Good evening, everyone.

Good evening.

Let the record indicate it is now 501 p.m.

And the finance committee is called to order.

I just want to uh go over a few procedural things before we start.

We we have a lot of issues to to deal with this evening.

Um I would just want to remind everyone that the comments um that you're all willing to uh able to make regarding anything that's on the bid package, you must keep your comments focused on the merits of the bid of the bid.

So I know that there very well could be some emotion, but um please um make my job easy so that I don't have to gavel anyone down, keep the comments to the bid item.

I appreciate everyone's support, but we gotta play by the rules.

So with um that said, I also before we continue on, I just want to let everyone know, and we'll we'll be speaking to this again as we move a little further.

When we get to about 6 15 this evening, if we have not completed the committee agendas, we're going to put a hold on them so that we can convene the full city council meeting at 6 30.

At such time we will have the um uh pledge of allegiance, we'll have the national anthem.

The council president will be calling for um communication uh from the council members, and then we'll be going into executive communication, which the council president will speak to regarding that also.

So let's um get going.

Um I need a motion on the minutes from December 15th.

Move favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion for favorable, we have a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor, aye.

Thank you.

We have four yeses.

Do you have to abstain?

Yes, you are here.

Oh you know what?

I've been on this council for 13 years, and in 13 years, I've missed two meetings, and I forgot about that one.

Thank you, Councilman.

So correction.

I abstain, and we have three yeses.

We will move on to um the consent calendar, and I need a motion on that, please.

Move action on the minutes.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Once again, I will be abstaining, and I need uh vote.

We have a motion, we have a second, all in favor.

Aye.

And I abstain.

So we have three yeses and one abstain.

Thank you.

So we're gonna move on to PCR 126, the bid package.

The first item is 2026, 295, various replacement autopots.

Hi, Christy, please identify yourself for the record.

I know who you are, but not everybody in the room does.

Good evening, Chrissy Moretti Public Works.

Is requesting to award the bid 2026-295 for various replacement automotive parts and the amount of eight hundred thirty-six thousand six hundred dollars for one year period, February 1826 to February 1727.

And um, I just want to point out there are two other requests after this one.

They all say 836,600, but that dollar amount is for all three bids.

It's not for each bid individually.

Um so thank you for that, Christy.

Um, again, for the for the benefit of the folks that have not always been able to attend, um this item is 836,600, but it is spread out in various components to two other departments.

So it's the DPW department, it will be um original pots for vehicles, and um also uh a sub Bare with me.

So before I ask any questions on this item, I want to point out something that I feel is very important, and I've spoken about it numerous times over the years, and that is list price, discount, and net cost.

In this packet, we have for these items, there's a whole bunch of items that are priced, and I know some emphasis has been put on the discount rather than the significance of the list price.

So what we have here tonight is a perfect example of what I've been trying to drive home with the significance of the list price.

Which list price?

Is there a list price?

Which list price do we go by?

In this packet, we have the very first item.

It's the same identical numbers, pot numbers.

It's the manufacturer is Delco Remy.

We have one vendor who offers a 73% discount, and we have another vendor that offers a 70% discount.

But the difference is in the list price, same item, same product number.

The list price from one vendor is four hundred and sixty-five dollars and thirty-one cents.

The list price from another vendor is six hundred and fifty-seven dollars.

So, of course, the list price makes a difference.

In this case, the higher discount is the cheaper price, but it doesn't always work out that way.

So if we look at another item in this bid package, and I'm not going to go through them, I got about probably a couple of dozen of these very examples.

Another item, same exact product number, it's Ultimate Select, whatever that is.

One vendor has a 73% discount, the other vendor has a 70% discount.

So if the list price doesn't matter, and you're gonna go exclusively with the discount, in this case, you're gonna make an error because the list price at 73% discount is three hundred and seventy-eight dollars and forty-two cents.

The discount seventy-three percent for a net cost of one oh two seventeen.

The other vendor, same I same item, same numbers, has a list price of three hundred and thirty-nine dollars and seven cents with the seventy percent discount for a net price of a hundred and one dollars and seventy-two cents.

Now I realize we're only talking pennies, but we're not.

We're talking taxpayer dollars, and you can not purchase anything with only a list of sorry, with only a discount if you don't know what the list price is.

And this is a perfect example.

So enough said on that.

I think I drove the point home.

Items, the only item that I have on this, Christy, is I have to object to the Lawson bid being included.

I understand and agree with your rationale for including the other vendors.

We know things are difficult to get.

Prices are like all over the place.

Inventory can be difficult.

But I am personally gonna be objecting to Warson being included because all they included was the discount.

They did not provide you or us with a list price.

And I have to object to that because it makes zero sense to me.

That's why I just went through that little exercise that I did, because most of the people in the audience here tonight um kind of haven't been uh involved in this so much.

I cannot agree to award a vendor a bid if we don't know what the list price is because they can turn around and charge us whatever they please, especially in this case where the other vendors have provided their prices, their list price, their discount price.

So now Lawson is at a distinct advantage when they price this, and I think that's wrong.

But before I um make a request on this, I would like to hear from my colleagues on the committee.

Are there any questions?

Okay, councilman.

Go ahead.

You and I had a conversation about how these list prices actually play out in real time.

Yes.

When we make the purchases, just to clarify for everyone here, the list prices that are submitted on these bid packages, these vendors are not locked into those prices.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And why is that?

Because the the market, um, the automotive market, the the prices fluctuate daily.

So on the day that they submitted their bids, whatever date that was, those list those list prices are no longer valid, more than likely.

Um and the other thing I just wanted to address too, as far as Lawson, I can see where um Councilman Latteriser is coming from, but these vendors give us a uh, I'm not sure if this particular one they did provide us with a document, like a catalog, which obviously is not included.

Um, you know, it's it can be pretty extensive.

Um, and then other vendors do also, we have like a specific login for the city of Warwick.

So we shop around any time we buy anything.

Um, I think we've we've shown that as well in our last request we made for a vendor um that saved the city $10,000 to get parts for one of our dump trucks.

So with all due respect, I completely see where where your point is driven home on Lawson, but it's not that it's just when the bids are submitted, um, you get a snapshot, obviously, of what their pricing is, but there could be more backup to it.

It's just not part of the bid package.

So the list prices we see here in the packages that we receive via your office, those are a snapshot on the date that they filled out this paperwork.

Yes.

Okay.

And is it fair to say that those are mostly for illustrative purposes?

Yes, because the the bid specifically requires the vendors to hold the discount firm, not the pricing.

Okay, and that's the stipulation that they hold the discount firm and not the list price that's in the package that goes out for bid to every vendor.

Yes.

Okay.

So that's the stipulation as both parties understanding.

Yes, for for all the well, the this bid and the two that follow.

Well, I'm sorry, the the one that follows for the OEM parts.

Um, and then after that is uh well that the third one I'm sure we'll discuss, but uh as far as you know, is that excuse me?

Is that practice customary for most cities and towns to have the discount locked in in the list price?

A lot of the cities and towns don't actually even go out to bid, they just piggyback a source well, um, which we've utilized on certain occasions uh when it benefits the city.

Um, but in in this case and like other cases um with with bids that we have, we don't necessarily always piggyback the state or another government bidding entity.

We we do it ourselves.

Okay, and who actually checks when we when you send out a purchase order, who does the double checking of are we you know getting a good are they actually accurately quoting the list price on a day of purchase or who who does that cross-checking?

So we have a stock person that will get quotes for any parts that they need, and then um the automotive chief obviously oversees that, so he'll look at them as well, and then they come across my desk.

So there's three people looking at the the purchase order or the requests for parts.

Thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um if I'm just going to, with all due respect um on that list price thing.

It seems as though somewhere along the line, we're missing uh the point.

I understand that the list price today may not be the list price tomorrow.

I get that.

I understand that.

I was in the remodeling business for for over 40 years.

I understand about how prices work.

However, I also understand this example.

A battery today.

We get a bid on a battery today.

The battery is 300 list price.

The discount is 200 is 20%.

Your net price today is 240.

I have a starting point.

The starting point is 300.

If you order that battery in a month from now or two months from now, and that list price comes in at 500 with a 20% discount, you are going to realize you just got taken advantage of.

Because it's highly unlikely that battery went from 300 to 500.

There's nobody in this chamber today would go to any store and buy anything and say, okay, how much is this phone?

Well, Ed, we're gonna give you 20% off on that phone.

I'll take it.

Does not happen.

I will never condone that, whether I'm sitting here or I'm sitting elsewhere.

I will not condone that.

You can't get to there if you don't know where you are here.

The retail price, I'm sorry, the the the re the list price is where you are today.

You need the starting point.

That's only everyday business sense.

Councilman Mudo.

Hi, Christy.

Two questions.

One, um, what what did we spend for this category last year?

$620,755 and 73 cents.

Okay.

And the increase is based on what assumptions?

It's not an increase, it's actually a decrease in in our annual requests.

Um it's it's a cumulative um, as you see in your bid package on page one, it's a cumulative request of the line items that encompass the automotive division that we buy parts from.

Um, we've actually reduced it by $50,000 because uh 65250 went from 750,000, excuse me, from 800,000 to 750,000.

So instead of asking for 886,600, we are now asking for 836,600.

Okay, thanks for that clarification.

Uh, because I had trouble balancing that with Munis.

Uh and that's because you rolled the three categories together, just to be clear.

I'm sorry.

That's because you roll you rolled the three categories together.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh follow-up question is uh this bid prep package, you have six or seven vendors here.

When you approach purchasing parts, do you look for just one or do you cross-reference all of them and look for the best net dollar say uh cost versus percent in list price?

We always go to the lowest vendor first.

Um, obviously we gather quotes, we go to lowest vendor, depending on what kind of vehicle it is, if it's something that can wait a couple of days, um, we'll do that.

If it's something that can't wait, then we go to the next lowest vendor to secure the part.

So if it's you know, obviously something that's fire related, we have to get that back up and running back on the road at this time of year.

If it's something plow related, we have to do that as well.

Um sanitation always takes priority.

So anything, anything else though, you know, like if we have uh a Cron Victoria that that needs to be fixed for whatever reason, those we can we can um you know put on the wait list until we get the other things up and running.

Okay.

Um okay, so that actually raises the concern for me because I was on the under the assumption that you had a list of uh vendors and we were going for the lowest cost across the vendors instead of being the lowest cost based on the initial bid, which then I have to go back and defend councilman Latticer is if that is your base number, and that person or that company has a base no low number, then you're defaulting going to that one instead of looking across the vendors or looking for the no, we we search more than one vendor on on this bid.

Well, we do it with other bids that we have multiple vendors too.

But on this bid, we will go to multiple vendors and say, hey, do you have this?

How much is it?

And when can you get it to us?

Okay.

And then we make a decision based on first how much is it and when you can get it to us, but when you can get it to us is based on what vehicle it's needed for.

Okay.

Thanks for clarifying.

Could you you initially said that it was the lowest bid?

Sorry.

At first, which triggers the red alerts.

All right, thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Councilman.

So to follow up on Councilman Muto, Christy, essentially what you're requesting from the finance committee, is to approve an increase of just about 40% over what you spent last year.

Is that accurate?

No.

Over what you spent.

We we always um historically have asked for what our line items are budgeted for in the automotive division for us to purchase parts.

So it's those particular line items that we use to purchase parts.

And then we've reduced our historic requests by $50,000.

So we're requesting what we have budgeted to spend.

It doesn't mean we're going to spend it.

So two years ago, we spent $859,230 and 10 cents.

This year so far, we spent $661,863.58.

So we have to have the ability to buy what we need to keep all the vehicles moving.

Um, but obviously we we make the request for what we're allowed to spend, but it doesn't mean that we spend it all.

Sure.

Councilman, you have two minutes.

Do you have a list of what your anticipated needs are for this year?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Sure, Councilman Napa, go ahead, please.

Christy, when you're saying that what you've spent year to date, is that fiscal year to date or is that contract period to date?

That's the contract period.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anything further from the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Ricks.

And if if I don't recognize you, your hands up, your lights up, just to give me a shout, okay?

Because I can't kind of see on my left and my right.

Councilman Rick, please.

Thank you.

Yeah.

For members of the public, those who haven't heard me give this particular speech before.

Uh perhaps a little background can be helpful here as well.

Big picture.

We don't want a situation where the person ordering these various parts, and there are a lot of parts on this particular list, is basically just uh going online, uh looking it up and doing it in a haphazard way.

So even though this is a large list of various parts, we still have to make sure that there's the uh this public hearing process, this bid process.

So even though it may seem like there's some minutiae here, it really is a matter of having all of these documents submitted, go through the regular bid process, uh, be examined by members of the council and particularly members of the finance committee who I know do their due diligence, spend many hours on this.

And for all the reasons stated by Chairman Latticer and other members of the committee, it's important to have those numbers there, go through that process to make sure that we're getting the best deals on record for the city of Warwick, save some money that way.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Anything further from any other members of the council?

Hearing none, any questions or comments from members of the public?

Do we have any questions or comments from members of the public?

Please state your name for the record.

And I would just remind um everyone to keep your comments and questions related to the bid items.

Rob Cody Ward Seven.

Hello.

Thank you, Councilman Lattisville, for asking the appropriate questions that the taxpayer really needs to know so we know how our money's being spent and if it's being spent wisely.

So pertaining to this $836,000.

I'm assuming that uh there's a procedure to come up with this number of $136,000.

So am I to believe that what you do is you have a projection of each and every part that you feel that you're gonna need, and then you go up and you look up all these parts, what the total cost is, and then you come up with that $836,000.

Is that how it works?

Um, Christy, could you answer that, please?

The numbers derived from five different budget codes that we have allocated yearly.

They all have a maximum attached to them.

So the first one, 65,250 is $750,000.

That's primarily where the bulk of our parts come from.

And then we have four other budget codes.

And then there are uh after that, there are two budgeted at 10,000 and one at 16,000.

Um, so that's where that 836,600 comes from.

I understand that what I'm saying is that 836,000, do you have that broken down into an inventory of specific components that you're projecting to purchase?

No.

Okay.

That's a problem.

So that number's arbitrary, right?

So you're basically saying that we think that we might use this amount of money, but you don't have on hand an accurate inventory of parts uh based on maintenance records, based on service records, um that you feel what specific parts will have to be procured to keep the vehicles running.

You don't have that.

So for example, when you go on the Warwick Warwick dot gov slash bids list, right?

You're supposed to see everything there.

So you can't see anything.

So I can't go on as a taxpayer.

All I can say is, hey, we're gonna spend $836,000 on parts.

Well, what parts?

Right?

So from a person in private business that was in retail, you keep an inventory control.

So this leads me to believe that like do we have a formal inventory control in the city of Warwick?

So in other words, if you've got whatever 10 alternators in stock and you use two, are they scanned?

Do we know which those alternators, which vehicles they went in?

And do you keep a running inventory and tally of every pot?

Do we have that?

Do we have like an if I said to you, if I put forth a public records request and said, hey, I want to see every single part that you have in inventory, when you purchased it and which parts went to which vehicles, do you have that?

We have um repair orders for all the vehicles that we work on and all the parts I listed on there.

We do have a stock room as far as an inventory program.

Um, they are rolling out one first, I think, with the police department, if I'm not mistaken, relatively soon.

And then I think somewhere in there we're slated to be after them.

However, with the volume of vehicles that we fix, we do keep certain things.

We keep air cans, we keep um, you know, we we have air filters, we have oil filters, we have belts, we have everything from you know, nuts and bolts to to tie wraps, and we have all of that stuff.

We have cans of brake clean and bottles of windshield washer fluid and wipers, and we have all that stuff in our stock room, but we don't stock things like you know, if an arm on a sanitation truck goes, we're not gonna spend $25,000 just to have one on hand.

Or maybe we just need components to repair an arm on a sanitation truck.

So we don't need the whole thing.

So when things like that go wrong or things that we can't necessarily predict, um obviously we keep two sets of brakes on hand for rescues, you know, if they come in and need brakes done, I mean they go through them relatively often um with the amount of time they're on the road.

