Uh surprisingly short period for that type of grant.

So that's not going to be an issue here, right?

It's not.

And actually, that's when we uh submitted most of the paperwork.

We didn't get this a letter until late September.

So we didn't get this award letter until probably around that 30th of September date.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Just struck me as odd because also it shows a fiscal year of 2020.

I'm not complaining about the money.

Uh never complaining about a grant.

To uh speak to that, I believe that's when the initial grant was applied for, and then every year it keeps adding on.

So 2020 would have been one of the first years that we did this in this format, if I'm correct.

Very good.

Thank you.

Then uh let's see.

You were stating earlier that uh the type of grant is very specific to uh the training and the like.

The other items that uh you are seeking to use the grant for, would there be sufficient funds for those uh those items or the like after the drawdown based on this particular expenditure?

Yes, we actually saved money on a previous purchase for the tent during uh maybe the last council meeting, the one before uh that we had budgeted to be much more expensive.

So we just there's plenty of money in there.

That's great.

And then uh between those other items that uh you've identified and this particular product, you are satisfied that uh these are the best uses for this grant at this time.

I am, and again, it was approved by uh a grant committee that has said these are the items you can purchase.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other questions from any other members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Sir, please identify yourself, come to Mike.

Hi, my name is Mitchell Moran.

Um, I heard somebody speak about uh using the New England Tech Building, and there's two campuses on Post Road, and one of them isn't being used at all.

Um I'm sorry, sir.

You're here to speak on what?

Um, I heard somebody speaking about the New England tech building being used for like the firefighters and no, that's we're that's not what we're we're discussing.

We're discussing the JAG grant for um a training facility portable type of thing.

Um, so no, that was just the question I had asked.

That's not anything for discussion.

Okay, sorry.

What is what is your question, sir?

Um, I just strictly on the New England Tech building.

Uh yes, sir.

Yeah, okay.

I just saw I thought maybe they would be able to use that building as well because it has been vacant for a few years.

Come closer to the mic, please.

Um, I just thought maybe um to help them, maybe they'd be able to use that building as well for simulations and trainings as well because that building hasn't been used in years.

There are the two campuses on post road.

When I um attended New England Tech, I received uh two degrees and in the ET Fund program.

There was only me and one other student in it.

And we went in that building briefly just to kind of look around, but there wasn't anybody using it for years.

So maybe at some point they would be able to use that building to help with their training as well.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, thank you very much.

You got that major?

I did.

We again we have a very close relationship with New England Tech.

They let us host the police academy there.

If we needed a building, I'm sure they would, as long as we don't damage their walls and things.

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions from members of the public.

Hearing none, we will move on to um the rest of the items are all under 50,000.

Um, we do have two that the um police department wants to make an amend.

And this was a request that uh we sent over this morning, major, and I want to thank you for for doing your due diligence on that and and reviewing some of these bids this morning.

Um credit where credit is due.

Joanne actually mentioned about a two-year bid on this, and we got in touch with Francis, and she in turn got in touch with you, and um good results.

So go ahead, tell us about what happened today on 2026, 245.

Uh, yes, councilman.

Uh bid number 2026, 245.

The Motorola two-way radio accessories bid.

This is a standard bid that we normally purchase different uh cables, mounting brackets, uh ignition cable, different motorola parts, uh, motor roller and have as parts.

Um the original bid was going to be for one year from December 5th of this year to December 4th of next year.

Um at your request, we reached out to the vendor uh SAT Radio of Texas doing business with industrial communications, and they agreed to extend the bid, keep the pricing on a bid.

So the new dates would be December 5th, 2025 through December 4th, 2027.

So a two-year bid.

With that, we would seek an increase in spending authority for the two years to increase to $50,000 from $25,000.

Um that's good job, Major.

Um, over the years, I haven't always been a fan of two and three year bids, but that mindset does change as the economy changes and as the pricing on items change.

And I think we're at a time now where if um some of these cases, such as this, a two-year bid is very important.

Um, it also saves us the time of having to go back out and start all over again.

So thank you for for circling back on that.

Um do we have uh we um clerk, madam clerk, may have a PCR on this, please.

1335 13325.

So item number four found on page 25, 2026, Motorola 2A radios, uh, will now become PCR 135.

I'm sorry, 1335, and the amount will be amended from 25,000 to 50,000, and the end date will be 124 2027.

Correct, major correct sir.

Okay.

Um do we have any questions from members of the committee?

Um that first sure, that's fine.

I need a motion to um amend to PCR 13325 as stated.

Move to amend as stated.

Second second.

Okay, we have a motion, we have second.

Okay, for discussion.

Do we have 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?

Okay, I'm looking for a motion on PCR 133-25 as amended.

Move favorable action, second.

We have a motion in favorable.

We have a second as amended.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Um, Major, while you're still there, I'm gonna take things out of order.

I'm gonna go down to item number 11, 2026, 262, found on page 63, the radar calibration and repairs.

Um again, thank you for getting this done specifically at the late hour.

I think it was like around 230 or something when I sent in that request.

Um, and you actually upped it from what I had requested, which is to extend this for two years.

So please talk to us about that item.

Uh councilman, the police department would like to amend item number 11, bid 2026-262, radar calibration and repairs.

This is uh routine yearly required calibration of radar units, laser units, tuning forks, and any associated repairs we may incur throughout the years uh for our um radars both mounted in the vehicles and handheld.

The original contract was for one year uh beginning on the 9th of January 2026, going to the 8th of January 2027.

I spoke with the vendor who actually informed us that we are an outlier being a one-year bid, and that most places around the country or east coast, he said, use a three-year bid, and that he was happy to extend it for a three-year.

Uh so the new contract date would be January 9th, 2026 through January 8th, 2029.

The original spending authority of 7,000 a year would be increased to 21,000.

Okay, um PCR on this, madam clerk.

PCR 13425.

So item number 2026 262 will now become PCR 13425.

Um, I need a motion for an amendment, please.

Uh to amend as stated.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further questions?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

I now need.

I'm sorry, let's go to discussion.

Any further discussion from members of the committee?

Members of the council.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, I need a motion on what is now PCR 13425.

It amends the numbers to 21,000 over three years with an end date of 182029.

Move favorable actions.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, Major.

Are there any other items from the committee that you would like to have separated?

Any items from the committee.

Any items from members of the council that you would like to have separated.

Any items from members of the public that you would like to have separated.

There any items from members of the public that you would like to have separated.

Okay.

I have two.

First one is item number five, 2026 261.

That's found on page 31.

And the second one is item number seven towing services found on page 39.

First item is 2026 261.

Found on page 31.

Short people.

Okay.

Christy, what did we spend in this item last year?

10,706 and 28 cents.

10,000 what?

76 and 28 cents.

Okay.

And why the jump to 24,000?

Um it's not a jump.

This is a two-year bid, so it would be 12,000 a year.

Um we asked for the same thing the last uh cycle with this bid as well.

This is a two-year bid.

Yes.

January 1, 26 to December 31, 27.

Oh, okay, got it, got it, got it.

Okay.

All right.

And who was sent, or I should say, how many vendors were requested to bid on this?

I don't have that information with me, but um they've also the last few uh bid cycles, they've also been the only vendor that submitted a bid, so I know that's why I'm that's why I'm asking the question because it seems as though for a period of time, they're the only ones that have submitted a bid, so we're kind of like locked into them.

There's a state MPA, and they had reached out to Francis.

Um, the company syntax, and I looked at their pricing, and um it's actually more expensive than what we use, so I opted to keep the bid process um to move it forward to see what our pricing came in at, and our pricing is less than what's on the state MPA.

Um and they have a very limited amount of floor mats.

Um, and I there were like no wet mops, no dry mops.

So um I just chose to go with our own bid.

The purchasing director, you did you want to speak?

Please.

Francis Gomez, purchasing director.

Um, I do have a vendor list that we do send it out to, but um, we also not only obviously we post it on our own city website, but we also use another website that's nationwide, and I believe maybe that's how census came across our um bid as well, but that is nationwide, and they we have outreaches even out of the outside of the country, which we can't use, but just I just wanted to make that comment.

The bids that we post beside the city of work.

We also post a bid net direct.com, which is nationwide.

How many how many vendors are on that list that you said you sent out?

Oh, off the top of my head.

I don't I don't remember, but I can definitely check it tomorrow and let you know.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Christy, um of these mats and mop rentals, etc.

Uh, are they also for the new ice rank?

No.

No.

So there'll be none needed at the new um, I can't say that there won't be any needed.

Um, we might have to put one or two inside the the entry doors into the uh into the employee area just because of um you know winter time if it's you know slippery or whatever, but um the around the ice rink itself, there's rubber matting, so obviously there would be no need to have anything on the out on the outside perimeter of the facility, but we might have to put a couple inside um just for like employees going in and out.

So the answer is yes, some of these will be used.

That's in the website.

I hadn't anticipated, um, honestly didn't give a thought to that facility when this bid went out, but yes, it is very possible that we could have a couple in there.

Okay.

And where are the other mats being used?

They're located all over the city.

There's um there's mats here in City Hall, there's Matt's at the DBW complex in um different areas.

There's Matt's in the water division.

We have Matt's in um the police station.

Uh sewer uses this bid, so it's not it's not limited to one or two exclusive buildings.

Okay.

We have any questions from members of the committee.

Yes, Councilman Nappa.

Hi, Director, just a general comment.

I appreciate the um the effort to go out to bid rather than just hacking on to the state bid.

Um efforts like that are much appreciated by this committee, and I know I could assume by the council in general.

So I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

Thank you, sir.

Councilman Muter, do you have any questions?

Uh actually uh I'm just gonna add on to a comment of Councilman Nappa.

Uh I do want to thank you and the major.

Uh when we look through this package, uh, it was very nice to see that we didn't have one contract that expired, and we actually had a whole month before most of them were pretty much executed.

And uh the other parts were um uh looking at some of the items that were um filled in where we saw uh and I'm not sure which one it was.

I think it was in the police where actually where we saw the unit price and discount price.

So I I just want to commend both of you for uh filling this packet out and answering many, many questions that would typically come before us.

And uh and it's really sincerely, we do appreciate we don't like to be put behind the gun.

Uh and to be honest with this, this is the first time in 11 months I haven't felt behind the gun on bid packages.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, councilman.

Um the next item.

Sorry, um, 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 to the last item, which is item number seven, towing services for heavy duty vehicles found on page 39.

Uh Christy, um this item, what did we spend on this item last year?

Uh the the uh first excuse.

Well, the second contract period, this would be the third time um we've done this.

We spent 17,830.

Two thousand seventeen thousand eight hundred thirty dollars.

Okay.

And I uh know that Ronnie's towing has been uh pretty much the one that has been getting this bid.

Why doesn't the department go out for bid on this?

There's certainly more than Ronnie's towing that I see on the highways towing these um big trucks.

So Ronnie's towing is right here in Warwick.

Um we utilize them because they have the large uh tow trucks that can that can haul our larger vehicles like sanitation vehicles, fire trucks.

Um we can we can call another vendor like Sarry Street or Coletta's, but they're located in Providence.

It's gonna cost us more money to go for them to come to Warwick to get one of our trucks and bring it to you know the city yard or wherever it's going, rather than just call Ronnie's who's right on Jefferson Boulevard.

Um so you know, we can't just call any tow company because they don't all have the equipment that we require to tow our vehicles.

And sometimes if they have to be towed from the rear for whatever reason, you have to you have to pull the axle um to to tow it from the back.

So that's why it's it's not a bid, it's a 566, but it's one that's necessary for us to be able to get our larger vehicles back to wherever they or if on the rare occasion we have to have it towed to a vendor to be repaired.

Um it doesn't make sense for us to utilize someone that's outside the city of Warwick.

I hear what you're saying, but as I had said, um you see tow trucks towing large vehicles, including trailer trucks.

Um this isn't something that is just a rarity or once in a while that happens, and I think it's important that at some point in time you need to test the waters and see what else is available out there to just continue status quo year after year after year and not test the waters.

I don't think that's um a healthy business decision.

So come next time.

I would like to see um test the waters and let's find out if they're the only act in town, and let's find out if they're giving us the best deal.

Any other questions from members of the council committee?

Any questions from members of the public?

Any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move.

Oh let's get uh a motion on the consent calendar.

Favorable action and the consent calendar.

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

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

And we will go to PCR 12925.

That is police personnel uniforms.

And I had asked for this item to be held for clarification on the information that we had in the bid package.

There were um some items missing in one of the bids inadvertently.

And um, Major, you had uh agreed to hold this.

We have since got all of the information on that, and I wanted to see if there's anything you would like to add.

Uh other than we you've provided the information that we requested.

Uh no, sir.

Again, that was just a copy machine error that was missing those pages.

We apologize for that.

Um, I did go ahead uh before this and color code everything just in case in case you had any questions, but I have nothing further to add.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

We have any questions from members of the public.

Any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, I need a motion on PCR 129-25.

Move favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

The finance committee is adjourned at 5 38 p.m.

Next up is the ordinance committee.

Okay, time is now 5 39.

Ordnance committee is now in session.

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

So I have a motion.

Move favorable action.

Second.

All those in favor.

I aye.

Mr.

Chairman, we have an hard time hearing you on this side.

Apologies.

Uh we just move to approve the minutes for the committee meeting held on October 20th, moved by Councilman Gebhart, seconded by Councilman Ricks and approved by a 4-0 vote.

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

Council President Snappy on behalf of the mayor.

Uh the request of the council president is that this be held to January.

I may have misled you.

You misled me.

This is gonna be the administration.

Is January 5th okay?

Yeah, all right.

Thumbs up.

No misleading apparently.

Okay.

Request to hold to January 5th.

Is there any objection to holding to January 5?

Seeing no objection.

It's item is held.

Uh next order of business, PCO 20-25, an ordinance combining the housing board of review and the building code board of appeals.

This is docketed by council president snappy on behalf of the mayor.

And Chief, are you presenting on this?

Good evening, Bill Pacenti, Chief Staff to Mayor Picosi.

Um the PCO 25 is basically making the city of Warwick uh bringing the city of Warwick into compliance um with state code, state law regarding the housing code, building code, and property maintenance code.

Um tonight, Al DeCort, director of the building uh office and property maintenance is here, as well as um solicitor Ursillo in case there's any specific questions.

Okay, thank you, Chief.

Uh, how did we come across the need for the correction here?

This was brought to the attention of the administration by Al Decourt.

Um, that it was um not compliant, and we have we have two boards that are doing similar work that we'd like to combine the uh building code into property maintenance or minimum housing as it's called now into a property maintenance code, which property maintenance is now under the building code, which it wasn't at one time.

Thank you.

Uh Attorney Osilla, did you have anything to add?

Um thank you, and um thank you for having me this evening.

Um, no, uh other than to say that there's an incredible amount of overlap between the housing board and the building code board, and it just in addition to addressing some of the issues in terms of jurisdiction, etc.

Um, it just makes sense to have one board because of the the overlap and the the nature of these violations come up all the time.

Um in both boards.

It's just doesn't make sense to have two.

Um so what the idea is one board will oversee all of these very similar violations.

Understood.

Thank you.

Any questions from the members of the committee?

Councilman Gebhardt.

Uh uh maybe not for you, but you're welcome to stand there.

You look handsome tonight.

Chief, maybe first question.

Uh, just for you.

Um, just when I go on the city's website, I can easily locate the zoning board of review.

Um, I don't see any list any page listing the housing board of review.

Do you know if that is there?

That is there.

No, it's talking about the city website.

Oh, it's not I don't off the top of my head.

I I don't know.

I can I can look.

The the the only reason I was I went looking for that was I was just uh I noticed in the uh in the language here we talk about um that in consolidating to one board that the mayor uh is granted authority in uh in in uh in this action to essentially review the membership of both boards uh and to make a determination as to what the future membership of those boards would be.

Um so I can uh I I was able to locate past minutes and agendas from the building board of appeals.

Um to see Mr.

Bucci, Carlone, Sternberg, Lonardo, Jones, but I'm not able to determine what the membership of the housing board of appeals is.

So according to uh director of building Al DeCord, there hasn't been a housing board meeting in almost 10 years.

Okay.

So that could explain why it's not on okay.

So you made a statement earlier that they're doing the same types of work.

It sounds like one's not doing any work and one is doing work.

They they have the same type of jurisdiction, I believe what the solicitor or Sillo meant.

