Good evening, everyone.

Let the record indicate that the work city council finance committee meeting is called to order at five PM.

I just want to let everyone know that Councilman Knapper will not be able to attend the Finance Committee meeting this evening, as he has a personal issue that he is dealing with.

Aye.

Thank you.

I need a motion on the acceptance of the minutes held on November 17th on the consent calendar, please.

Move a black.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

And we will start with item number one, 2024 385 found on page one.

That is for street improvements.

Good evening, Christy.

Good evening.

Actually, still afternoon, I guess.

Yeah, right.

It's even though it's dark out.

Um Public Works is requesting to increase the cap on the uh bid for the street improvements in the amount of uh one million five hundred thousand dollars.

And the contract does not expire until April 20, April 25th, 2026.

Okay, thank you, Christy.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Hi, Christy.

Hi.

Uh the increase.

Do um do we have streets that are targeted to be used for this 1.5 million?

The majority of these funds will be used to um cover the invoices that we're expecting for the the roads that they just finished recently um for this paving season.

And then the remainder of the funds, which is around 500,000, is for uh roads that we are doing in the spring under the um the ones that we submitted to uh Ride Ot for uh reimbursement, they reimburse us one third of what we spend.

So those are the roads that um that we're targeting to do in the spring.

Okay, so um uh just a little clarification.

So when we well we paved these roads, uh we paved them without without the the increase in approval, so we need this 1.5 for work that we've already done.

Yes for some of it has already been done.

Um the the reason there was uh there's a couple different pots of money, so to speak, we get reimbursements from the gas company, we get reimbursements from um right out for for some road base.

So that we just paid a few invoices um for both vendors that we utilize.

They were all they were both given a list of roadways that we needed to do um back in the spring, you know, and then they would be given some more, you know, over the summer and that.

So um when it came down to it, you know, um my conversation with engineering.

Um we we do have we did overspend the cap on the bid, but we do have the funds to pay for it.

Okay, thank you, councilman Christy.

What's left in that paving account right now?

Um there's a there's around, I want to say three and a half million.

We just deposited as well a re uh large sum of money from um the gas company, which is around 595,000.

A large amount of money from who, please?

The gas company, Rhode Island Energy.

Okay.

And one of the members of the city council, when we send in a request to have a street repaved or completely redone, excuse me, or a portion of a street repaved.

How is that processed in the hopper?

I'm gonna defer your question actually to Eric.

Uh sure to answer that one for you.

Hi, director.

Hello, Eric Earls Public Works.

So what we look at first if there are any utility conflicts.

So what we look at first if there are any utility conflicts, you know, a lot of times what Rhode Island Energy is replacing now are all their bare steel mains.

Um and we have an old map that they provided to us about probably like eight or 10 years ago, but it shows what their infrastructure was like back then, and we can cross-reference that with new work that they've done and see whether or not the roads have bare steel mains in them.

And that's kind of the first step.

And that unfortunately that's true in a lot of cases.

Um then we'll talk to the other utilities, you know, water, sewer, um, and see if they have plans for certain roads.

And if those utilities clear, then it becomes a matter of funding.

Um and then there are other aspects like you know, traffic volume, you know, bigger roads with more traffic volume are more of priority than side streets.

Um, but ultimately, you know, we take our recommendation and we bring it to the mayor's office and say, hey, you know, councilman X has requested this road, it cleared all the utilities.

Um, there is available funding.

What are your thoughts?

And then ultimately it's the mayor's decision.

Okay.

Um, because I'm not speaking for all of my colleagues.

I'm sure everyone has their own issues with regards to paving.

Um I know that I have at least one area, it's probably going on four years or more that I've requested to have this section repaved.

Um, with that said, when one of the members of the city council turn in a road or section of road to get repaved or uh repaired, would it be possible to at least get back to us with some sort of an anticipation uh regarding time so that we can get back to our constituents as opposed to just sending them an email and saying I've asked DPW or the administration to get this road paved and have not heard back from them.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, we might not be able to say you know when we're gonna pave it, but we can certainly explain why we're not going to, if that's the case, right?

We and a lot of times we will we'll we'll respond saying, you know, this is this road has a bare steel gas band in it.

Bare steel is what National Rhode Island Energy is currently replacing, and hopefully, you know, that message gets conveyed to you know, the council person subsequently the constituent.

Um, but yeah, that's typically how we respond.

Um, if it gets lost somewhere else in there, then you know, um I don't know what happens um sometimes when it kind of clears several hurdles, other times it's it's a matter of funding, and then it's it's a more difficult response.

Or um, you know, or the time of the year we get the request that might get lost in the shuffle, but for the most part, we try and answer those questions so that you know council people can have um an educated response when they go back to the constituents.

Okay, I'll follow up with you on some of those locations.

All right, anything else from yes, Councilman Mudo?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um DLuise, sorry.

I thought you forgot my name for a second.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um Eric, I I think that um councilman Lattizer is referring to um we have a lot of requests, people storm drains and the way that certain streets are paved that they pitch towards people's property and they get flooded.

So um I I have a question.

What um processes do we have to go through to have like a berm put in front of because I sent pictures to um councilman Lattice or the same uh person.

Um the street was paved, and all the water floods when it rains, it floods her garage.

So how difficult is it to have a uh like a berm or some kind of a barrier uh placed in front of that property?

Is that a long process or no?

I mean, typically when we turn up when we when we instruct a paving company to pave a road, their directive is to replace in kind, right?

So they mill an inch and a half off and they put an inch and a half back.

Any drainage issues that arise after that probably were also there before that because all they did was take an inch and a half off and put an inch and a half back.

Um of the weird things that does happen is in some locations when the road is really broken up, it actually will allow water to infiltrate.

And when we pave it, that no longer happens, right?

So sometimes you see that.

Um, but as far as the berm, if there is a berm there now, they will replace the berm.

If it's something that needs to be installed, then we will typically you know walk it with them and figure out where it might be necessary.

But again, their typical directive is to you know replace in kind.

So if you have areas where it's a concern, we can certainly address that during paving, but it's also the kind of thing that we can address inside um with our own.

We have a berm machine, so we can go and and put that down after the fact as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um councilman, sorry.

Yeah, go councilman Ricks.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

When it comes to uh dry wells, would uh repairing adding uh you know, basically any kind of work on a dry well.

Is that also relating to the asphalt budget, or would that be a different line item?

Uh yeah, no, the the contractors that are paving do not would would not install that.

That's something that we typically do in-house.

Um, and ideally we would do it before they pave.

Um, but yeah, it's in dry wells are certainly no silver bullet.

You know, anybody who understands the technology, I mean, there's a finite volume, right?

It's uh it's an opening in the asphalt that goes to a couple pipes and then it infiltrates.

You get one of those hard, fast storms, that's gonna fill up and you get a puddle.

But what it allows to do is it gives a conduit for the water to eventually you know drain.

And what we shoot for is is typically 72 hours.

That's kind of the stormwater standard.

Um so if there's no puddle in 72 hours, then that's kind of what we look at as gauge as success.

Yeah, and uh from years on the city council, I don't claim to have any kind of engineering background, but uh just about any type of flood that's really bad.

It's uh rare to see one still standing after 72 hours, unless of course it's actually frozen.

Uh I won't get into you know any uh any great detail uh with this, but uh I'm just reminded of a few areas where I've been putting in requests for I think I think the full nine years uh may not have sent in a request every single year, other times sent in multiple requests during a given year, but uh yeah, I think it's fair to say it's understandable how it can happen.

There's a great need for funding for paving the roads, this type of maintenance.

Some of it has to do with uh you know the presence of dry wells that have been there for many decades, limitations on those.

So I'll uh leave it at that and I'll make sure to follow up on those particulars.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you.

Director, just a uh clarification question.

In the paperwork, it says anticipated uh dollars.

Uh do we know for a fact that's the dollars we're gonna get?

Or could it could it sway?

So if we give you the authority of 1.5 million and we only get, I'm just making this up, 1.2.

Do you still have the spending authority at 1.5 or can is it just uh using that money uh that is uh that we will be getting reimbursed for so we have funding available to us to spend.

Yes, we can spend the 1.5 million.

Um and we're still have you know, there's more reimbursements to be built.

Um, right at wires there's I'm not I did request one a week or so ago.

Not sure if that's come through yet or not.

So um we have we have more than enough money to pay with the one the 1.5 million that we're asking for tonight, including what has just recently been finished.

Okay, and that money is is allocated in which budget?

It's um there's so there's an expense code and there's a revenue code.

It is not, it's the the expense code is the 4010401 listed on the bid document.

That's where the expenses come from.

The reimbursements go into a different 401 code.

Awesome.

Uh one last uh, I guess comment.

Uh we will be coming up on budget season faster and sooner than we we'd like.

Uh at least for the first year sitting on the council.

This this always seems to be a hot button for a lot of council people.

Uh water, if we can make a request to uh have your team or the administration educate us as to that process, uh the ins and outs of it.

I I would suggest um you know, checking with the administration on how that would happen, whether I would obviously they would spearhead that.

So administration do we'll look at when you say look at it, mean get it on the schedule and make it work.

Just love your commitments.

All right, we'll uh we'll keep pushing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any further questions from members of the council?

Councilman Ricks.

Is your light still on or okay?

Thank you.

Any comments or questions from members of the public?

Any comments from members of the public.

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number two, 2026 163 found on page five.

Design services for Patuxet Park.

Good evening, Tom Kravitz, City Planning Director.

This is some more good work done by Dean in the office.

He obtained a grant, uh, Oscar grant uh from DEM.

Um it's 193,000 grant, and it's going and there's no match required on the city's behalf.

So we really like those, and it'll be going towards the design permitting of uh Patuxet Park, uh, which involves reconstruction of a seawall, um improvements to the canoe launch, the parking lot, new play area.

Um we awarded it to landworks, uh, who scored the highest.

And we're just looking for the council's endorsement here to get going with the landworks.

Okay, thank you.

Um councilman Foley, I believe this is in your wood.

Yes, uh, this has been an ongoing process.