But so there's a lot of stuff that gets delivered to us the day of or the next day because we don't keep it in stock.

It's not something one, we don't have room for, and two, it could be something that you know goes wrong every two years.

So I I understand that, but what you what you do keep in stock, and I'm sure you keep quite a bit of merchandise in stock.

Do you have a formal protocol for an inventory?

Like is there inventory control that when you take one item off your inventory is you have a document that shows that inventory, like you go into any supermarket, any pot store, and all they have to do is look at it and say, okay, we've got six of these in stock.

Do we have anything formalized like that?

Where if a member of the general public did a public records request and said, I want to see everything that you have in stock for inventory and I want to see all the prices.

Do you have that?

Well, like I just said, they're they're gonna be rolling that program out with the police department first.

They are a smaller version, much smaller version of what we do.

So the answer is no, you don't have a formal control.

Exactly what I said.

No, we don't.

No, okay.

So that's a problem, right?

You come in here for almost a million dollars worth of parts that we want.

No inventory control, right?

Nothing's itemized.

There's no list of this $836,000 of all the components that are gonna add up to $836,000, what we reasonably project that we're going to use based upon our previous year's maintenance or our history, right?

What we reasonably project that we're going to use based upon our pre our previous years maintenance or our history, right?

You think the taxpayers think that that's a good thing to do?

Is there any business person that would say, Oh, yeah, we do we conduct business like that all the time?

You don't.

Nobody in private business conducts business like that.

And that's why we have problems, and that's why we ask questions, and that's why Mr.

Lattisau asks these questions and is trying to be specific.

Because on each meeting that I come to, it seems like basic protocol of merchandising and inventory is violated.

Accounting procedures violated.

And I I would assume that a lot of these parts that are being replaced are because of wear and tear.

Is that right?

I'm sorry.

I I'm assuming that a lot of these parts that are replaced on a regular basis is wear and tear.

There's a good number of wear and tear, you know, breaks and you know, things like that, but we also have other major components that need to be replaced for whatever reason that a vehicle's out of service.

And you also have to keep in mind that we're not just fixing sanitation vehicles.

We fix highway, we fixed annotation, we fixed field maintenance, building maintenance, fire, transwicks, water, sewer.

But everything that we're talking about here is parts.

Excuse me.

We fix we fix everything except for police, and then the vehicles that are um at the annex building, like buildings and assessors, we don't fix those, but we fix everything else.

But this $836 is relative to automotive pods.

Correct.

Right, okay.

And the reason I ask in terms of the wear and tear is as you all know, at any given day, I can videotape trucks driving around the city aimlessly, hiding out, not doing any work.

Mr.

Cody, stick to the bid.

And well, well, it's it's relative because it's wear and tear, and it's pots that have to be replaced when we're not seeing anything, any work being performed.

Look, you know, it's 2026.

Every retailer, every person who houses inventory has a formalized computerized system to house their inventory, and they know exactly how many nuts and bolts and widgets and fan belts and everything else we have and tires.

I don't need to remind you that several years ago we had this issue with tires where tires were mysteriously disappearing, but we didn't have an inventory control, and we still don't have an inventory control today, and it's ridiculous.

Thank you.

Next, just please identify yourself for the record.

And uh again, just a reminder.

Hi, my name's Michael DeSalvia.

I also have an issue with spending eight hundred thousand dollars on parts and not knowing what they're for.

Mr.

Laddisau, you owned a business.

If I came up to you and says, I need eight hundred thousand dollars for some parts.

Would you just say, here's the eight hundred thousand?

What parts are you getting?

What do you need these for?

This is just ridiculous spending the way the city of Warwick runs.

All they do is spend, spend, spend, and no one cares about where the money comes from because we'll just raise taxes on everybody.

Let's raise the taxes again.

More people gotta leave the city.

This is ridiculous.

Thank you.

Everyone have a good day.

Identify yourself for the record, please.

And again, a reminder just uh Robert Cushman, former Warwick City Councilman or comments to the bid, please.

Yes.

Um, I my questions is concerning, I think the lack of transparency as a taxpayer when I look at a bid like this.

So there's a couple uh Christie answered a couple questions I had, but this bid is $836,000, and she basically said it's made up of five different budget line item codes.

Why aren't those listed for the taxpayers to see?

You know, basically what we have here is we have a bid number 2026, 295.

It's called various replacement automotive parts, DPW.

So as a taxpayer, someone who's studied the budget for the last 20 years, when I take a look at this sitting at home today, I looked at, okay, let's see what line items would make up 86 at 36,600.

I looked at 65-250 mechanical pods, $750,000.

Now I know Christy just said there's five other or four other line items.

Why aren't those listed?

Why can't a taxpayer should be able to understand where these items are being expensed from?

And Mr.

Lasso, I want to just congratulate you on being a member of the finance committee that has tried to ask questions that has tried to put in place procedures that make it more viable for a taxpayer to understand what's going on.

And I just gonna say one thing.

I think it's disgraceful that they're removing you as a finance chair.

Okay, Chrisman.

Yes.

So please.

Here's my question.

I guess to Christy, I was looking at 65-250 mechanical pods.

Last year at this time, according to the budget document, up until uh 331.25, 456,510 was spent in nine months, right?

How much money was spent at the end of fiscal 25 on this line item?

You mean at the end of the um budget cycle?

Yes.

Give me one second.

Not a tough question.

I hope my time is suspended.

Mr.

Cushman, while they're trying to get that answer for you, do you have any other questions that may have an answer already?

Yeah, well, let me maybe I can help them out here.

So when we look at the projected expenses for this line item at the end of fiscal year 25, it was 802,500.

So I guess my question is you spent 456,000 in nine months.

Did you spend $350,000 in the final three months of the fiscal year?

So you have you've already indicated the answer to your question.

No, I I mean your first your first question.

I I don't know the answer.

I'm looking at the budget document that you guys approved in May of this year.

It had the total amount of money expensed from this line as 456,510 through March 31st of 2025.

The projected expense was 802,500.

I I want to know what the actual expense was.

They should know that by now.

Christy, could you are you ready for that?

Um, just some issues connecting to the internet, but uh yes, I can get it.

Just give me one.

And my question is you spent 456,520 in nine months, right?

Through the end of March.

You were projected to spend $350,000 in three months.

Is that what you did?

And why would you do that?

Why would you are you ready for your answer?

Yes.

So at the end of fiscal year 25, we had uh overall budget in 65,250 of $800,000, and we spent at the end of fiscal year 25 $604,419 and 13 cents.

Okay, so which left us with an abat an available balance that goes back to the general fund of 198,080 and 87 cents.

Okay, so the 800 and 2,500 that was projected during the budget hearings was incorrect, right?

There's always a projection that's what we expect to spend.

So, yes, do we?

I mean, we never know what's gonna happen with our vehicles, you know.

I personally my my son's check engine light went on.

Yeah, you know, you gotta find out what's wrong with it.

It's not something that I was expecting to happen, but it needs to be fixed.

So, you know, we can't always predict when something needs a repair.

Can we predict when it needs tires?

Yes, we look at them.

Can we predict when it might need breaks?

Yes, we we they look at them or the driver brings it in.

What was the total Katie's feel spongy?

What was the Christian?

Let her finish.

I have limited time though.

She's going off on a tangent here.

What was the uh total amount that you spent against 600 and what?

6041913.

So in 2020, it was 652 and 2021 it was 660 in 2023.

It was 633.

Why are you budgeting 750,000 when you never even came close to that?

So, in fiscal year 22, we spent 751,591 dollars and 76 cents in fiscal year.

Excuse me, that did I say 22?

That was 23.

In fiscal year 22, we spent 858,401 dollars and 59 cents.

I can keep going backwards if you'd like me to.

No, that's okay.

So why we ask for that amount of money?

There's there's multiple things that have to be considered the age of our vehicles, the wear and tear on our vehicles, as well as the economy.

Okay.

It's not the type of thing where we can just you know put it a number like dead on and say we're only gonna spend six hundred thousand dollars.

We ask for you know what we anticipate we will need to spend to fix all of the department vehicles that I listed earlier, and if we don't need it, then we don't spend it.

Okay.

In line item 63239, I think you said there's $50,600 uh budgeted for that.

That's supplies miscellaneous.

Are those line items different from the line items and the mechanical parts?

Yes.

And then you why don't you separate?

I mean, is there any ways for the taxpayers to like to Mr.

Cody's point to be able to see what line items make up the supplies miscellaneous versus which line items make up the mechanical parts because you're putting them all into one bid?

So because all of those line items make up that dollar amount that we're requesting.

So I have to put them into the document.

However, if you look at the bid package, the the budget code numbers are there, they don't have the budget code title, it's not a function of public works.

Um I don't know if that's something that you know is necessary, but the budget codes are there for what we're asking for.

Is that documentation?

Was that online for the taxpayers to see?

Because I couldn't find it.

Yes.

It was the the oh, you mean the the this?

This is part of the bid document.

No, I I have the bid document, but uh all the things you're talking about now with all those line items.

I went to the council meeting minutes, I looked at the agenda, all they had was a three-page bid package.

There's no other details.

So the information that they have and that you're talking about that is that available.

This is all advertised online prior to the meeting.

Well, how do we find that?

It's on the city's website.

I'm not sure.

Um don't ask me.

You know, I'm not Mr.

Technology, so don't ask me.

It's it's not there.

I'm telling you, it's not there.

So can you it has to be there for us to discuss it?

It's part of the open meeting directly.

Excuse me.

Excuse me, excuse me.

Let's let's just take a breath here.

It's under the city council's tab on the website.

I I looked there, it's not there.

It is excuse me, chief.

Councilman Ricks, did you want to weigh in on this?

Do you have something to add to this?

Let's go.

Chase.

Uh through the chair, uh to Mr.

Cushman.

Uh going on the city council website, clicking on the meeting.

I believe that you had reached that page.

It can be a bit confusing because there are multiple separately listed PDFs relative to the bid package.

This particular one is the third item down listed as bid underscore package underscore 0105 2026.

It is a 142 total page document.

The budget codes are listed on the seventh page of 142, uh, near the top of that page.

And to add a little bit to the confusion, that seventh page out of 142 is labeled as the first page.

So what's the name of it?

I would just like to be able to see that.

What's the name of that document?

It is the third item.

Uh, there out of the several dozen uh PDFs listed.

Bid underscore package underscore 01 hyphen 05 hyphen 2026.

PDF.

Okay, I'll have to take a look.

If you go to the city's website, Mr.

Cushman.

Hi.

If you go to the city's website, okay, and you go to government and you pick city council, yeah.

It's right there.

Okay.

So you can either choose off the calendar end of it because there's two spots to choose from, or on the left-hand side.

I couldn't find it.

All right, that's my fault.

Uh, I guess one last question here now, too.

So in this bid package, we have I guess there's three different paragraphs here.

We have, you know, the the various automotive pots, then there's a uh 2026 301A, 2026, 301b.

How is the taxpayer supposed to know what's the difference?

And in 301B is a 566.

Why is that a 566?

Um I'm just looking for a little bit more transparency.

Maybe it's in the documents.

I couldn't find it, but I I think all these questions, you know, I should be able to get by going through the documents online and not what I'll happen to come to the city council.

Christy, you you I know you uh you have a comment for that.

We we haven't gotten to the other um the other items, so I'm not sure if you want to discuss them like out of order or I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

We haven't gotten to the other items that uh Mr.

Chrisman's referring to.

The 301A and 301B.

So I don't know if you want to finish with this one and move on or just discuss them all at once.

She's made a so I don't have to come back.

Let me just I'll ask you my question now, and maybe you can ask later.

You know, when I take a look at this bid package, you you're breaking it down to three different things.

To me, it shouldn't say the same amount, 836,600 for 301A, and it shouldn't say 836,600 for 301B.

It sounds like they're different bids.

I I just don't understand, you know, why it's being presented that way, and and maybe you could find out why.

But you know, I guess the bottom line to me, I I think the way this is presented could be a lot more clearer with better documentation.

I mean, why not put the line items associated with these bids right on the document?

You know, so it's very easy for a layperson or someone to come in and see.

I think you you guys gotta start looking at, especially with the change of leadership on this finance committee to make it easier for taxpayers to understand how our money is being spent in the city of Warwick.

Any ma'am, please.

I'm just going.

I'm sorry.

Uh yes, could you just use the mic so I can hear you?

Because I can't hear what's going on in the back.

So no.

Um, councilman Foley is he is the timekeeper.

He is really good with it too.

Um please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Jessica.

Uh I am a Warwick resident, so I'm not as uh prepared as everybody else.

I don't have a list, but I just came really to remind you guys um of your duty to the residents of Warwick.

We should be able to ask questions.

Um excuse me.

This is this is definitely in relation to finances.

But no, it's this isn't specific.

This isn't like a generic thing of finances.

Um I'm sorry to say you have to keep your comments indicative to this item that we're bidding now, which is the various replacement autops.

Okay.

So the autopotes, right?

So I'm getting to that.

So obviously the the problem is that you guys can't even identify what you're spending, and questions are being asked about spending.

So that's the point I was getting to.

So my point is as a Warwick resident, I'm responsible, and you guys keep track of my water bill every upgrade that I do on my house.

You guys find a way for me to pay more in taxes.

And you you can't, and and we cannot hold on.

I'm I'm getting to it.

And we cannot identify how we're spending our taxpayer money.

So I encourage you guys to realize why you're here and why you're in your seats, is to make sure that you are doing what you're supposed to be doing with our taxpayer dollars.

Anyone on this council who asks questions, congratulations to you.

That is your job.

That's why you're here.

Just again please find a way to identify how we're spending our money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Excuse.

Listen, wait, whoa, I got conversations going on all over the place.

If you want to speak to me, request that you are acknowledged so I can hear and understand what you're saying.

So who would like to speak behind me?

Anyone?

I have never heard the star.

I don't need to be called sir.

I just need to know when someone wants to ask a question or has a comment, whether it be out of the audience, out of the members of the committee, or behind me.

Respond to things that I don't know.

Councilman Ricks.

I would just say to that.

Uh I think that the finance committee under uh your leadership is doing a fantastic job.

The bid package alone.

We're looking at you, but let's let's stick to the bid every two weeks.

Items such as this takes significant time for you all to look through, and all of the documentation is there every couple of weeks, a couple of times a month.

Councilman Red.

Thank you, sir.

Let's um let's not make my job more difficult, please.

Just stick to the bid items.

I do not want to have to be gaveling anyone.

I do need to know what is being said and what is going on.

Do we have any other questions on item 2026 295?

Okay.

Now we'll move on to item 2026 301A.

Um, if there are any questions, let's make them something other than what was already asked on the previous bid.

If there are any points that someone wants to make specifically to 2026 301a, please do so.

But let's keep it to the um item at hand.

Any questions from members of the committee?

All right, let's just hold on one minute, Christy.

Um in this bid package on these items right here.

We have as an example.

Um it's I don't know, it's somebody somebody equipment.

Um we have the position paper, okay.

Then we have one, two, three, I don't know, half a dozen um pages accompanying it.

But here's my problem.

This was given to us, and this isn't even a question I should have to be asking now.

It shouldn't have come to us this way.

On this item, vendor name, there is there's no name.

It's it's just there's no name, it's got items on here and no bid.

I go to the next page, there's no vendor name.

The next page, no vendor name, no vendor name.

It's got no bids, no bids.

But my question is I don't know for certain.

I don't know at all if these sheets right here belong to that equipment company.

They do.

I don't know.

Christy, with all due respect, I don't know, because it doesn't say.

So I sit here and I look at this and I say, okay, um, there's no way for me to identify this, and they're not the only one.

There's other bidders in this package, too, maybe three others.

The same thing.

And what we have is we have a bunch of pages with nothing on them, and there's no vendors listed at all.

I don't know how or why something like that would even become would come before us.

I don't know why something like this isn't identified and said, Hey, wait a minute, excuse me.

Um, we need to know who the vendor is, and just write it down so we know this way.

I don't have to hear people saying, Oh, you're asking a lot of questions.