Okay.

Um there are members of that board.

The one that hasn't met in some time.

They don't meet.

So once you sorry, it's sorry.

L D quote uh director of code enforcement.

There are members of that board when I first got here in 2012, they they used to have a monthly meeting.

I've been here, uh it's not my 14th year, November 26th.

We I believe we've had only two appeals of the pro of the minimum housing code at that time.

The way we it works is violation letter goes out in the violation letter, it states it states the violation, plus you have the right to appeal within 10 days.

That appeal would come to me, I would review it and either send it to the board or act upon it to get it resolved.

We haven't had one in almost 10 years.

I said so.

Got it in a situation like 31 Hale, um, where we had multiple uh enforcements of um of minimum housing standards, that ended up in court.

Is that because it wasn't actually the owner who was appealing the finding?

It was our attempt to further enforce minimum housing standards.

That that's a tricky one because that was also part of uh of a federal loan.

So we had to get the federal government in to come to visit Rhode Island, and we had to go through our court system to do that.

It's much like 1007 Warwick Neck Avenue took forever to get uh resolved.

Okay, but it finally happened okay with a lot of effort on on the city's part.

Okay, um, got it.

And then um our I was just pulling up the personnel supplement.

Are either of these uh boards uh paid a stipend or paid in any way?

It's on the back of the back in um section 64-5.

I believe that's where the stipends are the last page of the uh ordinance.

So it'll be section one combined building code board of appeals and housing border review.

It's $25 for a chair, $25 for a member.

And just getting rid of the minimum housing border review.

I believe the uh the housing uh minimum housing board last met in 2019.

So they had they had a good deal.

There's minutes on the website for that.

Thank you.

Uh okay.

I think that's all the questions I have for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any questions from the members of the council?

Councilman Lannister.

So um I'm gonna follow up on Councilman Ged Gebhot's questions in a minute, but um first I I want to thank um the building official Al DeCorpio.

Councilman, could you speak up?

Um sure uh director uh the court is little I know it's seems like these mics are not just normal.

Thank you.

Anyways, um I want to thank um uh building official for speaking with me on Friday with some of these questions that I had um since then.

I've actually come up with a few more questions.

Um to follow up on Councilman Gebs hot's questions.

Um we heard that this board has been in place for well over 14 years.

It's only met twice in the last 14 years, and my question is specifically.

Do these board members let me rephrase that, have these board members been getting paid the stipend year after year after year when they're not meeting.

Councilman can't answer that 100%, certainly, but if um I don't believe there's anything in the ordinance that requires them to meet to get the stipend.

I can double check that I would say it's reasonable to assume that they are getting paid because it's right there in the rules and regs, right?

So that's sixteen hundred and fifty dollars a year for 14 years that nobody's been doing any work to the tune of 23,100.

So I'm glad to see that this um has finally been brought to a head, I guess we can say so.

In addition to the reasoning for combining these two boards, the obvious that they've only met twice in 14 years, says to me the board's not necessary, and it also says to me that things are being handled very well by minimum housing because there have been no appeals.

So I think the job that they're doing is um commendable as well as the job that our municipal court judge has been doing.

So some of the questions I have actually one of the concerns I have is on well, there's no page number here, but um it's on line eight.

It starts on, I'm sorry, on line 10.

Um eligible person desiring to take an appeal shall file file in the office of the board in the office of the board within 10 days after service of the matter appealed from.

So what section are you referring to, councilman?

It's in the uh application for appeal.

Section 6-153.

Okay, 6-153.

We've got it, counselor.

Okay, so I'm gonna I'm gonna break this out into several parts.

It says take an appeal shall any person desiring to take an appeal shall file in the office of the board.

Where is the office of the board?

That would be the building department.

That would be the building department.

Okay, and where does that state that in here in this document?

And I'm I'm speaking for those people who are not familiar with how governance works and how one department works with another and who goes where and who answers to who, because when someone looks at this and they see that, oh, okay, we can file an appeal in the office of the board.

So how does they how to how does the public know where the office of the board is, or who is the office of the board?

So the notice of violation comes from the building department.

Okay, and it has explicit instructions in the notice of violation.

So you're not going to appeal to the board to the place of the board unless you have a violation, which comes from the building department.

Um, but if it would make you um make it more um clear, we can put in the office of the building official building department, you know, but you're not getting a violation.

So you don't need to know where to appeal unless you get a violation that comes from the building department.

Yeah, I think that would be um a wise idea, Chief, because I'm sure everyone here on the council will agree.

We get calls from our constituents often um about a pothole, and they don't know who to call.

So imagine something like this that is there's nowhere's near the frequency of that.

If people don't know sometimes who to call to get a pothole report, uh, I doubt that they're gonna know where to go for office of the board.

So that's one part of the of the concern.

I think that needs to be clarified.

The other issue is within 10 days, this is on the same line, within 10 days after service of the matter appealed from a written appeal, including a brief statement of the reasons thereafter in a detailed statement of the facts, yada yada yada.

I think 10 days is it's a real heavy lift because this says for any service of the matter appealed.

So does that mean once the appellant receives the decision of the board, or is that at the meeting of the board?

So it it states so just so you know this language was not changed.

I understand.

I understand that now I'm looking at it more detailed because you brought this before us.

I had no reason to really look at this before, but now I do.

So it's it's within 10 days of service.

So it would be the notice of violation would be mailed, I believe it's certified mail that goes out to the constituent or the uh property owner, and that's when the mail, that's when the 10 day when they sign receipt.

That's when the 10 day starts.

So they're appealing this notice of a minimum housing violation.

This is a notice that is provided to a property owner from the minimum housing department.

And that notice by its service alone, or by its delivery alone.

Does that qualify as a violation, or is it in fact a violation after a proceeding has taken place?

So the inspection is made, um, a determination is made that there's a violation.

That violation, um, the person then receives a notice of that violation.

They then have the 10 days from notice to appeal.

Um, and and now is telling me that they're pretty lenient about that.

If it's two weeks, it you know, not gonna allow 30 days to go by, but they're reasonable, right?

Do the reasonable thing.

Um, they can then appeal that and try to resolve it.

If there isn't an appeal, the violation holds, and if it's the violation is not um addressed, then the city has the opportunity to bring the matter to municipal court.

So the 10-day appeal period, what is the trigger time for the 10 days?

So what once we send the violation letter out, 95% of the time we'll receive a phone call back.

Why did I get this letter?

Because we have pictures that their yacht is full of debris junk.

So then we make an appointment to go out.

The 10 days, and then when when from that day that we meet on site, uh Mrs.

Dean explains to the uh property owner that we have, you know, we have this violation, you have the right to appeal, it says in your letter, and you know, we can start the clock today because now we're having uh an a meeting regarding this issue.

So when one of our minimum housing inspectors goes out to a property, do they advise the property owner right then and there that they're in violation of X, Y, and Z?

We we review the violation letter with them, and then you know, we we try to work with the property owner because we don't know what's going on in their world as far as how come your yard has been like this, and oh uh, and probably negotiate that I can get this cleaned up in two weeks, or or can you give me you know another week and I'll take care of this?

So we we try to work with the people, it's only the extreme cases that get forwarded to municipal court.

So we have we have great success doing it that way with the with the olive branch.

So I'll be the first to admit that yourself and all of the members of your department in the minimum housing department.

I think you do a very good job.

Thank you.

And I do spend a fair amount of time and putting in complaints that I receive from my constituents with minimum housing violations.

So my concerns are not resting with your department that exists today, your department today.

Um deal from compassion sometimes, deal from reasonableness, give people two weeks as opposed to what this says 10 days.

But we all know that's not always the situation in government, and in five years from now or 10 years from now, you may not be sitting there, your staff may not be sitting there, we may not be sitting here, and things change.

What I'm suggesting is that this 10 days, and unless you have an objection to why um that shouldn't be extended.

I would think that it would make sense to amend that 10 days to perhaps 20 days because the notice is from this point, and they have 10 days to appeal.

What's your thoughts on that?

Right?

My thoughts.

I'm open, I'm open for the discussion on this.

My thoughts are this is this is the part, it's this is directly in property maintenance.

It's outlined on how to how to send violation letters out, how to how to uh service the violation letters.

You get we have three options, and it's very specific in that in that law because the building code is a law part of 23-27.3.

So it's already it's already law.

I don't know if I don't know if so we we we have we follow the law, but we also have compassion for the property owners because again, when we walk and ring that doorbell, we don't know if her husband just lost his job or who knows.

So we we we gotta tread lightly today.

Sure.

Okay.

So this is already codified in law.

Yes, it's okay.

It's been working, you know, property maintenance was approved by the state of Rhode Island in 2010, and it's been and we it's been this way since.

Okay, fair enough.

Um line 13.

Appeal shall be forwarded immediately to the director and the building official.

Who is the the the who is the director?

Chairman, before we go any further, I just wanted you to know you have three minutes remaining at any time.

Sorry, you have three minutes remaining on your time.

I still don't understand.

You have three minutes remaining on your time.

Okay, thank you.

Who is the director?

So some time ago, we used to have a director of minimum housing.

Um that's no longer the building official has assumed that responsibility.

Um so he is the director of property maintenance, he is the director of the building department, he is the head of zoning for the city.

So would it make sense to amend that line where it says immediately to the director, which we don't know who it is to say immediately to the director and or the building official, because this says to the director and the building official, so that constitutes two people, one of which we don't know who it is.

At some point in the future, we may change and in Al might not be here, and we may have a director of property maintenance, so it might we may want to leave it at both.

Um but it would go to the same person right now.

I can't speak for you know a year, two years, five years from now.

So if someone doesn't make that appeal to the director and the building official, so does that constitute a violation of this ordinance?

So the solicitor just said and or would work.

Okay, and or thank you.

That's under section six-153, line 13.

Correct.

Okay.

Immediately to the director and and insert the word or the building official.

I think that clears it up.

Um it says an appeal fee in accordance with chapter 18.

Who determines the fee?

And what is the fee?

I would imagine it's set by ordinance, and it's in chapter 18 of the uh code of ordinance.

I can look it up and let you know what it is.

I just have to find chapter 13 again.

That was in the we're not changing that, so um.

And while you're looking that up, chief, my last question is on line 37.

The board shall consist of five members appointed by the mayor.

This is a follow-up to Councilman Gebhardt by the subject by the mayor, subject to approval of the city council.

It used to be the housing board of review, shall consist of five members and approve approval of the city council.

What line are you reading from, Councilman?

I'm sorry, that is on line 37.

It is section six-156.

Appointments of members.

This will take out the approval of the city council and allow it says upon combining the housing board of review and the building code of review, the mayor shall have discretion to determine whose membership shall be terminated and whose membership shall continue in order to retain the membership of five.

Why is the approval of the city council removed from that?

So that first sentence, um, counselor stays in place.

It's now gonna just be the board because it's not two boards anymore.

So the board shall in the future, if you adopt this, it will consist of five members subject to the approval of the city council.

I think that other sentence is just during the interim period where the two boards are being combined, and some people are no longer going to there'll be too many people.

I understand that, but my concern is right now there's a on the building code board of appeals, there are five people on that board that have been approved by the city council.

Correct.

If this were to pass in its current form, the mayor solely on the mayor would have the uh authority to completely change the makeup of the board without approval of the city council.

So meaning that there's five members currently serving on the building code board of appeals.

Somebody's gonna get the boot because we're blending in minimum housing.

I want to know why is the approval of the council removed from that exercise.

So my understanding is there are currently five members on each of those two boards.

Correct.

All ten members have been approved by the city council.

In this interim period, all the mayor is doing is deciding which of those ten members that the city council has previously approved are going to remain on the sole board of five.

But there is a difference, it's two separate boards.

The council approved membership of two separate boards for various reasons for those approvals, whether it be qualifications or whether it be um uh service experience, etc.

What's happening now is the makeup of one of those boards is going to be changed at the sole discretion of the mayor without approval of the city council, and I think that is a major change in how these board appointments are being made.

My question is do you have an objection to keeping the approval of the city council on those changes?

Yes.

Why?

Because the way it's written is the way it should be written.

It's what please the mayor's discretion as to who sits on the board, they've all been duly appointed by the city council, and the mayor makes the decision on who retains that position.

But it's not at the mayor's discretion now for either board.

No, all the members of the case.

The mayor can make the recommendation to the council, but the council has the right to approve or not approve.

Now that's being completely changed, and the mayor solely at his discretion can completely uh reassign the members of the board of appeals slash minimum housing.

Correct.

And I think that's wrong.

So um is it appropriate at this time to make a recommendation for an amendment, or do we do it when it comes to the floor?

Uh happy to work with you uh in the coming moments to refine something, but if the committee would like to uh send the matter to the floor, um we can certainly discuss uh an amendment language for to hone in your intent offline.

Could you say that again, please?

If the committee would like to send this matter to the floor, we can work on an amendment language uh in in the time.

Okay, I believe we have to send it to the floor already because we have identified the one additional word that needs to be added, as the chairman discussed earlier.

So do we have a motion to send this to the floor without recommendation councilman Ricks, public thank you.

Um is there any particular reason for eliminating the minority representation on the board?

Minority party representation, that is.

So this ordinance, this change the ordinance doesn't speak to any representation.

So all the members that are appointed right now to both boards have been appointed duly and appointed by the city council or confirmed by the city council.

Uh specifically, this is under section six-156 membership.

Correct.

These are the these are the existing members that when we combine the board, the mayor will have the authority to determine which members of each of those boards combined will serve.

When a new member is appointed, it will come before the city council, and that'll follow the normal process.

Since all these members have already been approved by the city council.

I understand what you're saying.

For a segue here, I am intentionally changing the topic.

What I'm specifically referring to is that on line 38, where the blue text begins, immediately before the blue text in the red line, there is a short sentence that is struck out.

The sentence reads, one member shall be of the minority party, period.

So I imagine that the logic behind this is similar to the logic when it came to the zoning board.

I believe that my position on this would be the same as it is as to the zoning board uh for the very same reasons.

But I'd be interested in hearing if the peculiarities of this particular board, for example, the membership requirements of the uh professional nature that they are for three out of the five members.

I don't know if any of the logic as to removing the uh the process and minority party participation from this board, if the justification is the same as to what was requested by the administration as to the removal of those provisions as to the zoning board as of a few years ago, or if there's something particular about this particular board when it comes to removing the uh one member position of the minority party that would go through that whole process.

Honestly, I'm not sure what your I don't I didn't understand what you were talking about, but I believe right now all members of all boards and commissions are minority members because the mayor doesn't have a party, he's independent okay.

Well, if they're all of the minority party, then I don't see any reason why that line shouldn't stay.

Well, I don't we don't know what the poly affiliations of all the members are.

What happens if some of the members are not affiliated with I mean they're all minority parties, so I mean according right now, and I believe it's according to the charter.

I think we're going off topic from the ordinance.

Yeah, councilman Ricks, bear in mind we have before us another item about minority representation across all city boards and commissions that we already voted a resolution on, which will be if it's passed tonight, we'll go to the public on.

So that would address this because it would be establishing via ordinance standards the minority representation across all city boards and commissions.

Okay, I'll save the discussion for that.

Any other questions from members of the full council?

Anyone from the public wish to speak or comment on this item?

Any questions or comments from members of the public?

Seeing none, do we have a recommendation to send us to the floor without recommendation for purposes of amendment?

So moved.

Move by councilman Rick.

So I have a second.

Second by Councilman Gebhard, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

4-0.

Motion goes to the floor without recommendation.

There is no further business for this committee.

We stand adjourned at 6 14.

Next up is the intergovernmental committee.

Good evening.

The time is now 6 15.

Intergovernmental comes to order.

First up, acceptance of the minutes uh from the committee meeting held on November 3rd.

Motion move favorable action.

Second.

All in favor?

Excellent.

Three.

Okay.

Um, first up, PCR 9325 resolution amending the rules of the Warw City Council for the 2025-2026 term.

Um, council president Snapy, Council President, I understand um your request is to have this held until December 15th.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Any objection to uh holding this to the 15th?

No.

None heard.

Held.

Um up second PCR 9425, a resolution requesting the General Assembly amend to the jurisdiction powers, procedures, and penalties of the Warwick Municipal Court.

Council President Senapi on behalf of Mayor Bacosi.

Chief, you want to give us uh an overview on this one?

Sure.

