Good evening, everyone.

Good evening.

Let the record indicate it is now five oh nine PM in the finance committee is called to order.

Actually it's five oh six.

I need a motion to accept the minutes of the finance committee agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Um sorry, sorry, no, forget that.

No, all right.

So I move.

Oh, that's right.

Okay, that was easy.

Okay.

Um we'll get started with PCR thirty-four-twenty six in the bid package.

And the first item up is item number twenty twenty-six four oh one.

Street improvements.

We don't have to have that.

Good evening, Christy.

Whenever you're ready.

Good evening.

Chris, we're ready for public works.

Uh we are requesting to uh first of all, I need to amend this bid to add a vendor.

Um we'd like to add DMBra construction as a vendor to this bid.

Okay.

Um we will do a PCR on that.

PCR 35-26.

Thank you.

And you want to add a vendor on to this?

Yes.

And that is whom?

DMR construction.

So I'm confused on that one.

So Christy, explain why this is being added when I believe they were one of the penny bids that I had questioned at the beginning at the end of last week, I believe it was yeah.

Um we included them.

Hi, Ms.

Chairman.

Um, actually, after your phone call, I reviewed the bid.

Um may I identify yourself with records.

Sorry.

Uh Frank Picosy, Mayor.

Um after you sent that email, um, I reviewed the bid bids personally and um they kind of did penny bid, it was a dollar in one aspect of the construction.

Um, I didn't view it as a big deal because another company, um, the one we're going to award to was eight dollars.

That kind of work, um, that concrete overlayment, we don't have a lot of it.

So we wouldn't be giving them the work.

We're gonna do like we've done the last few years with three contractors.

We assign them the work that they're um the lowest price in, so we get more bang for the buck that way.

And having more than one, we don't depend upon them.

If they can't make it, if they can't pave that month, if they've gotten work from the state, we we have a um contingency for that.

So if that's the case, we're and that was why I I questioned that dollar bid because it didn't make sense to me.

Right.

Um perhaps there would have been an explanation that might have made sense, but I didn't get one.

And I actually should have gave you a call on that.

Sorry, I actually should have gave you a call.

I meant to last week too, talking over you and I, but I just kind of forgot about it.

I understand there's a lot a lot going on.

But with that said, Mayor, if if this is going to if DMB is going to be added in, then um, don't you think that it would be fair to also add in Pa Tucket Hot Mix as an ad needed?

Because they also were um excluded because they were a dollar bid.

Is that the one that was eight dollars?

No, they were no, they weren't excluded for um for the dollar bid, they were just far more expensive, their overall bid.

Do we have that in front of me?

So it says there were two lower bidders, however, they bid a dollar on items that this department utilizes.

What were the two lower bidders that were eliminated for a buck?

And um, by the way, I'm not disagreeing with adding in D Amber.

I mean it makes sense, but what's fair for one needs to be fair for another.

So the other vendor that was eliminated was Pa Tucket Hot Mix, not only because they they did bid the dollar as well, but their overall bid was over four million dollars, where everyone else's bid was uh DMBra was 840 um thousand.

You had oh, excuse me, I think I'm looking at the wrong page.

Yes, yeah, my apologies.

I looked at the wrong page.

Um 4 million, 4.1 million was my ozi, and then uh vinagro was 3.9 million DMBro was 3.6 million, and then uh Pa Tucket was 4.1 million.

Uh yeah, 4.1.

So they were the overall highest, the second highest would have been my ozi at 4.109.

The tucket was 4.125.

And now we're gonna sit improvement and lynch, they were just very out of the ballpark in terms of price, right?

Oh, I'm not sure.

No, they did very high.

Okay.

And as I said, Chairman, we would uh assign the work where they're the cheapest and that uh, you know, like reclamation or uh mill and finish.

If they were the lowest there, we would offer them that work first so we get more bang for the buck.

And it's worked out over the past few years.

And I know there are times when um I I know I know how this this bid process works with some of this stuff, uh, particularly with um I'm gonna use gravel as an example.

Um and it I haven't seen it occur here in Warwick in quite some time, but vendors would often lowball that number because there's a very small amount of say cubic yards, and then all of a sudden there's eight million cubic yards added in at 20 cents.

So I wasn't sure if that was the issue with this.

I could not see that in this bid.

So, anyways, thank you for the biggest problem we had with penny bidding in the in the past would be curbstone sidewalks, that kind of we really don't do much of that anyways, so that's where they would penny bid, but their actual paving prices would be higher than the other contractors.

And all three of these contractors have done outstanding job for the city over the years.

Okay, um, duly noted on that.

I'm gonna yield.

I do have some other concerns, but um I'll gather my thoughts on that.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Consulman Mudo.

Thank you.

Hi, Christy, how are you?

Good, thank you.

Good.

Um my questions are gonna be the same in that I asked in February 24th and in 12.1 uh that we were supposed to get a response from.

Uh I'm looking for what streets are going to be paved uh with the 1.5 million.

What is that priority?

Well, the first streets that we do are the ones that were uh Rhode Island Energy did their gas work, those need to be repaved.

So those are the first ones that we do, and then um, you know, if there's any sort of funds left over, then we figure out you know, if there's other streets that need attention, how much money we have um left to spend, that type of thing, and then it goes from there.

Okay.

Do you have a list of your priorities?

I I do not have a list, no.

That would be in engineering.

So and so engineering is the right department.

Yes.

Is anyone here from engineering?

No.

No.

Okay.

Um lists have been made yet.

We sit down and we come up with a strategy, a strategy of what we're gonna pave.

And that's not that hasn't come along yet.

Okay.

Well, the reason why I'm asking Mayor is this has been one of my extreme frustrations.

Spent 14 months asking the same question over and over again, and it keeps getting delayed.

I have the transcripts for both of those meetings with a promise from uh the administration that we're gonna sit down and get that information, and it never happened.

Because the information hasn't been put together, councilman.

Say it one more time.

We don't have a list yet, it doesn't exist yet.

So when we have our paging paving strategy, which is done, um, thinking of what Rhode Island has done, hasn't done, where the greatest needs are, what our budget will be, the areas we're gonna be in.

We sit down, we make a strategy sometime in the spring, and then that list is compiled.

Okay.

Do you have to happen to have a list of streets that you've already paved for the three million dollars that we've given you clearance for?

Not on me, no.

Not on you.

Okay.

So I'm gonna make a motion that we hold this until we're gonna be able to do that.

Councilman, that that is ridiculous because that has nothing to do with it.

It is ridiculous, it has nothing to do with these transcripts into the record of the multiple request that we've asked.

And I just told you, I don't know why you don't understand it that the list doesn't exist, it has nothing to do.

We have to get these contracts on board.

There'll be no paving this year.

So you you're saying that the list doesn't exist so you want to hold the bid hostage until you are satisfied.

This is this bid was brought before this council to approve a bid.

It's not contingent upon what streets were gonna pave.

Okay, that's not council input.

It's not, it's not contingent, but we want to know what to as the uh body that's and how does it affect how does it affect this bid, councilman?

How does it affect the bid?

Is we want to make sure it's being fair and equitable across the city.

It's it's not fair and equitable, okay?