Uh I think when I first came on five years ago, they reached out right away asking uh the city for any assistance.

So this is basically step one or two with the just as basic design or what can be done and should be done.

Yeah.

When I started, actually, this was our first public workshop with the public.

Dean and I hosted in the evening, and we got a lot of input from the community up there uh that came and we Dean had a number of different options.

So we were trying to lay some groundwork and get some ideas from which landworks will now work off of that.

So landworks has to have a number of uh public meetings as well, and we'll kind of refine and check if this is still uh larger the way the neighborhood would like to see this going.

We want to make sure we're going in the right direction with it.

So it's a it's a good project.

And then after if the request for um proposal comes back, or they look at the pro a project and they come up with a plan, the next step would be to go back out trying to find funds to make those improvements.

Yeah, ultimately, this gets us to the point where we've got a completely 100% design project with bid specs permitted.

Um, and it's something tangible that we can actually bid to the construction community.

So when that time comes, that'll be well.

This this runs through to late May of 27, I think.

So hopefully we'll be um we can try to get more grant funds from DEM to go towards the construction.

You know, we'll have to search for more money.

But once we bid it and we know what that number is gonna be, um we can hunt for more funds, grant funds.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Councilman.

Hi, Director.

Hi.

Uh, I I don't really have a question, just uh just a comment.

This is uh, like you said, this is a great project.

And uh looking forward to uh supporting uh projects like this in my fellow councilman's wards, but also throughout the city.

Uh my only comment uh also would be to uh I know we still need to design and and find the money to build, but when we have projects like this, uh we should also consider the maintenance and the long-term maintenance and build that into the process so we're not always reactive.

So as we're going through projects like this, a little more sophistication, a little more uh development, uh, especially near the shoreline.

Shoreline is always uh very challenging is if we can have a maintenance plan that's some type of maintenance plan that's built into this.

So it it doesn't get lower than five minutes.

The points well taken.

Thank you, councilman.

As um councilman Mudo said, I also believe that this is a really good project, necessary project, too.

Um I'm happy with a few things.

One is that there's no matching funds.

That's that's always nice.

The other thing that I find encouraging is that you received 10 bids for this item.

I think that's um very encouraging.

The numerous questions that I have on this.

It says in one of the well, it's on page nine, it's one of seven from Lenworks.

Says playground and recreational areas, introduce a new inclusive playground.

What is that?

And family oriented amenities.

Yeah, I see the one you're looking at.

Inclusive of um, you know, has to be ADA compliant, for example.

That's an inclusive action.

You don't want to exclude certain populations from playground equipment.

Okay.

I also note in here the efforts of um getting the community advocacy involved in this too.

And um, you know, I'm I'm happy to see that as well.

It says here in phase one, um, initial meeting with city staff to review existing conditions documentation, including site survey.

What is the site survey?

That would be any professional land survey or documents that exist, so we can see exactly where the perimeter property line is, and your main concern there is trying to resolve any encroachments that may be happening.

Um that's really what that's speaking to.

Okay.

On page 10 of our document, it's task 1.2 stakeholder design updates.

Uh, provide updated design and support documents to the city for review with the mayor and city administrators.

Who are the city administrators?

That'll be probably dean from my office.

It'll be who, please?

Dean Pemental from my office, and we'll likely involve uh DPW as well.

In phase two geotechnical investigation.

This is for surface exploration, I believe.

Um what were the findings on that initial assessment of this site?

Well, as it says there on the deliverables, a memorandum with summary of findings, recommendations for play foundations, civil infrastructure, earthwork, and slope stabilization.

So that's speaking to cost of playground site and the foundations that must that are associated with that.

Civil infrastructure is gonna relate to uh drainage that they need to do there and the ability to infiltrate water and what type of systems they may go with.

Um that'll also help us determine cost.

I'm not sure if this ledge in that area or not, but they're gonna be looking for stuff like that.

Um slope stabilization, that's gonna get more tour to the seawall that they've need they need to reconstruct.

I suspect they're gonna do several borings in that area to see what type of system is most appropriate based on the subsurface condition.

That was um one of the other questions that I had.

Conduct a visual inspection from land of the existing seawall.

So, how much are they able to determine with respect to the condition of the seawall looking at it from land?

I mean, do you actually have access to the water surface of this wall to make decisions now as opposed to uh coming up in six months from now and saying, oh, uh oh, we gotta rebuild the whole wall.

Yeah, I wish I had an engineer with me to really answer that question.

I don't know exactly what they can determine from visual inspection, but I know that um CRMC is gonna be front and center in approving anything that they prescribe as a remedy.

Um, but I really can't tell you, you know, aside from what you can see, obviously, right?

They're not gonna do subsurface uh investigation with you know underwater.

I I guess you could see a lot with low tide, too, I suppose.

But I don't have a real good answer for you as to what exactly they're looking at, you know.

Well, I think it's the I guess the the better question is with having conducted or conducting a visual inspection.

Um are there any potential concerns with the integrity of this wall?

I'm sure that's what they're looking for, areas of subsidence and uh depressions.

Um but I just can't say for sure, not being in the business myself, and I'm not a civil engineer, but right obviously in the field analysis is important to confirm any kind of findings you may think you see from mapping, you know.

Okay.

It also says here assess environmental permitting requirements.

Has EPA been contacted with regards to this?

No, not EPA.

Will it be necessary for EPA to be contacted?

Uh my certainly CRMC.

Um perhaps Army Corps.

I'm not sure on EPA.

Because with environmental permitting requirements, that that includes a whole lot of stuff, right?

It includes air quality, water resources, stormwater runoff, wetlands, hazardous waste, endangered species, environmental impact, etc.

etc.

Are these um these issues or these items have they been addressed?

It's it's it's part of this scope to vet that out to get that done.

It is a comparative to other seawalls, it's not a huge seawall.

So I'm not envisioning you know a full environmental impact statement, but uh it's that's their job to to identify what exactly is gonna be needed and by which agency.

So now we have um in here a guaranteed maximum price.

So the reason for the questions that I've been asking is to ensure that we're protected, yeah.

Um, with regards to that guaranteed maximum price, should anything develop or be discovered with the um the seawall or with uh there could be you know an environmental issue, et cetera.

If those things are um discovered as this pro this project moves forward, who bears the cost of that?

And assuming that there will be or could be additional costs.

How is the city gonna be impacted?

Um is that monies that we're getting now with no match?

Is that something that would be increased?

No.

No, we would have to re-evaluate what we're doing here if it's gonna go above 193,000.

Okay.

I think that's even stated in the contract with DEM at the end of this.

I'm pretty sure.

It's an amount not to exceed.

This is very similar to what we're dealing with with the dredge project, too.

Um in Oakland Beach.

Um, then we're we're working through that right now.

That's very clear.

We made it clear to them from you, it's not going to exceed the three million dollars there.

This won't exceed the 193,000.

Yeah, no, they do um refer to the guaranteed maximum price, but as we've seen with other projects, what happens to a guaranteed maximum price?

Yeah, it's it's a section two in the agreement with DEM.

In the in the exclusions and to scope of service.

What page is that?

On page 13.

It's number item number three, exclusions to scope of service.

It says owner shall provide base information and services as required for performance of the work, including typographic utility boundary service, etc.

etc.

Has this been done as yet I'm not sure.

That would be a dean question.

That's part of the records review.

Any any plans that we do have on file, we would have to provide for them.

But yeah, civil structural, they do have Fuss and O'Neill as one of their primary subs.

And that their base fees 111,000.

So I'm sure if they need information, they're they're able to generate it if we don't have it.

Things like topography and whatnot.

Okay.

Does the city get uh an EO policy from landworks?

A what policy?

Errors and omissions.

I'm sure that's in the professional contract.

That's standard for professional services contracts.

Well, the reason I'm asking is because in um under those exclusions to scope of service, it says landwork studio shall be indemnified from any claim in regard to the soil quality uncovered or imported to the project, no known soil cons contamination, environmental use, etc.

So if they're looking for us to indemnify them, I would think that we should also be sure that we have an ENO policy protecting us on our end for perhaps something they've missed or overlooked.

It's funny, it does say uncovered or imported for the project.

Some of this exclusions seems to be speaking the construction activity too.

Um which, if that were the case, I would I can I can see why they this is written that way.

If and when we get to the point of construction, obviously any material coming into the site would have to be tested and approved by you know CRMC or whoever the jurisdictional authority is.

So you you agree that the city should also be protected from errors and omissions on their part, right?

From a design perspective, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Actually, the next section there does the next sentence does actually speak to the required remediation would be undertaken during the construction phase.

So they're they are kind of speaking to the construction phase of this too.

The um late charge that they speak to for balances over 60 days past due, they are requesting or including um one and a half percent per month interest, where statutory interest is statewide is 12 percent.

This 18 percent, is that something that the city is agreeing to?

And if so, is the city completely confident that there will be no reason for them to extend over the 60 days?

Yeah, we we pay this is a reimbursatory program from DEM to the city, so we have to front the money, right?

And then we get reimbursed at the end of the project.

We've never gone beyond 30 days to pay uh invoices.

I don't anticipate it being an issue.

Okay, and they have a clear understanding about how we get reimbursed, right?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

And the arbitration, I know this is something that comes up often in my world.

Uh what is the reason why arbitration would take place in Boston as opposed to taking place here in Rhode Island?

Is it because the contractor is from Boston?

Yeah, as opposed to the work is actually being done here in Rhode Island.

Yeah, it's a good question.

I can't see arbitration in Boston is much different than arbitration in Rhode Island.

I can run that by legal prior to execution.

I think this had come up once before in a different different professional contract where it was asked to be changed to Rhode Island and it was changed.

You need a certificate to do business in Rhode Island, so it's yeah.

Yeah, I'd appreciate it if um you would follow up with legal counsel on that because that certainly could be an issue at some point.

Hopefully, it will never get to that, but if it does, it could be a problem.

This is uh just uh like a kind of a detailed type question, I guess.

It says the guarantee may commence performance of this agreement on June 27th, 2025.

What does May commence performance mean?

What page are you on?

I'm on page 16.