Uh Bill Facente, Chief Staff to Mayor Picoszi.

Um currently, right now, the way the municipal court authority works, they're not um authorized to hear housing or building code complaints.

They have to go to superior court.

Um it's uh you know, obviously it's a larger expense.

Um it's more time out of the office.

So we're asking that um we have empower the municipal court to be able to hear building code um issues as well.

Um so the zoning enabling act, historic zoning act, minimum housing standards act, housing maintenance and occupancy code, subdivision land development act, building code and related regulations.

Those are all things that we're asking to be included into the um authority of the municipal court, and again, uh solicitor Ursillo is here to answer any legal questions as well as uh director to court um specific to building co editions, solicitor thank you once again.

Um the original enabling legislation was adopted long ago for the city of Warwick.

Um if you were to review municipal court enabling legislation for just uh um any city or town, they all include language that we're recommending here um to expanding their jurisdiction to municipal uh to um minimum housing violations, a number of zoning violations, building code violations, etc.

The main reason that um this is being proposed is really a convenience of the citizens' award, so they can just come here to City Hall and they don't have to go to superior court, they don't have to go to district court.

Um, in addition to the fact that these are proper items that should be handled locally in any event, they just get lost in superior court and they're not heard for years.

Um this really is the city catching up with legislation.

Um my office has been dealing with this for the past three years, and we've been wanting to get this before you we finally put this all together, but again, I think this is kind of a win-win.

I will tell you the other thing it does is it removes from the municipal court um jurisdiction the ability to um imprison individuals when you think about the fact that these are all misdemeanors, um minor misdemeanors, you know, building code violations, that type of thing.

Um they're not life-threatening or anything like that.

Um, we probably shouldn't have that in there.

Um, additionally, once this comes out, um, assuming it does, we won't have to have a public defender present because a public defender by state law is required to be there on any violation that could result in an imprisonment.

And so um every municipal court that I deal with does not have that language in there, and that's why we're recommending that it come out.

And of course, the ACLU sent you all a letter today saying, Oh, that's a great idea.

But that aside, I think there's uh more practical reason that we really shouldn't be imprisoning citizens because they're in violation of the building code.

There are other ways that we can fix those violations.

Okay, thank you.

Um just well, actually, Mr.

DeCourt, did you want to add anything?

Uh no.

Okay.

Um, and I know uh our the honorable uh uh municipal judge is not here this evening, but that this has been discussed and reviewed with her, and no concerns.

I no concerns were brought to my attention.

Okay.

Uh okay.

So uh there we have it.

Any questions of members of the committee?

No.

Any any questions of members of the council?

Yeah councilman.

Councilman Lattice.

Thank you.

So I understand what the reasoning is for eliminating um a sentence not to exceed 30 days.

Is that something that is only in the city ordinance, or is that language in state law?

Uh councilman Lattice, which sentence are you looking at just so that um I'm sorry, on um line number 18.

You had said that the administration was looking to remove a sentence, meaning jail time, not to exceed 30 days in jail and impose.

That's being scratched out.

Correct.

And you had indicated that because it seems to be um and not that I disagree, um, a harsh punishment for uh a minor misdemeanor.

My question is is that language that requires or may impose a 30-day sentence?

Is that language only in this ordinance, or is that language contained in state law?

No, I I believe state law gives us the ability to have that language in our municipal court.

We're recommending that we don't take advantage of it.

Okay, so state law provides the ability to do so.

It does not require the necessity.

It does not mandate that's correct, council.

It doesn't mandate it.

Okay.

And the other two other questions.

One is how often do we have repeat offenders to this particular ordinance?

Uh you know, maybe Mr.

D.

Court.

The question is, especially with these building code violations, how often do we have repeat offenders?

Um, we do have repeat offenders that either don't take building permits or get caught without a building permit.

Um, and so we try to rectify it through the office policies and procedures.

Um, this just gives us uh extra teeth that for the guy who draws the line in the stand or the contractor who draws the line in the sand.

We can take them to municipal court now and have a hearing.

The reason I ask this is um you were actually involved in this, Mr.

Ducourt, years ago when I sponsored legislation to amend the fines and penalties for those contractors who uh choose to work without permits, and we have language in there that is stronger than this.

In that ordinance, there's also language to deal with repeat offenders.

So why wouldn't we want to mirror that language and this?

Maybe I can address that.

The the language that we're recommending in line 16, it's $500 for each violation, and that is clearly aimed at the repeat offender issue every time we have to go out there.

I understand that.

I completely understand what it says.

It says a $500 fee for each violation.

So you have contractor A comes in and he's got three violations, so he gets hit for $1,500.

And in a month from now, you have the same contractor A that comes in with uh a couple of more violations because uh getting stung 1500 didn't really matter when you roll the dice and not get permits and do the things that you should be doing.

So that in lies my question.

We dealt with that in the um fines and penalties for contractors not attaining building permits because it was a real serious problem back then, and it's still a problem today because obviously some people just don't care.

So that's why I asked, do we have um uh uh the the same 10 percent we'll say of violators as we do with the other building permit issues, and should the fine for repeat offenders be more stringent than what it is for someone that legitimately just messed up.

So councilman, this would be an addition to um because we don't have we uh right now municipal court can hear can't hear building code violations beyond your eight-one.

So now we can now take it to municipal court um based on the violation letters and the and the lack of uh conformance.

So this is all in addition to because right now our municipal court can't hear building code violations, right?

So it's in addition to what we already have.

We're not taking it away.

We can noticed no, I know you're not taking away anything, I understand that, but again, the question is should those individuals who are repeat violators and show up before the judge two or three times in a year, should they should the fine be more stringent than the five hundred dollar fine for each offense on a first-time offender?

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's state law on five hundred dollars.

I refer to solicitor on that question with the five hundred dollars increase.

So the five hundred dollars is actually mandated by state law counselor.

We we can't go beyond the five hundred but we we can implement penalties, we may not have be able to exceed fines, but we can implement penalties, right?

I you know, in terms of the municipal court jurisdiction, though, we have to live with this five hundred dollars for each violation per day per off.

I mean believe me, if we need to use it on someone who's not being cooperative, we will and we can we have okay, so I'm gonna stand down on this.

Um, I think I've brought enough attention to it that if this should be an issue with repeat offenders, we can always come back.

Okay, fair enough.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, councilman.

Any other members of the council have questions?

Any members of the public, please just state your name for the record Richard Langseth, Bud Long Farm.

I'm kind of like wondering about this repeat offender thing, too.

I know it's convenient for the city to go to its own little court.

Um, but if I were a repeat offender and I was faced to a superior court, um I think that that would be a far bigger deal for me.

So perhaps this municipal court could handle initial offenders, but if we have somebody who has offended five times whatever, um maybe they should go to superior court.

Maybe that should be the original jurisdiction for repeat offenders.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Langseth.

Any other members of the public uh have any comments on PCR 9425?

Okay.

Uh seeing none committee.

Do we have a recommendation?

Recommendation to move favorable action.

Second favorable and a second, all in favor?

Aye.

All right, aye.

Okay.

Um council president, would you like us to uh pause okay?

Uh so we will suspend uh we have one remaining item uh here that we'll get back to after we get the council meeting started.

Thank you all.

Uh intergovernmental goes into recesses at 629.

So we have a bit of a confluence of a bunch of things all time sensitive.

So as soon as possible, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, Mr.

DeLouise, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephardt, Mr.

Carby, Mr.

Ladisa, Mr.

Muno, Mr.

Napa, Mr.

Rex here.

Nine presentation.

To the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God.

Individual with liberty and justice for all.

So I'll I'll kick it to Councilman Muto now.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, members of the City Council, Chief Lima, citizens of Warwick, and most importantly, the families of our dedicated officers.

If I could have my uh the dedicated officers and their family members come up and see Joanne, uh like to read a uh a little statement.

Uh, we're gathered here today to honor an act of extraordinary courage, an act that reflects the highest standards of the Warwick Police Department.

On October eighteenth, twenty twenty five, three Warwick officers, Maloney, Minochi Minocchio, and Neely entered the dock waters without hesitation to rescue a man trapped in the submerged vehicle, unable to see inside, they searched by touch, located the seventy-one year old man and brought him safely to shore.

Where the work fire department immediately began life-saving efforts.

This was not a simple active duty.

This was valor.

This was a profound selfless commitment to the preservation of life, a commitment these officers honor every single day when they put on the uniform.

On behalf of the Warwick City Council and every resident of our city, we extend our deepest gratitude.

This act affirms Warwick's dedication to public safety and the trust we place in those who protect us.

Therefore, with immense pride, the Warwick City Council presents the commendation for distinguished service to officers Maloney, Minocchio, and Neely.

And I apologize if I really messed up that name.

I practiced and everything.

Thank you for your courage.

Thank you for your dedication, and thank you for reminding us what it truly means to protect and serve.

Thank you very much.

Okay, good evening.

The time is now six thirty-five intergovernmental returns.

Um our final item uh tonight is PCR 131-25, a resolution ordering questions of to the electors of the city of Warwick regarding the issuance of indebtedness, making amendments to the city charter at a special election on February 3rd, 2026.

This is President Snappy on behalf of Mayor Procosy.

Hi everybody, so you may recall we passed resolutions on all of the items within this proposed ballot question already.

So this is in regards to just having the date for the ballot question to appear.

And obviously, as you can tell based on looking at it, what the ballot itself is going to look like in this regard.

You also likely have seen the responses come in from the city and the school department regarding various questions that people had.

So if there are any further questions, please by all means ask away.

But keep in mind the topic of the conversation is not the content of the questions.

We already figured that out prior.

This is just the date when we're gonna do this special election, or if we're gonna do it, I suppose is a fair point as well.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh any members of the committee have questions.

Councilman Napa.

Just one question on timing.

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for school committee or Mr.

Gothberg.

Um if we could just clarify what the um if this is a time is of the essence type approval and why we need to go out for special election rather than waiting for the general election if delaying the vote to the general would have any impact or effect on the construction and funding of the school projects.

Yes, councilman.

Um first and foremost, on behalf of the school committee and the school administration.

Thank you for uh having us here this evening uh to be able to answer questions.

I do want to uh send apologies on behalf of Superintendent McCaffrey uh when noticed of this item being on your agenda and questions uh possibly being posed.

Unfortunately, he already had prior commitments, uh, but he does send his uh his best.

Um, Mr.

Gothberg, our director of uh capital and construction projects, and we also are joined here tonight by one of my colleagues, chair of the building committee, Mr.

David Tessa.

So I'm gonna turn it over to these gentlemen to be able to answer any questions you have, such as that one.

Uh, but before stepping away, I did want to also just uh publicly express my thanks uh to members of this council who did reach out to uh the Gallaghan family the last week on the passing of uh our marine veteran uh Thomas J.

Galgan, who uh joined his comrades at uh Veterans Cemetery last week.

So I really want to thank you on behalf of the family, also to members of the uh the administration who showed up.

So thank you.

Good evening, Steve Gothberg, director of a capital projects and construction for Ward Public Schools.

Uh, I believe your question, Councilman Napa, was uh why do we need to do this now in February?

Is that correct?

Yes, if it's pressing to complete now prior than the general when we did our guaranteed maximum price, the alternates, which includes the fields, um, they're only gonna hold their pricing till June.

And we got that in there specifically because we heard that this would go in February.

Um if it goes past June, then we're gonna look at an increase.

So uh thank you.

Uh councilman we don't see if you have something to say.

I always do.

Uh quick question for you.

When when did you when were you aware of the uh the guaranteed pricing deadline?

When did the guaranteed maximum price come in?

Uh Pilgrim came in in June.

We just uh got the guarant guaranteed maximum price on toll gate last week.

Okay.

All right, and this is probably the administration.

So uh this was passed by the general assembly also in June of 2025.

So my question is why are we waiting to the second meeting of November for a February 3rd uh initiative or a special election?

And why why we seem to be in a reactive mode here versus where we thought we were in more of a proactive mode?

So uh councilman, we're not in a reactive mode.

The board of elections is the one that dictates which what date we have elections on.

Um, and the mayor and um the board of campuses um looked at the dates and they determined that an election in February would be you know better once we had more of information and more of a guaranteed maximum.

We've been going and meeting with the school department, left field, the finance department on their cash flows, their needs.

Um, and it's become apparent that we need to have this 50 million dollar uh bond referendum.

So it's not reactionary.

We've always known we were going to go.

Um so we've been communicating with the schools that it was gonna be in February.

Well, it seems reactionary to the council because we know we passed it, we did our did our due diligence.

We know we passed it the General Assembly.

We had the minimum, uh, the pricing last June.

For just for Pilgrim, not for toll gate.

We just got told last week.

We we did know at least you know, common sense wise, we were going to need more money.

Am I correct?

I'm I'm not gonna argue common sense, but um we got the guaranteed maximum price last week for toll gate.

We didn't have both of them.

Um and we've determined that we do in fact need it.

Because we were still hovering around the 350 million dollar mark.

Now we're we're above that.

Okay.

Uh we'll have to agree to disagree on that because I've seen many, many numbers over the last several months, actually going way back to uh last spring.

Here's my concern.

November 3rd, that time frame is the highest snowfall of our region for the last 10 years.

November 3rd?

February 3rd.

For February 3rd, okay.

There's the highest snowfall.

That also uh possibly eliminates a lot of citizens because of uh safety issues.

Again, my my concern is really with a an election that everyone can participate in without artificial or natural uh barriers such as weather, daylight, coldness, you know, it snow.

What happens if we have a snowstorm that day?

So my thought, you know, my reasoning is uh a special election is gonna cost anywhere between 35 and 50,000, some based on what was what was said, and um and a lot of the information and details of that election, the logistics still haven't been presented to us or able to answer by the director.

Am I correct?

So correct.

We're still finalizing because the board of elections makes the final determination.

Yeah.

So what we're trying to do is get this the question approved and the ability to get it on the ballot February 3rd, because the deadline to get it to the um board of elections is December 15th.

And bear in mind, early voting starts on um January um early voting stuff.

Uh January 14th and ends on February 2nd.

Okay.

So the citizenry have up from January 14th up until February 2nd to early vote.

There's mail ballots, there's absentee ballots, there's military ballots.

Any um balloting that is in a normal election will be available to the citizens and residents of uh registered voters walk.

Okay.

Um yes, let logistically that that does work, but you know, it we're still dealing with even with early voting and things of that nature, where we're creating an event, an election that is creating a $50 million indebtedness to the sit uh citizens of Warwick, whether yes or no, we're not giving a fair enough shot, in my opinion, to the electorate because we are up against certain deadlines.

So um I will not be supporting this for February 3rd.

I will support it for another date in the future.

I do believe in the election, but February 3rd to me just sounds frankly a little fishy since we've had this going on since last June and being jammed uh the week before Thanksgiving into the holiday season and right after the holiday season.

Yes, not next week, but the week after Thanksgiving.

No, I understand that, but the election's not till February 3rd.

So yeah, no, I know.

So that's this is put getting it on the ballot.

Yeah, I know, but so that has nothing to do with Thanksgiving or Christmas or well, it does.

It has to do with the electorate's mind mindset, the campaigns and things of that nature.

So you know, going up to that election, uh, I believe you put certain uh constituencies at a disadvantage.

So I will uh I I made my point.

Uh I am one person, as you may have known.

I will be the first one to say I told you so for one reason or another when February 3rd happens.

Okay.

Um sure.

Uh Councilman Napa.

Chief, just to kind of caveat off what Councilman Mino had just asked, were there any alternate dates suggested or contemplated, or was it kind of like we know what the target is February 3rd?

Is it was there anything, any discussion as far as later, maybe early spring dates?

No, we we felt that February 3rd was the latest we could go because of cash flow at getting you know pricing and and we have to sell these bonds, so we have to have time to sell the bonds so we can get the money to pay for the for the schools.

The last thing we want is a three-quarter built school, um, not have the the bond because are we I guess I'm a little bit confused.

My understanding was that the this additional monies that we're gonna be putting to ballot is for the adults at the end of the contract.

Is that does the approval of the does the money approval thumbs up have to be available to bond out, or are we actually cutting a check come June?

So the money that the 50 million dollars is for to cover the construction of the schools, so of the two high schools, and additional athletic field uh um recreational facilities citywide.

It's not specific to just the ad alternates.