Because there are no wards.

Wards where you guys live, and those people put elect you as legislators.

This is one city.

We address the needs as the city as a whole.

Yeah, and I'm not the only council person that's asked that.

So I'm not sure.

Okay, you're not the only resident either, but see, it's not a council matter.

Well, my vote is gonna be to hold, so thank you.

That's all for now.

So Mr.

Mayor C and as you're at the podium.

Um, I also have asked a series of questions that go back to December 5th regarding paving.

And my first question, and it does affect how I'm going to feel about this particular bid.

And by the way, I asked I forwarded these questions again at the end of last week and don't have an answer.

And it says, please send me a copy of all invoices that lead up to the DPW over extending its spending authority on street improvements further.

What is the reasons for exceeding the spending authority of which of which we approved?

And I have I'm not gonna I can read them all if somebody wishes.

One, two, three, four, five other questions all regarding paving that haven't been answered.

Now I'm doing my part and answering or asking questions is um as quickly as I can, as quickly as they come up, and I would expect the same thing in terms of getting them answered.

The concern going back to when the overspending of that line item occurred and still not having an answer is a concern.

So with that said, I will be seconding um councilman Muto's motion to hold on this until hold we'll hold it till the next meeting.

Another two weeks, I don't think is gonna make a big whoopty do um until I do get those answers because those answers are they're important to me, anyways, and I expect to get the answers.

Hold on one second.

Councilman, I can provide answers for you right now.

You can do what, please.

I can provide answers for you if you'd like.

Well, that's fine, but I'm gonna have time to look at those.

So yeah, if you get okay, then until the next meeting.

Okay.

I'm just gonna state on the record what a ridiculous thing this is.

You're gonna hold hostage, the awarding of a bid to pave because you haven't gotten the the um information has nothing to do with the price of paving.

Oh, I I also I don't believe that you two have the authority to hold the bid.

I believe it's up to the whole council.

So take a vote.

My my questions have a lot to do with this because if I don't know what that answer is as to why DPW overran the paving budget, if I don't get that answer, then I may want to reduce this bid.

So it has everything to do with it, in addition to these other questions.

It has everything to do with it.

We may, you and I might disagree on it at the end of the day.

I need those answers.

So we have a motion, we have a second.

Um, any further discussion from the committee.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye, opposed, aye.

Is that an aye opposed or an aye a favor?

Okay, so we have two yes.

And we have that was a no from you as well.

Two yes, two no.

Okay.

Two no moves to the floor without a recommendation, Mr.

Chairman.

Prior to it moving to the floor.

Would you entertain the public comment at this time?

Oh, sure, sure.

Uh, any comments from members of the committee?

Any comments from members of the council?

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Chairman, I would agree with you that certain questions uh do need to be answered here, information provided ahead of time.

As to uh Councilman Muto, his concerns that he raised.

I would I would say that yes, I would agree that those issues are issues of the council as to whether those particular issues should be tied to this bid.

That's where I would think that may be more appropriate for a separate matter, but I would agree with the finance chair that it would be appropriate to hold until those answers to your questions are provided.

Especially considering that the bid awarded would begin at the end of the month of April, and it appears that our next meeting is scheduled well before that period of time.

We have current contracts, so unless I hear something that indicates that there's a very good reason why we absolutely must proceed with this particular vote right now at this very meeting.

Then I think it's appropriate for us to hold off.

That's all for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the council?

Councilman Delouise.

Okay, I'm not I know I'm not the most intelligent person in this room, but I do know one thing.

You're not gonna get your answers in two weeks.

This is a monumental task to try to figure out which roads are in worse repair than others.

I I just don't think it's a possibility.

That's all thank you for that, councilman.

Um I'll read my my first item again.

And this is something again I requested in December, which was a copy of all invoices that led up to DPW over-extending its spending authority on street improvements.

And what is the reasons for exceeding that spending authority?

I think that is paramount to whether or not this bid gets approved at a million seven, whether it gets approved at a million or two million, whatever it is.

Um, so anyhow, that's where I am.

If um anyone would like a copy of the other questions that I've submitted, I'll be happy to provide them to you.

Any comments from members of the public?

Any comments from members of the public.

Hearing none, we will move.

Um, we already got our vote on that.

We'll move on to item number two, 2026 033, street improvements.

I'm sorry.

Um, that was not street improvements, it's state street pump station.

I apologize.

Go ahead, Director.

Good evening, Jerry Willette, Chief of Water.

The water division request approved from city council and change order number one for the state street water pump station improvements.

The additional scope consists of providing labor materials to install instrumentation and control equipment at eight locations within the state street pump station improvements project.

Skater equipment must be installed at additional facilities prior to the start of construction at the pump station.

The installation of the required bypass of the state is dependent on communication with additional Warwick Water Division facilities in order to control the bypass water pumps and tank level at the Warwick Neck tank during construction.

Engineering submitted the change order to bid 2026-033 in amount of 186,600 to complete this work.

Thank you, Director.

So change orders just automatically get my attention.

But it's even worse when it's to the magnitude of this one, particularly where this is something that I'm going to say should have been included right from the beginning.

How is it that this equipment installed at additional facilities prior to the start of construction?

How is it that was not known?

This providing water pressure to Warwick Neck.

Um, how wasn't this known when this thing first came to us for a bid?

That's a good question.

Um that predates me.

This just came to my attention in January.

The end of January.

Did you have that same question?

When you I have you had the same question.

And did you get an answer on it?

It wasn't included in the original contract.

No, I just asked you, did you have the same question as I just had?

Why wasn't this 186,000 item that's an integral part of this particular bid?

Why wasn't it part impossible when it came to us in the first place?

Is that the same question you asked?

Yes.

And you did not get an answer.

The answer that I received was there was a separate contract with beta engineering with uh beta to have Iri Erickson.

I matter of fact, that's what it says in the bid spec to have Iri Erickson do the installs.

So that just that kind of thing just really gets me going.

Because that 186,000 that is now a change order.

Had that been put out with the original um bid, that number might have come in different.

I am told it may have come in different from other vendors that may have been interested in it.

To just slam this at us now, and essentially we don't have any choice when it comes right down to it, but I'm certainly going to make my voice clear that this to me is not good business.

This is just sticking us with a hundred and eighty-six thousand dollar item that we have no say.

So, what am I supposed to do?

Sit here and say, Oh, no, um, we can't do this.

And next thing is, oh well, fine, then uh it's gonna be your fault if we can't deliver the water.

That is unconscionable.

And um, I appreciate the fact that you have the same question, and I understand and respect the fact that you basically are new into this thing, but it's even more concerning that you didn't get an answer.

The the explanation that I wasn't happy with it, but the the explanation I got is that had this gone through the contract, it would have cost over a million dollars in addition to the contract, and the way it's the way the two contracts it's gonna come out to about 800,000.

So if it's any constellation, that's what I was told.

Um, it really isn't, you know, because um reasons are one thing, excuses are another.

And when this type of response is given to you as a director, that just makes this even more concerning to me.

So someone is speculating that, oh, if this would have been in the first bid, this thing would have been way over a million dollars.

Really?

How do you know it wasn't in the bid?

This is not good.