May I explain?

What's that?

May I explain?

Please.

So the first vendor that submitted a bid was sanitary equipment.

Okay, and they wrote no bid on a bunch of these pages that was part of the bid package, but they can't bid on all of these parts because they can't provide them.

So they bid on Libree parts, which they do provide because it's an OEM part.

This is this is the OEM bid.

So sanitary equipment can't give us Mac parts because they don't make them.

That's why they're all blank except for the particular parts that these vendors can provide these are the pricing sheets from the bid.

So what you're seeing is exactly what the vendor submitted.

Christy, I am not trying to give you a hard time.

What I'm looking at is I don't know what I'm looking at, and we're saying, okay, well, that's the vendor.

So on page 20, I have a bunch of list prices over here.

I have no name at the top.

Christy, how do I know?

How does this committee know?

How would the members of the public know who this belonged to?

There's there's no indication here of anything, and then how do we know this wasn't task as bid?

The reason we know it's not a task is bid, at least Tasker, they have their name on this, so I know that it's Tasker.

This type of procedures just don't make sense to me, and that's probably why I'm in trouble.

But at the end of the day, I'm looking at these and I'm saying, okay, so to the defense of whoever's getting all these bids, you're getting a lot of bids.

I understand that.

The departments get a lot of bids.

Purchasing gets a lot of bids.

They have a lot of things that they have to go through.

I'm looking at this and I'm saying, okay, so how do I know that some of these sheets weren't mixed up?

Not intentionally, accidentally.

You got a lot of stuff all spread out.

This is something to me, this is like really simple.

This isn't something I should have to ask in advance.

Who is the vendor on page 21?

I don't know.

Who's the vendor on page 22?

I don't know.

This is why I have to ask these questions.

So you are 100% confident that all of these pages belong to the indicated vendor before it.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Well any questions from members of the committee.

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Please identify yourself for the record.

Rob Cody once.

Once again, Mr.

Cody, once again, please keep the comments to the bid.

Sure.

So relative to this bid.

When you go on the bid sheets from page 23 all the way down to page 37 or 38.

The only company that gave anything itemized was Tasca.

Everything else is blank.

So look, I understand Christy has a Herculean task, and I think she does a really good job, right?

But the problem is in 2026, we're sending out stuff that we're sending back with pencil and paper and eraser marks.

And this is not any type of electronic transmission where you send this to the vendor and the vendor enters it and sends it back to you.

Right?

So what are we doing?

Are we are we doing this by mail?

We send it out to them, they fill it out, and what does it say?

No bid, no bid, no bid for 30 pages, no bid, no bid, no bid, and then you got 10 items that Tasca actually gave a bid and gave their percentage discount.

So how do how do you reasonably come up with a number of 836,000 dollars when out of everybody that you asked to give us a quote on a thermostat, you have no bid.

And and the taxpayers supposed to accept this as like, you know, what is this 1930?

Right?

You're handing it to the mailman, the mailman's delivering it to Tasca, Tasker fills it out, then they got eraser mocks, and then they mail it back.

This is something that should be done in a matter of seconds, where it's transmitted electronically, they enter it from their inventory system, and you receive it and you got a hard copy, and then there's no questions.

Then you don't have guys like me and Cushman wasting our time coming out here and explaining how antiquated the city of Warwick is.

We don't want to do this, but this is ridiculous, and this is millions and millions of dollars every year.

And what happens?

The only guy that asks questions, we're gonna remove them so we can rubber stamp everything.

It's sickening.

Robert push me.

I'm gonna keep this brief.

I I actually feel bad that Christie has to go through this with antiquated systems.

I'm an IT guy, business analyst.

I should be able to, if I was a purchasing guy to say to the purchasing department, I want a spreadsheet that shows every single line item that's being bid as part of this bid package.

I want to be able to see across the top every single vendor that's bidding on it and the price, and at the end, it should all add up to 800 and whatever 60 something thousand.

I just looked at that document.

That document is a disgrace, and it's not her fault.

Someone better get together with the purchasing department and get us into the freaking 21st century, because this is a disgrace the way we're doing things in the city of Warwick, and it's not her fault.

The fact of the matter is that we should have systems in place where you don't have handwritten documents.

We saw what happened years ago with the fire department with sick time sheets and all that with pencil and paper.

This city council needs to get on board and get us into 21st century.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have still a fair amount of stuff to get through.

I want to get us through the finance committee so we can get to the floor and get to the other business at hand.

So just um work with me on this if you would please my concern with the lack of identification on these bids is if I were a bidder bidding on this I wouldn't be too happy that other people are getting bids when it's not being identified.

But I will out of respect for Christy accept what she said that she has identified and categorized all of these bids to the position papers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions from members of the public on 2026 301A.

If none we are moving on to 2026 301 B.

That is original equipment pots for various vehicles it's just an extension of the 83600.

Christy please that's on page 49 by the way.6 for the OEM parts which are the original equipment parts um for various vehicles which basically includes every vehicle and piece of equipment in our fleet um including you know fire and all the others that were listed earlier department wise that we're responsible for maintaining this request is a 566 and I think Mr Cushman this will probably answer your question because these vendors can only provide the um manufacturing brand that so this is not something that we can't go to Peterbelt and say I need Mac breaks Peterbelt can only provide Peterbelt Mac can only provide Mac so that's that's how this bid works so that's why you saw a lot of no bid on the previous one as well because Tasca can only bid on Ford and Chevrolet so that's what they did just to clear up any confusion.

So we are requesting to essentially add these vendors to the bid um the so this would be part B of the last one and just to point out as well that all three bids now the 2026 295 2026 301A and B all share the same cap of 83600 it is not individual caps of 836000 dollars they will all draw from the same cap.

So regardless of what vendor we utilize that's approved they all spend the money is all spent from the same pot basically and I just wanted to make that clear so no one thinks that we're asking for you know well over a million dollars Christy these vendors um and I'll be honest with you I have not added them all up but were these vendors were they all sent a request to bid yes whether it electronically or the mail or whatever so every one of them was sent a request right yeah and every one of them chose not to bid which drives me up a wall and what's been happening and this has been going on for a long time a long time these vendors they don't bid for whatever reason oh we didn't get the bid we didn't know we didn't have time or they just don't want to bid because why bother bidding they're gonna give it to us anyways that troubles me it troubles me as finance chair it troubles me as an elected official who represents all the taxpayers and I'm sure my colleagues have well I'm not going to speak for my colleagues but I would assume they also have concerns with that so I have a problem with this and I'm not going to um be likely to sign on to this one either because these companies they can send in whatever they want for a bid and you're kind of stuck with it because you need these specific parts for specific vehicles I understand that you can't put a Chevrolet part in the Peter bill so again this is nothing that is on you Christy but it is on the process and this type of thing it just makes no sense to me at the very least these vendors before they are approved for to do business with the city of Warwick they should be at the very least providing you with list prices or some price net price whatever price it is for the most commonly used pots that you have and we've gone down this road for years it's not just

And this type of thing, it just makes no sense to me.

At the very least, these vendors, before they are approved for to do business with the city of Warwick, they should be at the very least providing you with list prices or some price, net price, whatever price it is for the most commonly used pots that you have.

And we've gone down this road for years.

It's not just this year or last year or the year before.

It's that you have developed a list over the years of your commonly used pots.

Why aren't we making them do that before we just give them a blank check and say, go for it?

You send us the bill, and we're gonna have to pay for it.

Because you have no choice.

Once you get the pot, you gotta pay for it.

There's a problem with this type of process where we just add vendors on because they don't want to bid, they're too lazy to bid, they don't have time to bid, they didn't get the bids, but for whatever reason, it's okay.

We're gonna add you on to the bid list.

I can't go on and support that.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Nappa.

Christy, without adding on these vendors, would we still be able to fulfill all the purchase needs that we have for the city?

No.

That's all.

Councilman, I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

I couldn't hear you.

I'm sorry.

Question was without adding these vendors on, would we be able to fulfill all the purchase needs that the city has?

I believe her answer was no.

Councilman Napra, I think that's a great question.

And Christy, I understand your answer, but that doesn't make it okay with me that we don't hold these vendors to the fire.

We don't make them submit something.

I understand what Councilman Knapp is saying.

I agree with what he said.

I agree with what you said.

What do you want me to do?

You know, we we got to have the pots.

We have to hold their feet to the fire.

They gotta stop providing you with prices of some sort.

To just let this go cop blanche is ridiculous.

Councilman Napa.

What if we're using some of these add-on vendors?

And forgive me if it's a incorrect term, but I'm just gonna call them add-on vendors.

Do you request quotes from a few of them before you make the purchase?

Or are we do you do you have a reference point?

I guess the question.

A lot of these vendors are very specific to one brand.

Um, obviously, we have herd auto mall on there, so we can get Chevy parts from them, but we can also get it from Tasca.

So in that case, that would be somewhere where we get prices from both vendors.

Um, and then determine again, it's just like the uh the other analogy I use, where we we will go with the lowest price, but then it depends on the vehicle that needs to be repaired.

So if it's something that's urgent, we'll, you know, if we have to get it from say herd, if they were more expensive because we need to get this vehicle back on the road, then that's the avenue we take.

But under normal circumstances, we go with the low vendor and wait for the part to come in if that's something that we can do.

Christine, just follow one follow-up question to spin off of what councilman uh chairman Latticer was saying.

Is there any mechanism for the city to sort of hold these vendors' feet to the fire?

Do you have any suggestions as to how we can maybe push them, nudge them a little bit to be a little bit more responsive to your requests?

They have, you know, uh, as councilman uh Lattice are asked, and and the answer was um yes, they were all sent uh packet, so to speak.

Um, most of them are done electronically now.

Um, if they don't respond, there's not much we can do about that.

Um, as far as the 566, you know, we could we could certainly try to get some sort of list out of them.

Um, I'm not sure how confident we are how successful we would be if they didn't submit a bid.

Um, but I mean it's something we can certainly try in the future.

But as far as as far as this, you know, like Greenwood Fire, they only fix E1s.

You know, we have those closer international is the international, that's half our rescues.

We have, you know, Anderson Motors is a Volvo dealer, that's our catchbase and truck.

So there's a lot of you know, very specific needs in this list.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions or comments from members of the public?

Are there any questions or comments from members of the public?

Please identify yourself for the record, and I will at the risk of being redundant.

I will just say please limit your comments to the bit.

You've been here a lot.

So you know the drill.

Please go ahead.

And Sheridan Ward 9.

So these bids are all original equipment replacement.

Have we looked at doing doing aftermarket replacement?

Um we all buy things in shop discounts.

So I just replaced a radio in my car.

It's not the manufacturer's radio.

It was a different manufacturer, but guaranteed that it works in my car.

And I know there are some things that are absolutely positively required have to be original.

But do we need to buy Ford Spock plugs for a Ford?

I mean, can't do we can we just do generic things in a lot of you know a lot of our and I know we get heavier usage than the norm.

And then maybe the quote me, the issue is maybe quality and quantity and prices doesn't really matter.

Just curious.

Everything completely original requirement.

Christy.

This this bit is for items that we cannot do in aftermarket.

Yes, we can do aftermarket spark plugs.

We can do aftermarket um belts.

We can do aftermarket headlights in most cases.

Um but there's this bit is for items that we cannot do aftermarket because they are very specific to whatever brand vehicle it is.

You know, we can't get an aftermarket arm for a sanitation vehicle.

We can't get um we can you know possibly probably get aftermarket brake pads for our for a vehicle, but um, you know, we're not I'm trying to think of even a good example.

Um I mean, you know, a fire commander, which basically runs the fire engines, those are probably about $10,000 now.

We can't get those aftermarket.

That's the type of stuff that we don't buy aftermarket, the other stuff, the generic stuff, the you know, um, you know, dime a dozen spark plugs and things like that.

Yes, we do.

So if I may, you have a separate line item for aftermarket purchases?

We that's why we have the other bit, the first one that was discussed.

That's all aftermarket.

Okay, I thought everything was okay.

My mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Any other comments from members of the public?

Sir, please just identify yourself for the record.

Sure.

Uh my name is Patrick.

I'm here as a reporter, but I can't help but listen to this.

Uh, this is more plenty of food for thought.

I spent just a hair under 20 years of my life as a fleet salesman selling Ford Motor Park.

Sorry, excuse me.

I need respectfully, I need to interrupt you.

Please keep the comments to this particularly germane to this.

I'm sorry.

This is germ completely germane to this.

I have to ask the question as someone who spent 20 years of his life doing being on the other side of that young lady.

Why is the town of Warwick, City of Warwick, excuse me, engaged in this type of fleet maintenance in this type of bare bones management for so many different vehicles.

Number one, you should research standardizing vehicles on a handful of types.

Number two, you should be comparing these prices to outsourced fleet management.

Um, a handful of things might be more expensive, but I'm looking at the city of Warwick literally on the verge of a collective nervous breakdown because you're trying to do things that quite frankly, it appears that you neither have the skills nor the resources.

Sound from what I can tell, I know the words, I know the language.

She's doing a great job.

You just shouldn't be in the automobile business.

In fact, most municipalities in the state shouldn't be in any sort of these businesses.

They should look for efficient ways to outsource it.

And otherwise, next year, we're gonna be right back here doing the same things.

It doesn't matter whether you automate it or not.

You're not in the car business.

Get out of the car business.

You can cut labor costs, you can cut uh administrative costs, give up a little bit in terms of pricing, and actually have a whole hell of a lot more efficient operation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, uh, we're gonna move on to the last.

No, we have two more items, and let's see um what we have left for time.

2026 288, large diameter clamps found on page 51.

Do we have any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from I don't oh I'm sorry, Councilman Ricks.

I don't have any questions at this time, but maybe I will go ahead.

Thank you.

Actually, I just need to request a PCR to recuse on this item as well as the next item number 287.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, on this item and the next item.

Okay, yep, thank you.

Madam Clerk, may I have a PCR for 2026 288?

PCR 7 726.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the public on Councilman Ricks?

Are you all set?

Okay.

Um questions from members of the public on what is now PCR 7-27.

So Rob Cody Ward 7.

So here's a perfect example, right?

So on all these water water department parts, you have these vendors.

So you sent them out a list.

They bid on it, right?

But here's the problem.

It's so antiquated.

So you don't know who's who you're getting the best price from, because this should be in an Excel spreadsheet.

So at the bottom, it totals out the company's total bid.

Right?

So now what has to happen is Christy or somebody else has to go through every single line item, and we're gonna compare who sent us the four by 12 inch saddle from five different vendors.

Okay, let's see who gave us the best price on that.

All right, this should be electronic.

Again, we're in the 1930s here.

When all this is tabulated out, and a lot of it is done in pencil.

If this is done on an Excel spreadsheet, bang in one second, there it is.

There's all your totals.

You can ask as many questions as you want because all your data is there.

And guess what?

If now all of a sudden their their discount rate rate changes from 40% to 35%, you change it in the column, and everything changes, all your values change, and you can see it in a flash.

All right, so we can't see this as it is right here.

I don't know what the total is that Prescott that uh Prescott bid TI sales LLC.

We don't know what their total bid was.

We have to sit there as members of the general public with a calculator and go through everything because why?

Because the system is so antiquated, we don't trust you, and I don't think anybody gets that.

So people like Cushman and myself and other people, we have to waste our time, go back to do checks and balances because we've come before you so many times and seen so many mathematical errors that we have to waste our time to go through this when if it was in a format, you know, let's say in the 1960s would be a step up.

If it's in a spreadsheet, bang, you click click of the mouse, and you have all the information that you need.

But we still can't even get that.

That's city needs to take this step right up into the 20th century.

That that's pertaining to this bid, correct?

Of course it does, it pertains to the bid because Mr.

Laddisor, look on page 65, right?

Which would be page 71 on the spreadsheet.

Tell me what the total is that TI sales bid.

What's the total?

Tell me what it is by looking at that document.

Do you know what it is?

I'm quick with numbers, but not that quick.

Right.

Got it.

So we don't know.

Nobody here knows what they bid, so you cannot do a comparative analysis between what these five vendors bid, right?