If there's a if there's a continuity overrun at either Tollgate or Pilgrim, that's what this money is going to be used for.

If it goes above and beyond the contingency that's already built in.

That's what the that's what the legislation approved.

Right, I understand that, but I get like maybe my question wasn't clear.

If what you had just said made it seem as though we need to cut a check, bonds need to be sold prior to June.

Is did I misunderstand what you meant?

No, so we so there's Steve Gothberg might be able to answer this question, but there's a guaranteed maximum price that's being held until June.

So if we don't have the money in June to be able to, you know, we need an alternative if something happens in February, you know.

So we just need the approval to send the bond out for purchase.

We don't actually need all the bonds sold by June.

We need the approval to put this on the doc on the ballot for February 3rd, so the voters can approve it or not, and then we have to make a decision if it fails, where we go from there.

So if we if we push our time, keep pushing our time further down the road, our hands are you know more and more tied with adhering to the guaranteed maximum price, as well as making sure that we deliver a product to the citizens and to the students under the right standards.

Okay, I think I'm probably just not being clear on my question, but I also don't think that it's actually pertinent to this specific legislation.

So I'll touch base with you offline later.

Um that's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um thank you.

So I'm just trying to get this straight.

So if we go February 3rd, and it gets approved, how long will it take to say, okay, great, we can we can move forward and go after the maximum price?

One month, two months.

What's the process afterwards?

Bear in mind that we are also part of that process.

We have to do an appropriations manner as well.

Because there's a process, the process it's gonna have to come back to city council and then go to the mayor.

You guys are gonna have to council gonna have to schedule meetings.

But the the only reason that it's important um for February 3rd from the GMP perspective is that the alternates, especially for the fields for the high schools, were only held to June.

Okay, after that, then there's a potential that things could go up because they're not gonna hold that guaranteed price, not other guarantees within the contract, just the alternates.

So if it if it doesn't get approved by June, that's where we run into trouble.

So if voters approve, then it comes back to city council, they approve the mayoral approval is done, then we're we're good to go.

We don't have to worry about if that's all done by June.

So how how long is that process, Mr.

President?

Knowing that we are in November, knowing we have to make these steps, we could probably get ahead of it.

You know, the day after it it gets approved.

How long would that take?

Uh in working with bond council, we and knowing that there's a date certain of this election.

Um, we currently have a meeting scheduled for February 9th.

So if the voters uh authorize it, the council without even having to call a special election could on the February 9th meeting take up an uh an appropriations resolution.

If that were approved, that would still require to go through the actual bond issuance, which appears to take you know at least a few weeks at best, uh and probably two months.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is we have an election, we have a meeting at the bound council.

Couple of weeks after that, we can we have the ability to issue the bond.

So six weeks, fair enough.

So the solicitor said the best at best a few weeks could go as far as two months on the they show the bond council and the bond issuance.

It's hard to project.

Um I'm not bond council, uh, it takes months, we weeks to months, it's hard to say.

All right, what two months two months is fair?

Okay, so if we do two months, February, we have February, March, plenty of time.

If we go to March, we have March, April.

If we have a election in May, it's May and June.

We still meet that June deadline.

Well, let me just finish my rant.

Second rant is the guarantee, who sets that guarantee?

Is it the people that we just contracted 350 million dollars with, or is it a different group?

And has anybody talked with them to give us another month?

Councilman, it's uh it's Dimeo, our construction manager.

We went with the build model of uh construction manager at risk, so they're being held to those figures.

Um, the school committee, just to give you some context, within that GMP that Mr.

Gothberg and uh Chief Vicenti keep referencing for the adults, several of them all of them, excuse me, they have dates listed on them as to when that figure is good for.

So if let's say we push the special election out, no matter what the results are, good or bad, favorable or not favorable, uh essentially with the construction manager because they signed a CM at risk model, they want to know that we're good for the money on the number that they've put forward.

So if let's say we went with your we continue down your thought process of pushing it out to April, May or May, June, doing that special election in that time.

What we need to do, or rather, Mr.

Gothberg and his office with our CM and our OPM is we need to evaluate, let's say if the election is unfavorable for the additional funds, which we know we're not gonna need the entire 50 million dollars.

It's been dubbed the school bond, but it's really should have been dubbed uh City of Wark recreation bond.

But the what we need to know is if we are not favorable in receiving additional funds, what we then do with the project, what what realistically is the next step for the project?

So shouldn't we have that plan in place already?

Well, no, the the first step was was preparing the GMP, which there is about a three to four month difference between Pilgrim and Tollgate.

We needed to know what the guaranteed maximum price.

If we went with what would have been ideal versus what is the current situation, what would have been ideal is if we followed what the state of Massachusetts does, which is you go and you cost everything out, and then you bring that cost to the taxpayers, and they say this is the number that we can build these clues.

I get what you know, but we have something that has dragged out.

You know, we've changed dates, we've been flexible.

We're talking about one month here to give the voters of Warwick, the taxpayers of Wowick, a reasonable environment to go out and commit to either 50 million dollars of extended benefits or uh tax taxpayer money, or no.

What what I see here is just political gamesmanship of jamming it to February 3rd for a low voter turnout, which you know may or may not go your way, but I still think for something so impactful, let's be fair to our uh to our residents of Warwick.

We're we're under enough stress as it is, give them a fair shot.

And if it takes us an extra month, you know, I bet you if you call Dimeo, one month is not going to make a difference.

If it does, uh, I would love to talk to them.

Uh they've changed dates before.

So this urgency, you know, is not urgent.

You know, it's it's important to us.

That's why we took it up last year.

That's why we brought it to the General Assembly, but now it just seems like we're jamming something down our uh our constituents and our taxpayers' throat.

So uh I will yield my time.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um other members of the committee questions?

Oh members of the council, Councilman Ricks.

Uh I'm sorry, I'm gonna go to Councilman Latticer first because he's had his light on.

So councilman Latticer.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So I just want to point out that we're here tonight about 50 million dollars, or I should say an additional 50 million dollars to fix a huge problem and errors that occurred over two years ago.

As a reminder, this is or that's not what's before us, please.

This is part of the 50 million dollars, Mr.

President.

It what's before us is the date and whether or not to hold a special election.

It's already been established.

We already voted on whether or not we were gonna do the 50 million.

It's not this is not the opportunity to rehash that.

Are we voting on the content of PCR 131 25?

We actually already did that prior.

Now you're just voting on as far as how it's presented.

The date and whether or not you pass it at all.

So are we voting on the language in PCR 13125?

I'll see to the solicitor, but my statements stand regardless.

The General Assembly passed uh laws this past session that authorizes the asking of these questions, the school construction as well as the charter change questions at the 2026 general election or a special election that is scheduled at any earlier.

So the question on the resolution here is whether or not to call the special election.

Okay, so I'll rephrase.

The date is bad, the reason for doing it is bad, the amount is bad, this whole thing is bad.

So now what we're gonna do is at the last minute, we're gonna jam through this item.

Um, because what do we do with the next step?

What do we do if we get part way through these schools and we got a stop?

I asked those questions two years ago, and nobody cared.

Two years ago, two months after the election.

Now we're gonna jam this thing through, as councilman Rudol talked about in the beginning of February.

Special elections, you all know have a very bad turnout when there's good weather, let alone when there's winter weather, seniors, handicapped, disabled folks.

They're gonna have a heck of a hard time getting to an election.

Oh, well, we can do uh mail-ins and we can do write-ins and we can do all this sort of stuff.

Sure, if they know about it.

So here we are now.

We're gonna have this special election on February 3rd.

That probably very few people are gonna be aware of because from the information I've seen, I don't like the way this thing is gonna be rolled out.

I don't like the way the information is gonna be disseminated.

This is something that should have been done two months after the general election.

This is it necessary, yes.

I've been a proponent of going out for a special election or a revote from day one on those two schools, two months after the election.

Oh, guess what?

We can't build them for 350 million.

You should have never broke ground, you shouldn't have put a shovel in the ground till you had the proper funding to do these two schools, and you didn't do that.

What you did was let's move forward with what we got and hurry up before anybody realizes what's going on.

Well, now everybody realizes what's going on, and we got to go to the taxpayers for another 50 million, and let's do it in the dead of winter when it's a special election and it's gonna be very difficult for people to come out.

Short of changing the date of this election, I am gonna have to stick with my premise from two months after the general election to get the members of the public to vote on this item.

And I also want to ask if the administration do we have a fiscal note on what this 50 million is gonna cost the taxpayers?

Because I don't see it in my grinder.

Councilman, the fiscal note was presented to the city council at the time when you um the city council voted on the um authorization to the I understand the fiscal note hasn't changed.

The numbers that are inside I got it.

But it's not in this binder.

So uh to my point, how much information is gonna be disseminated to the voters that are gonna go out in the middle of winter.

This is not good.

We should have never ever gotten to this point where we got to go back for 50 million dollars because of total screw ups in the very beginning.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh Councilman Ricks, just give me a minute.

I'm gonna restart my timer unless you plan to re brief.

I'll restart my timer.

Thank you for resetting the clock.

I'll try not to use all 10 minutes.

Thank you.

So I do agree to an extent with my colleagues, Councilman Muto, Councilman Laviser.

It is far from ideal to have a special election on February 3rd of all days.

This is not exactly conducive for uh that kind of political activity of people going door to door to campaign for, campaign against, otherwise talk with their neighbors about their opinions on this sort of thing.

I mean, really, this is why we don't hold all sorts of elections, generally speaking, uh at the tail end of winter.

So if it is at all possible to move the election to a date that's a little bit more conducive, a date that there's a little bit less risk of uh a lot of snow and ice on the ground or a major blizzard or the like that might not be possible, of course, and I do remember uh some years ago we even had a blizzard on April 1st.

So I'm not saying that uh uh any date is necessarily free from a natural disaster here, but we all know what the roads are like beginning of February.

This is not ideal.

The other item that I'll address here briefly is the uh proposed changes to the city charter.

I don't think that any of these are so pressing that they can't wait until the 2026 midterm election.

But also and I'm I suppose I'm going to have to just review some of the video because uh some of the language here is not lining up to my recollection of exactly what we did discuss and authorize to be passed.

And I think that some of it, especially as to question three, is a bit misleading.

Uh if I uh if I were to ask 100 people, what does minority representation appointments mean?

I'm guessing very few of them would associate minority representation appointments with political party appointments.

So that's another concern that I have, and I think that if we have a little additional time here, that's also something that can be cleared up, but really those are two separate issues.

I think that uh there's no real reason not to hold charter changes to the regular election where people can participate more freely, and we know we're going to get much higher turnout.

And I do think that it is very much warranted to have a special election on that one question alone of authorizing that additional 50 billion dollars or not, so that the city school committee, school department, building committee, we can get all of those, all of the uh the stakeholders, all of the decision makers to be able to move forward and make the best decision possible for the future of Warwick Schools.

So if it is not possible whatsoever to have the election at for that one particular question at any time other than February 3rd, I will support that.

However, we have to ask, is it possible?

Can we get this done so that we can try to maximize voter input?

Thank you.

Uh thank you, councilman.

Um since you're at the uh podium chief, um, could you perhaps just describe to us the the like were other dates considered?

Um I'm sure you had this conversation internally to discuss what voter turnout could be like.

Um can you just talk a little bit about what went into the decision making process?

So yes to that, and then I can address some of other councilman Ricks's points because some of it has nothing to do with the administration.

Not that you had any way to know that, so no worries.

So um so we tried to decide which date it doesn't interfere with you know uh a major holiday um and coincides with somewhat of the urgency of getting this approved so we have time to plan B to come up with a plan B in case is nothing.

Um backing into the date, the Board of Elections gave us the date.

It has to be, I believe, is on the first Tuesday of the month.

Um, and they backed into all the dates.

The Board of Elections gave us the date.

Um February 3rd.

So that's how we came up with that date.

That's not it's after the holidays.

Um, it's before we need, you know, to really make a decision.

We have some cash flow projections that we need to make decisions on.

Um, so we want to make sure we get this to the voters and approved, or whatever they whether whatever they decide.

Um, hopefully it's a thumbs up.

If it's a thumbs down, we need time to plan for plan B.

We don't have all the time in the world.

We don't have another month, we don't have an extra two weeks, three weeks, four weeks.

We need to get this approved on the docket, um, excuse me, on the ballot.

So the school department building committee can plan.

Um, we can plan plan B if there is a rejection of the question.

Okay, great.

So uh I'm gonna go to the public first.

Uh absolutely so a few things.

One, uh, Councilman Rix uh brought up the other questions on this.

So that wasn't the administration's asked, that was my ask that they'd be on there as well.

And specifically so questions two through four that appear on the potential ballot.

That was because those items weren't monumental changes as far as they mostly housekeeping, as we're all pretty familiar with them.

They come up almost every meeting, something related to one of them.

Although the notice one for special meetings obviously comes up whenever there's a special meeting, it's just a pointless expenditure that we don't need to be making.

So I asked for them to be put on because my thought process was if we're gonna do a special election anyway, might as well have these on there and get them done with because we'll no doubt have some of these topics arise between now and the general.

And frankly, I I can't help but think that at least for number four, it's possible that people might come out for that topic.

So the more people we can pull out, the better to come get them to come vote.

And just as a reminder, uh, this is not the expectation here, and by all accounts, what will actually happen is if approved by the voters is not that the school department gets 50 million, they just get what's actually necessary, and by all accounts, what's necessary as of now is about half, if that so the rest is a reminder, is going to the city for our stuff.

So just keep that in mind, because that was a put an important part of the process when we discussed it months ago.

And just regarding some of the points that have been made.

But that the alternative of, well, if they don't, we'll just do it anyway, is not a good idea for so many reasons from a legal perspective.

And then also I'm similarly uncomfortable with the idea with supplanting the expertise of the board of camera service slash board of elections when it comes to the timing of an election.

Because yes, we're all familiar with elections from the perspective of either we're we're on the ballot or we go vote or both.

Yes, we all understand the general concept, but it's obviously not our careers or specialty or something we're on a board because we're so adamant about it and passionate about it.

Uh I I get it where yes, some people might prefer a different month.

I don't blame you.

That's perfectly fair.

But I don't think my opinion on it is somehow more accurate or better than those who are in this every year for every election, having to figure this out.

So it's my two cents.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, at this point, uh, if any members of the public have uh questions or comments, um, I'll give just the same guidance that's been given to all the council members, keep it to the um topic of the scheduling of the special election, and please state your name for the record.

Okay, um, Richard Langsith Budlong Farm.

And I was naive enough to put this on the taxpayer spin website, just so that people would know.

And I was astounded, over 500 people selected no.

Over 500 people selected no to this February 3rd date.

And there are over 50 comments, all negative.

If it is to be on February 3rd, and there is a light snowstorm or a rainstorm or something like that.

I can assure you that those 500 people or many of them will show up.

And then the question is what about the other people?

Uh, are they really motivated?

Do we have a lot of motivated people in the city of Warwick who actually vote who will come out during a light snowstorm?

I I don't think so.

Personally, I think we need new schools.

I I've I've spoken about this before.

I've said we need to be more aggressive about marketing Warwick.

But February 3rd is just simply not to date to hold an election like this.

It's just too too risky.

And and my council person, Muro brought that up, and my friends and my other friends also feel that way.

I would think it would be best for the city council to say no to the mayor on this one.

It's just far too risky.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Langsa.

Um Mr.

Rainey.

Sean Rainey, Ward 1.

Uh, it's really disingenuous of you guys to put this on the school committee.

As all your remarks have been saying the school committee wants it done for February 3rd, the school committee wants it, the school committee wants it, the school committee wants it.

Remember, the bond is not a school bond.

It's a recreation bond.

Any some funds will go to the schools to help finish the schools.

The rest are gonna go towards recreational facilities that as a city have we have left let go to crap.

They're terrible.

So don't forget what you're really voting on.

A portion, a small portion, is going towards the schools to finish the schools.

And when speaker, I mean, council president is speaking, we got committee members up there laughing about what he's saying.

Wake up.

Thank you, Mr.

Rainey.

Good evening, Dave Tester.

Um, 1107 Arrogance of Parkway, Award One.

Um, I want to thank the council president.

Um this bond has has been misinterpreted, I think.

And the council president brought it out that the 50 million is going to the schools and that these schools are going to cost 400 million dollars.

That was the um taxpayers' spin post.