Um, I'm gonna uh step back for a minute um to hear any comments from my colleagues, councilman Knapper.

Thank you, Chairman.

Director, I have to echo and agree with what the chairman said on this, and I know it was pre predated you, but things like this are problematic because one of two things either there was no oversight to the point where we forgot that we may have needed this, or we intentionally withheld it, and whomever presented it prior to you being in the position you're in, knowingly withheld it as part of what the anticipated cost of this, which I'm sure the chairman and some of us up here and some of the council people may have dug into at the time.

So I I know you can appreciate that, and I just hope that those type of things don't happen in the future, where if there is going to be a cost projected in the future that we may not know the what the price tag will be, but it's being withheld for certain reasons.

Please just disclose that to us so that we can be prepared.

So we're not blindsided by oh, another 170 million thousandths coming down the pipe, which I think is sort of what the chairman is alluding to.

If we know that these things are coming, just let us know.

Because the the sneaky stuff that comes up later that oh, well, no, we we kind of knew that, but we withheld it because it ruins the transparency and then it causes the distrust that I think exists in part between the two governing bodies here.

Uh so I would just implore you to please be forthcoming if you know these things are being done.

If there is a valid reason, please just let us know and we can understand if these things are being withheld.

And again, I understand that this wasn't you, and you're sort of stuck holding the bag in front of us, taking the bullets.

Uh so I appreciate you weathering the storm on that end, but just in the future, this is this sort of presentation of costs that arise later that we probably knew about before when the first package came up.

This is the reason why the distrust exists when bids come up.

Thank you, councilman.

Um, so councilman, do you have any recommendation on what the best way is to handle this?

Because this is more than just a statement that I'm making.

This is fiscal irresponsibility.

That's what this is.

And here we are.

And it says the awarded contract to hot engineering did not include the installation of supplied equipment services and a licensed electrician required for panel installations.

So who the hell is overseeing this?

Who is looking at these documents saying, okay, this is what we're gonna give you for uh two million four hundred thousand dollars, and then it just slides on by.

And oh, by the way, um, it could be another eighteen thousand, and it's unincluded in the 186, but potentially 18,800 to install a new pole at whatever the hell that location is, a new poll.

Thanks to the chief, I did ask that question.

What is this poll?

And he did respond back to me promptly.

It's a 35-foot poll that maybe we need, maybe we won't need this is this just continues on and on again.

And this has been going on for a lot longer than just this current administration, and it's because it's tolerated.

So why is it tolerated?

And what can we what can we do about it?

Shut down this this program for 186 grand.

Um, I don't know, but somebody, someplace, needs to be accountable and responsible for these type of things occurring.

That 186,000, there isn't one person in this room or in the administration that can guarantee that would have been the number had this been included in the initial bid.

And it should have been hot engineering.

They're an engineering company.

These aren't people that you know just um bang around some toothpicks, they're an engineering company, and they certainly should have known.

And whoever was handling this on our side should have been aware of it.

And here we are, we got 186,000 item that pretty much our hands are tied, and we have no clue whether that's a good or bad price.

It's extremely concerning and frustrating to me.

Councilman.

I agree.

I agree.

And I wish I had a suggestion for you.

Director, I guess I would ask a follow-up question then, given the chairman's comments.

Is there someone in place in your division now, whether it be yourself or some delegate that is reviewing these type of bids to make sure that we don't have oversight on that that we don't overlook things that should be included?

Or how would you propose within your own department that you're going to ensure that this issue doesn't happen again?

Moving forward, I want to be involved in these.

I know I agree with you.

A tablespoon of dirt.

Has anything began on this project as of now?

Nothing other than prep work.

Nothing other than what?

Other than prep work preparation work at the state.

Prep work.

What's prep work?

Um pulling, you know, draining the oil barrel, making room to install these panels, making room for the equipment.

Um we're waiting on Rhode Island energy to change the power feed for us.

They're gonna have to put in transformers, whatnot.

I don't understand that, but the project is due to start, I believe, the beginning of April.

So even if we wanted to, and anybody feel free to jump in and correct me.

Even if we wanted to, we couldn't not only deny this item because of the way this just happened to creep up on us, and I'm using creep politely.

Yeah, to kick this back and have it rebid.

Nope.

Not without paying liquidated damages and I don't even know what to say.

I I don't even know what to say about this.

I'm with you.

And director, I know you're I'm not trying to put you on the spot, sir.

You kind of walked into it, but I know when I'm stepping in it.

Sir, thank you.

Is there anything else that can possibly come up on this project?

God, I hope not.

Uh is there anything that can possibly come up from your experience and heart engineering's experience?

Because I I'm holding this guy down right now.

And I can't imagine another bid coming for this project that's not fully thought out and vetted.

So you said that you'll be involved in future decisions.

Will you be responsible?

Absolutely.

You'll be responsible for future projects like this.

Yes.

All right.

I'll take your word on that.

Thank you.

Chief, I've been chief of staff.

I'm talking to.

Um overviewing or reviewing some um opportunities that the finance committee has and um things that we have the authority to do.

Are you willing to go back to beta engineering?

Because they were the low bidder on this and negotiate that price.

So that price is not with beta engineering, that price is with the contractor doing the work.

So the city the administration is looking at our our area uh hot engineering.

I'm sorry.

No, it's it's actually beta.

Um, but we're looking at our what our avenues of recourse are, and one of them is going after the designer for their as errors and omissions.

So that is what we're looking at doing.

But we found out about this like Jerry did, you know, not too long ago, and the person that was overseeing this project, overseeing the bidding, the writing of the specs and everything, is no longer there.

You know, so um we are looking at going after the designer through their arrows and omissions as a legal process.

So yeah, I'm happy to hear that, Chief.

But um I have other questions.

Sure.

So when you say you're looking into it, are you going to take legal action on this item?

Looking into it, um, you know, that could be so we're okay.

I'm gonna pick up the phone, and you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna call Bill right here, and I'm gonna have this little conversation, and and that's the end of it.

Is the city going to take legal action on this item?

This needs to be reviewed by the city solicitor to see what our research is here now, isn't he?

He hasn't seen this.

He what he hasn't seen this.

He hasn't seen so he can't offer an illegal opinion on something he hasn't seen.

So we're going to look at talking to the city solicitor on what our avenues are for recourse.

Okay, so so I'm clear.

The city solicitor hasn't seen it, so that means the administration hasn't discussed their looking into taking on this item.

He has not seen this.

He has his office has seen the contract and some of the items.

Uh-huh.

They've reviewed the contracts because we've been looking at this, trying to figure a way around it.

Personally has not seen this.

His office has so it would be unfair to ask the city solicitor, Mike Rosillo to make a comment on this right now.

I I think it's it's extremely unfair for the taxpayers to get whacked with 186,000.

I don't disagree with you.

So I don't disagree with the chairman.

You have two minutes.

Go ahead.

Um so, Chief, when did this um decision to pursue this or um consider some actions on this?

When did this occur?

Just occur now, or you know, we knew about it at the end of January.

About two and a half weeks ago, two and a half weeks ago.

So tell us what steps have been taken up to tonight to challenge this number, or the the how the hosts how this whole thing even occurred.