And so you have to go at each item line by line.

It's a Herculean task.

Christie shouldn't have to do that.

Members of the water department shouldn't have to do that.

This should all be done electronically.

There's nowhere anywhere on the planet that does things like this in 2026 with pencil and paper.

It's an embarrassment and it needs to change.

Thank you.

Hopefully, it's something that we can move forward on.

We only have a few minutes left.

Um, 2026 287 pipe fittings and valves.

Um, madam clerk, I need a PCR on that one.

PCR 826.

Mr.

Chairman on the on the prior prior item would the committee make a recommendation.

Excuse me.

The prior item was assigned to PCR.

Would I first oh got it?

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

So um we need a motion on PCR 7-26.

Second.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Um, last item over 50,000.

2026 287.

It is PCR.

It is PCR 8-26.

Councilman Ricks is going to be recusing on that.

Do we have that's found on page 69, by the way?

Any questions from members of the committee?

Hearing none.

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Okay, hearing none.

Director, did you have anything you wanted to comment on or add on to this?

This is your item, right?

No, thank you.

Okay, you're all set.

Okay.

Favorable action.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

So to the solicitor slash andor council president.

The remaining items that we have are under the 50,000.

Um I would suggest that we make a motion to move this entire package to the floor.

Outside of the PCRs, move them to the floor without a recommendation.

Yes, and you can take um further public comment on the items that have not been addressed, should there be questions later.

Okay, so we can get down to the other items that we're all here for.

Um I'm going to entertain a motion to move the two items that have been taken out, as well as the other items to the floor without a recommendation.

What that means is when we come back to the committee, the finance committee, anyways.

Um, all members of the public, you'll have you know an opportunity to comment on these other items.

Um as we bow.

So I need a motion to move this to the floor without a recommendation.

Motion to move to the floor without a recommendation.

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

Any further discussion?

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Thank you all very much.

And it is 623.

The finance committee is adjourned.

And Mr.

President, I'll turn the meeting over to you.

Chairman, sir.

Uh, there are two other items, the abatements and um the other bid if the committee could make similar recommendations.

Okay, let's just get to those.

We have um abatements.

Do we have any questions regarding the abatements?

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any requests from members of the council.

Um director, tell us about your abatements.

Neil DePuy, director of assessing.

This month we have 28,424.58 cents in front of you for abatements.

About a third of those are tax appeals that were granted based on data corrections, and the rest were personal tax exemptions that the people qualified for.

Okay, so nothing you know of the unusual, and I know I've gone through them.

Um, there's nothing of significance.

As you say, most of them appear to be um, you know, just the regular abatements that people are qualified for, and for whatever reason, yeah, the tax appeals uh mainly items where we didn't get in the house before.

Now they allowed an inspection.

We reduced the assessment.

Got it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um any questions from members of the public.

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Here do we have any questions from members of the public?

Thank you.

Hearing none, um, I need a motion on the abatements.

I'm looking for a motion to move to the floor without a recommendation.

No, we'll do that.

We'll do it.

Let's do it.

Okay, we have a motion for favorable action.

We have a second, second, second, all in favor.

Aye.

Thank you.

We have I think that's it.

Excuse me.

Um, okay, so we're on, I think I believe it's the last item in finance for me.

And this item is PCR 141-25.

This was held at the previous meeting by um the finance committee.

There was several questions that were asked.

Um, there were no answers received.

It was held by the finance committee, rightfully so.

And I know um a couple of us submitted questions to um the chief of staff that were directed to the department of um the water department.

I have received my answers from the chief of staff to all my questions.

I don't have any further questions on those.

Um sorry, committee have any councilman Mudo.

I just want to make a comment.

The follow-up document for those questions was was excellent.

That is the type of information, knowing what the inventory is, what you're gonna use it for is spot on.

So I appreciate the work and the effort in getting those of that information to us.

Thank you.

Uh director, I'm gonna expand on that for a minute because councilman Mudo is spot on.

That is a perfect example.

If we receive those things ahead of time, guess what?

You don't have to hear me asking all these questions.

We don't need to take all this time, but every question is relevant, there's no irrelevant question.

That is what I have been striving for.

Provide us with the answers, provide us with the blueprints, give us everything we need so that we can intelligently and responsibly and accountability to the taxpayers, the folks who are paying the bills, so we don't have to sit here for two or three hours asking the questions.

These questions should be given to us right out of the gate.

Thank you.

I need chairman, chairman.

I'd like to respond to that.

I'd like to respond to that.

Excuse me, excuse me.

I'm sorry, no disrespect.

I'd like to respond to that.

But it would be more efficient.

You get your binders on Wednesday to ask those questions before you get here, and they would have been prepared.

We've asked you about that before, and we would give you all the answers, but we didn't know what your questions are gonna be.

We don't have a crystal ball.

It was a terrible presentation.

It was no, please, excuse me.

I will I will address the mayor.

He's addressing me directly, I will address him.

I appreciate everything that you would like to do, but work with me.

Go ahead, Mayor.

No, it's just that we would answer any questions.

We didn't know what the questions are gonna be, and I agree it was a horrible presentation.

Terrible, terrible presentation.

But why do you allow it?

You get your binders on Wednesday.

We didn't know what the questions were gonna be.

It was a simple matter of giving us a call or an email, and you would have had all the answers.

Mr.

Picosi, mayor, with all due respect to you, and I mean this sincerely, when the taxpayers are paying 80, 90,000, 100,000 a year to directors.

This councilman expects them to have the answers.

I am not, I've been telling everybody that for years.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

Ms.

Mayor Councilman Mayor, with all mayor, excuse me.

I listened to you, okay?

So with with all due respect, these are simple questions.

I'm not asking people military secret questions, I'm asking them simple questions like what do you have?

What do you need?

What do you want?

Why do you want it?

These are questions that your department heads should have right.

And by the way, let me add, with all due respect to the department heads, the majority of them do.

I don't have many issues with most of the department heads.

But when you come before me, and the answers are not there for simple questions that you should have.

I am not going to come in the back door, ask questions in the back.

And why?

Because of what I've been saying for five or six years.

I want the members of the public to know the questions I ask, and I want them to know the questions I receive.

Now, you perhaps don't agree with that, and that's fine.

We have we have this right to disagree.

Not at all, councilman.

As far as these far as the questions go, when I'm paying, excuse me, when they're paying that kind of money, I expect the department heads to know them even better.

Have those department heads get us the information ahead of time.

Then you don't have to sit here and listen to me with this big diatrob that I don't particularly enjoy doing.

Chairman, we do give it to you ahead of time.

We had no later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We had a discussion when you became finance chair last January, and you agreed with me that the question should be asked earlier.

If we give you the information, it's not always the same.

It's not always correct, it's not always all there.

A simple phone call, a simple email, and you can still ask the questions here.

You can still ask them here on the floor.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth, but Mayor, you're absolutely correct.

On January 15th, 2025 at 10 a.m.

I met with yourself.

I met with the finance with the chief of staff, with the council president, and there may have been one or two other folks there.

Here's the list of questions that I presented then.

I presented them two other times since then.

These are simple basic questions that everybody should have.

We agreed that those questions would be answered.

Well, they haven't all been answered.

And I haven't been asking questions outside of this list on the floor that are military secrets.

So I've given you if you needed additional information, you could have asked before you got here.

I agree with you.

It was a horrible presentation.

No simple simple, simple questions.

No, you do hear it because I said he can still ask them at the council meeting.

Oh no, no, no.

Excuse me, excuse me.

That's believe me.

That's not gonna help.

It's fighting.

Excuse me, excuse me.

Excuse me, please.

I'm asking you again to just work with me on this.

We need to be respectful.

Um, just because I get a little heated, doesn't mean everybody's gonna get a little heated.

Okay.

Um, mayor, you're in the chairman.

The chairman and I argue all the time, we're friends.

But I don't have to do that.

That is true.

I don't agree with waiting until you get it.

That gets me because other councilmen do call before we get here, and then you can still ask the same questions here.

And I agree with you, it was probably the worst performance I've ever seen.

See, I look at it differently.

I think if the department heads have a concern about something, or they think that I'm gonna have a problem.

A lot of these department heads have been working with me now for 13 years.

Those are the department heads that I don't have any problems with for the most part.

They know the questions I'm gonna ask, they know what Latticer is looking for.

So I'm supposed to pick up the phone and start calling all different department heads to say, okay, uh, what about this?

What about that?

Oh, no, I'm not doing it.

Excuse me.

You're not allowed to do that anymore.

You can't you can't talk to departments anymore.

Say what you can't talk with department heads anymore.

Yes, you can about any budgetary council.

Yeah, Mr.

Mudo.

Councilman Mudo, that's a good point.

That is a good point.

No, it's not a good point.

No, it's it's it's a completely it's a completely uh wrong point.

Okay, many councilman talk on council matters.

Thank you, Mayor.

What you can't do, Mr.

Muto is try to get potholes fixed by going around the system.

No, that's true, but um, I can also assure everyone that this guy ain't changing.

Thank you.

Um, yes, what else do we got?

Okay, we need a vote on 2125.

Make a motion for favorable action.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second by council.

Any sorry, Mr.

Chairman?

Yes.

Uh, if the motion is to uh take a formal action, we need to take comment, or if we're gonna take comment later, we can move it to the floor.

Yeah, we we're gonna um say what yeah, we we already did people.

We've already asked for people to comment on this.

So councilman Foley's motion is to send it to the floor with no recommendation, and we'll we're voting favorable action.

Okay, the question is.

The committee didn't have any questions.

The council didn't have any questions, members of the public didn't have any questions.

I got the answers to what I wanted.

The last meeting, the other council people got the answers today wanted.

The director didn't have anything to add.

Why do we need to go back through this all over again on the floor?

No, we have a motion, we have a second, we voted yes, it's done.

Please just ask for the public.

Oh, okay.

So that's what happens when you get me fired up.

Do we have any comments or questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none.

Favorable action.

Thank you, Councilman.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion, members of the committee.

Hearing none, I need to vote.

All in favor?

Yes, thank you.

Finance committee is adjourned at 6 35.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you for your patience.

And um we're talking to you all again soon.

Would the public safety committee please come to order?

Okay, all right.

Items, oh my god.

I need a motion to accept the minutes of the uh committee uh for December 1st.

Motion to accept the first yep.

It's on December 1st.

Yep.

Oh, hold on.

We're on committee.

Uh October 6.

Need a motion to accept the minutes for October 6th.

Make a motion to approve.

What is he looking on?

All in favor?

Aye.

Actually, hold on.

We had two absents.

We had Latticer absent and Rex Act absent.

So the only two that could vote is you and I.

Wait, wait a minute.

Wait a minute.

On October 8th?

October 6th.

You're locked absent.

To clarify, I believe that this is concerning December 15th, not October 6.

Yeah, December 15th.

I want oh, there we go.

My apologies.

December two meetings in 13 years, Chairman.

There you go.

All right, I'll correct it.

So for the meetings, I need an approval for the meeting minutes for December 15th, 2025.

Quiet, please.

Quiet.

So it's just C and I, right?

Yeah, if you're there.

Yep.

So you and I can only vote.

All right.

So do I hear a motion?

Make a motion to approve it.

Yes.

I second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Abstain.

2-0 abstain.

All right.

We have one item on the agenda.

It is a claim.

So two.

I only had one, right?

Oh, the traffic study, though.

Okay.

We have two.

So we have one PCR.

Three-26 a resolution relative to traffic studies.

I'd like a motion to move to the floor with no recommendation.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

4-0.

I have a second PCR-PCR-626.

A resolution relative to Christopher Motors claim.

I'd like a motion to move to the floor without recommendation.

Move to the floor without recommendation.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Public safety is adjourned at 640.

Would the intergovernmental committee please convene?

Thank you, gentlemen.

Okay.

How are we doing?

You know.

Good evening.

Time is now six forty.

Intergovernmental comes to order.

First up, acceptance of the minutes from December 15th.

Do I have a motion?

Motion move favorable action.

Thank you.

Second.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

So we're gonna we're gonna follow the same process that uh the previous committees did.

So we're just gonna uh take up each one of these items.

Uh we will move them to the floor without recommendation so we can get on with the council meeting.

Uh first up is a appointment to the historic district commission, Ginny Leslie, reappointment.

Uh looking for a motion to move to the floor without recommendation.

Motion to move to the floor without recommendation.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Uh next up, George Schuster, same commission looking for the same motion.

Motion to move to the floor without recommendation.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, item number one, PCR ninety-three twenty-five resolution amending the rules of the work city council for the 2025-2026 term.

Uh looking for the same motion here.

Motion to move to the floor without recommendation.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh PCR 5325 resolution establishing a financial oversight commission.

We are actually uh holding that and re-introducing it as an ordinance, so we're gonna pull that one.

Hold or withdraw.

Uh let's with withdrawal withdraw.

Uh motion for motion or withdraw.

Uh second.

Second, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

And PCR five-26 resolution is establishing a commission to review and make recommendations regarding modernization, sustainability, economic development potential of the city's athletic and recreational facilities and infrastructure.

Looking for a similar motion.

No, we're gonna move to the floor with a uh no recommendation.

Okay, excellent.

Second.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

And at six forty-two, intergovernmental is adjourned.

Doing land use.

Uh at this point in time, we've um concluded three of the five committees.

The others um are not implicated with potential changes, so we can take those up later.

At this time, um, we're gonna prepare for the full council to convene uh for the evening's business.

There's no public comment tonight.

All right, the full council will convene at six forty-three p.m.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, Mr.

DeLuiz, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Ladison, Mr.

Mudo, Mr.

Napa, Mr.

X.

Here.

Night present.

Councilman Foley can please lead us in the salute to the flag.

Oh, but for which stands, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Oh, you see the sponsor at the time.

We're still getting lead streaming.

And the wrong number singing.

Oh, I'm staying again winning.

And no.

All right, first things first.

General communications, announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Any council members have anything for general communications?

Council and Muto.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'd like to uh offer a moment of silence to a um to Guy Gravino Jr.

He passed he passed away uh right before Christmas.

He's a lifelong resident of Warwick.

Uh guy uh was uh he was a fighter, he was a four-time Golden Globe boxing champion, and he worked uh at the Iggy's dual boy and chowder house with his family.

And uh for those that didn't know, he's the one that created the white chowder recipe for Iggy.

So if you've enjoyed the white chowder, it is it is him that it is he that uh created it.

So a moment of silence silence, please.

Please have a moment of silence.

All right, councilman Gebhardt.

Thank you, Council President.

I'd like to be the first to wish our council solicitor, Mr.

Walsh, a happy birthday.

All these people are here to sing today.

I feel like we should apologize to him.

All right.

Uh anyone else.

All right, seeing none next, we have executive communications.

So as it states on here, Council President Sinapi, reorganization of council committees.

Uh, I don't need to restate the communication that already went out and was published.

So we'll just keep it simple at this time.

The opportunity for anybody to invoke rule one, should they so choose.

I so invoke Councilman Ricks.

I so invoke and object.

I second.

Just that I didn't hear part of it, I'm sorry.

Uh formally objecting to the reorganization of committees.

Got it.

Second.

So councilman Lattiser, you had something.

Oh, yes.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I would request um through the chair to our council solicitor, please uh under parliamentary inquiry, uh, explain the process for everyone.

Um, not just for the members of the public, but also for those of us in the elected positions.

So everyone is crystal clear on what's going to take place, especially my colleagues.

If you have any question that may not be clear about what's going to go on or happen, um, please turn that white on and fire away.

Mr.

Solicitor.

Uh thank thank thank you, councilman.

Um, on the parliamentary inquiry, uh, you've requested that I outline uh the rules that have us here and the procedures that would follow.

Um we're here under uh an executive communication that was posted uh to the agenda and uh published online as well, and it outlines uh that a reorganization plan would take place uh with specific changes to uh three different committees, and that uh the rules that were here are under rule one five nine of the council rules and Robert's rules of order 1323.

Under those collective provisions, the council president is the appointing authority for the standing committees of which the reorganization proposes to change.