It was it was spun to to make people believe that the school department needs 50 million dollars more.

We do not.

So I just want to make that clear.

This is as Mr.

Rainey said, it's it's it's a bond for municipal facilities, and it would be for whatever overruns are in the project.

So if the schools end up taking a fraction literally of that, um, and I believe the legislation is up to 50 million.

So when you're not indebted the city 50 million dollars, well, you oh, is it 50 or is it up to well?

Just let me just pause you.

Let's stick to the the scheduling and the special election.

Yeah, as far as the date dating, that that's for you guys, but there are concerns, I think on the school side about what happens, and I think the chief of staff mentioned it um about how you plan if if the bond fails.

But uh my point was just the 50 million dollars is not entirely for the schools.

That's all I think a fraction of it would be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Testa you name Sean Gallagher, Ward Two Taxpayer.

Um, I think an argument can be made if this council punts on a February election uh that let's say we go out to May or June and it's beautiful weather, that we're Rhode Islanders, where do we like to go when the weather gets warm, right?

Uh that let's say we go out to May or June, and it's beautiful weather, that we're Rhode Islanders, where do we like to go when the weather gets warm, right?

We go to South County, we go to the beaches, we get out on the water, we go out on our boats.

So the argument could be made either which way, if you host it in February or if you host it in June, it could impact the voter turnout, anyways.

Um, secondly, in terms of when you hold the election, we've seen in the past, even mid-year elections, not a substantial turnout, anyways, right?

Uh so 2022, uh, back when the um the school committee district one member got elected, there wasn't a huge turnout that year.

There wasn't a massive turnout.

There was a big turnout in 24 because it was a presidential year.

There wasn't a huge turnout, and some argued, man, this bond shouldn't have gone through because not everybody showed out and voted in favor of the bond or against the bond.

Well, the bond passed, the bond passed.

So you know, it doesn't matter when you schedule the election.

What matters is if we schedule the election when it makes sense fiscally for the project.

So we've heard tonight from the people who have testified that there are um there are costs that have been committed to by the contractor.

So as people who are general contractors know, if you go, if you don't guarantee them that you're gonna move forward with it, those costs they're not gonna stand behind anymore, which is what the model is that we're using to construct the school.

So we've seen the council historically punt on this with the release of the prior bond.

The the initial bond was voted on by voters in November of 22.

It wasn't until September of 23 that the bond was released.

The council at that time cost voters conservatively 1.1 to 1.3 million dollars per month.

So to draw this back to why we need to vote on this soon, and not that not saying the council's wrong, but they should heed the advice of uh an industry expert in Mr.

Gothberg.

Um, I would disagree with the notion that this is being shoved down the taxpayers' throats.

The taxpayers can come out and vote no.

The taxpayers could come out and vote yes.

So nothing's being shoved down their throat.

Also, I could be wrong.

I'm not a lawyer like our council solicitor, Mr.

Walsh, but can I ask a question?

The administration, Mr.

Chair.

Sure.

Chief Vicenti, if there were to be a special election held, would the taxpayers like myself be blindsided, or would be would we be noticed of a special election?

So through the chair, um, the process of notification of a special election would be the same as any election in the city.

Um notifications in the journal in the um the newspaper, press releases, the uh social media.

I'm sure the school department would do some um get out the vote.

And I'm sure the people that are against it would get out the vote as well.

So there will be print plenty of coverage of the um requirement, as I mentioned in one of the questions.

Communication will follow the same format as every election.

Information will be available on the board of elections, Secretary of State, and the city's website.

Ads will include voter registration deadlines, poll workers needed, final canvases, election and war poll combinations seven and fourteen days prior.

Publication of questions and explanation from the city's treasury to run as soon as the early voting starts.

So there'd be plenty of notice, just like it is any other election that we've ever held, going back to the dawn of time.

Thank you, Chief.

So, as a taxpayer and chair, thank you for taking that question.

As a taxpayer, I feel confident and comfortable in my council, my city's administration, this city, and noticing me as a taxpayer to be able to say, hey, we're gonna have a special election.

Here's the information that's being provided to you.

Yes, it's in the winter, dress warm.

Otherwise, here are all the other mediums that you could take for three weeks.

I believe the chief stated to be able to come out and vote on that as a taxpayer.

Also to be noted, we heard tonight that it's not completely 50 million, it's a it's small portion.

So those are just the points I wanted to be made because I I felt like uh in hearing the testimony of uh of the council that it was a bit a bit fear-mongering and disingenuous.

Um I'll never forget uh November 8th, 2022.

I I saw an elderly woman over in ward three.

Uh God bless her.

She got out of her car.

She told me she was 92 and she was walking into Lippett Elementary School to go vote.

That day was very cold, and that woman was getting out, she was exercising her voice.

This is a democracy, this is what this country's about.

It's voting, giving people the choice tonight before you is whether or not you schedule election for February or not.

never forget uh November 8th 2022 I I saw an elderly woman over in ward three uh god god bless her she got out of her car she told me she was 92 and she was walking into Lippett elementary school to go vote that day was very cold and that woman was getting out she was exercising her voice this is a democracy this is what this country's about it's voting giving people the choice tonight before you is whether or not you schedule election for February or not but I would just caution you if you punt we've seen what this council has done in the past when they punted and the million dollar ramification um that that could be had on this project thank you thank you chairman just state your name for the record uh Sean Williams would four um I want to I don't want to re reiterate everything that's already been said uh to you um this is about fiscal responsibility um and there's a there's a a real nervousness of what could happen if it is punted again uh the the chairman just mentioned the millions of dollars that was that was lost to the project by punting it um if we have the the mayor we have chief we have our our department all in agreement that this is a fiscally responsible situation to get this done due to the adults for June for the schools I also agree um I also want to again reiterate the fact that this is not just about the schools um it is about the crappy fields that that we now reside in in the city uh and that what that money can do to help um regenerate uh we you know uh um make war great again as far as uh from a uh from a uh um uh sports and from um you know facilities standpoint um but again i'm just gonna stay on that fiscal responsibility we keep on punting we're just not gonna do it and and and it's and miss me to and this is not against you personally but and and i know mr mr rady mentioned the laughing it's not it's not funny it's it's this isn't funny this is kids this is schools this is about the future of our city not just the schools the future of the the fields as well this is a recreational bond right it's in coup encompassing all of it so you know I believe in the ability of our taxpayers that if they're against it they'll come out and vote therefore it they'll come out and vote the weather is I'm not John Giorcy it's anything if I know Johnny I might be dating myself because I'm mentioning a name that probably nobody knows but um I don't know what's gonna be on February third you may not know but maybe you look to the farmers all my saying what you're saying um but you know it it it's it's cold now it's freezing it's freezing was freezing coming in this building um so I feel like democracy needs to occur I feel like we've had experts speak of why we're doing it we're not doing it because we're trying to roll something uh pull something over somebody's eyes we're doing it because we need to do it I think we should physically do it because it's the right thing to do for our city it's right thing to do for our kids it's right thing for this for every kid every child every parent every person who walks a um on a walkway at North Country Club or wherever wherever they're walking we should be making all everything in the city better.

This is about a date for a special election I think that we need to realize that if we punt it if you don't do the right thing and it keeps on getting punted and they can't keep us get keep we talk about can't get kicked down the road you love that one um I feel that that's gonna happen and so I hope to you make the right decision.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr.

Wiggins um any other members of the public have anything to comment okay seeing none um we've had a robust discussion tonight about um about this date um I'd like to recommend uh that we move this uh to the floor uh where we can have more discussion and not hold up the public hearings that we have this evening um do I have a motion recommendation uh that'd be your motion motion to move favorable action second second all in favor aye okay three four three zero three one uh there being no oh oh um you have the I can't get anything okay um let's reconsider okay okay uh there being no further business before the intergovernmental uh committee we will adjourn at 725 p.m thank you all would the public properties committee please convene this is a second one we come to oh we were exposed to be here six third

When we were exposed to be here at six third question, okay.

First up, we have acceptance of the minutes from the committee meeting held on November 3, 2025.

Do we have a motion?

Move favorable action.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Second item on the agenda.

PCO 28-25 and ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick.

Anthony Albanese and Bridge Group LLC applicants.

The address is nine post road.

Assessors plat two nine one.

Lots thirty-one and thirty-two.

This is ward one.

Uh do we have a motion to move to the full council for public hearing?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Second, PCO 30-25 in ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick.

Alexander and Courtney Bucci applicants.

The address is eighty-five Tollgate Road Assessors Platte two four six lot one nine one.

This is in ward eight.

Do we have a motion to move to the full council for public hearing?

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

There being no further business before this committee, we adjourn at 728 p.m.

So we're now back to the full council.

First announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Does anyone have anything for announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events?

See none next is acceptance of minutes from the council meeting held on November third, 2025.

Does anyone have any objections to accepting the minutes as presented?

Seeing none, so accept it.

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

There shall be a period of time not to exceed 30 minutes during which citizens may comment about Warwick City Government issues subject to the following stipulations.

The total period of time for public comment shall not exceed 30 minutes.

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

Each citizen signed up and present shall have not to exceed five minutes to speak, provided, however, that if there are more than six citizens are signed up and present, the 30 minutes will be split evenly amongst speakers.

Time shall not be transferable amongst speakers.

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

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

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

Waiver this provision requires a unanimous vote of the council.

First up, we have Richard Langseth.

And even though you heard me say your name, please when you get up to the mic, just state your name.

Richard Langsith, Budlong Farm.

The Warwick City Council voted yes to the first stage of a two million dollar water department project.

Bid 2026-256 Buttonwoods Avenue Pipeline Replacement at Brushnet Cove.

And additional funds, where were they come from?

Not disclosed.

The mayor in his minute administration described this place as in quotes private buttonwoods.

The Reverend Oliver Peyton Fuller noted 100 years ago in his history of Warwick.

130 acres of land bordering upon the beach were sold to an association of gentlemen known as the Buttonwood Beach Association for $22,000 in 1871.

He continued.

Some 50 or more cottages, some of them quite expensive, have already been erected as of 1875.

The Reverend Joseph Hart Shorn financed this development through a mortgage.

It had a stipulation that the gentleman at the Buttonwoods would file a plat map with the town clerk, open the roads and sell the lots to pay off the mortgage under subdivision common law, then in place.

This was a dedication of the Buttonwoods ways as public highways.

If there were a foreclosure, then the public could buy the distressed lot, knowing that it was not landlocked.

The mortgage would be paid off and the funds repurposed for another charitable need.

The Reverend Hart Shorn continued his support of the Providence YMCA and the first black women's college, the Hart Shorn Memorial College, which he founded in 1883.

The gentlemen are now held to their promise that they will keep the streets of the Buttonwoods open to the public by law.

They cannot reneg.

Who says so?

11,000 members of the Saving Rhode Island Coastal Access Rights of Way Facebook group founded by the grandson of the former Rocky Point owner.

They know that by filing a plat map to meet the mortgage stipulation.

The gentleman at the Buttonwoods made a promise to the public that the streets would be open for everybody.

When the school department told the mayor that they would be two million dollars short, all hell broke out.

Now we are looking at another two million dollar surprise, subject to state and federal review.

The gentlemen at Buttonwoods broke their promise.

They have raised 40,000 of public taxpayer money to fight public access.

By the way, it's against me.

We demand that it be spent appropriately for the good of the entire community, not given to a few gentlemen at the Buttonwoods who break their 154-year-old promise of public access to the shore.

Council members, let's make that happen.

For the lawyers, Cincinnati versus the Lisi of White, U.S.

Supreme Court 1832.

Property dedicated to public is a public permanent easement.

When public easements are posted in the plat maps and the public buys lots in the map, the developer cannot then break its promise of public ways.

You have one minute, Mr.

Langsath.

Thank you.

You know, I I spoke out before the last committee meeting that I was upset that we had to wait a whole hour for me to read this.

I I really think this Warwick City Council should honor its obligation to the public to have speaking at the time of the speaking.

We don't need the education department to come in month after month and spend a whole hour discussing things that have been discussed endlessly.

The people of Warwick would like to reserve this time for their comments and not for the education department.

Thank you very much.

Sean Rainey.

Sean Ray, Sean Rainey, Wad One.

Uh, a couple of things, and I don't have I didn't have time to email, but uh Ward One.

Um, still waiting for an answer on Dan Forth.

Um, about the paving and the potholes.

Um, and Wad 3 have a couple of things.

Mickey Stevens, uh, the brand new lights that they put up.

Uh, there's one or two out.

Uh, if it's under warranty, I think we should get it uh looked at it's in left center field of Afield, the one closest to Afield, yeah.

Left center field.

Um, also the speed uh sign uh closest to the tennis courts at Warwick Vets going from West Shore Road to Sandy Lane.

Um that speed sign is um also out not working.

Uh the one heading the other way is working, the one heading towards um Sandy Lane isn't.

Um I heard somebody say something earlier about the um urgency of this uh uh vote for the school bond.

Um it's almost as urgent as what the budget commission was uh that we'll put forward that the budget commission was so urgent, so urgent, so urgent, um so urgent that they said that we that school, not not me, but the school uh the schools need 2.1 million more dollars.

Um, but it's so urgent, don't do it.

And I think it's against the law to have the school department working in a deficit.

Um, but we're talking about urgency.

Um, you know, what was the urgency of the vote on February 3rd?

The same urgent the answer, I'll give you my answer, the same urgency that the budget commission was non-urgent.

Uh the school department knew what they were doing.

There was no need to have another body um with a nose in the uh cookie jaw.

Um but other than that, um I uh appreciate your time and um happy Thanksgiving to you all and enjoy the holidays.

Thank you.

That concludes the list for public comment.

And rather than going to the consent calendar, because we have two public hearings, unless there's any objection, we're gonna go to that, especially with the stenographer here waiting.

So first up it would be PCO 28-25 and ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick.

Anthony Albanese slash bridge group LLC applicants nine post-road assessors plat 291 lots 31 and 32.

This should be per first passage public hearing.

Uh first, can someone move to open the public hearing?

Move to open public hearing.

Segonded by councilman Foley.

Clerk will please call the roll on the vote to open for public hearing.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Public hearing stands open.

Uh petitioner.

Thank you, Council President and members of the council.

Attorney Joseph Brennan here on behalf of the applicant, uh, the bridge group LLC and Mr.

Anthony Albanese.

Uh, the property that you have before you today is the property located at nine post road, um, known as Hunter's Landing and famously Hunter's Garage over in Patuxet Village in Ward 1.

Um, we've I've actually been working on this project for a is it sure.

Uh I've been on this project for a few years now.

Uh it started out as a much bigger project with I think it was up to 12 residential units and uh restaurant use on the bottom.

And over the years, we've had numerous public hearings, um, some pre-application hearings before planning.

We had um, it was actually might even still been during COVID, because I think I was at home doing a Zoom hearing before historic a really long time ago.

So this project's been kicking around for a long time, and what you have before you has been parsed down um significantly um through the avenues of communication with the neighbors, um, communications and planning staff.

And now we think we're here before you with what we think is a really good project.

And we have already received master plan approval from the planning board, along with any zoning relief that we needed through the planning board from their unified development review process.

Um the application before you is for this city council's approval.

Uh, we are in a general business zone.

Um, I actually think we might even be split with a small portion of it in a residential zone, and we're seeking it to be changed to the PUD zone.

That zone allows us to have the mixed use because what we're proposing is six residential units, and then along the front of the building that faces nine post road, it's just over 1,500 square feet of commercial space.

Whether that would one commercial space or two is undecided, um, depending on what tenant wants to go in there.

Um, but we are sure because of that limited space, it wouldn't be a restaurant.

Um, that was one of the big concerns of the neighbors and the public as well.

Um, because of the traffic, it doesn't mean they might not do a small ice cream parlor or something along that line, but the restaurant, because of the loud, the lateness, and that that was a big deterrent.

So we understand that as well.

Um, we have ample parking on our site.

Um, if you've been there, I'm sure you've all driven by it at some point with all the great Warwick events that happened down there.

Um, but it's a blighted site, and it has been for way too long.

Um, you finally have a developer who's willing to take it on, develop it into a useful uh and and serviceable use back into the community.

Um, the application will have uh use of the existing foundation as much as possible.

Um, that also is the reason for all the variances that you see that were already granted from the planning board because it's a small site, a lot of them down there are, and we're trying to build this within the existing footprint because that allows us to give that off-street parking, something that the village desperately needs down there.