This is on the um CRMC of Rhode Island Infrastrust Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank.

Oh, the the grant agreement.

It's at the very the last paragraph on page 16.

The guarantee may commence performance of this agreement on June 27, 2025.

What is performance mean?

Yeah.

Begin the project.

The beginning of the project.

That's what I think, yeah.

Well, I asked that because the the actual documents were signed by the mayor on June 26th.

And does that affect anything that um has to do with this terminology?

Yeah, no, they you know it's the the grant agreement's gonna come first, and we secure those grant funds first, and that's simply why that kind of you're gonna see dates like this that are much older, of course, than where we are tonight.

Um we have to go through the effort of even procuring the professional service, and it just takes time.

So I think the more important time as long as we get it done before May 31st to 27, that would be the one that concerns me more to make sure if we need to extend this, the state will let us do it.

Okay, I just wanted to be sure that we weren't in some type of uh a conflict with that language.

This is something we already spoke about.

Maximum um grant amount, the total amount available to be reimbursed to the guarantee of the bank completion shall not exceed 193,000.

So that's where we had all of this conversation prior.

Um, if there's anything that develops that is going to increase the cost over 193,000, that becomes a whole new issue, right?

Everything stops at that point.

Okay.

And we're gonna have conversations with you know DEM, the professional contractor.

I just don't want to see this turn into another school issue, is where I'm getting at the same time.

Chair, you have one minute.

Thank you.

Reporting.

Um that's found on page 17, bottom paragraph.

Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council in coordination with the bank shall serve as lead agency responsible for the administration of the award.

The guarantee will be required to submit semi-annual reports that are compliant with Rhode Island General Laws.

Who is the designee for the city required to submit these that'll be Dean.

Dean.

Okay.

So pretty much any of these um recording activities, et cetera, that'll all be under Dean's control.

Right.

Dean Pimentel from the planning department.

Okay.

Okay, Director.

Um thank you for answering all those questions.

Um they weren't asked to be a pain in the butt, but they were asked so that we don't end up in a similar situation with um, or I should say, as other construction projects are are taking place.

It's a it's a really good project.

Um I'm really happy to see that the grant was here, and especially the fact that there's no match.

So thank you.

And thank you for having those answers, but do get back to us um on that legal ease issue on the arbitration, please.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item number three.

Um sorry, yeah, we're at we're in the um under 50 items.

Does anyone on the committee have any items they would like to have pulled out?

I do not.

Councilman Mudo.

Uh the uh pipeline 2026, 256.

You reading my notes.

No.

Anything else?

Not necessarily on the councilman Foley.

I'm gonna go any members of the council have any items that they would like pull out.

None on this side.

Okay.

Um I am looking to pull out item number four, HVA services for city-owned buildings found on page 40.

I'm looking for number six, delivery of industrial cylinder gases found on page 58, as well as item number seven, 2026 296 purchase DPF filters found on page 64.

Members of the public, are there any members of the public desiring to have any items pulled out?

Any members of the public want anything pulled out.

Hearing none, we will move on to Councilman Mudo, starting off with item number three, Buttonwoods Avenue.

Pipeline replacement found on page 23.

Great.

Thank you, Chair.

You're welcome.

So who is available to answer these questions?

Go with that.

Jerry Willette, water the vision.

Thank you.

Uh couple of couple of questions here when it comes to uh this particular project.

Uh one of the things I didn't notice was the funding sources uh identify to pay this.

Do you have a do you have the funding source for this or it's coming out of capital?

Coming out of capital.

Okay.

And um one of the items that I noticed was that obviously we have a plan A, plan B, and so forth.

Uh one of the issues that was brought up, at least in the documentation was we may need to go deeper.

Yes.

Uh can you shed some light as to what some of those factors would be?

The depth that they wanted to go at um when they took the original samples, came back with boiling sands.

The depth that they wanted to go at um when they took the original samples, came back with boiling sands, um, which it won't work with the directional drilling, so that they're gonna go deeper.

And this is this is to replace an existing pipe water pipeline.

Correct.

Yeah, and how deep is the existing water pipeline.

If I had to guess, I I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that.

It's it's below the harbor, probably 20 feet.

Okay, but what the new drilling is deeper than the existing.

And the reason is just the boiling sand with the equipment used, or is there equipment that is just not available to replace the existing um depth of the existing water?

It's the method.

It's the um in order to directional drill, we have to go deeper.

Okay.

When it comes to plan C, I know plan C is if we need to go deeper.

At which point will uh you reassess the um the method to uh to install a new pipe because we can keep out going deeper and deeper and deeper.

And the deeper we go, the more expensive it gets versus the method.

Share with me the reasoning why we're doing directional drilling versus a method that we're replacing existing pipe, cost and permitting the permit process.

This is the cheapest way, uh most inexpensive way after this.

Um we're gonna have to reevaluate.

If if there's boiling sands at 85 feet, we're gonna have to reevaluate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Director, um, just step back in time and put a few things in perspective.

So this bid for this project of a hundred and ninety-nine thousand five hundred dollars, this came before us on November third, and it was approved.

And it was signed by the mayor on November fourth.

Now you come back to us looking for an additional thirty-one thousand dollars.

And the problem I have just bear with me, and I will get to it.

Is that on me reiterate in November third?

This budget was approved at the request of the department administration for 199,500.

It was signed by the mayor on November 4th.

In August 2025, borings, this is from Stantech.

Borings were acquired to a depth of 50 feet, about 40 feet below the water line.

Boring depths were initially determined based on available soil maps, etc.

etc.

These fluid deposits shown outside of the project area are indicative that liquefied soils may be present.

Directional drilling can be done through sand, however, liquefied soils, which as a liquid can cause the drill to deflect from the desired depth.

This says to me that Stantech knew that that depth of 50 feet was no good in August.

It also tells me that in this report, it says Stan Tech recommends and is requesting three additional borings, two on the Buttonwood side, one on the strand side of the crossing.

The additional costs associated with the three soil borings, which includes Stan Tech's travel and expense is $31,000.

So why was this presented to us on November 3rd?

About two months after Stan Tech had already identified that the borings to 50 feet were inadequate and they would have to go deeper for an extra $31,000.

Why wasn't this presented to us, including the $31,000?

Or do I misinterpret what I have in front of me?

Chrissy Moretti Public Works.

So this came in three days after we made the initial request for this project.

And that's when we found out that the borings were not deep enough.

If you in it does speak to their August 25, they did borings at a 50-foot depth.

It says borings indicated that between 15 and 30 feet below sea elevation are where liquefied soils are occurring.

So then in the last 10 feet of borings, which would be the 50-foot mark completed, the borings consistently showed some trace clay, which is desirable for directional drilling.

So now it's not a hundred percent, it it shows trace clay.

So now we have to go down to 85 feet, do the borings, and make sure that that is suitable for the directional drilling.

And if it is, then that's the process that we will follow.

In the other um, they gave a scenario for all the other soil investigations.

None of those, none of those options are viable for this project based on the soils in, and as we know it's very shallow in Brushnet Cove.

Excuse me, buttonwood's go.

Christy, I see the dates of November 6th.

What I see is that Stan Tech knew in August of 2025, which was two months prior to November 6th, which was three days after we voted, they knew about this depth of 50 feet to be wrong, and that it had to go down to perhaps 85 feet.

They knew it in August.

Correct.

Why is and why wasn't there why didn't they come to us or come to you long before November 6th to inform the city that, oh, by the way, um, we already know we knew back in August of 2025 that that depth was not going to work.

Why didn't they come to you long before August 6th?

So include the 31,000 dollars as opposed to three days after the meeting, send you this change order for 31 grand because we didn't tell you back in August.

So I'm sure that you can appreciate that um they're they're an engineering firm.

So there was probably and it doesn't say exactly what date in August, but the borings were done in August, and they got these results.

So then if you look at page 28, it proceeds page what please 28 it it continues to indicate additional soil investigations.

So they had to go through the process and make their assessments on if any of these other means of laying the pipe were viable in that in that piece of the cove, which and they went through in detail why they're not.

So I would imagine that it probably took them a little bit of time to put this report together.

I'm sure that they weren't, you know, being I get the impression that you feel like they were being a bit underhanded coming to us three days after with this report, but I would imagine that it took them some time to put this report together and forward it to the city.

were viable in that in that piece of the the cove which and they went through in detail why they're not so I would imagine that it probably took them a little bit of time to put this report together I'm sure that they weren't you know being I I get the impression that you feel like they were being a bit underhanded coming to us three days after with this report but I would imagine that it took them some time to put this report together and forward it to the city well if that's the case then why did the city jump the gun and bring it before us why didn't because we we needed to get this project before the city council to get approval we had no idea that three days later this change order was going to come through so if if we don't do the change order then we don't do the project because we need to find out where is it is suitable to lay the pipe in this cove so yeah I'm questioning it absolutely questioning it when they knew in August 2025 that they weren't able to do this at 50 feet and they had to go down 80 feet or 85 feet and they also had um a pretty good indication that it was going to cost more money to do it because this isn't the first time they do this and then it's three days after we approve it for 1990 they come back to us and say um oh by the way um we need another 31000 to compensate us for something we knew about in August but the paperwork took a long time to submit to you guys and you brought it before the city council and we got it approved for 1990 councilman I I can appreciate your skepticism but if you look on actually page 36 2000 of that money is to actually have the borings done not it's not going to stand tech it is to pay the contractor to do the borings.