What steps have been taken right now?

So we reviewed the contract with the assistancy solicitor, Peter Swurs, to see if we had any recourse against to see what the interpretation, because there was an addendum and there was some ambiguity in the language.

That's what was reviewed.

And the solicitor at the uh Peter Squirrels made the decision that it was or the opinion that it was specific to State Street pumping station only, not the rest of the sites, the skater sites.

That's what we've done so far.

The next step is to talk to the city solicitor again to find out how we file against the designer.

It's a legal process.

I'm not an attorney.

Well, one way or another as well.

They either get away with it, correct, and we get screwed, or you're successful in challenging this.

So we um we as chairman of the finance committee, I'm gonna ask that you keep us informed every step of the way on this to the degree you can without creating a problem between legal and et cetera.

Okay, because we need to follow this.

This this end of this road has got to come.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the public?

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Michelle Comar Wardwin.

Um, I was gonna offer a solution suggestion to this, and then a global solution for future problems that might come up like this.

Having worked at engineering firms doing contracts, proposals, bids, doing my share.

Um, there's a paper trail here, and I'm glad Chief is mentioning that he's having these the the attorneys look at it.

There's the the bid that went out.

How did the city word the bid?

What do they assume what's in the design?

What do they shall have included in the design?

How did the awarding engineering firm respond?

And their subcontractors respond.

How did other bidders respond?

Did they have this omission?

Or is it just the one that was selected that had the so mission?

Um there's a paper trail here to look at, and you may want to look at the paperwork yourself.

I'm very curious to see how the taxpayers get stuff with something, and I I applaud your efforts here because this is a tough situation, your back's against the wall.

But to have a main component of a design be omitted, and the contractor doesn't include it.

We want a fair bid, and we want a bid that's competitive, not something that a major add-on comes on later.

Um so that's the short term.

Get the paperwork, review it.

The long global solution is, and I've just came in on the the last item as well for discussion about the pavement of roads.

Maybe we need a professional, and it has to be a legal person, contract writer.

They exist, they just do contracts, and they make sure whoever they're representing that the liability is not on them.

They do a clean RFP, they do a clean bidding process, they ask questions of the bidders, so they get fair bids and all the bases are covered.

And maybe we need a contract legal person to follow through on this.

My suggestions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you much for that.

Anyone else from the public?

Any other members of the public have any questions or comments?

Thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Moving on.

Um item number three from page 26, portable toilets.

We went out to bid for the portable toilets, and we are recommending that we go with United Site Services because they were the lowest bidder.

Were they the only bidder?

No, they were the lowest.

And okay, so the reasons that you are recommending them besides being low bidder.

Is there uh any other particular uh services, qualifications, etc.

that um you're impressed by as opposed to other bidders?

No, everybody met the specs.

It was just the the cheapest.

Okay, so in uh the department's position, this company is the lowest qualified bidder.

Yes, okay.

Um does the department direct or instruct the vendor on where to put these portajohns?

Yes, you do okay.

Um because I am I have not circled back to you, but I have others in the administration, and I will follow up with you on the Porta Johns at Rocky Point.

So most of the Porta Johns at Rocky Point are state Portagons.

Those are not a johns.

We only put them down there for events.

Okay.

So then I'm going to ask you to provide me with the direct contact of DEM who I need to speak to about where they place those portageons.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Consulman Mural.

Thank you.

Hi, Holly.

Uh couple of questions.

So when I look at the bid, it's you know, it's like an avocot.

It doesn't share with me what their service level agreements are, how often they're cleaned, how many units there are, and so forth.

And I'm really concerned about the cleansliness because besides roads, I hate to say it, porta potties are number two on my list, no pun intended.

So uh can you share with me what that schedule is?

Uh and before you answer, I have pictures that I'm going to submit into record about the lack of lack of uh maintenance on our city-owned port-a-parties that um I'm getting a lot of complaints on.

So in the past, we followed the state bid, and I was not happy with the company we were utilizing last year.

The manager that was on was the communication was awful.

They billed us incorrectly all the time, um, cost us a lot of time, like fixing everything in the office.

So um they clean them once a week, and then I get the other the cleaning rate is for additional cleanings needed.

You start with Holly and go around just uh I I believe you.

No, no, I wanted to submit this into record.

So here's an example of one of many.

And when we talk about getting serviced once a week, that's a lot of usage for for a week.

So this is this is a recent picture.

Yes.

So there's only one unit there.

This is actually one of they took this off of our charges because they did not clean it for a few weeks.

I actually went down to that one and saw it myself.

Well, I know they I I did realize it.

That was done before the cleansiness, but I just did one because I have other pictures I didn't want to really gross you out on, but the challenge is the maintenance of these, and when they're filled, please look at the the area around it because when it's filled.

Sure.

Yeah, I don't need to get yes, it it is a it's a serious issue for constituents, but it's also a serious health issue.

So uh you know, I appreciate that you uh that you weren't satisfied with that service.

And you know, I appreciate uh all that you do in in the parts of Pox and Rec.

And uh and I'm sure uh this is not the first and only complaint you've had about porta parties.

No, this past year it was it's been off you know since since last May a week doesn't go by without without complaints, right?

Yeah, but now it's it's getting it'll be different.

Yep.

All right, so I'll follow up at you know to make sure that a maintenance schedule and make sure that we're we're covered.

Sure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh thank you, Holly.

Uh so just so I'm clear.

The the new bid is to a different company.

Correct.

Because you're dissatisfied with the old company.

Correct.

The Poxen rec is dissatisfied.

Okay, thank you.

Correct.

Holly, uh do you have a staff person um that goes around to these different locations for these Porta Johns to uh inspect them weekly, every other day?

Or is there a schedule and what is the schedule?

I I do not have any staff that are out there that could you expect.

Um it's something I could coordinate with the field maintenance, I'm sure.

Otherwise, the only way you would know of something like this occurring would be for someone to reach out and contact the administration.

Correct.

Uh typically there's this staff, whether it be in Pox and Wrecks or DPW, um, in these parks on a very regular basis, I would assume, right?

Yes, yeah.

Field maintenance during the year, but during the summertime, we have the the beach staff and uh collectors there that obviously utilize them and they report back during that season quite often.

It's the off seasons that become the problem.

Okay, so it wouldn't be a very heavy lift um when staff is in the park to do inspection on the go down and empty the trash daily and okay, thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Thank you.

The remainder of our uh thank you, Holly.

The remainder of our items in the bid package, item number four through 14 are under the 50,000 dollars.

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

Consulman Mudo.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh I'd like to pull out uh item 2026-416 Adobe licensing and support councilman Foley, any councilman Napon, none members of the council.

Any items you would like pulled out.

Um just bear with me one minute.

I may or I may not.

I have a question mark on one item um number five, 2027 zero zero six fire department promotional written exams found on page 42.

That's the only one I have.

Does any members of the public have any items they would like withheld?

Pulled out any items, any members of the public have any items they would like pulled out.

Hearing none, we will start by item number five 2027 006 found on page 42.

Fire department promotional written exams.

Good evening, assistant chief Umbanhauer from the fire department.

Good evening, Chief.

Chief, what did we spend on promotional exams last year?