So we're doing our best to not only put a useful project together, but make it so that we are not providing any type of deterrent to the traffic or the parking that exists there today, especially from our residential standpoint from what we're supplying.

Um, this project will require uh a wetlands permit through DEM.

It all will also require uh physical alteration permit from Rhode Island Department of Transportation.

So, although I don't have all the answers to you regarding any type of traffic, we believe that because of our proposal, um, we can the off-street parking shouldn't be as much of an issue, but there'll also be oversight directly from Rhode Island Department of Transportation and their experts regarding traffic.

Um, with that said, um, that really is the summation of everything.

I have the project engineers here.

We also have the architect here that can answer any questions.

If this honorable council were to approve the apple uh the zone change tonight, our next steps would be to towards getting um all of those state permits that I mentioned, along with uh we would need preliminary approval before the uh planning board again, along with final approval, and then we'd also have to be before the historic as well.

Um, so with that said, uh council president and members, we're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

All right, is there anyone here to well, Councilman Foley?

Yes, uh I would like to speak, but I'll wait till public comment is done.

Makes sense.

All right, is anyone here to speak in favor of the proposal?

Is anyone here to speak in favor of the proposal?

Is anyone here to speak in favor of the proposal?

Is anyone here to speak against the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposal?

Is there anyone here who just simply wishes to speak regarding the proposal?

Is there anyone here who simply wishes to speak regarding the proposal?

Is there anyone here who simply wishes to speak regarding the proposal?

All right, seeing none, can someone move to close the public hearing?

Motion to close public hearing, second motion made by councilman Foley, seconded by councilman Ricks.

Uh clerk will please call the roll on the motion to close the public hearing.

Yes, Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Gephott, yes, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, Mr.

Muda, Jinapa, Mr.

Ricks, yes.

Nine yes to close the public hearing.

All right, the public hearing stands closed.

Councilman Foley.

Yes.

Uh to my colleagues, uh with Mr.

Brennan here five years ago.

I remember I came on the council, and this project was the first one I had to deal with.

And I had a large number of constituents with concerns, which I addressed to Mr.

Brennan and to the developer.

And it's taken five long years, but through many different renditions, the project you have in front of us tonight is the best use for that property.

Uh that hunter's garage, and I'm I'm a big antique and vintage guy, but we need something better to enter the village.

And I think this will do it.

That's A.

B.

I want to compliment Mr.

Albany's.

He reached out to me last week, asked me if I had any questions for him.

At that time, I had I did not.

I had already spoken with Mr.

Kravitz and the administration.

He walked me through everything.

And this weekend, colleague Gephott reached out to me also.

And as I told him, five years ago, I was inundated with phone calls.

In the last two weeks, let's just say that that this got on the agenda.

I have received zero phone calls for or against, but none against.

Councilman Gippart.

Thank you, Council President.

Mr.

Brennan, nice to see you.

Thank you.

Couldn't agree more.

This looks like uh a great project.

Um I did have just a couple of questions.

Um, I did feel the call from um the councilwoman uh from Cranston, uh, that covers Patuxet Village, um, who happens to have some specialty in uh wetland and storm water and whatnot.

So I think the the crux of the question was um given the the density and the relief being requested on the setbacks.

Um knowing that you'll need to go to DEM, but are you confident in the engineering on the plan that all you know uh all storm water will be handled on site?

Um, that you'll be able to mitigate the impacts, especially with its proximity to the coast, proximity of the village, you know, right on the right on the line.

Um any concerns there?

Has uh engineering all been done?

Is that future to be done?

Um can you just go into that a little bit for me?

Yeah, so there's no concerns towards it.

Um they do have to run more calculations and numbers to be able to contain that, um, especially because the building code already uh states that you have to have a zero net water runoff from what's there existing today versus what you provide.

Um, so you're correct in saying a DM's gonna review all that, and they have special uh certain regulations that they require certain types of uh uh well, I don't I don't know the correct proper engineering term, but the the engineering and drainage has to be done in a certain way, you wouldn't get their approvals otherwise.

So there's also kind of there is a fail-safe, so to speak, if you want to call it that from uh DEM's point of view, and then also from your own building code, you'll have two separate engineers that would be heavily reviewing that.

But I'd uh from an initial standpoint, we're confident that we can handle it, but the those stages would come next because that's the information in the permit we'd apply for and give towards the planning staff um for our next hearing for which would be another public hearing for preliminary approval before planning.

Um thank you uh for handling that.

So more to come.

The the as far as everything that you are aware of today, um, that will be handled, and certainly the math will get tightened up in the in the next phase of the project.

Yes, okay.

Um, and then I just uh is there still a commercial use in the in the ground level, or can you just explain to me?

I I yeah, so when you look at the front of the building that faces post road, I'm just gonna point at the you can take that mic right out of the stand too if you want.

So it's right, it's really just along the very front of Post Road, the front of the building here.

That would be the where the commercial use would be.

That way it it kind of works within the characteristics of what uh tuxed village where you have storefront close to the sidewalk in the street, and then any other residences or anything in the back, that way it promotes all the walking and the pedestrian use rather than the car use.

So just like you would park anywhere you can find parking, um, and then you would walk to it.

That's where it would be located.

Okay.

And the intent is the intent for that ground floor use known at this point, like restaurant retail.

Well, it wouldn't be restaurant because we've gotten a lot of uh kickback on that, and the size of the space itself.

I don't know if he'd be able to find anyone that could fit the kitchen space and the proper seating area because it's only 1500 square feet in total.

Okay.

Um, so but um when we did speak in the past, he would he mentioned it's all conditioned about what kind of tenant wants to move in, but an ice cream parlor, um, maybe uh a bank, if you could get a bank to go there.

Um those types of lesser intense uses.

Okay, and for noise too.

And also we heard um testimony from uh Butters regarding delivery trucks and such.

So those uses wouldn't have all the big food Cisco trucks driving down, causing traffic too.

Sure.

Um okay, great.

Um let me see.

There's um in here, there's uh waiver of waiver of 505 landscape buffer along the residential property lines.

Um the I'm assuming based on that we didn't have any negative comments here tonight that any abutting neighbors are okay with the landscape buffering plan.

Yeah, so um no one was here tonight, but just first from a procedural standpoint, that approval has already been granted from the planning board under the unified development review.

But to explain it further, it's just because when you change it to these zones, it requires a much larger landscape buffer along a residentially zoned properties, which we have directly as you're looking at it to our left.

Um, there's that that house there.

They kind of have a shared drive, it's not a shared driveway, but they have a driveway right along our property line.

So they did have some concerns.

They asked to not have like a big fence up that way, they could have site lines for coming and going from the property.

Um, so we won't have anything like that there along the front.

Um, but also that relief was needed because of the type of site that we have.

It's so small in comparison to to some other larger sites, but the ordinance for parking when you back out requires 24 feet.

And so we needed to go that close to the residential lines in order to meet the requirements from a traffic and safety standpoint on site.

Um, but we do still provide a buffer, a small buffer where we can.

The reason that you see where it says um some places like zero requested, are mainly because you can kind of see like over when you get to the front where there's some pavement, like where we have our handicap spot.

We can't really provide it there.

So it sounds silly, but you don't give when you ask for this relief, you don't give a scale of zero to five here there.

You just give your minimum point.

So we had to give our minimum point, but you can see along our residential line and in the rear, there is some landscaping buffer there.

Okay.

Um I think parking on site.

There'll be there'll be parking for each residential unit.

Yes, yeah.

There'll be there'll be like signs up for who what unit they'll have parking at.

And then we'll have additional off-street parking for that um that office use because the the zone, the ordinance only requires 2.5 spaces per unit.

So when we have six, that puts us at 12 uh 18, and and we provide for that.

Okay.

Um okay, that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

I appreciate you, Mr.

Brennan.

Thank you.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

First, I'd like to uh thank you and uh everyone working on this because it is not a quick and simple process, certainly.

Uh as you said, many years in the making, many changes along the way.

And I think that the uh lack of uh phone calls against as stated by the councilman representing the area, uh, councilman Foley, as well as the uh lack of objection earlier during this public hearing.

I think that that's really a testament to uh all of those efforts to try to address and satisfy the neighborhood concerns.

Uh the particular location of this building inside of Patoc Village.

You have some uh some buildings there, of course, that are taller than others.

Uh it's not as if there's a six-family uh multifamily building going up in the middle of uh suburban plat that was set out in the year 1980.

Oh no, no, this is a historic village.

Uh preserving that uh and having the building as much as possible on the original foundation.

That makes a lot of sense.

Uh and it's a wonderful location, beautiful location right there next to the river and the waterfall.

So it there's it deserves something like this, something that's much better than what's there right now taking up space and being an ISO around the neighborhood.

Uh so unless I unless something is brought to my attention that's completely out of left field, I think that this is an excellent uh development.

Done the right way, gone through the full process, and uh God knows that we need more housing here in Warwick too.

Uh so I suppose one quick housekeeping note.

Uh the former owner of this building shared my last name.

Far as I know, going back about a couple hundred years and as far back as I can trace back about six generations, no relation.

So there's probably some relation out there if I go back a few hundred years more.

Who knows?

But uh it may be Rhode Island, but there's no relation, far as I know.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Laddison.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr.

Brennan.

Good evening.

How long did you say that this building has been vacant in what I would call a nuisance?

I I don't know, to be honest, but when I know that it's been vacant since I lived in Warwick, and that was about 13 years ago.

So at a minimum that, but um, it's from everything that I know, it's been a very long time that there has that's been vacant and just sitting there.

I've been told not that long.

Mr.

President, I think things need to be addressed on the mic.

Yeah, I apologize, but public comment has closed on this, uh the public hearing rather, and there's a sonographer here who can only really hear what's stated into the microphone regardless.

So the point of my question is it's been it's been vacant as long as I think most of us sitting here can recall.

Is that a fair statement?

I'll direct that question to Councilman Foley.

Is that a fair statement?

At least five years.

Uh I moved into Ward 1 six years ago.

Uh and I am not a Warwick resident native, I'm sorry, native.

I'm a Pa Tucket boy.

Uh I came down here 48 years ago and found my wife, and I've been here pretty much ever since, thanks to her.

Uh and as far as I can recall, I remember that white garage being empty.

Thank you for verifying that you are in fact a Warwick resident.

We all we all appreciate that.

Um a question to the chief of staff, I believe.

I don't think anyone from finance is here.

Chief, uh given the um condition of the property and the fact that it's essentially vacant.

Has that had a negative impact on the tax revenue to the city?

Let me rephrase that question.

The current condition and occupancy of that property.

Is it fair to say it would it generates less tax revenue today than it would should this project be passed?

Without knowing the specifics, more specifics of it, I probably would say yes.

I mean, the commercial property is valued on um income value.

So yes, it's a vacant building.

So yeah, okay.

Scratch that.

Is this in a historical district?

Yes.

So does this plan comply with the historical um commission?

We believe it does.

We haven't been before them yet.

Um I think they'll be our next stop.

Um we have an architect on our team that put together the plan in a way that we believe um historic would like, but we haven't been before them to get any feedback yet.

But we are open and very amenable to working with them.

Like I meant we had some pre-apps with them before on items.

Um we didn't get into the details as much as I would like to at those times five years ago.

They were very hung up on the zoning items from us.

Um, so we decided we thought it would be a better path to just go to the city, seek our approvals, and then we can go back to historic and focus on the architecture.

So there's there's still other steps involved.

Yeah, there's definitely still other steps involved, yes.

And if I remember reading through these documents, this proposal is um in compliance with the comprehensive plan of 2023 for the city.

Yes, okay.

And is there any storm water management taking place on this property today?

No, there is none.

And if this is approved with all approvals, um one of the caveats would be that there will, in fact, be a storm water management plan in place.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

I like the direct questions, easy to answer.

I've never been accused of that.

Are there any other further questions from the council?

See none.

Do we have a motion?

Motion for favorable action by councilman Foley and seconded by Councilman Napa.

Any further questions, comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Yes, Mr.

Delies, yes, yes, yes, Mr.

Carmine, yes, yes, Mr.

Muhammad, yes, yes, yes, I guess.

Thank you very much.

Uh, to the council president and the honorable council, and I always like to thank the staff, the the planning staff and the city staff are always fantastic and very helpful to work with.

So thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

So next we have our other public hearing, PCO 30-25 and ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick, Alexander and Courtney Bucci, applicants 85 Tollgate Road Assessors Plat 246 lot 191.

This will be first passage.

Uh first, do we have a motion to open up the public hearing?

Make a motion, open public hearing.

Motion made by councilman Latticer, seconded by Councilman Muto.

Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to open for public hearing.

Mr.

Snapping, yes, Mr.

Deloues, yes, Mr.

Bowling, yes, Mr.

Gemma, Mr.

Curvey, yes, Mr.

Lasson, yes, yes.

Yes, yes.

All right, the public hearing stands open.

Uh petitioner.

Uh good evening, Mr.

President, members of the council.

Uh, my name is Jeff Caffrey.

I'm an attorney with the law firm of Resnick and Catherine, uh 300 Centerville Road here in Warwick.

I'm here on behalf of the applicants, uh Alexander and Courtney Bucci.

And as you indicated, we're seeking a zone change for the property located at 85 Tollgate Road.

Uh, once again in Warwick.

That's uh it's a piece of property that's approximately two acres in size, uh, which at the moment um contains two uh separate single family residences.

Uh the proposal is to add a second unit to one of the properties to make it a three-unit property.

Um there'll be no expansion of the existing footprint of the property.

Uh, we're not seeking any other relief.

Uh we did receive a uniform development review approval from the planning department because the lot contains very little frontage on Tollgate Road.

Um, with that exception, there was no other relief that was being sought.

Um property at present is zoned, uh residential A10 as well as office, and again, we're seeking to have it uh rezoned to PDRL.

Um really not much I can add to that other than you know, once again, it's it's pretty much going to be the existing footprint, the existing use with just the addition of an additional unit.

Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposal?

Is there anyone here to speak against the proposal?

Is there anyone here who just wishes to speak on the proposal?

Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the proposal?

Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on the proposal?

Seeing none is will anyone be able to move to close public hearing?

Second motion made by councilman Ricks, seconded by councilman Latticer.

If the clerk could please call the role, Mr.

Stampin' Yes, Mr.

Dillis, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Mr.

Fermi.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

All right.

The public hearing now is closed.

So this is my ward.

The one question that came to mind when reviewing was the sewer department had weighed in saying that there might be a an additional fee.

But they they didn't state whether or not the the system over there would be sufficient to support the additional unit.

It's kind of implied that the answer is yes, because otherwise they would have said so.

So this is more just a request that in the future it just say that for peace of mind, at least on my sake.

And as far as uh any did any abut abutters raise issues with this proposal?

Uh none.

All right.

So I didn't receive any calls either, so that lines up with my understanding as well.

Do any other council members have any questions, comments, or concerns?

Uh seeing none can oh, councilman rix.

Thank you.

I'll just briefly state that similar to the last uh similar to the last public hearing.

Uh the lack of negative uh feedback, uh lack of uh uh phone calls and the like is a testament to working with the community uh going through the process.

So thank you for working with the community and uh working with the city and community to uh make sure that this is a good fit for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

All right, do we have a motion motion for favorable action by councilman riks, seconded by councilman foley?

Does anyone else have any further questions, comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snaping, yes, Mr.

Dilly's, yes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, Mr.

Curvey, Mr.

Lasson, yes, yes, yes, Mr.

Rick, yes, and yes first passed thank you, thank you very much.

All right, now we're gonna go back because we've skipped the consent calendar before.

So PCR 132-25 resolution relative to bids.

Uh this is finance, councilman Latticer.

For action, Councilman Latticer move favorable action on PCR 132-25.

Second.

Motion made favorable action by councilman Latticer, seconded by Councilman Muto.

And there were two items removed, right?

Uh that is correct.

First item was previously 2026-245 motorola two-way radios has been amended, and it is now PCR 133-25.

The committee recommended favorable action as amended.

The second item that was removed is 2026 262 radar calibration and repairs.

That has now become PCR 134-25.

And that was also uh moved favorable with an amendment.

All right, so on the consent calendar, we have a motion for favorable action, and we have a second.

Does anyone have any further questions or comments that weren't addressed in committee?

Seeing none clerical please call the roll on the consent calendar.