Yeah I'm glad you mentioned that so um in addition to certainly not being happy with the fact that they knew about something in August and didn't tell us about it until three days after it came before this council and by the way I'm not being critical of you or your department I know but I I think you're uh with all due respect I think you're a little bit stuck on the the August that they that this oh yeah that this took place in August yeah this I am sorry the borings took place in August so by the time they got the results from the boring they did their report and forwarded it to the city yes there was there was a gap of time but that doesn't mean that they knew in August and failed to notify the city they knew in August they knew in August they said it right here in this document in August 2025 borings were acquired they had already done the borings down to the depth of 50 they knew they weren't that that wasn't going to work they knew the soil support wasn't there they knew that um other things as well hold on one second closed like okay it also says here soil liquefication which is what they referred to in that August 25th um little exploration they did on the depth it said it says what causes it earthquakes are the most common trigger but other cyclic stresses is like heavy construction pile driving or wave loading can also cause it there has got to be a thousand piles that are driven and have been driven through all of that area and as engineers I would expect that they would have considered that there very well may be a problem with soil liquefication because of the pilings so yeah um I'm very concerned where um we also have the date by the way for that exploration that they did it was August 12th 2025 that's when they did their exploration yes that's when the well that's when they were out doing the the test borings yes that's when they found out that they had loose brown to black wet fine sand traces of silk that that does not mean that that's when Stantech found out that's when they were out doing the borings then they have the that company sends their report to Stantech then Stantec puts their report together and forwards it to the city it does take some time what would what what would you like us to do with this project councilman.

Yeah, well, I would like to know why we have to pay, we the taxpayers, why we have to bear the cost of this $31,000 of additional monies when it should have been included in the original bid that came to us in November.

Because the borings at 50 feet were not deep enough.

They showed that they were not deep enough to lay the pipe via directional drilling.

It also in the report says that the other options to lay this pipe are not suitable.

So in order for us to find a depth where we can do the directional drilling, they have to do the borings down to 85 feet.

Mr.

Chair, you have one minute left.

Stand text, time expense, 11,000 for a total of 31,000.

Correct.

Correct.

And below that is channel boring, one at 85 feet for 40,000.

Correct.

That's correct.

Now over here it says total borings for land, one channel, stand tech 64,000.

Where does the 64,000 come from?

So everything on that page, what you read is correct, and that's what it says.

We are not doing a channel boring.

We are only doing the three at 85 feet.

And I believe that you may all have a map as to where those borings will be located when they're drilled, but we are not drilling in the channel.

So that cost is in is irrelevant.

So that 40,000 is not going to be done.

Correct.

They have to get authorization to do these prior to doing it.

As of today, they've told us that the channel boring is not necessary.

It starts off with NTP design July 1st, 2025.

But there is no reference in this schedule that shows the borings being done in August of 2025.

Why is that?

What page are you looking at?

Um it's page 37.

And that list differs from the list that um we had with the original bid on November 3rd.

And I would think that it has to do with this updated schedule because of the deeper drillings.

But again, I asked the question why isn't the borings shown on this document on page 37 in August of 25.

I'm not sure why the original ones um aren't here, although that could be uh part of the survey portion and just not listed out.

But it does show the additional borings.

Um they indicated, you know, Wednesday, start Wednesday, October 29th, which obviously is not happening because we are here now asking for um that was their timeline, but we have to get the approval first.

So they sent us so October 29th, we got the document November 6th.

We have to bring it before the council.

Obviously, we missed the deadline for the second meeting in November, so here we are.

So basically, the long and short of it is that if we can't have these additional borings done, and I by no means am you know trying to back you into a corner, but if we can't do the additional borings, then we can't do the water meet.

I'll I'll defer my 35 seconds to the council president.

That's over the 10 minutes.

So just uh observation more than anything else.

Uh this is why we urge and encourage in the strongest terms possible to please ask questions beforehand whenever possible to the administration.

Granted, that is not to suggest that councilman Latticer did or did not.

I actually don't know.

I'm assuming he did because he usually goes out of his way to do so.

Um, but most of these questions are best directed towards a party that's not here, the vendor.

And unfortunately, we won't be able to get accurate answers without a response from them rather than the administration.

And I, for one would like those responses, and I assume Councilman Lannister would as well, given he's asking the questions.

Uh, but again, that's not to suggest that Councilman Lannister didn't ask that beforehand.

I don't know.

Frankly, he usually does, but this is just an observation because it illustrates the reason why nicely, given that many of these questions it's clear to everybody in outright times outright is being stated that they can't be answered because it's the vendor who would have that answer in.

So just an observation.

Take that with how you will.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

To answer your question, no, I did not reach out ahead because this was something that I discovered um yesterday going through these items.

But I think the better question is why wasn't this question asked by the administration?

Why do I have to sit here being the one asked the question?

I'm not the one that put the bid before us on November 3rd.

I'm not the one that signed the document on November 4th.

I'm not the one that um Stan Tech knew about this item on August of 2023.

So as a point of personal privilege, I at no point asked you anything, nor did I suggest anything about your conduct.

You're choosing to volunteer all this information, that's your prerogative.

I tried to make it clear that this was a no way a reflection of you.

It simply happened to be in a perfect moment to illustrate a practice that we do or try to do.

That's all.

You don't have to defend yourself.

There's no reason to, frankly, because no one's impinging upon your character or anything of the sort or your efforts.

We're all well aware of the amount of time and effort you put into this.

So there's there's no doubt that you're passionate about a subject, you put in the work for it, and you're asking questions that you feel are relevant in, as I pointed out myself, some of which I feel relevant.

So please don't spend your time seeking to defend your something when no one's attacking you.

So with that said, Mr.

President, and taking note of um some of your comments with regard to the vendor being here, I'm going to make a motion that we hold this until the next meeting in December, so that the vendor can appear before us and explain to us firsthand from his perspective as to why they knew about this in August, did not submit any information or updates or billing to the administration until November 6th.

I think this lends itself to a situation where uh that is very important to have the vendor before us to explain these things and the timelines for how they happened or didn't happen.

So uh Bill Facente, Chief Staff to Mayor Picoszi.

Um, Councilman, I understand you um the dates don't line up in your question and the dates.

At the end of the day, we need to get this done.

ASAP.

We have a six-month window with Army Corps of Engineers.

If we don't get this done through that process, the process, the replacement of this pipeline that serves private buttonwoods could take years.

So I I don't dispute your assertions.

Um I don't have good answers for you.

We will reach out to the vendor, but holding this does not accomplish what you're going, what you're looking for to do.

It puts the city in jeopardy as well as the residents of um Buttonwood's area that are serviced by that pipeline.

Chief, this shouldn't have got to this point where this discussion even taken place.

But more frustrating to me is when we have situations like this, it's always the same thing.

If we don't get it done, this, if this doesn't happen tonight, that if you hold it again, it's something else.

This is extremely frustrating.

This is not questions that should have even had to come to the floor.

But now that they have it's oh, it's okay.

Let's just go ahead with it because we can't hold it.

We can't do anything.

We just got to point of order.

Do we have a motion to hold second?

Okay.

So there you go.

Please please assign a PCR.

Yes.

PCR.

13725.

We have a motion to hold.

We have a second on PCR 13725.

I looking for a vote.

One other just point, Stan Tech will charge the city travel cost to come and answer your questions.

I'm sorry.

Stan Tech will charge the city to come and address this to the council.

Mr.

Chairman.

Prior prior to a vote or come uh recommendation would be to conclude any public uh process on this question.

The committee makes a recommendation.

The council may still wish to take an action.

Um, but if we want to allow for public input at this time or other members of the council, it would be um advisable to do so.

Okay, so just to clarify, if the committee votes to hold till the next meeting in December, um that's not locked in stone, it'll go to the floor with that recommendation to hold.

Uh further discussion will take place, and the final vote will take on the floor.

Is that accurate?

Uh yes, the suggestion is to at least ask for uh any other questions from council or public at this time.

Okay, so we have a motion on PCR 137-25.

We have a second.

All those in favor?

Aye, opposed?

Nay.

Okay, we have two yes and one motion to hold until Madam Clerk.

What's the the next meeting date?

1215.

Thank you.

And not after we opened the council.

We don't have the motion in this task.

We haven't moved down.

Okay.

Um at this thank you, Celicissa.

At the solicitor's suggestion, does any members of the public have any questions or any comments regarding the motion to hold?

Any comments from members of the public?

Any comments or questions from members of the council?

Okay, done.

Moving on.

Um next item, HVAC services.

It's found on page 40.

Thank you, Christy.

Um, so all right, tell us um, tell us about this.

Public works is requesting to increase the cap from 80,000 to 110,000 dollars for the contract period that does not end until August 29th, 26th, and add an additional vendor, Cam HVAC and Construction Incorporated, which was also um a bidder uh when it was advertised uh previously, and have a they've agreed to hold the pricing that they submitted in the bid.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Chrissy, why are you looking to add another vendor?

Um Phalinx is has been uh pretty busy lately, and um we myself and the the building maintenance supervisor, we've uh requested service on a few things um here and there, and um kind of have been waiting for some and have had to remind on a couple of occasions.

So um, in order to expedite the repairs that we require, we're requesting to add another vendor, so we have an additional company to call.

Okay, so this is kind of like why we have a couple of vendors for tires or whatever, right?

In case you need need them and the other parties not available.

Why what necessitates increasing the bid by 30,000 because you've added another vendor?

Our bid cap um of 80,000 has been reduced at this point to 34,075 and 98 cents.

So we spent almost 50,000 since August.

So the request for an additional 30 is not indicative of adding on another vendor.

Correct.

Okay.

I would have done it either way.

I'm sorry, I would have done it even if we weren't adding a vendor.

I would have requested an increase.

And what is the budget code for Thayer Warburton ice plant?

40.

Uh well, that's uh that's a separate um that bid is separate.

Thayer's budget code on here is 4131.

Um, but that this these companies don't do anything with the compressor equipment for those ice arenas.

I don't recall a budget code for the Thayer Warburton ice plant.

Is there a budget code for that?

Those repairs come out of 4131, but in the letter it says it can't covers all city facilities except for the sawtooth building and the Thayer Webb and Ice Plant.

So that particular building, which is like a separate little shoot-off of the on the back rank, is not part of this bid that has its own bid.

So this in the ice rink covers like our heaters, our boilers, our that type of thing.

So the Thayer Warburton ice rink.

What what else?

Is there anything else that occurs at Thayer, Warburton than ice?

I'm not sure.

Right?

It's not like it's swimming pools or baseball fields or anything like that, right?

It's Thayer, Warburton Arena.

Yes, we have two.

We have two ice rings.

Ice plant.

No.

Okay.

The ice plant is not the ice plant is what makes the floors frozen.