Uh last fiscal year we spent 14,846.

14,846.

Correct.

Thank you for that.

As you've said so many times, you pretty much have my questions down pat.

We've been doing this a while.

So, Chief, so why why do you need 40 grand now?

The uh 14 was for one year, right?

Right.

So historically, we spend about $13,000 to $15,000 on exams.

Uh this year the pricing is a little more expensive than it was been in the past.

Typically, we spend or but but you know, low $2000, typically $2,500 for an exam.

Uh the lowest bidder this year is a flat $3,000, and then $10 per candidate.

So I'm anticipating a higher uh cost of the exams this year.

That's why I increase the the ask a little bit more to cover the the increasing cost.

So are you anticipating somewhere around 12 or 13 exams to be administered?

Yeah, 13 over the two years.

This is a two-year period.

I have uh seven exams at minimum coming up uh in the next fiscal year, and then six in fiscal year 2027.

So if you calculate that out, it comes to like 39,000, 38, 39,000.

But then you have to add on the per exam cost.

So calculating that out for worst case scenario, it comes in that area of 40,000 for the two years.

And who um corrects these exams?

The it's a combination of a union representative and an administrative representative.

So the two of them sit together and they uh correct them together.

We don't pay for the uh score and service, we do it ourselves.

You know, um and some of these questions I'm asking because I know we've been we you know we've had this dance before about um the promotional exams.

So who has the answers to the test questions?

So the way that the promotional exams work uh in agreement between the administration and the union is the exams get shipped to FedEx, they hold them for us, and then a union representative and a representative of the fire department administration go and they pick up the exam together in a sealed uh box or envelope, typically it's a box, and then they bring that to the exam.

They pick it up that morning of the exam at nine o'clock.

The exam starts at 9 30, and then they open it in front of the examinees.

So there's a union representative and administrative uh fire department administrative representative there together when they open it, and then they pull out the exams, they administer the test, and then those two representatives then sit to score them as they could as they complete the exam together.

But the answers to the questions they come in the box.

Okay, yep, with with the exams.

So who has the possession of the answers that you said they come in a box, in a box with the exams themselves?

Correct.

Correct.

You get the examination, the examination booklets, the answer sheets, and then a score and overlay, and then a report on what page and uh source material the question came from, if anybody questions the legitimacy of the question.

The cost of the exams, does that include shipping?

Yep.

That's included in in the specification that the if you look at this price and sheet, it does say uh two score and overlays, questions, and book report, and then uh and answer sheets, and there's a line for shipping fee.

And if they don't put anything, then there's no shipping fee unless they add it down below.

So it's all either added in and the original bid, or if they have a different ship in the way they did they deal with shipping that's uh included in the uh additional fees below.

So when I look at the um the description from School of Justice, it shows text material shipping, $30 per pound.

Yeah, so that would be the text that the source materials that we're actually using in the exam.

If we have to if they have to we have to ship them a source material for them to use to create the exam, they would charge a fee for that.

But typically we just do that electronically.

Most of our sources that we use in the fire department, like our standard operating procedures, we have that electronically, so we just submit it to them electronically.

We don't typically ship them the text materials.

That's not the fee for the test itself.

That's for the text, the source text.

Okay, so the answer is there is no additional charge above and beyond the 40,000 for shipping or anything else.

I if they did not bid it, then we would not accept a ship in fee because they did not uh complete that part of it.

So I would assume that there is no shipping fee.

Well, again, unless I'm missing something, it says in my paper here, price include any additional fees not included above if applicable.

And in there it says legal defensive exam, if necessary, um 150 dollars per hour.

So hopefully there'll be no need for that.

Hopefully, but it also says text material shipping, $30 per pound.

Correct.

That's to ship the text to the actual books.

Not the not the test material.

That's we give them a list of books that they have to create the test from.

We have to ship them back and forth to each other.

Got it.

They charge for that.

Item number three on the scoring sheet is the ship in fee.

Got it.

Okay.

That's right on the shipping fee.

Okay.

We added that right to the to the price and sheet.

And the these 13 or 12 tests, whatever that you get.

Uh is each one of those tests identically the same, or are there different tests that each individual gets?

They're all different.

They're based on the rank that's being tested for.

So each rank has a promotional test every two years.

Uh and then there's a source uh uh by contract, there's a list of materials that those tests are sourced from, and then that with those sources are sent to the testing company, and then they create the test based on those materials that we give them.

Okay.

They're different.

Is that test?

Is that a requirement, or is that something that a member of the fire department would volunteer to take?

That's a that's a congregation a uh contractual requirement.

All the all the stipulation for promotional testing is stipulated in our contract.

No, no, no.

I I you might have misunderstood.

Is it a requirement that a firefighter has to take a promotional test?

No.

And the climate there, right?

It's all voluntary, correct?

Okay, that's all I have on that item.

Thank you, Chief.

You're welcome.

Um we any questions from members of the committee on that item?

Members of the council.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number 12, 2026 416.

Adobe licensing and support found on page 64.

Phil Carlucci, IT director.

Hello, Chief.

Hi.

Uh I know you've you've already supplied the answer.

I just want to get it on record.

The Adobe licenses.

Can you tell me how you go about allocating those licenses?

Is there an actual use for them?

And how do you maintain and audit them?

Sure.

Um you have to keep in mind we have about 550 uh users.

So we use nine Adobe licenses.

Everything else is the reader is free.

These are all licenses that have to do with things like making measurement changes in we discussed in the building department, um, the graphic designs they use for uh the planning department.

We do form creation, but we fill out tons of forms for uh grants, and that really focuses in community development.

So each year what we do is we have a very limited number of licenses that we actually purchase.

I myself use a free PDF gear or something like that.

The ones that we go and actually license from Adobe have a specific need.

We review the need with them.

Uh this year we've gone from since last year from 10 to 9 licenses because we had one that wasn't really being utilized.

We had another license that was for the entire cloud suite, which is much more expensive than the individual modules, and we found out that the person really only needed a module or two, so it comes a few hundred dollars less just to license the modules instead of the whole suite.

So the review process is you know, I don't say it's extensive because there's only nine, ten people, but it's an annual review, and we asked the people what functionality can they only get from the paid version.

The unpaid versions, I use them myself.

We use a lot of them throughout the city.

They have some limitations.

There's some advertising, you know, there's some downsides to them, but for the casual users such as myself, they work fine.

Great.

Uh thank you for the work you do on that.

Uh because since we're moving to the cloud and that type of software, every seat counts.

And costs money.

And and it can get out of hand very quickly.

So I I just want to say I appreciate the work you're doing.

Appreciate the thoughtfulness when you're looking at this technology and keeping an eye out where we can save money and optimize what we can do for the city.

So you, my friend, uh the gold standard of uh audit and uh financial.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Thank you, Director.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

No, Councilman Ricks.

Uh, just want to request a PCR on this one as I need to submit a recusal.

Thank you.

Councilman Rick, I'm sorry, you said you need to recuse on this.

Okay.

Yes, thank you.

I make a motion for favorable action on PCR 36-26.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Okay.

PCR 3626.

Any questions from members of the public?

Any questions or comments from members of the public?

Hearing none, we have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh indeed a motion on PCR 34-36, please.