Mr.

Snapning, yes, Mr.

Dilly's, yes, Mr.

Gemma, yes, yes, yes.

Yes, Mr.

Rix, yes, all right.

Next, first we have of the two items removed.

PCR 133-25.

Councilman Latticer.

Committee recommends favorable action as amended on PCR 133-25.

So for action, councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 133-25 as amended.

Second.

So councilman Lattissar has moved favorable action to amend PCR 133-25.

Seconded by Councilman Mudo, I think.

All right.

Do you want to verbalize the nature of the amendment?

Sure.

So um the amendment was to change the term from a one-year bid to a two-year bid.

And the amount will change from 25,000 to 50,000.

And this was at the request of uh major hot from the police department.

Does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the proposed amendment?

All right, so there's a motion for favorable action to amend and a second.

So clerk will please call the roll on the amendment.

Mr.

Stanley?

Yes.

Mr.

Dilweese.

Yes.

Mr.

Bowling.

Yes.

Mr.

Gepha.

Mr.

Curvey.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rights.

Yes.

All right.

So now we have PCR 133-25 as amended before us.

Uh for action, Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 133-25 as amended.

Second.

Seconded by Councilman Mudo.

Any further questions or comments regarding PCR 133-25 as amended?

See none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapping.

Yes.

Mr.

Diles.

Yes.

Mr.

Coley.

Mr.

Gepha.

Mr.

Carmin.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Raggs.

And next we have the other one that was pulled off.

PCR 134-25.

Councilman Latticer.

Committee recommended favorable action as amended.

For action, Councilman Lattice.

Move favorable action on PCR 134-25 as amended.

Second.

So Councilman Latticer has moved favorable action to amend PCR 134-25, seconded by Councilman Mudo.

Uh Councilman, can you just articulate the nature of the amendment?

Yes, sir.

Um, so this was uh a consensus among a couple of pipe people actually.

Um Major Hot also did his due diligence reached out to the vendor to extend this bid out for three years.

I had actually requested for two, and he actually won up me and got it even better.

So he was able to get the vendor um TMDE to extend their bid through 2029.

So the amendment is to increase the amount from 7,000 to 21,000 and increase the dates from 1920 to 182029.

All right, does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the proposed amendment?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Goodbye.

Is this an appearance?

Yes, Mr.

Dilweese, yes, Mr.

Coley, Mr.

Gap, Mr.

Carney, yes, yes, yes.

Yes, all right.

PCR 134-25 now stands before us as amended for action, Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action as amended on PCR 134-25.

Motion made by Councilman Latticer, seconded by Councilman Muto for favorable action as amended for PCR 134-25.

Anyone have any further questions or comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Fermi.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Next is oh, we can skip these two.

We already did them.

Unfinished business.

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

The request is to hold that till January 5th, 2026.

Does anyone object to such?

Seeing none, so held.

Next is PCR 93-25 resolution amending the rules of the Warwick City Council for the 2025-2026 term.

Is anyone object to such?

Seeing none, so held.

Next is PCR 129-25 2026-229A.

Police personnel uniforms.

This is finance, Councilman Latticer.

Oh, yes.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

This item.

Well, start off first.

First of all, the finance committee recommends favorable action.

All right, for action, Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 129-25.

Now 2026-229A.

Alright, and it was seconded by Councilman Muto.

All right, go ahead.

So at the last hearing, the finance committee had requested that the police department hold this bid because the information that was presented to us in the bid package was not complete.

Um unintentionally in the bid package, and um this isn't something that the finance committee um is gonna be able to condone.

So the request was given to the police department to go back, get that information, which they did.

It was transmitted to us and um when presented to the finance committee, it was accepted as such with no further discussion.

All right, does anyone have any questions or comments on this item?

Well, there's a motion for favorable action and the second, so clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapping, yes, Mr.

Dilmuez, yes, Mr.

Gowling, Mr.

Gepha, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, Mr.

Rags, yes, all right.

All right.

Next we have PCO 20-25, an ordinance combining the housing board of review and the building code of appeals.

This is ordinance, so councilman Napa.

Committee recommended moving this to the full floor without recommendation for purposes of amendment.

I believe Councilman Latticer had at least one, if not two amendments that he would like to amendments he would like to propose.

All right.

So for us to actually discuss this, we needed a motion.

So for action, Councilman Napa.

Uh move favorable.

Yeah.

So bear in mind, yes, we know there's probably going to be an amendment.

So motion of favorable action for the purpose of discussion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councilman Lannister and sorry.

Uh, yes, please.

Um, thank you.

Councilman Latticer uh raised uh two issues for amendment in committee.

The first item is on page two, line 13 to insert after the word and a slash or to make it read both uh optional and conjunctive.

The second item would be later on page two in lines 38 to 41 would be to remove the new language that is being inserted that talks about the mayor being able to select uh the combination of the uh the makeup of the board upon combination, and we would insert language on that preceding sentence that would make that sentence read the combined board shall consist of five members appointed by the mayor, subject to the approval of of the city council upon combination and thereafter.

So the the amendment would maintain the council's role of uh the advice and consent of the membership upon the combination, and the same standard would apply as as it would be uh filled thereafter.

So happy to answer any questions on the proposed amendments.

So I I have a question.

So yeah, first is there a second to the proposed amendment?

So councilman Nappa seconds.

So uh my question for the solicitor.

So even if this language stays, well council maintains its advice and consent for this new board.

It's just that we won't have advice and consent over whose membership shall be terminated and whose would get continued to retain.

Correct.

There are currently two boards that have at some point in time received approval of the council uh to make up those two boards.

The proposed language from the administration seeks to streamline that combination process such that the mayor has the authority to select amongst those existing approved members of the of either board to comprise a new five-member combined board.

The amendment would uh essentially say that the mayor would have to send these names to advice and consent uh for this new board.

All right, and we're not losing future advice and consent either, correct?

Regardless of this amendment, correct.

The question is in this one moment of time of transitioning from two boards to one board, shall we have a additional um review of these appointed uh persons?

All right, so I mean, unless I hear something that drastically alters my opinion, but we already had advice and consent on these, so I'm not particularly concerned about having it again on the same people.

It's somewhat redundant from my perspective, anyway.

I understand that I'm I might be alone in that opinion, but that's fine.

Uh Councilman Lannister.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

I um I'm concerned with this because I'm sure all my colleagues on the council realize that the city council has very few appointments to boards and commissions because we're such a heavy mayoral charter.

The mayor has the lion's share of appointments on boards and commissions that make many of the decisions that affect our constituents as well as us.

I think that while we approved the members of the housing board of review for that purpose with that makeup with those qualifications for that purpose, and we approved the makeup of the building code board of appeals for its purpose with the qualifications that we feel are necessary to make those decisions.

And we approved the makeup of the building code board of appeals for its purpose with the qualifications that we feel are necessary to make those decisions.

This is now giving if this passes the way it is, this gives the mayor, not just this mayor, the mayor in the future, additional control over the boards and commissions.

At least in this, I'm sorry, let me back up.

In this particular instance, this particular instance, the mayor would have the sole authority to reorganize the building code board of appeals, with perhaps new members, could be all members, but it would be condensing the housing board of review and combining it in some fashion of five members on the building code board of appeals.

I think that is just another um release of advice and consent on the city council's pot, and relinquishing that little right that we have on that very few commissions to have advice and consent on new members of that building code board of appeals.

And I personally um don't want to see that happen.

I think we need to remain with the advice and consent on this rearrangement, which is just as important as the original appointments we approved to each board.

That's it.

All right, so just so we're clear that this that's why I asked the solicitor what I asked to make sure where there's no new members coming.

It can only be from the two bodies that we've already provided advice and consent on.

Granted, your point still stands as far as all right, but what about the makeup of this new one from those two old ones?

Absolutely true.

But there's no new people outside those two pools that can come in under this language.

But they would potentially have new members on the building code board of appeals.

There's five members on that board currently, and we're going to combine the two boards into one.

So five people are gonna go and five people are gonna stay.

Right.

So all I'm saying is possibility to do that.

And if that occurs, I would say that this council should have advice and consent or approval over that change.

It will most definitely result in a change.

Right, just for us to be careful with the word we're using when we say new.

There's no new people that can be brought on under this language that are outside any of these boards that are currently being merged.

Yes, the makeup can be different, but there's no new individuals that are being brought in who haven't already received advice and consent for one of these boards.

But yes, you're still absolutely correct as far as the makeup of this new one.

Have they been given advice and consent on the makeup of the new one?

No, you're spot on, no no disputing.

I just want to make sure we're all clear on that there's no new individuals being brought on.

Um councilman Napa.

Thank you, Council President.

So I agree with my colleague, Councilman Latticer, relative to I can't hear you, sir.

I I agree with my colleague, Councilman Lannisser, relative to how this consolidation might affect the uh makeup of the boards, and and even though we have or a city council in the past at one point did uh give the advice and consent to have all ten of these individuals appointed, they were appointed to their particular boards for a particular reason.

And I agree if that we are if in theory, I would assume that we're doing some sort of combination of individuals to make up the new five-person committee by nature of changing the makeup of any one of those two committees or boards, rather, I think that it should come back for advice and consent of the city council in the same way uh that it did in the first time.

By nature of changing the makeup of any one of those two committees or boards, rather, I think that it should come back for advice and consent of the city council in the same way uh that it did in the first time.

Now there's I don't think that the administration is doing this with any ill intent.

However, I think that it's important to maintain that not of approval that yes, this this new makeup is appropriate, given that the even though they did similar functions, some of these people may be functioning in a way that they weren't appointed to function prior.

So in that in that instance, I would support Councilman Latticer's uh amendment.

So Chief, were you waiting to speak?

Yes, thank you.

Uh Bill Fasendi, Chief Staff.

Um, Director DeCoy just brought something to my attention.

Um it was unknown at the time.

Um the state building code.

Um general law, sorry, 23-27.37.2, local boards of appeals.

In accordance with the state law, the five members of the local board of appeals that we're going to form has to have specific um criteria to be on that board.

The five current five members of the building board of appeals have that criteria that have already received advice and consent.

So the way the state law is written, only those five members can be moved to this new board.

So the minimum housing board would the those members don't meet the criteria to be on the state, the local board.

So there's they're possibly director director to court just mentioned there's a possibly of a public member.

So basically the building board would take over as the minimum housing or property maintenance board.

So the discussion on you know who goes where, the way it sounds right now, according to the state law, the five members of the building board that currently are seated that received advice and consent by the council would be automatically transitioned to the new board.

The mayor would not have only if there was a decision to not continue on the board by the member, then that would come before the city council under advice and consent.

That sounds like an amendment to me, Mr.

President.

Well writing.

I've I've pulled up the the general laws uh 2327.37.2, and it does set standards.

The question would be the administration is articulating that they essentially have a default slate that would be transferred into this, or does the council council want to assert a fresh look at the composition of this board, knowing that these standards need to be met.

That would be the implication of how to comply with the state law.

So your your amendment can still be considered as it relates to the combination of the boards and the selection would be the mayor would appoint five members meeting these standards.

They may very well be the same five that exist on this other board, but that would be at the discretion of whether or not the council is trying to insert itself into that process at this time.

So, Mr.

President, may I so uh councilman Ricks has been waiting and he hasn't had a chance to speak.

If possible, could we go to him and then we'll do any repeat people?

I I know it I know it's awkward, but he's been waiting.

My comment is simple.

Uh the chief just said we're gonna the mayor intends to appoint the same five members because of state law.

Put it in put in a writing, then we don't need an amendment.

This the makeup will stay.

Councilman Ricks.

So a couple of items here.

Uh first, taking a look at 23-27.3-127.2.

Uh I believe that what was conveyed uh was mostly true, but there does appear to be one exception.

So uh the text reads subsection A, a board of appeals shall be appointed by each municipality.

The board shall consist of the following five members.

One shall be an architect, two shall be professional engineers, one shall be a builder or superintendent of construction, one shall be a member of the general public.

So there is some flexibility when it comes to the member of the general public.

Uh so when I did mention that a general member of the general public is part of that.

So pardon me, I must have uh must have missed that part.

But in any case, that uh indicates there is some flexibility there in the event that the mayor would decide to go in that direction.

But if the mayor had already decided to go in that direction, and I don't see the mayor here this evening, then I would be confused as to exactly why the ordinance was drafted precisely as it was earlier.

But we we can put that aside for the moment.

Is that if there was to be a mixing of the two different boards, that creates a whole logistics issue because they are rotating terms, five-year terms, each one up one per year.

So there's a certain limitation there, where practically it would make sense for one board to simply stay on.

But uh anyways, that would effectively resolve that issue, but it would be more limiting.

So effectively, we would simply be eliminating the uh that second board and uh automatically uh all of the members on it, which again I think that the city council considering that we are adding new duties here.

I won't I'll try not to repeat Councilman Latiser and Councilman Napa too much here and just leave it at that.

That I absolutely agree with Councilman Nappa on this point.

I'll also just add in there the concern that I raised during the committee meeting that uh as the council president hasn't had invited me to bring this up during the full meeting rather than uh during the uh uh committee meeting, since that would be the time for the amendment anyway.

Uh the elimination of that uh one uh requirement in that same line, if I can find where I had already had this open on my computer.

That is the elimination as to the uh minority party representation specifically, that would be the second page line 38.

So although there is a question about that when it comes to the uh the charter and so forth, potentially we are not working with right now a potential future charter.

We're working with a charter that is in place right now at this very moment.

We don't know whether the charter will change in the future or not.

So that's why I would want to, as part of a separate amendment, simply reinsert that same line that had been struck on uh line 38 of the second page, and I'll make that amendment after after discussion and a vote on Councilman Lattisser's amendment.

Thank you.

So councilman Lattiser.

Well, let me make sure I write down the time.

Uh for your amendment, wouldn't it work if it simply said well, let me pull it up.

I'll get the so where the blue language starts on line 38.

So upon combining, or rather, it could it could just say instead the board shall consist of the same five members of the building code border review or something like that.

Does that work for you?

Or regardless of that, do you want them to come back for advice and consent, even if it's the same five people?

Um that's a that's a good question, Mr.

President.

Um I'm actually surprised that this discussion is taking place regarding a board that has met twice in the last 14 years.

Um having said that to answer your question, if that language were changed, that essentially the combined board would be the same five people that are serving on the building code board of board of appeals as currently approved by the city council, that would work.

All right.

So then that would address that's fine.

And then we have well, we need the other one to be before us to be able to handle that.

So council solicitor, as far as the logistics uh councilman Latticer seems to indicate that he will approve the uh a revised amendment language.

Councilman Latticer seems to indicate that he will approve the uh a revised amendment language.

Uh part one is going to be the same, which is the adding the slash or on page two line 13.

The second part would be to modify the language on uh page two lines 38 to 41 and within that preceding sentence, so such that upon the combination, the the membership of this combined board shall be the current membership of the building board of appeals.

With the first with the first sentence remaining in place, the board shall consist of five members appointed by the mayor, subject to the approval of the city council.

I don't want to be flipping that language around for future appointments.

What we're talking about is this one time one time change up.

We're getting rid of one board and we're um moving forward with the existing board.

Correct.

I will clean up the verbiage with your instruction, but that it would essentially mean that upon the merger, uh it is the building board of appeals membership that stays on, and all future appointees would still follow advice and consent.

And keep in mind these members that are currently serving, they've been serving, they have meetings on a regular basis, they're updated with the codes, the current codes, the changes and codes, etc.

etc.

Which I would say um it's it's fair for one to assume that um a board that hasn't met other than twice in 14 years, um, may not be so up to date.

So yes, I'm happy with that.

Could we just um to be consistent?

Can we just make sure that you add the um the board composition to be consistent with around state law and cite the section?

Just I mean, it in case state law changes, and you know, I mean it's up it's up to the council, but that's probably a good point.

We we can incorporate the statutory cross-reference into that language.

And keep in mind this is a uh two pass this is an ordinance change, so we'll have it, we'll have the ability to see it at a subsequent meeting as we finalize said language consistent with this instruction.

Isn't this always governed by state law?

So if the state law changes, we get a change.

It will prevent what happened here tonight, though, as far as I think it was brought to my attention now that this is the case.

If if we incorporate the cross-reference rather than spelling out that standard as the state adjusts, we won't have to revisit the process of cleaning up our ordinances.