The ice plant is not part of this bid.

But is the ice plant part of Thayer Warburton budget code?

Yes.

Okay.

Because you just said it.

This contract covers all city facilities except for the sawtooth building and the Thayer Warburton ice plant.

Correct.

But it's still part of Thayer Warburton.

The ice cream.

I'm asking for $5,000 out of code 4131.

The ice plant is a separate, it's a whole separate mechanical setup.

This bid, as far as Thayer and Warburton is concerned, covers heaters, boilers, hot water tanks, stuff like that.

Nothing to do with the no, no compressors.

No compressors.

Nothing to do with the ice plant.

Okay, no compressors.

So the compressors, that's strictly part of the ice plant.

Yes.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay.

Um other than actually.

Okay, I got that.

All right.

Um I guess we are clear that Thayer Warburton is like really two different things.

There's the ice plant, and then there's the rest of it.

And this increase is because of anticipated costs, because as of today, I believe you've only used about 40% of I think it's 41,331.

For which budget code?

Sorry.

Which budget code?

41, 42.

Are we still talking about there?

What do you what is did you say ward one, ward two?

What did you say?

On this bid, there's two budget codes that have a 331.

Which one are we talking about?

41 still.

Okay, so what's the balance in 4131?

Off the top of my head, I I don't know.

You don't know.

And 42,331.

You're not sure on that one.

I I would be guessing, but the reason I'm asking for these dollar amounts is um and these budget codes is because the bid doesn't expire until next August.

So we still have to get through the winter.

And primarily, especially with building maintenance, there's a lot of buildings that we're responsible for, including all nine fire stations.

Yes, the police department.

DPW is responsible for all nine fire stations.

As far as as far as this bid, yes.

Yes, fire stations, police department, animal shelter, our own facilities.

That is um everybody's yeah, I you just reminded me of something else when you said that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Are there any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Um moving on to item number six, delivery of industrial cylinder gases found on page 58.

Councilman.

Christy, this isn't um so much.

Well, it's not a question.

Um this is something that I think pretty much everyone knows when I have things that I'm not pleased with.

I have no hesitation to discuss.

Same thing with things that I believe need to be um or kudos uh or deserved, and I was happy to see that with Air Gas, you did not um accept their bid, and that you went with um the other vendor.

Basically, because Air Gas just chose not to give you any numbers, either first year delivered, second year delivered, and kind of directed you to just go to the state bid list and find out for yourself, and then I found their bid uh where they did itemize some things, um at least on first blush, was pretty difficult to understand.

So that's why I pull this one aside because I just wanted to uh acknowledge uh and thank you for for doing that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And item number seven on page 64 purchase of DPF filters, Christy.

What is this truck used for?

This is a six-wheel dump truck that's used for you know, hauling material, um, whatever the highway department needs it for, and we also use it for plowing.

This is um it's a dump truck, right?

It is yeah, okay.

And I see in here where initially Rhode Island truck on October 31st sent you rather extensive bid for like just a gazillion items.

Are all of those items part of this repair for this truck?

Yes.

Um, however, a lot of those items are you know, I don't want to say in insignificant, but it's part of the system, but we probably could already have them, you know, in in the shop.

So what we're more interested in is the ones that are indicated, um, you know, number one, two, three, and four, um, where the where there's significant price difference.

And the how long has this truck been out of service?

When did it actually go out of service?

That I'm not sure about.

I'm sorry?

That I'm not sure about.

I see interesting.

And I think you've already answered the question, but I'm gonna ask it anyways.

Um your proposal from Dale Superstore only asked for five, I'm sorry, four pots versus Rhode Island Truck Center's bid of 41 parts.

Where did Rhode Island Truck Center get these list of parts to bid on?

Was that provided by DPW?

So if I had to guess, um, knowing our our automotive chief, he probably reached out to them and said, I need to replace the DPF filter and you know the the associated parts that go with it because it's failed, we can't use the truck, whatever.

So they sent you know this very long list of of parts, which when it was presented to me, I about had a stroke.

Um and then after the fact, so like I said, like a lot of this stuff, you know, hex screws, we have those gaskets, we have those um, you know, uh, there's a lot of you know, clamps, brackets.

We have all things like that in like we in our stock room.

So those aren't parts that we need, but that's they just sent the whole, hey, this is what you need to replace the whole thing.

Okay, so then um we can rely on the fact that because you've amended this pot list to these four items that you won't be coming back to us for additional monies, particularly with any of the items that are on this list.

So just so you know, under the oh under the bid that we the active bid that we have now to purchase parts, I can go to an island truck center tomorrow and buy all of these parts.

But our automotive chief does the same thing that I do and says that's way too expensive, and then he starts his research.

So rather than just buying the parts that we need and paying an additional seven thousand dollars, he did his research and has found the parts at Dale Superstore where we can get them for ten thousand instead of seventeen thousand.

So but just just so just so you you know you understand.

We have a bid that allows us to go buy parts at the Rhode Island Truck Center.

But at this point, everybody's pretty confident that um these four items are pretty much all you need to get this truck back on the road.

Yes, okay.

And if you could just get back to me when this truck went out of service, I would appreciate it.

Um last question I have on this.

What is a convenience forward slash concierge fee of three percent?

So we've actually um we is that a credit card fee?

No, no, because we'll issue a check for them.

Um Francis, what what was that fee for again?

I know we talked about it.

I didn't have that we did get clarification on that.

I just forgot to make a note of it.

My memory escapes me now, but I do have that explanation.

I can send that to you if that's okay with you.

I that's exactly what I asked the person that made the quote.

I'm like, what is this fee about?

Because I know that was gonna come up, but I'll definitely send it to you tomorrow morning if that's okay.

I'm sorry, so what is this three percent fee?

Um I don't remember exactly what the guy that provided the quote told me, but I do have it in the email, and I can send it to you tomorrow, or like I can just give you a call and say exactly what it is.

I I just don't remember right now what that was, but I did ask.

So is it your position that that three percent fee of 310 and 77 cents is critical to the amount that we're being asked to approve?

Or is that an item that will be cut?

It would it won't be cut, um, but it is we do need to approve that.

Um again, my memory escapes me right now because it wasn't an email I did send it to see when I'm looking or when I'm being asked to approve monies, I like to know what I'm getting for those monies.

Okay, um the response was the fee is for processing uh the fee is a the processing fee for all orders over a thousand dollars.

So Christy, could you repeat that a little slower, please?

Um I just have difficulty understanding it.

The vendor said the fee is the processing fee for or all orders over a thousand dollars.

So for all orders over a thousand dollars, they charge us extra.

So maybe we should break all of this down to individual things under a thousand.

I'm just kidding.

But it just it seems so ridiculous to me what some of these vendors are doing and what they're getting away with.

Seriously, over a thousand dollars, other vendors would be very happy to get your business for over a thousand dollars, maybe give you a three percent discount.

They they are giving us free shipping.

Oh, they are going to freeze.

Really?

I mean, it's just like I think we bizarre.

They are free shipping, yeah.

Yes, free shipping zero, handling zero, sales tax zero, no discounts.

And it would be, and I'm assuming that uh this this has taken place, but it would certainly be appreciated if someone gets on the phone with some of these people say are you out of your mind?

I'll tell them that next really you tell them that comes from Councilman Lattisar.

I want to know if they're out of their mind, charging us because we're giving them more business.

This is like really getting out of control with some of the stuff.

Thank you, though.

I I appreciate that.

Okay, um, we need a motion for approval on um council.

Sorry, okay.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Any questions from members of the public?

Okay.

So we need a motion on these items over 50,000.

I'm sorry.

Um anything other than the PCR.

Let's do it that way.

Motion to uh favorable action.

We have a motion, we have a second.

All those and any further discussion from the committee?

Well, Councilman Napa?

No.

No.

Any um okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, recuse.

Three, yes, and one reviews.

One has recused.

Okay.

Um let's go to abatements.

PCR 13625.

Good evening.

Good evening, Director.

Um at the floor.

Let it go.

This month we have abatements in the amount of $15,716 and 10 cents.

Um there's really nothing unusual in here.

It's pretty much exemptions and um some tax appeals that were granted based on data corrections.

But I'll answer any questions that you might have.

Um thank you, Director.

Believe it or not, I don't have any questions.

Any thank you.

Questions from members of the committee.

Sir Council President Senapi is requesting that abatement number one seven three, three two nine.

This is regarding James and Patricia Martin Living Trust in the amount of four hundred and fifteen dollars and twenty cents, be assigned its own PCR so he can recuse.

Okay, hold on one second.

Oh, thank you.

And council president will be recusing on this.

So we need a PCR.

Yes, please.

13825?

138 25.

And what is the amount?

So for PCR 13825, that amount is 415 and 20 cents.

And that would mean the new total for unless there are any others coming off, the new total for PCR 13625 would be 15,30 cents.

$3,000 $1.500.

$15,000.

$300 and 90 cents.

And 90 cents.

Got it.

Okay, so that will be um PCR 138 25.

So if we can first have a recommendation on the uh item that was removed, the abatement of James.

Okay, so you're looking for motion on the amended an amendment to adjust the numbers from fifteen thousand seven sixteen to fifteen thousand three hundred.

Yes?

No.

We need me to do first.

If you vote the uh individual item, PCR one hundred thirty-eight twenty-seven.

Okay, it automatically comes off of uh underlying abatement, so we wouldn't have to take formal amendments, it would just automatically get updated.

Sure.

Okay, favorable action.

PCR one hundred thirty-eight twenty-five seconds as mentioned.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Well said.

Any questions further questions from members of the committee?

Members of the council.

Members of the public.

Any questions from members of the public?

Okay, I need a motion on PCR one thirty eight.

As the amendment, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

None.

Okay.

Now we will move it as amended.

On PCR one hundred thirty-eight questions.

No.

Say what?

We're all set.

Okay.

So we have to vote on this one.

So now do we have to vote on the fifteen thousand three hundred and ninety cents?

Move favorable action.

Okay.

On the main abatement as amended.

There you go.

We're all tongue-tied tonight.