Favorable action.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, our next item is item number two, PCR 32-26.

Um, formally 2026 131 repairs to H116.

Christy, um if I recall the concerns I had were about the sales tax that was being charged on some of those items, such as freight, um miscellaneous, etc.

etc.

Um, I had asked that uh you go back and review that.

And what were your findings?

Uh my uh conversations with the vendor were that the freight was charged on the parts.

But with that being said, um the vendor ended up removing the tax from the bill completely at this point.

They remove the tax from what, please?

They removed the tax from the bill.

Completely the sales tax from the bill completely.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, that was very good of them.

And thank you for your efforts on getting that done.

Obviously, my concern was for the taxpayers being hit with a bill that they shouldn't have been hit with.

Um, so to the solicitor, do we need to do or take any action with this?

Um the vendor agreed to remove the sales tax altogether, which I believe was 750 some dollars, Christine.

I think it was 734 and change.

Yeah, 700 and some odd dollars.

Do we need to take action um on that?

Uh director, the amount in the resolution for 3,001 three forty-nine, is that amount accurate or is that need to be amended in the resolution?

It does, it does need to be amended.

The new uh invoice amount is 29,483 and 67 cents.

Uh sorry, could you repeat that amount, please?

29 483 67 and that's the new amount.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Solicitor, so we need to make a motion to amend to amend the PCR 3226 to change the contract award number from what's posted at the 3,000 to the number just read, 29, etc.

Okay, so I make a motion that we amend PCR 32-26 to reflect the new payment amount of 29,483 and 67 cents, which amounts to uh 7 roughly 50 dollar uh savings to the taxpayers.

And again, Christy, thank you for following up on that.

Um I have a motion.

I need a second.

Second, second.

We have second.

We have any further discussion from the committee.

Any questions from the council?

Any comments or questions from members of the public?

Please good evening, it's Ian Sheridan.

Good evening.

Um just identify yourself for the record, please.

I'm sorry, Ian Sheridan.

Thank you.

Ward nine.

Thank you.

Um, Christy, do you know why they removed the sales tax?

I don't.

They didn't give me an explanation.

They just I had some back and forth conversation with them and expressed a couple of times that I was looking for the um so you're in the purchasing department.

No, I'm in public works.

Public works.

For the record, the city of Warwick, every city in Rhode Island and every state purchase is exempt from sales tax.

Regardless of where it's been purchased, what state it's from.

I spent 15 years handling sales tax for a Fortune 500 company.

And all the city needs to do is present uh certificate saying we are exempt.

So, with all due respect, Mrs.

Sheridan, um, because the work was done on our machine in Massachusetts.

We are required to pay sales.

No, you're not.

Yes, we are.

We are well, uh let me just if you provided them with a sales tax certificate, they would be you would be exempt.

We weren't okay.

Okay, I'm I'm gonna stand down because you're gonna argue this all night, and I'm gonna argue it all night.

Um, Francis Gomez purchasing director.

Um the first time with this vehicle.

Sorry, I don't know exactly what it is.

Um, that the taxes came up.

I did fight that, and I said this on the floor, and I also reached out to the solicitor, and they confirmed that yes, Massachusetts can charge tax on this particular item.

Now, when it comes to goods nationwide, um, even our construction projects, our vendors can use our sales tax exemption.

Absolutely.

But in some rare cases, we do have to pay tax exemption.

Excuse me.

Oh, do we own or lease this piece of equipment?

That's being we own it.

And we can't control other states.

I I just agree to disagree.

Okay.

Okay.

But I just wanted to make that comment.

That's exactly what happened.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Anyone, any other member of the public have any comments or questions?

Hearing none.

I need a motion.

I'm sorry.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

None.

Thank you.

And I believe, oh no, we have um code of ordinances.

Um item PCO 4-26, an ordinance amending chapter 56 code of ordinances bear with me.

So this um is the result of several meetings that um have taken place uh between myself, the council president, the purchasing agent, and our director of legislative affairs.

And the discussion was about increasing the um authority of the purchasing agent from 2500 to 5,000.

That 2500 number, that probably goes back to the 60s, uh, maybe the 70s, but it's been a very, very long time.

That number hasn't changed.

And I'm sure everyone would agree that over these past 90 years or whatever it is, um, that number of 2500 probably is equal to 25 today.

The request was to increase it to uh a number that makes sense.

I have always been somewhat reluctant to jump ahead by miles when we need to move forward a little bit more cautiously and um under some type of uh control.

So the number that we all agree on that makes sense is to increase that spending authority to 2500.

Keep in mind the cost that may not be known to everyone for coming before the city council for a bid of 2500 one dollars is it's a significant cost.

It involves staff, it involves uh paperwork, it involves um bidding processes, it involves time coming before this committee to vet it, etc.

etc.

And those hours and times just add up to a lot of money.

So this makes all the sense in the world to me.

The document that's before us also says that all purchases not exceeding 5,000 or 10,000 for construction shall be awarded by the purchasing agent to the lowest responsible bidder.

I've had conversations with our um council solicitor over the weekend, and um I get concerned when words are vague because words matter.

And 10,000 for construction was a concern to me because there was no definition in this document that defines construction.

And it's throughout this particular document, and the solicitor did provide me with the language.

Keep in mind the intent was to reasonably mirror what the state does.

That doesn't mean that I always agree with what the state does, because there are plenty of times when I don't.

But in this case, um to define construction, it's defined as is as defined in Rhode Island General Laws 45-55-4.

My concern with just construction, construction is that construction of a birdhouse, it is it is it in construction of this table, um uh a new DPW building, a fire department or whatever.

And it's in that 4555-4 definition, it it clarifies what my concerns were, and it says it does not include the routine maintenance or repair of existing structures, buildings, or real property performed by salary employees of municipality and your usual costs of their job.

10,000 dollars today in construction is an extremely low number.

You you can't do half a roof on your house today for ten thousand dollars, and I know because I was in the business for 50 years.

So this is a very reasonable approach.

It makes fiscal sense to me, it makes financial stability as far as I'm concerned with that.

And um I uh obviously I will be supporting this.

Um questions, councilman Foley.

Did my homework uh spoke with the uh council solicitor?

I had wanted a little further reach.

The reason being uh the council liaison and I did some math homework.

Uh this was implemented in 1973.

20 two thousand twenty five hundred dollars in nineteen seventy-three today would be over seventeen thousand dollars based on inflation alone.

So for those reasons, uh I was hoping to push it a little further than yourself, but could talking to the city solicitor.

I'm sorry, the council solicitor, it seems much more reasonable.

Let's just go with what is current with the state.

The uh the piece that was passed by the voters in the special election allows us to if five years from now that number needs to be increased again.

We at the council level can do that through this process.

So for those reasons, I will be supporting it as written.

Um thank you, councilman, and and that's a very good point.

That is part of our legislation, and I'm glad you brought that up because the the reasoning behind that is in people who have followed me for the past 14 years, you've heard me say it lots of times.

The common administration isn't always gonna be here.

The current city council is not always gonna be here.