So it's uh it's a preemptive housekeeping um cross-reference.

All right, and do we need to president seeing no lights are lit?

I'd move the question.

So is there a right to do that before you finalize on your end?

If the amendment includes finalizing language and to fulfill the intent of this discussion, I can produce that for the next meeting.

Um, but you can vote that at this time and all right.

So on the this first part, which is council matters' amendment, is anyone else have any further questions or comments?

All right, so clerk will please call the roll on that.

Yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Yes, yes, yes.

All right, now councilman Rix, do you want to just say to restore the uh strike through line text on page two line 38?

All right, is there a second on the motion?

I'll second.

All right, seconded by councilman Latticer, and so uh yes, what I said before it still stands as far as this is going to hopefully be addressed by the charter vote when it goes to the public.

However, councilman Ricks is correct as far as what we have before us now for a charter is what we have, and there's no guarantee that the voters will pass the charter change as well.

So I mean I'm somewhat ambivalent as to the proposed change because if the charter change does go through, we'll have to update stuff in general anyway, because for those who were called for the charter change, it's not something that's like gonna automatically change everything.

What then happens is that we as a council have to figure out an ordinance structure for minority appointments at that point.

So we'll among other things be looking at all of these boards anyway.

So even if we unstrike the language now, it's not the end of the world because it will be addressed then.

Um I mean Mr.

President, yes.

Similar to the conversation we were just having about not having to come back and update.

If we strike the language in the ordinance as part of this process, we default into the result of yes, the charter still controls over the ordinance anyway.

So right now the existing charter says there shall be that minority appointment.

Uh that overrules our ordinance.

Uh if the voters decide to approve the charter change, we'd have to come back and do a cleanup.

So it's I would suggest keeping the the deletion uh and removing that from the ordinance today.

The charter still controls regardless of whether it's that sentence appears at this moment, and that will save us um having to clean up it should the voters approve the charter change.

All right.

So in summary, regardless of whether or not that language is stricken, there will be a minority party representation guarantee via the charter as it currently stands.

So the language is the fact that it's there right now means nothing because it's already covered by the charter, which overrides the ordinance anyway.

All right, so Councilman Ricks?

As a general matter, I do like it when these items are spelled out in the specific ordinances.

Uh oftentimes it's simply serves as a reminder because oftentimes even we as members of the council, we aren't necessarily looking back to the charter every time.

Uh and it avoids uh potential confusion.

So it would be a little bit more work if the charter changes, but it's the charter as it is right now.

Uh I think it makes sense just to keep the language as it is for the moment.

Uh by which I mean keep the existing language, remove the strike through.

Although, you know, give it the logic here.

Uh I don't have the strongest feelings in the world about it.

I'll leave it at that.

Fair enough.

Does anyone else have any further questions or comments regarding Councilman Rick's proposed amendment to uh reinstate the stricken language of one member shall be of the minority party?

All right, clerk will please call the roll on the amendment from Councilman Ricks Navy Nope Mr.

Dillon.

Uh can I get a clarification?

Sure.

Would all right, Councilman Lattice had an amendment.

No, councilman Ricks is amending something else.

I just want to read it again.

So we can't um go into discussion.

What I can do, count um councilman, is Councilman Ricks has moved an amendment to restore a sentence that's currently being deleted.

That sentence is currently already covered by the charter provision, but councilman Ricks would like to see that item spelled out in ordinances as well.

So the question is uh to if you want that sentence to maintain its presence in the court of ordinances, you support the Rick's amendment if you uh disagree or with the the necessity for that.

Uh it it is a no vote.

I vote no Mr.

Bowling, no Mr.

Gebot, Mr.

Curry.

Yes, Ms.

Eliza, yes, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

All right.

So now this stands before us twice amend it.

Where the administration would like to propose an amendment to strike section six-154 appeal fee, starting on line 16, going through line 20 on page two, I believe it is all right, and that's because we don't collect the fee anyway.

It's uh it's an archaic convoluted fee of 25 dollars if something happens in a $10 fee if something else happens.

Um makes no sense.

We don't collect the fee anyway when someone appeals to the board of uh building board of appeals or $50.

Yes, I think you have to watch passage tonight.

So we wouldn't come to now this would conflict with what we do.

So ordinate feels for residential questions.

Is it what section is it in?

Sorry, yeah, yeah, I know.

This stands again twice amend it now with Councilman Lattice's requests implement it and now Councilman Rick's request implement it.

Does anyone anyone have any questions or comments on the proposal as amended?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Council President.

Oh, sorry, Councilman Apping on their pardon.

They said they basically never mind withdrawn.

Oh, that's a thank you.

Uh that's a good point.

So first we need a motion for favorable action.

Move favorable action as amended.

Second.

Both amendments.

All right, motion made and second it.

Any further questions or comments?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Garby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Next we have PCR 94-25, a resolution requesting the General Assembly amend to the requesting the general assembly amend to the jurisdiction powers, procedures, and penalties of the Warwick Municipal Court.

This is intergovernmental.

So councilman Gebhart.

Yes, Mr.

President, the committee recommended favorable action.

For action, Councilman Gebhardt.

Move favorable.

Second.

Second by Councilman Muto.

Uh anyone have any further questions or comments on this?

See none, clerk will please call the roll.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Next we have PCR 131-25, a resolution ordering questions to the electors of the city of Warwick regarding the issuance of indebtedness and making amendments to the city charter at a special election on February 3rd, 2026.

This is intergovernmental.

So councilman Gebhart.

And I'll move favorable action.

So motion for favorable action by Councilman Gibbart.

Second by Councilman Napa.

All right.

So for discussion, does anyone have any questions or comments that weren't already made in uh committee?

Take a chance.

I'm gonna count Councilman Muto first because he did his little light.

So there.

Thank you.

Ms.

Praud be brief.

Uh I just want to clarify uh some of the items that were talked about in committee.

Uh just uh want to make it clear that I did vote to put this additional 50 million on the ballot.

Uh just to reinforce that it was passed by legislation of 16 uh 618, and the alternate A and alternate B plans were agreed to in summer of 25.

Uh what I um what I find amusing, and what I found amusing during the committee meetings is that the company that was awarded the 350 million dollar contract would not consider if we needed an extension of time.

Uh we established in in committee that it's an approximate two months needed to process after an election.

Uh which would move us to which would move us which would move us to uh April, not June as folks have mentioned or said.

Thank you.

What I'd uh also I also question uh if this measure gets rejected, as many have talked about, then the quote is then we need to figure out what's the next steps are.

We're in November.

I think we can we could figure that out.

So in conclusion, I believe the reasoning is flawed.

Uh and the motivation for this voter suppression is very concerning.

Uh if I have the ability, I'd like to make a uh a uh motion to change or or change from February 3rd to April 7th.

Thank you.

So uh normally uh I don't blame you on a proposed amendment.

The only thing is this is kind of a weird situation where we have like board of elections, board of campusers and whatnot.

Um no, you can get back thank you though.

Uh so I'm not sure logistically how we go about doing a proposed amendment as opposed to voting this up or down because it let's just say hypothetically it went it voted down as is uh there would be it would get docketed it again for the other proposed date, and then it would have to go to whomever it would have to go to elsewhere.

Uh there would be it would get docketed it again for the other proposed date, and then it would have to go to whomever it would have to go to elsewhere.

So it may make more sense just to vote it up or down as is, and then do it that way, but I see to the solicitor on that one.

I I I truly don't know the answer.

This is weird.

We haven't done this before.

Uh Councilman Latticer.

Um, Councilman Mudo um made a motion to amend the date.

Do you want a second on that?

Do we want to hear if how if and how we can do that?

Because I again I I don't know.

I know it we can amend anything, but I mean, like from a practical perspective.

Can we actually amend this without it being a problem or many problems, I should say vote voting the amendment up or down is the same as taking the second second to motion.

Now, yes.

So now you got a second.

Okay.

You asking you, shall we see?

But you were saying, solicitor, sorry.

It's at the discretion of the the council on this matter.

I mean, the administration has worked with both the the board of canvasers and the state to address uh the pathway for this time.

It's up to the discretion of the council to deviate if if that's what they wish from a practical standpoint.

The the votes on an amendment are probably related to an inverse or you know, some sort of relationship to what the vote of it is at as is.

So it's a matter of what steps do you want you feel like going through.

I just think it's I think it's important to go through the exercise to get folks on record uh to see if they're willing to make voting more accessible to our population to us citizens for a matter of two months when we know and it was stated very clearly that we do have the time to do that if we move to April.

So let's not what's the word?

There's not a nice word for it.

Uh let's not call this something very different than what it actually is.

Uh so there's a proposed amendment as a second, so we're discussing that proposed amendment as it stands now.

Uh I'm just gonna go by the lights I see, assuming that those who are lit up wish to speak on it.

Councilman Gebart.

Uh yeah, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I didn't make any comments during committee.

Um, but uh I'll just say this.

Um I one of the things that we heard was that there are regs from the uh board of elections on when special elections can take place.

I think the chief said the first Tuesday of any given month.

So I'm not sure if the proposed date um is the first Tuesday or isn't um, but um that would be one matter for consideration.

Um, in terms of the the prediction that it's gonna snow on February 3rd.

Um, I think we did hear also that um the manner and and can uh in how this election would be conducted would be consistent with other elections, and that there would be uh early voting um period to take place in this building.

Um there would be mail-in um military ballots um as are uh uh uh available um to anyone in in in any of our elections.

Um so I I don't you know think one day of the year or of the month is uh more convenient um than another.

Um I I do not share the sentiment that this that the date was selected in an effort to somehow uh uh you know limit turnout to only the people who feel one way or the other about this particular item.

Um if the item motivates people, they will come and vote.

They have many different um ways um to do so.

Um I think what uh there is urgency um getting to the next step here.

Um, and uh delaying this, yeah.

So what February 3rd is two and a half, almost three months from now.

Um moving it out five months just leaves the project in a state of uncertainty for five unnecessary months.

There are shovels in the ground, there are foundations being built.

Um, there are plans that hinge on making sure that the state can that the city can fulfill its obligation to pay for the things that we've asked um to be built.

Um so really to me, any delay would be the the biggest mistake um that we could make.

Um put this to the voters.

Um if we could have the special election tomorrow, um, we should have it tomorrow.

But it sounds like tomorrow is not an option.

Sounds like the first day we can do is February 3rd.

Um, so I would encourage us to uh move this forward, keep the project moving forward.

Um my fear uh as with any time anything related to this project has come back before us, uh everyone you know that we have certain members of the public, certain members of this body, certain past and present um who use that as a cudgel um to try to slow down the progress of this project.

Um and I think what we've learned um is that what all that all that results in is actually more cost to the project.

Um so the most responsible way to move this project forward in the most fiscally responsible way is to get this in front of the voters as soon as we possibly can um and to let them uh vote in all the different ways that they have at their disposal.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Just as a reminder, uh the an April 7th uh the election puts us in a problematic time given that the approximately two months uh subsequent stuff that needs to get done, it puts us into June, which was the month that was a problem that we couldn't hit in the first place, so it's the whole goal of having it in February.

Uh Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Council President.

So I just wanted to basically echo what you just stated.

If we delay until April, I think we're cutting it too close to make sure that we get in to the guaranteed max contract approval and the thumbs up to say that yes, the city is good for the money.

And the estimate of two months was kind of off the hip from the city solicitor, where that might be longer than that, I don't know that process.

Um but I know there's some concern about we can just ask for extra time.

It's sort of multi-layered, I think, as I'm thinking through this throughout the night that the general contractor, yes, they've moved some timelines and move some dates.

But now that we have commitments through the general contractor from subcontractors that are ultimately doing the work, those are the subcompanies that are eating the cost and well, laying out the money for the cost and expenses and their payroll and efforts to get the project done.

So taking a vote on what we would hope that the GC could get done through the subcontractors by granting us extra time, I think may not be prudent.

If we had a guarantee from Dimeo or through Left Field that we could get extra time, then I think the conversation is different.

But as it stands before us tonight, one April puts us, I think, far too close to roll that dice.

I think that's um a a breach of our duty to the public to put that guaranteed price at risk.

It's too close.

Uh and two we uh we have to keep it moving forward in a positive manner that we can have predictable.

And then if this does go downward and the voters ultimately come out and don't approve, because I agree with Mr.

Langsith that there is a chance that the no votes are more motivated than the yes votes, in which case I would urge all of the members of this body to reach out to our constituents if you are in support of this bond to make sure that the yes votes get out also.

Um if we put this in a position where the no votes prevail, then we need to allow adequate time for the city and the administration and the school department to work together to plan for what may that what might plan be what might it be?

What is plan B?

How are we gonna come up with the extra 13 million, 15 million that we may need?

So uh caution to the wind on this amendment.

Uh and I'll leave you to your votes.

Councilman D Louise.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

They they speak a lot of truth.

They've uh you know, just going on.

I've been here for a short period of time.

Okay, nobody nobody has a crystal ball, whether it's going to snow, sleet, hail, wrath of God, anything else.

Okay, we don't have a crystal ball, but if people are afraid that this is too soon, um it's it's up to the public.

The public are going to either show up for it and they're going to either vote it down or they're going to vote for it.

So I think we should um move forward uh with with the date.

Um, like I said, we don't have a crystal ball, and we can't predict the future.

Um I wish we could, but that's that's all I have.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you, President.

I'm not happy with how we got here.

I'm not happy about in a special election in early February at the tail end of winter.

But here we are.

This is coming before us for the first time for scheduling, and we have to make a decision.

And out of all of the possible decisions we can make, I do think that going ahead and allowing this authorization is the best of the options that we have at this time.

I think it is very important to address these concerns that Councilman Mudo has raised.

It's essential that we as a city and we in our individual capacities do what we can to get the word out about this election, encourage people, submit those applications for mail-in ballots.

Uh, if you don't think you can make it uh to the polls on a given day.

Encourage people, participate in this democracy, educate yourself, and cast your vote.

Really, that's all I have here.

I'll be voting no on amendments on the amendment and yes on the uh underlying item as unfortunate as it is that it came in front of us in quite this way.

Thank you.

Councilman Foley.

Uh seeing no new lights except for Councilman Gebhardt, who's already spoken, I'd like to call the question.

All right, so councilman Fulways called the question on the proposed amendment.

We've said the same thing by Councilman Meadow.

We are the great clerk will please call the roll on the proposed amendment by councilman Muto, which to recap would move the special election to March, or sorry, April 7th, as opposed to February 3rd.

So uh Clerk, please call the roll.

Sorry.

Mr.

Sinavi, no, Mr.

D'Aloues, no, Mr.

Bowling, Mr.

Gephardt, no, Mr.

Kerming, yes, Mr.

Laza, yes, Mr.

Muno, yes, Mr.

Napa, no, Mr.

Rick.

No.

Sorry.

No.

All right.

So now it stands before us the original question, Councilman Foley.

Agenda item.

All right, motion for favorable action made.

Is there a second?

Councilman Gephardt, second.

Is there any further question or comment on the motion?

Is it new?

Try me.

Okay.

Let's go.

What you got?

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

I just want to say that while um I'm not wild about the date of this election.

I um will be voting in support of it because some of you that are on this council now heard me several years ago calling for a new election when the sales pitch was very different than what was delivered.

The cost escalated immediately after the election.

The voters didn't get the opportunity, they weren't afforded the opportunity to revote on the real book of business.

Regarding an additional 50 million on top of the 350 million bond that they already oh they already own.

So I will be supporting it.

All right, seeing no other further lights on, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapping, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Latisa, yes, Mr.

Bunow.

Yes, Mr.

Navart, yes, Mr.

Ray, yes, yes, the motion passed.

All right.

Does anyone have anything for unanimous consent?

All right, seeing none.

Um someone want to move us at the docket session.

Move us to the show.

All right.

Motion to go to the dog session.

Is there a second?

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, so the docket session we go.

Ward one.

No, he already did it because you were distracted.

So word one's good.

Ward two, pass.

Ward three.

Ward four, pass.

Ward five, ward six, ward seven, pass.

Ward nine.

And I think I don't have anything, right?

Nothing.

All right.

So then ward eight passes, so we're adjourned at 9.08 p.m.

Step in the second word.

It is my pleasure to deliver these documents.

Councilman Laddis, I had a good point.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Enjoy the holidays.

Be safe.

Thanks for meeting.

I just don't have to go.