Okay, we have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

Any further questions from members of the committee?

Hearing none, we need a motion.

We already have all uh all in favor.

Aye.

Done.

And too much turkey.

And it is um six thirty-eight, and the finance committee is adjourned.

Yes.

Next up is the intergovernmental committee.

Point.

So up next is intergovernmental.

Good to see it.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

Time is now six forty-two.

Intergovernmental comes to order.

First order of business this evening is the acceptance of the minutes from the committee meeting held on November 17th.

Motion move favorable action.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Lots of appointments tonight.

The I think without exception, these are all reappointments.

So other than members who have decided to join us, I don't think we uh need to go looking for anyone here.

A member.

We're gonna save you for last, sir.

Um, first up to the library board of trustees.

Uh the board is requesting uh the reappointment of Patricia Major from Ward 3.

Uh do any members of the committee have any comments, questions, concerns?

Members of the council?

Members of the public.

Seeing none, uh, do we have a motion on Patricia Major?

Motion move favor.

Second.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Patricia Major remains on the library board of trustees.

Uh next up, Michael Rick Telly, ward five.

Uh any members of the committee questions, comments, concerns, thoughts.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I uh in full disclosure, want to let you know that Mike Ricotelli does serve on my ward committee.

And with that said, I feel that uh I do not have any conflict or um any reason why I would not uh participate in this vote.

Sure.

Okay.

Uh any other members questions, comments, concerns?

Members of the public.

Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Motion motion move favorable, second.

All right, moved, seconded.

All in favor?

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Next up, Kimberly Wineman.

Ward three, reappointment to the Library Board of Trustees.

Any members uh questions, comments, concerns.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Napa.

So I think we're all intimately familiar with Mrs.

Wyman.

Uh she's very involved.

She is a member of my ward committee, though, like Councilman Lattice has said I don't feel any need to recuse uh can fully support her nomination to stay on uh this important board, and I think all these members today that are coming for reappointment uh have done an exceptional job and should deserve to be reappointed.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I just want to reiterate um what uh Brian just said.

Kim has helped all of us, and um yeah, it would be uh you know great to have her back again.

That's uh excellent, and by all accounts, uh all members of the library board are uh doing well.

Uh and uh should continue on.

Any other members of the uh committee?

Councilman?

Thank you.

I just want to reiterate also uh we've you know we've all worked with Kim uh for some of us decades, some of us uh a long time.

She's uh very involved in the community, she's very passionate about being on the library board and uh working closely with her just in the last week and seeing what she has done uh to help the community.

Uh I I support her 100%.

Anyone else?

Members of the public.

Seeing none, is there a motion?

Motion to move favorable action.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Okay, moving along to the zoning board of review.

We have three up here.

Uh first up is Walter J.

August Augustine.

Uh ward five.

Any members have questions, comments, concerns.

Yes, Mr.

DeLuis.

Yeah, when I was on the uh zoning board, I worked with Walter for approximately five years.

And he was always uh fair and um, you know, very knowledgeable.

So I think uh his reappointment would be uh beneficial.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other members?

Councilman Latticer.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I also share those same sentiments, and I'm happy to support Mr.

Augustin for continued service on the zoning board of review.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

And behind me, Councilman Ricks.

Thank you, Chair.

A question for the administration.

So I suppose that this applies to uh all three of the appointments, but uh since we're on this particular appointment of Mr.

Augustine.

Uh has the Warwick Republican Party, its chair been approached regarding any uh Republican minority party appointments to the zoning board.

Both CD chief staff.

Um currently I don't believe there is a requirement that the Republicans or the Democrats be approached for this board as the mayor is an independent, and all parties are minority parties.

Okay, so uh basically the same position as let's see.

Yes, for the other yeah, I was just uh reviewing the minutes from the last meeting.

Uh not the last meeting rather, but the last meeting that uh Mr.

Augustine's appointment came up, which would have been October 4, 2021.

Uh that was when uh Mr.

Augustine was originally replacing uh the previous chair, Mr.

Marash, who was the Republic the Republican Party minority appointment at the time, uh who sadly uh uh passed away far prematurely uh due to COVID 19.

Uh so without rehashing that previous discussion from that date back on uh back in October of 2021, my position remains the same that my interpretation of the charter is that regardless of the party affiliation or lack thereof of the mayor, I see it my reading of the charter continues to be that the charter requires minority party representation on all boards and commissions.

Uh this seat in particular is the one that was previously held by the Republican Party appointee.

As far as I'm aware, there has been no Republican Party appointee on the zoning board since that time.

So with all due respect to Mr.

Augustine, uh I'm certainly in my vote.

Uh not commenting on the work that you've done, and I do thank you for all the work that you do in showing up on the zoning board doing all of your due diligence.

And I hear my colleagues.

This is certainly not a comment on your service.

This is a comment on my reading of the city charter that it provides for minority party representation, provides for a process on that.

And so for those reasons, until that process is followed, I'm gonna have to vote no on at least one particular appointment uh whenever zoning board appointments come up.

So uh with that said uh I'll yield to the chair.

Thank you, councilman.

Any other members of the council have any comments, questions, concerns?

Just one, just to remind everyone that uh the solicitor has previously weighed in on this topic that was mentioned by councilman Ricks, and that there's a proposed charter amendment going to the electorate or going to the uh voters for exactly this reason.

Thank you.

Um any comments on Mr.

Walter Augustine's uh reappointment to the zoning board of review.

Okay, seeing none, uh Councilman Deluis, would you like to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to move favorable action.

Second.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye, aye.

Okay, next up, Lorraine Caruso Byrne, uh 20 C Breesley and uh ward nine.

Uh reappointment to the zoning board of review.

Anyone comments, questions, concerns?

Members of the council?

Council.

Members of the public.

Okay, seeing none, uh, I will move uh favorable action.

Second.

Okay, motion second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, last but not least.

Uh Paul D.

Patrillo.

Reappointment to the zoning board of review.

Mr.

D.

Patrill, since you've graced us with your presence, would you uh did you have any words to add uh well?

Yeah, I would like to say something.

First of all, I I didn't know if I could make a comment on any of the previous appointments because I'm the chairman, but I would say that they do a fantastic job on that on that board.

Thank you.

They do a great job.

Um I did get up that lovely letter from the mayor, so I'll read it.

Sure.

Um, but this is too dear uh uh Mayor Pacosi and of course the honorable members of members of the city council.

Uh I thank you for uh reappointing me as chairman of the city of Warwick Zoning Board of Review.

I am sincerely grateful for the confidence for your confidence in my service and for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to the thoughtful planning and responsible development of this great city.

I can assure you that this board will work hard to balance individual property rights with the public's right to a safe, orderly, and well planned community.

I remain fully committed to approaching every matter before this board with fairness, diligence, and a keen respect for Warwick's long-term vision and continued prosperity.

It is an honor to serve, and I truly uh appreciate your continued trust and support.

Sincerely, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

DiPetrillo.

Uh having you know attended from time to time uh zoning board meetings, uh, you know, sharing concerns from my neighborhood with you.

I've always found you to be responsive and fair.

Um so I look forward to supporting your reappointment this evening.

Uh councilman.

Yes, um, I worked with uh Mr.

Di Patrillo on the zoning board.

And um he actually does he goes out to properties, he researches, um, does the work and uh he make another good five years.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh Councilman Lattice, sir.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Mr.

D.

Patrillo.

Sure.

Seriously, I want to um thank you for volunteering your services for this board, and absolutely commend you on the excellent service that you perform, your leadership skills, as well as your impartiality in the decisions that you make.

And to just expand a bit on Councilman D Louise, your willingness in your energy level to go that extra mile to get out to whatever it is that you need to consider so that you are making a well-informed, knowledgeable decision on these um zoning amendments, because they are absolutely crucial to what happens for the city in our long range plan and what ends up coming to us or not having to come to us.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh Councilman Nappa.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

So, Mr.

D.

Patrulla, I haven't had much opportunity to interact with you in your professional capacity, but I can say uh with confidence that when I have had the opportunity, uh you've been very open to uh taking in every point of view into your thoughtful process of deciding what is in the best interest of the city, and I have full confidence that you'll continue to move the city forward from a planning perspective in a direction that is uh positive and useful and productive for the city.

So I appreciate you coming here tonight and taking the time to stay with us, and I fully support your reappointment.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you, anyone behind me.

Oh, everyone behind me.

Councilman Foley.

Thank you.

Just making it quit quick.

Thank you for your excellent service up to this point, and thank you.

I don't know why, but for volunteering for five more years.

And Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

I'll also keep it brief.

I echo everything my colleagues said.

Keep up the fantastic work.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you very much.

Uh any anything unsaid, councilman.

Motion to move favorable election.

All right, second.

If I could just add just one simple word, did o to what everybody else said.

Uh noted.

Um, I'd also like to see if any other members of the public have anything to add prior to councilman Napa's motion.

Seeing none.

Or will we?

Ah, move favorable.

Okay.

Second by meeting.

All right.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Again, thank you very much.

You know, it is a quasi judicial board, and some people are going to be happy and some less than happy, but somewhere in between there, there's an honorable uh decision.

Thank you for your efforts.

Thank you very much.

Um there being no further business before the intergovernmental committee.

We will adjourn at uh six fifty six.

Uh stay up there or not.

Next up is the public properties, land use and community affairs committee.

Get out of here.

Good, good.

I did not before it has public property.

Oh shut.

The city council committee on public properties, land use, and community affairs comes to order at six fifty-nine.

We have the acceptance of minutes from November 17, 2025.

Do we have a motion to approve?

Second.

All right.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

4-0.

Okay.

We have one item on the agenda.

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

City of Warwick petitioner, citywide.

This is Council President Snappy.

On behalf of Mayor Picoszi, I take it that the request is for this to be moved to the floor for discussion of the city council as a whole.

That was my understanding.

Thank you.

Okay.

So while we are still in committee, is there any uh comment uh from members of the committee at this time prior to the discussion at the full city council?

Members of the council.

I will also hold my comment uh until the full council meeting.

Any comment, questions, discussions?

Members of the public.

PCO 2725 up for second passage.