Uh things change, and it's important for the city council to be able to have that flexibility to increase this if they feel it's prudent, but they also have or will have the ability to bring it back to 2500 if for any reason at any time they feel that um this isn't working quite the way this body has thought it to be.

So thank you for bringing that up.

Um hold on, Mayor, Councilman Knapper.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, if I may, through the chair to the solicitor.

I had one concern that sort of popped up in my brain tonight in light of the conversation we had about State Street.

Does this increase for uh up to 10,000 and 5,000?

Well, up to 10,000 per construction apply to increases to bids that were previously approved.

My concern therein is that if there are increases because of these oversight type issues, it'll never be known by us, even though 10,000 is a small number, I think.

That's something to contemplate at least.

So and I don't know if this applies to increases the bids.

I'll defer it to the solicitor.

Um I believe this says it takes effect upon passage.

So I don't think anything would be retroactive, but no doubt go forward.

Going forward, even going forward, Chairman.

Just you know, if there's a bid that we approved, and then all of a sudden we find out that a year later, well, that was increased subsequently three times without the need for council.

Oh no, no, this it it speaks to this.

It speaks to that.

So they can't um so let's take street paving.

Let's use that.

So um they approve it for five thousand dollars today, and then in June, um they want to come back again for another five thousand.

No, uh, council solicitor, could you explain that please?

The the ordinances do lay out where you can't use a series of these uh contracts to get around these levels.

So that what the state law is saying, so there may be instances where uh within the larger contract, construction may trigger, but it would be held at that ten thousand cap so long as it meets the statutory definition that the council uh council uh uh finance chair was just discussing of his intent to add that amendment.

Um this would put us in direct alignment with what is the current state law.

Um, but the the other nuances there may I can't say with perfection that it would never um address a larger component, but it wouldn't be able to be a series of construction that somehow went past that.

Um it has to be specifically um within that limited definition, so it may be hard to even reach that um as proposed.

Okay, thank you.

Satisfied with that.

Thank you.

Thank you, solicitor.

Mayor.

Yes, I just want to say that this was uh chairman's initiative.

Um I didn't go to him, he came to me, and actually he'll tell you I wasn't fully on board with it at first.

Um I thought we had a process to work, but he explained to me how it could work a lot better.

So he talked me into it, so I'm I support it.

And excellent job on it, Mr.

Councilman Latis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

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

Hearing none, I need a motion.

We have a motion for favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

And I believe that ends the finance committee.

It is 622.

Thank you, everyone.

Good work on that.

Would the intergovernmental committee please convene?

I'll present these to the clerk.

Right.

Um you got those two messages.

Oh, very well.

Yeah, right.

Oh, okay.

All right, so good evening.

The time is now 624.

Intergovernmental comes to order.

Just one item tonight.

Uh the reappointment of Edward Rajiri to the land trust.

As this is a reappointment, uh, Mr.

Roger is not required to appear.

Are you here?

Uh nope.

Any questions for members of the committee?

Members of the public?

Hi, Jane.

I think it's on.

Uh Jane Austen, uh, chairman of the Warwick Land Trust.

I just want to uh uh encourage your support for the reappointment.

It has been a very valuable active uh new member of the of the committee, and uh encourage you to vote yes.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Uh members of the council.

Councilman Fuller.

Yeah, about it.

So good job well on so far.

And yeah, I think he'll continue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Uh seeing no others do have a motion.

Motion move favorite on appointment.

Second.

Second.

All in favor?

I there being no business no further business, uh, we'll we are dismissed at six twenty-five.

The council will uh hold off on any further committees at this time and have the full council convene promptly at six thirty PM.

Well, how are you?

Good.

Yes.

Yes, but I didn't know.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, that being my microphone, it's easier to hold for me.

This one?

No, no, no.

I'll bring it over to you.

All right.

Yes.

Yes.

I um you actually know the family.

Okay.

And you know um you know the amount of things.

Yes.

Yeah, very nice to meet you.

Um excited.

Yeah, I usually won't be a problem at the state house, but I want to be at the local level as well.

That's a good idea.

Yeah, very nice to meet you.

It's six thirty PM, so the City Council will now convene.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Senabby.

Here.

Mr.

D Louise.

Mr.

Foley.

Mr.

Gethott.

Mr.

Kirby.

Mr.

Ladisa.

Mr.

Muno.

Mr.

Red.

Here.

Councilman Muto will please lead us in the salute to the flag.

Underground.

Indivisible.

Liberty and justice for all.

We're gonna go through the agenda, finish public comment, and then we'll go back to committee.

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

Does anyone have anything for general communications?

Councilman Ricks.

Next is public comment.

Rule forty-one.

After General Communications and prior to the consent calendar at the last regularly scheduled meeting of the city council each month, there shall be a period of time not to exceed thirty minutes during which citizens may comment about war city government issues subject to the following stipulations.

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

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

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

Time shall not be transferable amongst speakers.

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

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

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

Waiver of this provision requires a unanimous vote of the council.

First on the sign-up sheet is Richard Langseth.

Please make sure when you come up to the mic that you identify yourself, even though I'm reading your name.

I know it's silly, but please do so.

Richard Langseth, Budlong Farm.

First, I want to talk about the Caleb Greenhouse, which of course is right next door down here.

Um my father worked in the Caleb Green House.

He helped the first responders before the second world war, train them on first aid.

Um there's a few things around Apenog that are really important to me, and and I think to many other people, and I I would hope that the city council and the administration take note that the triple A wants to tear it down.

I think this is just absolutely totally outrageous.

And if we have an economic development uh committee that works or staff, I suggest that they seek some public funding, seek some nonprofit funding to save this house, one of the last houses in Apenog of historic significance to the nation, not just to the town.

I think it's outrageous that we can't protect this house.

Another thing I wanted to talk about is the harbor management plan.

As you know, um, it went before the planning and now is before the CRMC and will come back to the city council for approval.

Um, the harbor management plan includes rights of way.

So, in addition to moorings and this and that, it also talks about the land side and rights of way.

The uh administration here in Warwick has decided that the Buttonwoods Fire District is of no concern to the city of Warwick and is not offering any opinion about the public rights of way in the Button Woods Fire District anymore.

Um, I think that's okay because really the city has nothing to do with these rights of way.

Um, so I'm backing off on all my old speeches about the city doing something about the rights of way in the Buttonwoods Fire District.

And what this does is at least the fire district on its own.

The fire district must protect its own streets, and I can assure you I'm perfectly capable of working the other side of that issue, and I'm sure you're going to hear a lot more about this going forward.

But I just want to let you folks know that the city is backing off on any interest in the streets of the Button Woods Fire District, which I think is okay.

However, we're talking about a two million dollar water line between Buttonwoods Point and Oakland Beach.

Does the city have two million dollars in cash to build the water line, the essential water line between Buttonwoods Point and Oakland Beach?

No, of course not.

The city is going to borrow money, they're going to borrow two million dollars plus for this water line that some people think is from one private place to a public place.

And of course, you know my opinion on this.

The Button Woods Fire District is a public place, and if the city were to seek funding for the water line through public infrastructure bank or some other entity, um, there is going to be hell to pay, and we really need to think about this.

We we just cannot separate the Button Woods Fire District from the rest of the city of Warwick.

It does not work anymore.