Um, including in that authority is the power to remove and replace committee members subject to an appeal.

Um, I will go briefly through some of the provisions, but under the city charter, uh the council passes a resolution to uh conduct its business and set the order of business.

That was uh effectuated by this body on January 13th with passage of what is now uh R25-1.

It was subsequently amended uh in July, but those changes don't have any bearing on the proceedings here or the rules that uh are are being uh addressed at this time.

Um so under council rule one, the president does uh decide all questions and points of order, subject to an appeal by any one member and per pursuant to the rules of the council and the rules of uh Roberts Rules of Order.

Uh effectively, our enacted resolution is the guiding document and Robert's rules of order supplements where it doesn't conflict.

Uh so our our council rules that we've passed take priority and Roberts rules gap fills uh other provisions.

Uh under rule five, the president is the appointing authority of the standing committees.

Uh he's named four members to each, including the chairs and vice chairs.

And under uh council rule nine, you also have uh powers to fill vacancies for designated reasons as well.

Um, Robert's rules 1323, the power appoint includes the power to fill any vacancy.

It provides further that quote, unless the bylaws or governing rules provide otherwise, the appointing authority has the power to remove or replace members of the committee.

If a single person, such as the president has the power of appointment, he has the power to remove or replace a member so appointed.

So that's the structural rules that we're here under.

This was all discussed as part of a rule change in January on the at the January 13th meeting when we adopted uh what was then known as PCR 125.

Uh that was sub A because it was amended at that meeting.

Uh in prior terms of the council, rule five specifically had a provision in it that uh effectively made clear that when appointed to a committee you served for the full term.

That provision was changed in the adopted rules that this body uh unanimously approved it at the January 13th meeting.

Um so that is the kind of the difference that was made, and now under the powers so provided in the rules, uh we're appropriately here uh as the council uh council president has filed uh the executive action.

This I this action is subject to an appeal, and it only requires one member of the body to appeal.

Um in following Robert's rules of order 243, uh the appeal of the decision of the president is debatable by the members of the council, it but it is not amendable.

Uh on the question is uh on sustaining the decision of the president and uh which changes the the committee membership.

Um if a majority of the council vote to approve, or if the vote is tied, uh the decision of the president is sustained, and the changes of the committee membership would proceed.

If a majority of the council votes against the decision of the president, the appeal prevails, and the committee reorganization will be vacated.

So that is the rule basis and the procedural guidelines for how we're here tonight.

Point of order.

Please state your point of order.

Point of order.

Uh I believe there was a rolling quorum uh may have occurred regarding this matter.

I request that share ruling on whether uh proceedings would violate the open meetings acting.

Please effectuate uh your rationale for the for the rolling quorum.

So the rolling quorum is uh once this was posted, uh a majority or uh of the council were made aware of it and uh uh possibly discussed it uh before it came to the public vote the the mere possibility isn't um sufficient for finding that please one more time uh a speculation or uh is not sufficient, uh I think in challenging that.

No, it it it's not a speculation, so I'll move that each council member states for the record whether they participate in any conversations, emails, texts, communications with any other member regarding this member prior to the meeting.

Excuse me.

Furthermore, I move to postpone this item indefinitely until the attorney general can determine whether rolling quorum occurred.

I'll second excuse me, excuse me.

I I have several several more actions.

You made a motion, right?

I need a motion.

I'll second the motion.

Mr.

Solicitor, I seconded Councilman Mudo's motion.

So the the open meetings issue would is more appropriate.

Without uh the open meetings issue is more appropriately articulated or challenge with the uh attorney general's office if there's evidence of such that would be challenged in that manner.

Absent presentation of evidence.

Uh it seems like it would be out of order.

I would suggest without a stronger presentation of evidence, it would appear to be out of order at this time.

That is a question for raising with the uh attorney general's open meetings office.

Please maintain so we're gonna take a brief recess so people can calm down.

Then we'll come back.

And we want to get through it correctly.

Thank you.

We're gonna take we're gonna take a brief recess so people can calm down.

So people can calm down.

As a remind as a reminder, I have to maintain decorum.

Obviously, decorum is not happening right now, given that you're shouting down the solicitor, councilman Lattisser, myself, and Councilman Mudo.

We actually want to address the business before us.

Please let us.

We're gonna take a brief recess, do a nice reset.

I assume you all still be here, which is fine, but everyone needs to maintain decorum.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, how long is the recess?

Mr.

President, two minutes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um Councilman Muto has raised a point of order about a potential open meetings violation due to a roll rolling quorum.

Um the open meetings act applies whenever a quorum of a public body convenes for a meeting.

Um when all three elements are present.

It's a public body meets, uh, which is the convening of a public body to discuss and or act upon a matter over which the public body has supervision control jurisdiction or advisory power, and a quorum is defined as a simple majority of the membership of the body.

Uh a walking or rolling quorum may be created where a majority of members of a public body attain a quorum by a series of one-on-one conversations or interactions.

Um it's an interesting legal question here because the underlying matter that's posted on the agenda is an executive action by the council president under that's available under the rules.

Um, such action it was noticed in conformance with the that uh with the open meetings act.

And given that that is an executive function, it raises the question of whether OMA uh the open meetings act applies to that action itself.

The appeal raises the contrary uh the counter question to that is if OMA applies uh because the appeal is something that uh the body has the power to overturn.

And so it's an interesting gray area between uh whether uh that raises the question of the application of uh of the open meetings act at this time.

So the great legal answer of it's unclear is um something that all of you um have to consider as you uh discuss debate uh or take any action this evening of uh it it doesn't change the fact that open meetings act questions have now been presented uh and are likely going to be um reviewed regardless of what action potentially would be taken.

So point of order since the it since it is a gray area, uh I will make a motion.

Uh I want to move to make a motion that this item of executive session or executive privilege uh is held until the attorney general can determine whether it's a rolling quorum has occurred.

Second all right, so discussion.

Is that for you for discussion or you left it on?

Um we have a motion we have a second.

You mean discussion on the motion?

Yeah.

No, I second it is a motion.

All right.

So councilman Rix.

Just to clarify for the record, uh specifically the motion would be a matter of uh holding the uh the executive action of the reorganization of the committees, not a motion to hold the appeal.

Correct?

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying.

Oh thank you.

Uh just in case the mics didn't pick that up, Councilman Muto has affirmed.

No further questions.

So I think on under Robert's rules, the item is not amendable, so that um postpone.

I think it needs to be postponing the appeal vote.

And and therefore um, well, but that puts this in the reverse too.

That's stops it.

No, you guys have a problem.

Could have been avoided.

The action is um allowable under the rules.

Uh the appeal is what we're on the baseline of, and a point of order then raised thereunder.

The question on if you're appealing the um right.

You you you're we're we're stuck in a quandary here of what one would allow something to occur and the other wouldn't.

So you're you're seeking to postpone, but the action has been taken.

So um I would suggest that that's probably not the order.

I would think he would need to do all right.

So yeah, it's a weird situation.

So the problem is the decision already happened, and that this is basically appealing the decision.

So you can't postpone what already you can't postpone what already occurred.

So all that's before us as far as what would be held is that you'd be holding the appeal, which I assume.

Well, I shouldn't assume it.

That might be your preference, in which case, fine.

Uh, but I don't know.

On the mic the the motion was to suspend the executive action of reorganization until the attorney general can rule on an open meetings violation.

So I understand that.

So again, that action already took place, so your motion's out of order.

If you'd like to overrule, or rather hold the appeal, you can do that, but you you can't move to suspend what already occurred.

So the the council president has um ruled your motion to postpone the action out of order because the action was an executive function that has already occurred.

You can appeal that so if that's the case, I will have a motion to appeal the pr uh president's decision on overruling the action.

Yes.

Second, okay, that makes sense, right?

So just just for clarity's sake.

We're we're appealing uh the question is now on sustaining the the council president's uh ruling that councilman muto's action is out of order.

Is there any questions?

Any questions from the membership of on sustaining the council presence decision ruling councilman muto's motion out of order?

A yes vote sides with council president, a no vote would side uh with councilman be though.

So point of clarification would be this round of voting is a yes to this motion means that uh they agree with my motion to overrule the president.

This the question is on is the council president correct in ruling your motion out of order.

So what does a yes mean?

Yes means a yes vote says that the council president's decision ruling your motion out of order is proper.

A no sides with you.

Okay.

So a no vote means that we agree with the president.

No, no, no, no, no.

We the no vote means we disagree with the president.

Correct.

All right.

Is there any any clarification?

We have some lights.

Um I mean are the lights for discussion or questions on what the heck's going on.

All right, question on what councilman Gebart repeat that last the the last part.

I yes.

I need everyone on their mics, please.

Thank you.

So the question is for clarification is when we go to vote on this motion, the motion to um agree with uh the executive motion.

So an overrule would be a yeah.

Uh if we wanted to uh agree with uh Anthony, uh the president, it's a yes.

If you do not agree with his powers, it's a no.

Just a point of clarification.

We are not on the original appeal about his action.

We are now at a higher level of procedural football that is questioning uh councilman Muto's efforts to uh postpone an action that was allowable under the rules, and he uh was ruled out of order that the action was an executive function uh per the president that he has moved forward, and councilman muto has challenged that.

So we are on appealing his councilman uh appealing the chair's decision that ruled councilman Muto out of order on his motion.

A yes vote is saying that under the rules he had executive authority to do such, and therefore you can't undo this in such manner.

A no vote is we don't care, we disagree with that.

Let me say it back.

So this is challenging whether or not the council president had the authority to change the no.

This vote is on whether or not the motion to postpone is allowable or not.

A yes vote knocks it out, a no vote brings it in question or discussion, Councilman Laddison.

Well, this probably isn't gonna sit well.

Oh didn't all right.

It would be a whole lot simpler and makes sense to withdraw this action altogether.

The action is on question or discussion, because we're doing questions first.

So question councilman Rex.

Yes.

So a question for the city council solicitor.

This is an area where really we are interpreting the city council rules, looking at Robert's rules, and just with an understanding of uh exactly when actions occur and actions take effect, and that that's the basis of this discussion right now.

Correct.

We are interpreting right now.

The council is being asked to decide whether or not the um an action that was allowable and executed under the rules is changeable uh or postponable or essentially undoing it or and or delaying it until an event that occurs later.

And so what I'm getting at is that uh really this is a city council matter, and generally speaking, the city council has the authority to decide its own rules by a simple majority, right?

If if the majority were to vote with councilman Muto, that would uh establish that as the baseline that you wish to proceed with.

Okay, I just uh want to make clear here that we're not talking about physical laws of the universe and bending time and space cause and effect.

It's a matter of the city council is determining when in action by the city council, specifically by the city council president uh takes effect.

Uh so the that's all thank you.

The the problem that so folks understand the distinction with the current rule uh current appeal before us and the underlying appeal.

The way the appeal was originally spelled out is the act the underlying action could be stopped by majority vote of the body.

We are now at a question of are we stopping that action or not?

Um, or whether or not we have the authority to do such and/or you think you do um in order to so how that vote impacts could still allow something to follow that may be disagreed with, I guess, is the quandary more discussion councilman foley, and then again, this is questions for the solicitor, right?

Yes, all right.

It's a question.

Would it is it possible to if councilman Muto were to withdraw his most recent motion?

Not withdrawal.

I cannot hear you unless you speak into the mic.

I want to okay.

I'm just asking for common courtesy.

If Mr.

Ricks were then to withdraw his motion, we would then be back to the original piece of executive action by the president.

At that time, if those two withdrawals took place, at that time, could Mr.

Muto then enter his motion to hold until we get a ruling from the attorney general.

If that's possible isn't that the cleanest way to go as supposed to be being voting on three different actions, so we're in the same boat, unfortunately, at that that we are right now, if we do it that way.

Well, that's not fair, it's slightly cleaner, but it's still the same overall vote because my stance is it's an executive action.

It's it's already done.

The point of this process and the way we did it was to allow for someone to appeal it.

That's all.

And so the appeal was made, and then the request to hold the action was made, but again, for my position, the action already happens, and what's before us is what would have been before us is the appeal regarding said action.

Instead, now we have the appeal regarding me saying that the action had already taken place, thus preventing suspension of said already happened action.

Of course.

So you work off of Mr.

Muto's most recent motion, which is to hold pending a decision by the attorney general, that stops what we're doing tonight, where it is.

So from what we discussed, the if we go with his motion to hold as it currently stands, all it would do is stop the appeal, which is not what he wants.

He wants to stop the action itself.

And that request has been ruled out of order because again, the said action took place, and he appealed the said ruling of it being out of order.

Councilman Napa, and again, same question for everybody else.

Question, not discussion.

So I think we're maybe I'm misunderstanding order of events here.

I think in my mind, the last what would be on the table for a vote now would be councilman Muto's invocation of rule one to overrule your decision that declared him out of order.

So a yes would indicate that we would agree with councilman mudo's no counterintuitive, the whole thing's counterintuitive, but okay.

So a no.

So we're so the first thing that we're voting on right now is Councilman Mudo wants to shoot down council president's decision determination right.

It's it's a on the his authority effectively to do it.

He has the council president has ruled councilman mudo's point of order, a subsidiary motion related to that uh out of order.

Um he has appealed that.

The question is whether you as a body believe that the rules as laid out is an executive function that can be challenged or not.

If you believe that that action has not taken place andor is intervenable at this time, you would vote no in um where that would be with um councilman Muto's appeal.

If you believe that this is an executive function under the rules that has occurred and can't be undone, you would vote yes, and that is the recommendation of the council president that you sustain his ruling of the chair.

Cannot be undone, right?

Is that what you said?

That it has occurred and can't be intervened with, other than the original appeal, which we would get back to after whatever happens on this vote anyway.

So no is with Muto, yes is with council president on the out of order ruling relative to council.

It's on the capabilities of even stopping it at this time effectively.

Okay, I have a question.

Yes.

So explain to us what's gonna happen either way.

If there's a yes, what happens next?

If there's a no, what happens next?

So the question is on the president's um uh is appealing his decision.

We are asking, are we sustaining his decision or not?

If you vote yes, and the majority of you uh vote yes, then it reaffirms that the that power can't be stopped at this time, and the next step would be back to the underlying vote to on the appeal.

If if the if the body, the majority of which uh were to uh prevail on the appeal, the higher appeal of the process, then we'd be stopped in our tracks effectively pending uh other actions did you have a follow-up?

I wanted to wait to give you the chance.

All right, councilman Gebhardt again, question or discussion question.

I think it's fair enough.

Um does anyone else have any questions for the solicitor?

All right, so now we're on the appeal, and by I mean appeal number two.

You got appeal number one by councilman ricks, appeal number two by councilman Muto.

We're currently on appeal number two, so discussion as far as how it works, solicitor.

So on an appeal that the council president um opens with an explanation of your decision, any member can um weigh in on that appeal.

Uh the council president would have the ability to to close, and then we'd be done with the appeal question, and it would be voted.

So all right, so do you want to mention the whole no back and forth, all that other thing?

Oh, okay.

I apologize.

All right, so uh as far as reasoning goes, I you think I'm pretty sure everyone's already heard it.

This is from my perspective, the action already occurred.

This is just a communication that said action happened.

The point of it even being on the agenda was simply to allow for uh a nice and obviously an easy process to appeal.

So given that the action already occurred, and frankly, as everyone can see based on how this meeting has gone, this hanging over our heads is not helpful to put it mildly.

This has already been quite the circus as is.

So the soon as this gets resolved one way or another, the better.

So that being said, uh, so councilman Gephardt, and then we'll go to oh, should we wait?

Sorry, should do we do go to Muto first because it's his thing?

All right, so Councilman Gabbard then so I guess my on this on this motion Barry can you Mr.

Cook, can you please shut off the audio on your phone?

Turn it off or go in the hallway.

So on this motion, isn't it?

Isn't this just a question of fact?

Did this something happen already?

Because I I received a memo, as I think maybe everyone did, dated the 31st of December, that describes a change that the council president wished to effectuate, and then we started this meeting with a reiteration of that change.