Any questions, comments, members of the public?

Hearing none, do we have a motion to move to the floor?

So move.

Do we have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

The ayes have it for O.

Committee stands adjourned, 701 P.M.

All right.

The full council will convene at seven oh two PM.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Here.

Mr.

Delise.

Mr.

Bowley.

Here.

Mr.

Furby.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Councilman Nabkin, please lead us in the salute to the flag.

Oh see my honor before the lead at the time.

Or the Randy was so gathered please stream.

And the wrong number numbers sing.

Oh stay nine star again.

And general communications, announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Does anyone have anything for general communications?

Councilman Napa?

Thank you, Council President.

Just like to request a moment of silence for Mr.

Anthony Ledou.

Uh passed away on November twenty fourth after a battle with cancer.

He and his family were uh longstanding members of the community.

He was a veteran of the US Army and served in the Vietnam War.

Um just like to request a moment of silence on his behalf.

We will have a moment of silence.

Does anyone else have anything for general communications?

Seeing none.

Executive communications acceptance of minutes from council meeting held on November seventeenth, twenty twenty-five.

Does anyone have any objection to approving said minutes?

All right, so approved, noting no objection.

Next up we have executive session of the city council pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws forty two forty six five.

Section A, subsection two.

This public body will convene in an executive session regarding pending litigation specifically Premier Premier versus City of Warwick, case number twenty-five CV zero zero four three five.

Solicitor.

So moved.

Favorable action.

For action, so be Councilman Napa.

Move favorable action on appointment.

Second.

Second by Councilman Latticer and others for any questions or comments on the appointment.

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the role.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Get Hot.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Nine yes.

Appointment passes.

Next is zoning board of review.

Walter Augustine.

Councilman Gebber.

For action, Councilman Laddiser.

Move favorable action on the reappointment of Walter Augustine.

Secondly by Council Muto.

Any questions or comments?

See none.

Clerk will please call the role.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Bowley.

Mr.

Gephardt.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick's.

No.

Yes, one, no appointment passes.

Next is Lorraine.

Again, apologies on pronunciation.

Councilman Gavart.

Committee recommends favorable action.

For action, Councilman Gebhard.

I move favorable action.

Seconded by Councilman Laddisser.

Any questions or comments on the appointment?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the role.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Bowley.

Yes.

Mr.

Gap.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And yes, motion passed.

Next is the appointment of Paul Deep Trillo.

Councilman Gebart.

Committee recommends favorable action.

For action, Councilman Foley.

Move favorable action.

Second by Councilman Latticer.

Any questions or comments?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

DLOES.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Mr.

Gephardt.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

Next, we're on the consent calendar.

PCR 135-25 resolution relative to bids.

Councilman Laddisser.

Committee recommends favorable action.

For action.

Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 135-25.

Second by Councilman Gevhart.

Anyone have any questions or comments on the resolution relative to bids?

And if councilman Latticer could please announce the item or items removed.

Um the item is formally 2026-256, Buttonwoods Avenue pipeline.

It is now PCR 137-25 as amended, I guess.

All right.

And the next item is PCR 136-25 resolution relative to abatements.

Councilman Latticer.

Committee recommended favorable action.

And for action, Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 136-25.

All right.

Seconded by Councilman Mudo.

Does anyone have any questions?

Or oh wait.

So first, and there's one item removed from that, correct?

I will let the solicitor address it.

Yes, there was one item removed from the abatements.

There's the abatement of Martin Living Trust in the amount of 415.20 cents.

That will be dealt with after the consent calendar, now known as PCR 138-25.

Uh so on PCR 13625, the new amount is 15,390s.

All right.

Does anyone have any questions or comments on the consent calendar as a whole?

See none.

Clerk will please call the roll on the consent calendar.

Mr.

Snappy, yes.

Mr.

DeLuise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Mr.

Gapot.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

Yes, one record.

All right.

And now the first item removed.

Bid 2026-256.

Now PCR 137-2525.

Yeah.

Uh Councilman Latticer.

Committee recommends favorable action.

Sure about that?

As I'm sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I've thought you were talking to the other one.

No, 137 25.

Committee had recommended holding until the next meeting in December.

All right.

Does anyone object to the proposed hold on PCR 137-25?

Councilman Foley.

I object.

All right.

So that being the case, we'll need it.

First, is there a motion for so to discuss the item?

We need a motion on the floor, whatever that might be.

So does anyone have a motion for PCR 137-35?

Move favorable action.

Motion for favorable action.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

All right.

Anyone have any discussion, comments, concerns?

Yes.

This is a motion not to hold.

Correct.

This is a motion for favorable action proposed by Councilman Gebhardt.

Uh bear in mind.

You can just say everything I said before.

We understand what that means.

If there's new stuff, by all means mention it, but otherwise, you can just refer to your prior comments.

And that goes to everybody, not just Councilman Lattice.

Sure.

So the reason has already been discussed as to why I had made the motion to hold.

This is going to happen.

Um, you know, holding it's not good.

I'd point out that the um company Stan Tech has moved this forward two months because of the inclusion that they want to make.

And that is going from starting construction on September 15th to November 28th.

That's two and a half months.

What I'm asking is to hold for two weeks to have the contractor appear before the city council to explain how this information began in August and didn't get to us until three days after we voted on a budget.

All right, does anyone else have any further questions or comments on this?

All right.

So ultimately, this is a request for favorable action on PCR 137-25.

Uh as I already explicitly acknowledged some of Councilman Latticer's questions, uh due merit response.

My view of it is that we can get those responses after the fact, as we've done with plenty of other items, especially when we're as here, we're not faced with a situation where we're like, oh, we'll just go with the other bidder.

But that's not that's not the that's not where we're at.

We need them to do the work.

We have some questions about how that'll go and whether or not they'll come back.

But I know from my perspective, if we're concerned that they're gonna come back, like if they go down the 30 feet or whatever it was, and say now we need more money.

I'm perfectly happy taking the stance of no.

You you can't just screw us over and expect it to be okay.

At that point, we're in a different situation.

We're not there, and hopefully we won't be there, especially with if we take a very public stance on it now.

That way all parties, especially the vendor, are well aware of if they try to pull a fast one later on, and if they are difficult when it comes to getting answers.

Oh, I see a light come on, Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Council President.

Just uh through the president to the administration, just wondering if it's appropriate, maybe at this point to ask for the administration's support in getting any answers to lingering questions that we may have as far as delay in receiving information from the company and or uh are they confident that 80 feet is gonna do it and they're not coming back because they discover that oops, it's actually 120 before we get through the silt.

Would the administration support us in that effort to get those questions done or answered?

If we approve now, move forward with the project.

Could we get so could you just repeat those?

We're just looking for some support from the administration that the questions about why there was so much delay from August, I believe it was August till now.

And so there's maybe just reiterate that in the the memo that is presented to the council, the borings were taken in August.

It doesn't say the test results from the borings were in August.

Right.

I think that's we're having some discrepancy on what that timeline looks like.

Yeah, I mean, we can we can ask that question when they got there.

Yeah, the long and the short of what we're looking for is just confirmation on the administrative side, administration side that any questions we forward to you post this vote, whichever way it goes, that you'll endeavor to get them answered by the vendor.

That's all to the availability, yes.

Seemed like a safe bet, but yes, always worth confirming.

So seeing no new speakers on clerk will please call the roll on the motion for favorable action.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Geb.

Yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Laddison.

No, Mr.

Muito, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes.

Mr.

Reyes.

No.

It's worth noting we would have it.

I'm sorry.

A question.

So I had made a motion and it was seconded for holding this item until the second meeting in December.

How did it get to this point now?

So the committee recommendations are that they are a recommendation and essentially a report of the findings of a of a perspective of the committee that is submitted to the council.

Uh, in practice, what happens is when as the council president did tonight and as he does um every night, he uh offers that recommendation as essentially a unanimous request.

And if it's if there is no objection, then the motion that that it implied holding is becomes an active motion to do so.

Uh in this instance, we had an objection to that unanimous consent.

And the next item that happened was councilman Foley put or councilman uh Gephardt put a motion forward on favorable action, was seconded.

We discussed, and the result was just called.

But the the practice is the recommendation to hold is a recommendation to the council, and the council can accept that recommendation in that form uh by unanimous consent and agreeing to do so, but in this case it was objected to all right.

So next we have unfinished business PCO.

By the way, that's not to say if you have any further questions, obviously we'll address them, but just can't do it here because it's not before us now.

Um PCO 27 25 sub A and Ordinance Amending Appendix A zoning ordinance of the city of war.

I'm sorry.

Oh, you're absolutely right.

Thank you.

Uh we also had pulled off an abatement.

So we'll do that first.

Abatement um Martin Living Trust.

PCR 138-25, Councilman Latticer.

Committee recommends favorable action on PCR 138-25.

For action, Councilman Lattis.

Move favorable action.

Is there a second?

Councilman Napo.

All right.

Any questions or comments on the abatement of the Martin Living Trust?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi.

Recuse.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Now we're on to unfinished business.

PCO 27-25.

Sub A, an ordinance amending appendix A, zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick regarding fences, drive their window, overhead clearance, and special use permit for lot size standards.

Four duplexes, city of Warwick petitioners citywide.

This is on behalf of the mayor.

It's a second passage.

So Councilman Ricks.

All right, so the motion to hold by Councilman Ricks to January 5th, seconded by Councilman Napa for discussion.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So I won't repeat what I said a couple of years ago.

I won't repeat what I said last time around about a month ago.

What I'll do is I'm going to raise a specific point about the type of change that enacting this resolution, this ordinance would have if we go ahead and move forward.

So I understand about affordable housing.

Sometimes it is, but not necessarily.

However, basic economics here.

Yeah, that's not really gonna have any impact on the housing supply as a whole.

People start renting out entire houses as short-term rentals, more or less year-round.

Well, of course that has an impact on the housing supply.

When I made that point a few years ago, I was uh I believe one member of the public who was uh scoffed at that and said, Oh no, that that's not so there's no impact to the housing supply.

But you know what?

Even a small impact, it does make a difference.

I know someone, Warwick resident, who was going to upgrade their house.

They were already a Warwick homeowner, they were gonna buy a new house, a little bit of an upgrade, and then of course sell their existing house, which you know presumably would have gone to a family who would have lived in it.

Well, that Warwick resident by attempting to buy that upgrade, they were outbid by someone who converted that larger house to an Airbnb.

It removed one house from the housing stock.

That affects supply.

Now, this is a national problem.

Warwick is not going to solve a shortfall of millions of houses nationwide.

But we all have to do our part.

It's very easy.

I've heard it from different people.

Pointing the finger out to uh foster situates other more rural communities that oh, their zoning is so incredibly restrictive, they need to ease up, and they need to do their part.

Well, we all need to do our part.

We can't point the finger at any other cities and towns unless we are willing to step up and do our part as well.

I'll tell you what gets me with things like this, where it hits home.

During my day job, I speak with a lot of tenants.

Most of them I simply can't represent.

But I become aware of many situations where people are living in illegal basements.

It's happening all over the state.

It is most definitely happening in Warwick.

Councilman Ricks, I'm I'm unclear the relation to the ordinance before us.

And I might just it might be a me thing, in all fairness, but I've lost I've lost the connection.

I'll clarify.

So making it more difficult to build duplexes, that affects the future housing supply.

These are units that are never going to come online while we are in a housing crisis.

While I would imagine that everyone here probably is aware of being on the city council of at least one situation or multiple situations in Warwick, where yeah, there are people living in illegal basement apartments, there are people who are living in encampments, whether they're homeless or whether they're in less than ideal housing.

So this is not going to solve that problem.

Of course not, but it is a step that Warwick can take, Warwick rather can continue to take to make it a little bit easier to build duplexes in single family zoned areas, as long as, and this is the law currently on the books.

If the house is in that footprint where someone would be allowed to construct a single family house, I see no reason why a person can't construct a duplex within that same footprint.

I'll tell you what, uh the setbacks, uh these are the same setbacks, really.

Uh well, there is a change in the proposed setbacks here that make it even more difficult.

So, for instance, in an A7 neighborhood, uh A7,000, the idea being that this would require minimum side setbacks of 15 feet.

Now, if you have both houses being 15 feet from the property line, we're talking 30 feet between these houses.

That's quite a lot in the densest size that's available under our zoning.

Even more uh even more spread out in those other zones, the A10, A15, etc.

So, I'll tell you what.

I have a next door neighbor.

They have a garage that's literally two feet off my property line because up until the 1980s, there was nothing to prevent that.

I can tell you, this is not some horrid situation.

I'm quite fine with it.

It did not destroy my life, it did not destroy the neighborhood.

This is the house I grew up in.

And it doesn't make a big difference to me.

Now, under the existing zoning ordinance, that would not be allowed.

It's a matter of uh existing zoning ordinance.

Uh this is not allowed.

So we are not allowing any further encroachment on people's setbacks or the like.

Uh so we don't have to worry about that particular boogeyman, even though I don't think it's much of a boogeyman.

Instead, we are talking about the current zoning ordinance would allow for people to construct a two-family inside the exact same footprint as would be allowed for single family.

I really don't think that that's so extreme.

The so we're not even dealing with necessarily those setback issues that avoids it.

But if we allow this ordinance to go forward on second passage right here, then we're effectively taking away the possibility of these future units that would ease some of these local concerns about the housing supply.

We would be doing less than we are doing right now to address this housing crisis.

Now, even back when I was on a committee appointed by uh council president McAllister to address the housing crisis, a lot of this issue, a lot of the possible solutions to try to do something about the housing crisis came down to money.

Even back then, I was suggesting this very solution, which the council passed a couple of years ago to make it a little bit easier to build a two-family in the single family zone.

Because the reason I advocated for it back then and now is because this is a free market solution.

It does not overly burden neighborhoods.

And it allow it it's effectively allowing people to exercise their property rights, and it's not something that's costing the city any money any more than any other new residential building, new residential unit.

Uh, Councilman Rick is some motion to hold, and you have 30 seconds left to articulate why it should be held.

Thank you.

So I would suggest that we hold it and really examine here if we are going to be doing something about the housing crisis.

What are the alternatives going to cost as a city, which would be borne by all of the taxpayers?

Leaving this as it is, it's not costing us.

So I'll leave it at that for the moment.

Okay, as a reminder, this passed a one last time.

8-1 or 7-1.

8-1.

Uh so you've heard the art the reason stated for the request to hold.

Are you no other lights on?

So clerk will please call the roll on the oh, sorry, councilmake part.

Just one uh follow-up.

I I'm thinking back to the when we heard this the first time.

So this does not remove the ability to build a duplex, right?

It still exists.

The the way the planning director described this was that there was an omission in some updates made previously, which made it too permissive, and there were actual real world on the ground issues developing due to that scenario.

And so this dials it back somewhat, but not completely removes uh I'll defer to the to the chief if my recollection is correct or inclined.

Correct.

Bill Fosendia Chief Staff.

Um Tom Kravis, the planning director had to leave um for a family um thing with his children.

As I understand it, during the last amendment of the zoning um ordinance, the dimensional table for two families was omitted in the zoning ordinance.

If you look at the zoning table where two family um dwelling units are allowed, it's by special use permit.

And in the section that deals with how the zoning board approves special use permits, the standard that they use, the standard was removed inadvertently.

This puts it back.

Um it's making the approval of duplexes under the standard legal, um, as I understand it.

As I again um not an attorney, but I believe if the zoning board approves special use permits for two families, they could be challenged either by an abutter or someone else, and the zoning board really has no nothing to stand on because the standards don't exist.

That's one of the things that are occurring in this.

And again, I I understand this was a motion to hold if it's the council's pleasure to hold it um to January 5th, that's fine.

It did pass 8 to 1.

Um what councilman Ricks is looking for is allowing by right to build duplexes in all districts, I believe.

I'm not taking words on your mouth, but um this the what the city is looking to do is put back the standards, the mentional standards that were in for years.

Um that's all we're doing.

Okay, thank you.

That confirms my recollection.

Uh appreciate it.

Thank you, Chief.

Councilman Ricks, you're out of time.

So if I may briefly respond two minutes.

Pardon?

If I may have two minutes to briefly respond.

You uh you're requesting additional time.

Someone needs to thank you for that.

Uh thank you.

So, is there any objection to an additional two minutes for councilman Riggs?

See no objection, two minutes is granted.

Thank you.

In that case, if it's simply a matter of reinserting the table, then I would say I would move to amend.

Uh and simply strike through the current uh plus 50 percent square footage requirements and do simply replace them with the single family requirements.

I believe that that would solve all of the issues there.

So if I may table my motion to hold and instead make that motion to amend solicitor, are you are you withdrawing your original motion?

Uh yes.

Okay.

No objection.

So we're back on the base item.

So is there a motion to amend?

Uh yes, motion to amend it to strike through the plus 50 percent requirements and put them at the single family requirements as to the square footage.

So the various other uh changes, I believe uh in the table, I believe that they actually generally mirror the single family, aside from the strike that yeah, that I believe that they mirror the single family, so instead of for instance under the residential 7,000, instead of it being 10,500, have it at 7,000 residential 10,000, have it at 10,000 instead of 15,000, and so on, as to the 15 and the 40.

So is there a second to that motion?

I'll second for discussion.

All right, uh, and I know we didn't didn't we not hear here proposed amendments to this last time and they failed.

So are we just are we just relitigating this or is this fresh and new?

That's a question for anybody.

Councilman Nappa, your lights on.

Uh I can't recall whether or not we propose this specific amendment, but uh I would suggest that I'm not sure how to go about it procedurally.

That an amendment with this gravity, I think would be appropriate for Director Kravitz to be present to speak on it.

I would like to hear his input before I would feel comfortable voting on it.

So if we're gonna councilman Rick's amendment, I think is has some merit and is worth at least discussion, but I I think it would be prudent to have Director Kravitz here to speak to that end and the implications of what uh like uh Councilman Gebhardt had brought to the table that there were some real-time on the ground problems with dropping duplexes in these certain parameters.

I think Director Kravitz should have some input to educate us as to what we're actually voting on before we vote on something with this amount of gravity.

So is the motion to hold it?

All right, motion to amend, sorry.

Uh I had hold on the brain.

In light of councilman Nappa's comments, I would withdraw my motion to amend.

And if I may get a second on the motion to hold to January 5th.

Motion to amend has been withdrawn.

Now, Councilman Ricks again proposes a motion to hold, which was seconded by Councilman Latticer, correct?

Correct.

All right.

So again before us is the motion to hold to January 5th.

So just and it may have been stated and I missed it.

Is there any reason why this would be a problem on the administrative administration side?

I assume not, but there's no reason not to ask.

I mean, if you're if you're gonna try to amend it, I would strongly oppose being amending it, but holding it January 5th, that's fine.

I seemed like a safe bet, but wanted to double check.

So seeing no lights on the proposed motion to hold, uh clerical clerk will call the roll.

Mr.

Sennaby?

No.

Mr.

DeLoise.

No.

Mr.

Poley.

Oh.

Mr.

Get Bottom Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

No.

Mr.

Laza?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

All right.

Unanimous consent.

Does anyone have anything for unanimous consent?

All right.

Seeing none.

Seeing there's no new business in front of this honorable body.

I move to a docketing session.

All right.

Any objection to go to the document session?

Seeing none.

Ward one.

No.

Ward two.

Ask.

Ward three.

Excuse me.

Ward four.

Ward five.

I have two.

One is a resolution.

A resolution in regards to installing a stop sign at the intersection of Riverview and Wentworth.

And I do have a traffic study for that.

Public safety.

The other is an ordinance, and it's an ordinance in regards to no parking riverview terrace on Katie Avenue and Lippett Avenue.

And I have a traffic study with that recommendation as well.

Ordnance.

Pass.

Pass.

Ward nine.

All right.

And then I have one uh amending section sixty-four-five, other officials.

Ordnance.

All right.

So no further business.

We adjourn at 848 p.m.

Yes.