And then we started this meeting with a reiteration of that change.

So I think on this particular motion, it's hard to argue that that didn't happen.

It feels black and white.

But I'm open to someone explaining to me how what seemingly did happen didn't happen.

And I'll leave it there.

Well, Councilman Murdoch.

So remember, let's focus on one thing at a time.

This is a vote that gives the power of the presidency, the ability to shut us down as a council.

And if we vote yes, we're giving up our rights to challenge future objections of being down.

So your vote, think about it this way, is a no vote protects you from your independence of being able to object to the leadership.

Councilman Rick.

But sorry.

Thank you, President.

Uh, through the president to address the concern of Councilman Gebhard.

So I understand that on the surface it might appear to be a simple question of fact what happened first here, but uh for starters, uh the ruling, the executive action did not actually go into effect on December 31st, the day of the memo, but rather uh it only takes effect at the time that is the interpretation of the council president, and if I am misinterpreting this, please correct me.

But the council president's interpretation of this is that it goes into effect at the time of the meeting at the time that the executive action is announced.

That is this full city council meeting after 6:30.

So my position on this is that we as a city council, we make our own rules that govern this body, and so it becomes a matter of how do we as a city council want our rules to function in a circumstance like this?

A circumstance that, as far as I'm aware, has certainly not come up in the nine years that I've been on the city council, and as far as I'm aware, talking to previous members of the council, uh hasn't come up in many decades or ever, as far as they know.

So I think that it really is more of a question of law, uh, a question of the council rules, that in my position, uh, yes, I do believe that the city council should have the power by majority vote to put a hold on an executive action of the council president and effectively be able to hold uh that item as if that executive action had not actually gone into effect by the mere virtue of it being read out uh I hope that helps.

Thank you, Councilman Lattice.

So this is a question to the council president, okay.

And I don't honestly recall during the inauguration on January 9th, at that time, did you announce the um pro temp?

No, you didn't, because we voted on that.

Did you announce the chairs or the committee members at the inauguration on January 9th?

Because my my point is, Mr.

Solicitor, my point is if the council president announced those appointments on January 9th, that was under the old rule five.

My recollection was it didn't occur at that meeting.

Your recollection.

I can double check my recollection was that um the formal appointments took place for the first business meeting that but I gotta I have to research that question.

I have to research that question.

So it's if it did occur, this whole thing is a move point because it would we would be um operating under the original rules.

Because the rules that passed on January 13th didn't say anything about superseding previous rules, didn't say it took effect on January 2nd.

Um it took effect uh actually officially it didn't take effect until January 16th when the mayor signed it officially.

Um thank you.

I've I've refreshed my recollection of the history of this.

Um the at the inaugural meeting on January 7th, um where January 7th above 7th, yep.

Um we we saw the nomination and uh appointment of the president.

We we did not undertake a rules issue at that time.

The prior rules by themselves had some set it by their ordinance, and they no motion to extend or operate there under was um put it.

That's not what I said, and it's not the question I asked.

The question I asked was I didn't say anything about the council rules on January 7th.

I asked if the council president on January 7th, I know I said the ninth, that's okay.

Forgive me for a day or two.

I probably um you know got confused.

But in any event, my question is was though were those announcements made, appointments made on January 7th.

Because if they were, that would take precedence over, in my opinion, you could rule me wrong, but I would think that rule five was in place at the time, and that said appointments of committees of chairs stay in effect throughout the term.

Something thereabouts the rules or the ordinance or sorry, the council rules that were amended didn't say anything about being retroactive.

It says because in the absence of stating that, I would assume that means it takes place.

Um we can have another um sorry for interrupting.

Um this would is certainly something that you can raise as a potential procedural challenge.

Yeah, that's what I'm gonna say.

This sounds like you'd wish to make another appeal.

What I will say is the prior rules by themselves um sunset.

They were in effect for a specific a time period specific that ended with the convening of the new body.

At the January 7th meeting, we did not adopt any rules.

There was an appointment made to as for committee chairs at that time.

Um, but there were no rules set uh in in place of that time that um would have made it such that it would be appointed for said term.

It's it's certainly a uh a grayer.

We didn't have rules officially voted at that time, and the prior rules had expired.

So that's a question you can you can raise.

Um however, subsequently uh at that January 13th meeting, we did adopt the rules for the term, and those rules, as we have seen as they've already been amended, and there's another item docketing to further amend, those rules are a living document that get updated.

There's there wouldn't be any grandfathering uh in that in that way.

So I would suggest you you you can certainly challenge on those merits as well, but I would suggest that it probably wouldn't um have the desire unless interpreted differently, um, it may not have a different outcome.

So, where does it say in the rules or the charter or anywhere else that the council rules sunset on December 31st?

Is there specific language to that the rules in in their own authorizing document?

So the last iteration that I had in front of me from the 2023-24 term was PCR 723 sub-A.

Now, therefore, be it resolved the following rules as amended are hereby adopted as the rules of city council for the ensuing term 2023-2024.

So it does not well, it's silent, it's silent in both directions.

I would suggest it the implication is those rules sunset as the body changes over until and then the body chose its own new rules.

So that period in between, it still would be updated by the new um rules that were voted in by the body, because that just as you can change it tonight, you can change it thereafter, assuming other proper postings of things.

Um that's a that's a living set of rules that's amendable.

Um per the contents of the resolution.

So it's almost like is it convenient to do it, or is it not convenient to do it?

That's what it appears.

It's um I think it's an interesting question, but it's separate and and from the question that we are currently under.

Um it's something you may ponder to do, but I think it's separate from this current conversation.

Um again, we're uh we are on appeal number two, specifically the appeal raised by councilman Muto.

Is there anyone else who wish to speak on appeal number two raised by councilman mudo?

All right, so I you reach for it.

So yeah, that's a good idea.

Uh councilman DeLuis.

Um pardon me, but I'm a little confused.

Can we can we get that explained again?

Because uh we we are on the appeal of councilman mudo's um being ruled out of order.

A yes vote is uh agreeing and sustaining with uh the president's decision that that vote is not appropriate at this time.

A no vote says that that uh motion is in order, we would then have to come back to an actual motion should that uh should the no's prevail.

But a yes vote proceeds back to um the underlying appeal.

A no vote would send us into a conversation about uh postponing.

So a yes is for the council president, a no is for councilman mudo.

Yes, there you go.

So a no vote would be to possibly hold this to a future time, yes, until we get some explanation from the attorney general, or we get a little more clarification.

I just want to understand it myself.

It it all so it's uh it would decide the appeal, the point of order, which that alone wouldn't decide the motion, then we would next be on the motion itself.

So first one, then the other.

So it's a it's a question of whether or not we can proceed to a motion to postpone, whether it's allowed based on the prior discussion that we've had.

So a no vote allows for the motion to postpone to proceed, a yes vote uh backs up the president's decision that it is not in order and then takes us back to the underlying appeal on the action to reorganize.

So does anyone have any further questions on appeal two?

If you need a moment, just say so.

That's fine.

I want to make sure.

Councilman Kirby.

Yes, uh, I was always brought up.

Uh, if it's not broke, don't try to fix it.

Wrong topic, Councilman Kirby, but I know what you mean.

I know we just should forget about this and get on with the rest of the council meeting because uh it's not working.

So is anyone else have anything further to say or discuss on appeal number two?

One by councilman Muto.

Okay, so that being the case, I'll just close with by pointing out that similar to the announcements of appointments.

This reflects an action that already took place as Councilman Gibbhart pointed out.

This is more just a question of fact.

If you look at the legal memo prepared by uh Solicitor Walsh, or more specifically, the notice in the executive communication itself, it even notes that this would take place.

Uh where's the exact wording?

I don't want to misspeak.

Wait, we should this be a decision.

Yeah, so per this, it takes place once the meeting happens.

The meeting happened.

If you recall, that's why in committees we pushed everything to the floor without a recommendation, because if reorganization was not successfully appealed to go back to those committees with the new makeup would have been complicated.

So I I don't I don't really know what to argue here given it's just factual.

I don't agree with the stance that this somehow erodes the power of the whole council by not being able to appeal something that already occurred that is certainly odd to me, but be that as it may, clerk will call the roll whenever you're ready.

That is certainly odd to me, but be that as it may, clerk will call the roll whenever you're ready.

So and just so clarity's sake, solicitor, please again say everybody how it's going to shake out as far as yes and no votes.

We are we are on an appeal of the of the president's uh decision a yes vote uh a yes vote is to a lot address things um that the action has occurred, a no vote interprets that we have other possibilities to intervene.

The majority vote wins, obviously, but a tie vote sustains the chair's action, should should that occur.

So a yes vote sides with council president's decision.

A no a no vote goes to back to the next motion and respectfully ask that people maintain order.

All right, so clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Senapping, yes, Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

DLouise, no, any John the mic, please.

Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephott, yes, Mr.

Kirby, no, Mr.

Ladisa, no, Mr.

Mudo, no, Mr.

Napa, no, Mr.

Ridge.

No.

All right.

So now what's before us is the motion to suspend the executive action.

All right.

So the council's re we got everybody, right?

Yeah, council reconvenes.

My apologies on the delay.

Uh ladies and gentlemen, to take us back to where we are.

Um the last action taken was the um appeal of the being councilman mudo's motion to be out of order, which the appeal uh prevailed.

So effectively, this where we sit at this time is that means that the council has interpreted that the executive uh communication, the action to reorganize the council committees is effectively pending before us and has not actually been effectuated at this time.

Um the next item would be on the underlying motion from councilman Mudo.

If he would like to make that motion to uh yes, so the motion, sorry, gonna find my notes.

Uh so my motion is to postpone the executive uh change uh indefinitely.

Uh okay.

Second.

So we have a motion to indefinitely postpone this action that has not occurred yet.

Um, and it's been seconded by councilman Latticer.

This is uh open to discussion.

So, Council President, I'm to the discussion.

All right, does anyone wish to speak on the pending motion?

Councilman Ricks to clarify what is the effect of a no vote and the effect of a yes vote on the motion to postpone this action from taking place indefinitely.

A yes vote uh effectually makes clear that the action never takes place and this uh uh item that was documented tonight is effectively void and would and and actually never occurred.

A no vote would continue the council deliberations on what to do.

I intend to vote yes, that's my comment.

Thank you.

Councilman Foley.

Thank you.

Question through the chat to councilman Mudo.

You said indefinitely, but aren't you advocating us reaching out to the attorney general for an opinion?

Are we waiting for that opinion to come back?

Right now, it's just indefinite the the uh to councilman Foley's uh point.

The the action here is to indefinitely postpone this particular item that has not yet occurred.

Other those other questions will play out regardless.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, does anyone else wish to speak on this motion?

All right, so I'll just state my piece.

I want to state uh how we got here and the reasons for it.

So out of the abundance of caution, I had reserved my perspective and comments for this meeting because of the open meetings act, demands it from all of us on the council, and I think it was prudent we respect the law on behalf of our constituents.

This brings me to the aspect of politics I avoid because I prefer to build relationships by working with my peers, even when we disagree, not airing private matters in public.

Despite my personal feelings about it, it is my responsibility to combat misinformation with truth so the council can get back to work for our constituents.

I'll elaborate further on the reasons of how we got here and why I advocate and believe that the reorganization is necessary.

First, I will share with you with I what I shared with Councilman Latticer over a year ago when I was selecting committee chairs.

I told him I was hesitant to appoint him finance chair because he often uses the ends to justify them his means, and those tactics cause confusion and frustration among his partners.

These same tactics have been employed in the last week and tonight, and they often result in negative consequences, some of them financial for our city.

I present exhibit A regarding some of the negative consequences.

I also described how his tactics cause significant friction with the administration with whom we must maintain a professional relationship to carry out our legislative duties.

After sharing those things, we talked about how following the existing practices for all council members made my concerns irrelevant if they are put into practice.

A great example is trying to ask questions of individuals, vendors, city staff, and others prior to council meetings, because the question may require research or verification.

For the first few months as finance chair, Councilman Latticer followed such practices, which saw benefits among the council and the administration.

Unfortunately, it did not last.

Some practices he ceased completely.

When I followed up with him to discover how we could find solutions and build bridges with our partners and each other, I was rebuffed, and it became increasingly clear the only method he was interested in pursuing was his own, regardless of the consequences for others.

Purposely waiting to ask complex questions at council meetings and then publicly shaming or villainizing someone who does not possess the perfect answer, is not leading in good faith.

The upsetting thing is the is the I'll only do it my way approach crippled previous administrations and councils.

Councilman Latticer himself experienced the hardship it caused the city, the administration, and the council.

There was political infighting, striking poses, and playing got ya instead of doing what civil servants are elected to do, which is serve the people's interests.

As I said minutes ago, this is a part of politics I avoid because we become a legislative body focused more on complaining about problems or creating new ones rather than solving them.

But since I am responsible for running this council and all my efforts to find solutions have been dismissed by Councilman Lattisser, I felt it necessary to use the power that granted to me by my office to appoint someone else.

As a reminder, the ability for the council president to appoint and change committee chairs was unanimously granted by this council, including Councilman Lattisser, roughly a year ago.

So how did we get here tonight?

Well, I shared my intent to appoint someone else as finance chair with Councilman Lattisser nearly two weeks ago.

His response to embark on a public crusade decrying my decision, which caused members of the public to spread misleading information and outright lies.

Because he can ignore the negative results he inflicts on others, but he cannot ignore negative results placed on himself.

I know Councilman Lattice's intentions are good, but he has difficulty seeing and reacting clearly when something does not go his way.

Does it matter that this changes to achieve the same goals he has for Warwick?

Does it matter that his public outcry has made a mockery of the council, demonizing its members?

And does it matter that his all or nothing reaction caused threats against members of the council?

All of these things should matter.

And I know Councilman Latticer does not wish anyone harm, and he would hopefully and has here tonight, discourage the public from these actions, and he I'm sure would discourage them from making threats.

But regardless, his actions have caused negative consequences again.

And I know the reorganization of the finance committee and the committees in general is not Councilman Laddister's way, but it is what is right for the council, the administration, and the city of Warwick.

So let the clerk call the roll on the request to hold the reorganization.

Mr.

Sinapi.

No.

Mr.

DeLouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley?

Mr.

Gebhott?

No.

Mr.

Kirby?

Yes.

Mr.

Ladisa?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

All right.

So now we go back to which committee.

Would the ordinance committee please convene?

Thank you.

Thank you for listening.

What is it?

Yes, we're gonna hold.

Uh till the next meeting.

What's that one uh expense?

Maybe not.

Gentlemen, what time is it?

928.

The time is now nine twenty-eight, and the ordinance committee is now in session.

Folks, if you could take your conversations to the hall so we can move on with the rest of the agenda, that would be greatly appreciated.

All right, the first item on the docket is PCO thirteen-twenty-five.

In ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title property.

This was originally docketed by Council President Sinapi on behalf of the mayor.

Mr.

Chairman.

Oh strike that.

Yes, in communication with the city solicitor who uh requested this matter, they they asked to postpone this item to the next meeting uh so that we could uh do the minutes get have them their input at that time.

First order of abidance is actually uh the minutes approval of the minutes for the committee meeting.

I need everyone needed to quiet down because I can't hear anything.

Okay, before us now is a acceptance of the minutes for the committee meeting held on December 15th, 2025.

Move to accept move by Councilman Gebhart, seconded by Councilman Delouise, second.

All those in favor?

Aye, aye, aye, abstain three oh with one abstention minutes are approved.

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

Uh my understanding is that there was a security that a request to hold this item until the next meeting, and that is on January 15th.

We have a date, no.

January 26.

Move hold to the 26th of January.

Have a motion and a hold.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, 4.0 approved.

And the next item is PCO two-26 and ordinance establishing regulations and penalties relative to the use of city dog parks get docketed by Councilman Muto.

Councilman, I understand you'd also like to hold this until the 26th to make some minor amendments.

Okay, do I have a motion to that effect?

Uh move to hold to the 26th.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor.

I aye.

4.0 motion passes.

I don't believe we have any more items in our agenda.

The time is 9 31.

We stand adjourned.

Would the public properties committee uh now convene?

Please.

Yeah.

The city council committee on public properties, land use, and community affairs comes to order at 9 32 p.m.

First item acceptance of minutes from December 15, 2025.

I will abstain on this.

Do we have a motion?

Move favorable action.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Abstain.

Okay.

So 3-0.

Okay.

First legislation on the docket.

PCR 4-26 omnibus resolution of congratulations and condolences.

This is the standard item for every year.

Any discussion?

Members of the committee.

Question, comment, members of the council.

Questions, comments, members of the public.

Hearing none, do we have a motion for favorable action?

Move favorable action.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

4-0.

Okay.

One remaining 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.

And there is an amendment that's been presented to the city council solicitor.

I'll defer it to the president.

Is it preferred for us to have this addressed during the committee or in front of the full council?

I think you can make note of your intention to offer the amendments so that you can solicit any feedback.

Oh, thank you.

And I believe actually it may be convenient for members of the public.

I believe that there was one member of the public who is present with us who had a discussion with the planning director about one other item that was not covered by my amendment, a different uh subject area.

So perhaps uh proceeding right now and then making note with the intent of my introducing the amendment at the time of the full council meeting.

Uh first, any comment members of the committee.

Comment members of the council.

I'll have a brief comment that the intent of the amendment that I had discussed with the city council solicitor after discussion with the planning director involved as to the duplex lot sizes, having those set at plus 25% as to square footage, instead of as the city had proposed of plus 50 percent, all of which is contrasted with the uh the status quo, as has been with the status quo for the last approximately two years of allowing duplexes, uh so long as uh one goes through the uh uh planning process to basically occupy similar square footage as to single family.

The amendment also contains some amendments that uh have similar effect as to plus 25 percent on certain setbacks.

So let's see.

Comment members of the public I don't think the mic is on.

I'll fix that.

Thank you.

Good evening.

This uh topic was very important at the planning board and effective Michelle Comar Ward 1.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Discussion at the planning board and a great concern about many residents, primarily in ward six, uh, where duplexes were being proposed and approved because the table for duplexes was omitted when they upgraded the regulations.

And they're trying to repair that.

I couldn't follow your amendment tonight to speak intelligently on it.

And what I'm asking you to do, since many people lives were affected by these boot duplex construction projects, is that you post the amendment for the public and hold this for the next time.

Um I'm risking this, and I'll divert to the director because time is of the essence to get this change prepared.

But I don't understand your amendment.

And I don't think the public has had a chance.

This is the first time we've heard of it.

So I will respect the opinion of the director if he wants to go forward tonight.

If he thinks this is in the best interest of those people impacted and future people that may have duplexes on small lots, like in ward six.

Because I don't want to hold up this legislation.

I want this loophole closed.

However, the public hasn't seen your amendment, and this is important ordinance.

Um, so whatever the director says, I'm gonna follow his recommendation.

Thank you.

Hi, Tom Crabit, City Plan Director.

Uh Councilman, I think the only thing I should add to what you said is since we spoke about your amendment to this amendment, which basically takes the minimum lot sizes for duplexes that require special use permit, and increases those lot sizes by 50%.

You want it to be 25% smaller.

So, with that being said, I talked to the planning board chairman today to try to get a sense of how he would feel about that, given the planning board's recommendation to go with the 50% increase.

And he he was pretty strong about trying to stick with what the planning board originally proposed to keep it at 50% increased lot size.

So by way of example, a 7,000 square foot lot would need a size of 10,500 to accommodate the duplex.

That said, he also said if it's gonna completely crash and burn, that he would at least be happy with the compromise somewhere in the middle, which is around 35% uh is something he could live with.

So this is really to maintain that community character in the single family neighborhoods in primarily the eastern part of the city, you know, the western part, Pontiac, a lot of duplexes in that in that area, but it's the neighborhoods that are, you know, in the eastern part.

Well, you have large side lots, say, you know, uh with those being filled in.

Um that's really the risk that the planning board wants to avoid.

So that's really why they want to keep the table as it is.

So I'll try to answer any of the questions you have.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll just make one procedural note.

Um, this item is before us uh on second passage.

Should um the council make any uh amendments tonight in any way, it does revert the matter back to a first passage action.

So any changes that potentially would be made this evening uh would result in a second passage at the following month's meeting, so there would be ample time for people to digest the additional changes should they occur.

But just wanted to make note that any changes tonight reverts back to first passage.

Thank you.

Any further comment, members of the public.

Good evening, George Schuster, the chair of the historic district commission.

I apologize for raising this only on second passage, but uh if you look at the council package, this amendment was actually brought to every part of the city for assent from police to fire to cemeteries, uh, but didn't come before the historic district commission, so I only saw it for the first time this evening.

Um, this is a minor suggestion for amendment, which is uh the new rule on fences says no building permits are required for fences in the city except in a historic district building permits and it says historic district staff review would be required for the fences.

There's really no mechanism for historic district staff review in the city.

Uh there are no specific standards that the historic district staff, which means the planning staff would apply.

Uh, there's no right of appeal from a historic district staff um decision should a homeowner not like that decision.

My recommendation is that we change the words historic district staff review to historic district commission review.

Then we would go through the normal procedure we already have for historic district commission review of things in historic districts.

If someone doesn't like the HDC decision, it would be appealed and so forth.

Um, I think that's the right uh fix, which is only changing a word, but would uh clarify the process for homeowners in the district uh who need to uh put up a fence.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comment and to express to the city council solicitor.

Uh my amendment later this evening.

I would intend to include in that if possible, changing the word staff found on page one line 41 to the word commission to address that concern.

And I'm very glad that that concern was brought to our attention.

Uh for the comment members of the public.

Thank you.

Leslie Derek Ward 4.

And I'm more concerned about what's happening down at Conemicette Point.

What's happening?

What we're seeing is all these undersized lots getting smaller and smaller with variances that keep on getting past.

Um and so these lots become even smaller.

Well, these lots were never even considered for a building, and now they've got the biggest building you could possibly have on the most undersized lot down there.

And it it exceeds mine, and mine was the largest house down there before.

But also they have no frontage.

There's absolutely no frontage, and there's no place to park their car, and there's no place for them to drive the truck down the side of the yard to put their fill in in the backyard to build it up because that they have to build up their lot in order to have the flooding.

There's also the issue of they have to be hooked up to sewer systems.

Now, the sewer systems are having a real problem down where I am, because if you have a sewer system, you have a pump, and all of us down there have to pump up.

So your pump is going all the time.

And the more people you add on to that sewer system and have to pump up, the weaker the system becomes and your motor burns out.

The average person down there that is hooked up to the sewers is change is having to repair or replace their their um pump every two years at a rate of 20,000.

Okay, and that is not cheap for these people.

And is this something that nobody has taken into consideration?

And they really ought to.

You're also building these lots, building these homes on these undersized lots that are full of water.

You you dig down and they they hit water and then they dig down again and they fill it with stone, and then they dig down again because they they get caught with all the water in their foundation, and they're getting they hit water again.

They keep on hitting water until they're so deep and they're putting so much gravel in, and then they have to fill it all in with cement.

You you have no idea what's going on down at the point, and you really ought to go looking around and seeing all the cars that are parked on the street and the new houses, and how you can't even fit a car down these roads anymore because you're double parking on both sides of the road.

There's no rules.

And so I'm sorry you you've overbuilt, but you're also not planning correctly, and you're not even thinking about what we as your constituents are facing down in the the Conemicate Point area and have to put up with them.

We built our houses correctly.

We did it according to what the the issues were and um initially.

Now they want to change everything so they can accommodate the growth that we need homes for these people.

These people can't afford a $500,000 home.

They can't even touch it, let alone rent it.

And if you put in duplexes down there, you're gonna have more renters down there, and they're all gonna be on top of each other in the streets, and they won't be owners, they'll be renters.

They don't care, they don't have the pride, like we do.

Thank you.

Any specific concerns I I would urge when it comes to building on undersized lots or whether a particular lot is suitable.

I would urge to talk with the building department, planning department.

Any further public comment?

Hearing none, I would uh request a motion to move to the council floor without recommendation.

So moved all in favor?

Aye.

I there being no further business of this committee, we adjourn at 9 47 p.m.

That concludes committees.

Uh we'll be back in full council momentarily.

We'll get through.

All right, so the back to full council.

So first up is acceptance of minutes from the council meeting held on December 15th, 2025.

Just as a reminder, uh we had two people absent that meeting.

So uh is there any well, I get we should actually do this one vote vote because so that you guys have the option to recuse.

Do we do a roll call?

No, they don't have to worry about it.

Okay, never mind.

We can do the normal point.

Is there any objection to approving the minutes as presented?

All right, seeing none, so approved.

Uh announcements of appointments.

Announcement of appointments, uh Councilman Ghart, do you want to go through them?

Uh yes, Mr.

President.

There are a couple.

Uh Board of Public Safety, James Pellucci, uh ward nine, term to expire January first, twenty twenty-nine, retirement board, Timothy Howe, ward three, term to expire June thirtieth, twenty twenty six.

Alfred Marciano, ward five, term to expire June thirtieth, twenty twenty eight.

Uh and the tree warden, uh back for uh another term.

Carlos Pinero, ward five, term to expire January first, twenty twenty-seven.

Uh all others require confirmation.

All right, so on to appointments requiring confirmation.

First up is historic district commission.

Uh again, I just apologize in advance for any pronunciation failures.

Uh Jenny Leslie, Councilman Gebhardt.

Uh yes, the committee move this to the floor without uh recommendation.

Um however, this is a reappointment.

Uh Miss Leslie currently is serving uh on the historic district commission.

All right, so I guess we'll first does anyone on the council wish to comment on this, and then we gotta ask the public as well.

All right, so does any member of the public wish to speak on the reappointment of Jenny Leslie to the historic district commission?

All right, seeing none.

Yeah.

Does anyone wish to make a motion on this?

Uh move favorable action.

Second.

Very well action, second it.

Any discussion on said motion.

I see none, clerical please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuiz.

Yes, Mr.

Boley, yes, Mr.

Gebhott.

Yes, Mr.

Carby, yes, Aladdisa.

Yes, Mr.

Mule.

Yes, do it.

Yes.

All right.

Next is the reappointment to the historic district commission of George Schuster Jr.

Uh Councilman Gebhardt.

Uh, yes, uh, this is a reappointment uh for Mr.

Schuster currently serving on the historic district commission.

Uh and I move favorable action.

Second.

Motion for favorable action, second it.

Is any questions or comments from the council?

Councilman Latticer.

Oh, yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

So in full disclosure, I just want to let you know that um Mr.

Schuster does serve on my ward committee.

It does not um sway my ability to make um an impartial um a vote on this.

I will be voting uh in support of Mr.

Schuster.

I've known George for a long time.

He is um just uh he's just an outstanding individual, uh extremely talented, very successful attorney.

Um and um this is uh just a perfect place for him.

He is very much involved in our environment.

He's very much involved in um taking care of the bay, um Bucky Brook, um, et cetera, et cetera.

So I think this is um a really important thing uh for us to do, and it's um even more important for Mr.

Schuster to continue serving in his capacity uh on the historic district commission.

Thank you.

Councilman Ricks thank you.

I'd also like to thank Mr.

Schuster for attending this evening, nearly 10 o'clock, and for participating in reviewing this ordinance as well and helping us make that a correction to make sure that we're getting this on the books in the right way.

Thank you.

Members of the public, does anyone wish to comment?

All right, seeing none, there was a motion for favorable action and second it.

So clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Gephott, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Muto, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex, yes, nine yes appointment pass.

All right, next is the consent calendar, PCR 1-2-6 resolution relative to bid councilman Lattice.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

I serve I the committee recommends favorable.

I'm sorry, it was moved to the floor for um without a recommendation.

The entire thing.

All right, so for action, councilman Lattisser.

Move favorable action on PCR 1-26.

And um, I would point out that we do have um two takeouts on that too.

Yes, there were two items removed at this time.

Bid 2026 288 has become PCR 726, and bid 2026 287 has become PCR 826.

Um, and those will be addressed after the consent calendar.

I would note that um we have completed on the committee um and public communication on items of 50,000 and above, but it would be in order to uh address any other of the those other items on that uh that were below the 50,000 threshold.

Should any members of the council commit uh or the public have questions on those at this time?

I I agree, Mr.

President.

I don't have any further questions on um those items under 50,000.

Anyone else on the council have any questions on those?

All right, anyone else from the public have any questions on those matters?

Yeah, all right.

So that's the that one.

So then also from the consent counters PCR two-26 resolution relative to abatements, councilman Latticer.

Uh committee, um, again recommended favorable action on that item.

So for action, councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on the um abatements, PCR 2-26.

Second.

So any further questions or comments on the resolution relative to abatements that was not asked in committee.

All right, seeing none, we can go on to further in the consent calendar, PCR 3-26 resolution relevant to traffic studies.

This is public safety.

So, councilman Muto.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh the committee recommended uh no action and brought it to the floor.

All right, so for action, Councilman Mudo.

Uh I move for favorable action for PCR 3-26 resolution relative to traffic studies.

Second.

All right, motion made and second.

Does anyone have any well?

We should all say so.

This is basically the our yearly thing in case anyone's unaware.

Our yearly resolution so that traffic studies can keep coming before us as as applicable.

So this is just kind of like a perfunctory thing.

It's not regarding one specific issue or anything like that.

This is standard, we do it every year.

So it's not supposed to be anything in particular.

So is any questions on that?

Which is okay to have questions because it is kind of a weird thing we do every year.

All right.

Does the public have any questions on that?

All right.

So you know we go on to the PCR four-26 omnibus resolution of congratulations and condolences.

So this is public properties.

So this would be councilman Ricks.

Do we want to vote on it?

So uh my understanding is yeah, at the end of the whole count consent calendar.

Sorry, Councilman Rix, I apologize.

Uh, for PCR 4-26 omnibus resolution of congratulations and condolences.

Recommend favorable action.

All right, for action, councilman Ricks.

Move favorable action.

All right, and seconded by councilman uh foley and councilman Latticer.

And it looks like we already had discussion for the public.

So does anyone have any questions or comments from the council?

Uh just like with the last thing, this is what we we do this annually.

That way we can do resolutions of congratulations and condolences.

So this is a perfunctory thing.

All right, see no questions, and we already did the public.

So now we can do the consent calendar vote.

All right, so the clerk please call the roll on the full consent calendar.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Getpock.

Yes.

Harvey.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladissa, yes, Mr.

Muno.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rix.

Yes.

All right.

Now we have two matters that were removed.

Uh bid 2026-288, which is now PCR 7-2-6.

So councilman Latticer.

A committee recommended favorable action.

For action, Councilman Lattisser.

Move favorable action on PCR 7-26.

Motion made and seconded it.

Uh any discussion on the motion.

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, Mr.

DeLouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Mr.

Gap Hot.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Rex.

Recuse.

Yes, one recusal.

All right.

Next is bid 2026-287, which is now PCR 8-26.

Uh Councilman Latticer.

Committee recommended favorable action.

For action, Councilman Laddiser.

Favorable action on PCR 8-26.

Second.

Motion made and seconded.

Are there any questions or comments on the motion?

See none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Laddisa.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

One week.

All right.

Now we're on to unfinished business.

PCO 27-25 sub A and Ordinance Amending Appendix A zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick regarding fences, drive-through window overhead clearance and special use permit lot size standards for duplexes, city of war petitioners, citywide.

This is land use.

So councilman Ricks.

This was moved to the floor without a recommendation.

I would uh move favorable action with a proposed amendment.

And I would move the amendment, which may be referred to as sub B.

If the city council solicitor uh may read that into the record.

And I believe procedurally, I may need a second.

So uh councilman Ricks would like to make an amendment seconded by councilman uh Latticer.

Uh Councilman, do you want the all amendments read together?

Do you want to take the historic one separate from the table changes?

I think uh we can streamline it and make it all into one amendment.

Okay, so if anyone has a distinction, please let us know.

Uh the Rex amendment is seeking on page one line 41 to delete the word staff and insert and it's place the word commission.

Uh this changes the review for the historic district uh fencing, uh, so that the commission would be weighing in uh rather than staffing.

Uh on page six, uh the following changes to the table are being made.

Uh the intent is uh from councilman rix to adjust these up by 25 percent rather than the current draft that says 50 percent.

Uh so in minimum lot area uh for A7 office and general business, it would be deleting uh 10,500 and inserting 8,750.

Uh in the same category for A10, it would delete the 15,000 and insert 12,500.

For A15, it would delete 22,500 and insert 18,000 seven uh 50.

In A40, it would delete 60,000 and insert 50,000.

Uh in a similar concept, but in a a little a couple of spots down on minimum side yard, uh the amendment would uh for A7 office and general business delete 15 and insert 10, and on minimum rear yard in a 10, it would delete 30 and insert 25.

Those are all the amendments that I have.

And so the emotions for that amendment, correct?

And we have a second for it.

Uh correct.

And I believe Councilman Lattiser had seconded it.

Yep.

All right.

So there's any discussion on the proposed amendment.

All right.

Councilman DeLouis.

I um I kind of agree with the uh with uh Tom Kravitz.

I think that the 25% is just too little.

I think that the 50%, or if he said that the 35% would be much better.

Um I would tend to agree with that.

25%, I think is still um the lot size is still kind of small.

And director Kravitz, do you have any comment again?

Um conveying my conversation with the planning board chairman from today who has concerns about the community character and neighborhoods which still have larger undeveloped side lots, if you will, and that's why uh to maintain that character.

Um he's really trying hoping that you'll endorse the planning board's original opinion to just keep the table at the 50% increase in size.

Councilman Lattizer.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, my question will go to the director.

So I really hadn't thought of anything on this item in terms of amendments or um actually impacts on other folks.

The speaker earlier that came to the mic expressed concerns about um the pressure on the grinder pumps now, additional pressures if these things changed and uh the cost of the grinder pumps.

So this change either to 25% or 35%.

Could you explain that to me as to how that would play into the concerns of that particular property owner or other property owners in that area with respect to sewer pumping capacity?

I cannot speak to that.

I know though that all the applications we have the sewer staff weigh in on them.

So if this concerns on flow rates or pressure, you know, that's looked at on a case-by-case basis.

I think what not to speak for that resident, but she was really talking about the non-conformance changes that were made in state law, which is a bit shocking.

You're seeing some things happen.

There was a story in the beacon about Druid.

That's different.

That's a different statute.

Those changes have been effectuated.

This is something a little different.

This is just how we treat duplexes as a special use permit, and the minimum lot size is related there too.

And so, you know, the planning board chairman's desire was to keep it at for math's sake, most of these are in the A7 zoning district.

That's requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet.

Currently, if we put the table back in as the planning board recommended, you would need a lot that is 10,500 square feet in size to accommodate a duplex.

Obviously, Councilman Ricks has his opinion trying to make it smaller.

I'm just conveying what Chairman Slocum and I talked about today after speaking with uh introducing Councilman Ricks's uh changes to him.

I feel like I'm just here to convey what the planning board wanted, so I don't want to drew the short straw.

Yeah, you know, so I kind of wanted to have a conversation with Phil and at least get it across.

So most people know how heavily involved I was with the sewer project, particularly in Bayside.

There was um a very long project and just a super heavy lift for a year trying to learn about grinder pumps and gravity feed, et cetera, et cetera.

Um the the pressure on the grinder pump, let's say my house over whatever street it is, the pressure on my grinder pump isn't increased or decreased, predicated upon the pressure of the system.

It's predicated upon the use of the dwelling.

Is that correct?

That makes sense, yeah.

Yeah.

I'm not an engineer, but right.

No, that's I just what goes on from the lateral to your home is one pressure, and then it gets into the public system.

That's a different situation.

Because it's it's the public system that pushes this up.

I know I've had um a few little hiccups in Bayside where some of these pressure systems um let's just say needed to be adjusted, and they were and they were done immediately.

Uh, but um I think the individual impact and pressure on the grinder pumps is uh solely on the usage that it receives from that particular property.

Right.

I mean the main concern is a cumulative effect of many homes or lots being put in, and are we communicating with sewer staff to ensure the lift stations and whatnot can handle that additional volume?

That's a that's the concern that we're always that's why we always uh send every application before the commission uh sewer staff to review okay.

Um I guess um would it be in order to ask the previous speaker if she's okay with that?

I apologize, I'm not I'm not following.

If if if I interpreted the conversation um from the speaker, she had indicated that she was very concerned with these things changing, and if they were to change, it would put additional pressures on her grinder pump because there was more usage on the system.

But to my understanding and my knowledge on how all this stuff works, um is that the grinder pump at your location is under the pressure of your unit, so your house.

So if you have a two-bedroom house, you got so much pressure on.

If you have a three-bedroom house, um, it's fair to assume that you'd have more pressure.

I just want to get an answer as to whether or not changing these lot sizes would have a negative impact on um the speaker that was here before.

I don't I don't believe that it does, but I just want to be sure that she's comfortable with um this explanation.

All right, so is there any objection for letting the member of the public speak on this?

All right, yep.

So how about it?

If you could address that if you could just make sure you identify yourself first, sorry.

Okay, you have to understand your speaker system is so bad when you have hearing aids, it does not work.

We always anyway.

So I'm not hearing everything that you're saying.

Um, but I want to just comment again.

What's happening is down at the area where you're closer to the water, and that whole point is closer to the water.

They have to all pump up to point F.

Okay.

And there's one station, and we're we're all pumping up.

It's you don't have the pressure to pump up in it.

You have to push your pump works harder to push up.

So the more people that are on this sewer line, and the more people that are on or flushing or or pumping, um, it takes more pressure to push it up.

And this is what they're seeing now is their electric bills are up and their pumps are failing.

So I don't know how else to explain it, other than I'm still on the on the old system because I clean my system and I've got four set, I have four fields, but I don't need to change over.

I am not going to change over because why bother?

They're having all these issues.

But if you're going to keep on adding more people to that line and making it making it mandatory that they join, you're gonna have this issue.

And so everything is low over in Connecticut Point, and every and they get a variance on everything that they build down at the point.

And every time you do a variance, you're taking away frontage, and you're out you're making more houses in smaller area.

I don't know what else I can say.

So with with the amendment that is made or amendments that's made, as uh the solicitor has said this automatically goes back to first passage, right?

Okay.

So if we vote, um, let's assume we vote in favor of this on the first passage, we would have time to reach out to the sewer authority and um get clarification to um what your concerns are.

They've already been contacted.

The sewer authority has been contacted by all the people who are on the line and are they're um pumps are all wearing out, and nobody cares what's what they have to pay 20,000 dollars every time.

They don't care.

So my thing is stay with the larger lots.

If you're gonna put it, if you're gonna do this, they're gonna build right on the water, whether I want them to or not.

They're building on the water, they're digging into the into the marsh.

Okay, they're not they're not digging on, you know, an appenague.

They're digging right on the bay and in the marsh.

There's no protection for environment, and they're just built bringing in soil from other areas.

They don't care.

This is this is an environmental disaster down there, and you're only adding to it.

Okay, um thank you.

Um so Mr.

President, for whatever it's worth.

Um I happen to have a real good relationship with the sewer authority.

Believe it or not.

Um seriously.

Um, you know, I certainly will reach out to um the director there, um, also Matt Salitro, who has been incredible to work with.

And I'd like to research um, you know, this situation.

Um, being that I don't know those answers right now, but I will have an opportunity to get them in revote.

I will well, depending upon where this amendment goes and whether it goes to Director Kravitz or it goes to um Councilman Sinapi.

I'm sorry, um, Councilman Ricks, I will vote in support of it because I do have that second bite at the apple to see um what I can find out on that.

So I'm somewhat hesitant to jump on the amendment only because those who I think who know better than I on the subject, like Councilman DLouise uh based on what he voiced, and he would he absolutely would know better than I given his time on the zoning board.

So I'm I I don't I I can't support the amendment given given that I just I can't argue that I know better than Councilman DeLuis and the director and whatnot.

And I know it it's not like people are passionately arguing one way or another.

I'm not trying to pretend I just I I truly don't have the expertise on this subject to deem one of these better than the other.

But based on those who do, it seems like the original one is the preferred one.

Well, Councilman Ricks uh Ms.

President, I would at least uh offer one suggestion is if there is uh the inability to find consensus on what the table should look like this evening.

The if there is consensus on the other provision about changing the word staff to commission, that vote alone would revert this back to first passage and thus require further action of the council in a month, so there'd be ample time to review should the council wish more time to occur on changes to the table.

I mean, do we hate the idea of just simply holding it then?

If functionally, that's what we'd be doing.

Um am I missing something?

Sorry, Mr.

President, if I may.

Um, I'd like to hear from Councilman D.

Louise.

This is um definitely a ward issue, right?

That's Councilman D.

Louise's ward.

That makes sense.

Right.

All right, you want to hear from me?

You sure?

Absolutely.

Well, I'm sticking to my original with the 50% addition, if you're in an A7, you're gonna need 10,500 square feet as opposed to 7,000.

I like the table that Mr.

Kravitz they put together.

And it uh, you know, I live in that area, uh, Wesley's uh a neighbor, and it is being overbuilt.

It's being overbuilt, and uh I'm sorry to say when I was on the zoning board, I did approve some of those small lots, and I have uh I have regrets about about it, and you you should have the right to your property as an owner, um, but you should do it with responsibility, and if you have a 7,000 square foot lot, put a smaller house that conforms to the uh perimeter and the the setbacks and all that as well.

So I won't be voting for that as it stands the way it is with the with the 25% amendment.

Um so you you oppose the amendment.

You prefer to be able to do that.

I'm gonna vote against it.

Okay.

Uh a question uh through the council president to Mr.

Kravitz.

This I'm just paying attention to it now, but this is a citywide thing, so whatever happens now, it's not restrictive just to Konemicate, it's citywide correct.

It follows the zoning districts, got it, got it.

So it'll have implications all the way in cohesit too in the A40 zone.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Um to briefly address that last point as to A40s plus 25% is 50,000, meaning that if it's in an A40 zone, 50,000 square feet is pretty close to a full acre, I believe.

As to the smaller lots, and especially when we're talking Konemicate Point with the smaller frontage, a lot of these various lots that I'm understanding and looking at uh the city's GIS, a lot of these smaller lots don't even meet the frontage or square footage size requirements for a single family house.

So plus 25% would make it all the more difficult to try to get a variance for a duplex.

And I think again, I'm not going to prejudge anything here and not speak on any particular situation because I'm not familiar with any of the particular situations anyway, but it would be hard for me to imagine someone going in front of the zoning board and successfully seeking to get a duplex built on a lot that doesn't meet the frontage or total size square footage requirements or other requirements possibly to even be able to build a single family house.

All of that seems like uh quite a stretch.

And then in any particular cases, when it comes to things such as uh water tables, sewer situations, these are all of course unique circumstances that uh the building department, planning board, zoning board potentially would need to take a look at and do have discretion as to uh what they're willing to grant.

So if someone would have difficulty or wouldn't normally be allowed to build a single family, it's still with the plus 25%, all that much more difficult to go and seek to build a duplex on that type of land.

Well, good luck to anyone who tries that.

So I think that those really are some separate issues there.

And if there are, especially because we're talking about citywide here.

If this is uh situation where overbuilding at Kinemicate Point is a particular issue, perhaps there might be a need to re-examine some of the particular issues that came at Kinemicate Point.

There can be any number of different ways that issues in that particular neighborhood could be addressed.

So turning back to the more general here.

Simply if a duplex can fit in the footprint of what would be allowed as a single family house, it could proceed as such, with going through the process with zoning board, of course.

So that is my initial inclination.

That's what I advocated for at previous city council meetings.

I'll try not to repeat all of that here now.

Uh the city city administration was suggesting and advocating for it to be back to plus 50%.

I had spoken with the planning director the other day, and it seemed reasonable to meet smack in the middle at plus 25%.

I'm not crazy about that.

I think it's a step in the wrong direction, but I think it's a reasonable compromise, and I'd be sad at well, as they say, a good compromise is when everybody is a little bit unhappy, and I'm a little bit unhappy, but I can live with that.

And I think that uh, you know, whereas plus 50 percent, I I would strongly object to that.

So especially considering that uh if there are some of these additional uh questions that need to be resolved, and because uh there is a desire to keep this on a track, I think that it would make sense if we could get this amendment passed this evening and then move this to second passage at a future council meeting.

And if there is legitimacy to some of these particular concerns that can't be addressed otherwise, then we will be able to have that debate again, but if those concerns are satisfied, then we'll be able to proceed with second passage and get this done.

So that's all my comments for now.

Thank you.

All right, does anyone else?

Yes, if I could, I I would like you to address the worst case scenario, which was be would be my area.

You're take you're you're making rules for an area that does not have issues like we have down where we are, and so by making this a new um rule, you are um opening up my area for construction in double what what we're going through right now, and I just ask you to reconsider and think about my area because you the the variances will go through because they there's another one we could talk about on a variance that was just approved by the zoning board, okay, zoning board of appeals, and it was just approved, and you would have never expected it.

Okay, because they let things go through that should never have gone through.

Councilman Mudo.

Mr.

President.

Uh just a idea to throw out there, because unfortunately I just redid my insurance.

They draw they they drew lines from the coastline.

I'm not sure if we could add something with the lot sizes, keep them at the maximum size, say within 0.5 miles of a coastal, and then over that we can we can gradually go from there.

That way it takes it away from the war deals.

So a thought for conversation, but I have no amendments to add.

Thank you.

All right, so if there's no more questions on the amendment, the only thing I'm gonna say is like I go first off, kudos to councilman rix for endeavoring to actually achieve a compromise.

Uh that's exactly how it should go.

He he he went about it the the right way, and I can't compliment that enough.

Um that being said, I can't bring myself to go against Councilman DeLouis with his background and expertise in this area, the planning director and uh the head of the planning body.

I just I can't.

So I apologize.

I I can't stress enough though at the same time.

Kudos for the endeavor to compromise.

So regardless of how it goes, thank you for doing that.

Um so clerk will please call the roll on councilman Rix's proposed amendment.

Mr.

Napa?

No.

Mr.

Delouise, no, Mr.

Foley, no.

Mr.

Gapot?

No.

Mr.

Kirby?

No.

Mr.

Ladiser.

Yes, for first passage.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes, for first passage.

Mr.

Napa.

No.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Three.

Yes.

Six no motion fails.

Sorry.

Um, as it was discussed, if anyone, if there's independent discussion on the non table change, which was the historic district commission request to delete the word staff and insert commission.

Uh, should that pass it would revert the matter back to first passage.

So does anyone wish to make that motion to the change proposed by oh mentioned by so councilman Latticer?

I make that motion by him.

All right, is there seconded by Councilman Napa?

Is there any discussion on that proposed amendment?

All right, seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Sewers.

Yes.

Nine yes.

All right.

So this will be back before us for second passage.

That's the amendment.

If there if someone were interested in moving favorable action as amended for first passage.

Make a motion for favorable action as amended for first passage.

All right, second of my councilman Muto.

So this would be for first passage.

So if I'm not trying to drag this out further in the future, but if for some reason all parties involved decide to there's a better idea between now and next meeting, right?

I get it.

That's fine, it makes sense.

Just keep doing what you're doing because I can't say enough good things about the effort.

Uh but so does anyone have any questions or discussion regarding the item as amended.

All right, seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

DeLuise.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Did I miss pardon me?

I didn't quite hear this is the vote on the underlying item.

This is favorable as amended first passage.

Okay.

A brief comment, if I may.

I apparently don't have the ability to interrupt the roll call.

Uh under the rules, once roll calls begin, really it shouldn't be discussing anything other than a you know an actual question on what is the vote, but not debate.

Unless somebody wants it.

Very well.

I didn't hear the vote being called.

I I was not hearing that specific language being stated into the microphone, but I had uh things to say.