And now the Saving Rhode Island Coastal Access Facebook group has 12,000 members.

And I can assure you that many of these members live in the city of Warwick, and those that don't are still very concerned about this.

So we all need to wake up and realize that rights of way in the city of Warwick are essential to recreation economic development, and also when you get into the legal side of it, you really don't want to get involved with over a hundred rights of way in the city of Warwick, by far the most in the whole state.

You have one minute, Mr.

Langset.

Okay, thank you.

So Warwick has 39 miles of coastline.

There's one town that has more.

It's called Portsmouth.

And that's because you add in Prudence Island.

But if you take Prudence Island out, by far, Warwick is the most important maritime town or city in the state of Rhode Island.

And we need to think about this.

We need high schools that have marine interest in it.

Apparently, that's disappeared.

We need we need to focus on our water.

I see the commuter trains going up and down.

You know what?

These people want to go to the water.

Do we have an effective recreation department?

Do we have an executive director of the recreation department?

You know what's going on?

We need to fix this stuff up.

And I thank you for your time.

Next on the list is Rob Cody.

Rob Cody Ward Seven, I have a couple comments tonight that bring me no pleasure to have to bring to the attention of this council.

As you know, in the past, I've spoken about the actions of city employees, how they have the potential to bring liability and litigation to the city, but more importantly to the taxpayers.

And I received over the weekend a thumb drive that I've had to review because of the situation on embroiled in with the former convicted criminal, Miss Travis.

And it really disturbed me to find out that in this thumb drive, a series of library volumes of text messages from city council members, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Howe, and Mr.

McAllister, berating people like myself and others that come to council meetings, worried about the fiscal soundness of the city.

Lengthy text messages with numerous people included, where they're texting and berating the people in the council chambers while they are sitting as an elected official during a council meeting.

It is deplorable.

It does nothing but build animosity.

And uh I'm really upset about it.

And Mr.

Foley, I just like you to be notified that I will enjoy your deposition at the trial.

And even so much as we even have certain people in the border canvases that during the course of their job on the clock, when people are coming in to pick up declaration papers, sending out berating text messages of residents of the city of Warwick that just picked up declaration papers that possibly could be running for office.

By the way, as you all know, that's privileged information until such time as those declaration papers are put forth and signed.

So we have a guy in there, and when someone comes up to pick up declaration papers, is immediately texting before that person's out of the parking lot, contacting Mr.

McAllister, Mr.

Howe, and others saying, guess who just picked up declaration papers?

Ha ha ha.

What a joke this person is.

All this does is expand the liability to the city of Warwick.

Here's the thumb drive.

Copious amounts of information of public officials berating and heckling.

Not only myself, but other individuals who care about the city.

And our only reason for coming here is in the hopes to give feedback based on our education and how we perceive finances.

But no, we get people like the aforementioned Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Howe, Mr.

McAllister who take extraordinary steps, and then they have a lookout to tell them when I come in, when Mr.

Cushman comes in, when other people come in, and then a phone call is made to the Warwick police to bring a police officer to the council meeting in an attempt to intimidate.

Got it all.

This body needs to do some soul searching because you are creating an enormous liability for the city of Warwick, and you're not doing your job.

I mean, this individual sitting right here, instead of texting and berating people and sending stuff to his neighbors, he should be more concerned about the nuances of the fire department.

You have one minute, Mr.

Cody.

Cody, or of other expenditures.

But instead of doing that, doing your homework and protecting the constituent.

What do you do?

You to be you berate people that bring up problems that we're having that are financial, that are not personal, that are financial and affect generations of the city.

But you choose instead to berate people like me.

I do my homework.

I can assure you, I am going to enjoy your deposition, Mr.

Foley.

Thank you.

Next up is Emily Mendez.

Hello, Emily Mendies.

I'm here today to express my deep concern regarding the city of Warwick's proposal to establish an anti-camping ordinance.

As the director of outreach at a nonprofit homeless service provider based in Warwick, I am disappointed that the city is considering an approach that risks causing harm to its own residents while failing to address the root causes of homelessness.

It is important to acknowledge why individuals are camping in public spaces.

First, we're in the midst of a housing crisis.

There's simply not enough safe, adequate, and affordable housing to meet the need.

Second, Rhode Island does not have enough shelter beds to meet the need.

And notably, Warwick does not have any shelter programs at all.

So I ask where are members of this community expected to go.

With seven years of experience in street outreach, I can speak directly to the impact of policies like this.

My team and I spend much of our time building trust and rapport with individuals living outside with the goal of connecting them to shelter, housing, and critical resources.

But more often than not, shelter beds are unavailable.

Accessing housing typically means being placed on multiple wait lists with no clear or realistic timeline.

We meet people, we help them get on wait lists, and we work with them week after week to keep them engaged and moving towards housing.

That progress is hard-earned.

But when encampments are cleared, that progress doesn't continue.

It is erased.

People we have been working with consistently, people who are actively trying to access housing are suddenly gone, not relocated, not connected to services, gone.

We don't know where they've gone.

We can't find them.

And the relationships we've built, the very relationships that make housing possible are broken.

And when that happens, people don't just lose their place physically, they lose their place in line, their connection to care, and in many cases, their path out of homelessness.

Policies like this disrupt the continuum of care that is essential to helping people move from the streets and into shelter and housing.

While concerns about safety in public spaces are understandable, this ordinance does not offer a solution.

Instead, it imposes penalties on people who are already struggling to survive.

We're talking about issuing a hundred dollar fines to individuals with little or no income and requiring them to relocate within 72 hours without providing viable alternatives for shelter or housing.

Criminalizing homelessness does not resolve homelessness.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hi, I'm Jacqueline Mercado.

I'm also a housing stabilization case manager through the House of Hope and an advocate for voices of homelessness through the coalition to end homelessness.

We have most of our shelters in the inner cities, and this is why a lot of people are displaced from their actual communities that they love.

And having this ordinance put up is stopping those people from actually being able to access a safe place within the community they are recognized in and that they recognize as home.

Instead of putting up an ordinance, may it be in review, so then we can find other resources to keep them inside their city.

A lot of people had spoken to me about their experience sleeping in their cars, and within a year, and they actually found housing within the city within Warwick, and that is where they want to be.

So if they are utilizing the public spaces, it's not because they want to be a burden to the city, and it's not because they they don't want to find housing, it's just because there's a lack of housing in Warwick.

It says there's 35% of housing, well, families that are cost burdened in Warwick, meaning that they spend more than 30% of their income on housing and housing costs is going up.

So we do not have enough vouchers to house them, and and the housing costs is going up even for working class people.

So I say please continue to review this um ordinance and and some of the and reach out to the communities that have doing community-based work and are working with people, your constituents in your city that are being taught to vote as well.

Um so they can have a voice because they love your city as well as you love your city.

Thank you.

So before we go back, if we can just touch on the one appointment, the land trust commission should be intergovernmental.

So councilman Gebhardt.

Yes, Mr.

President of the Committee recommended favorable action for action.

This would be councilman Foley.

Second motion made and second, that there are any questions or comments regarding the appointment.

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Yes, Mr.

Bowling, Mr.

Gebart, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

All right, well, now return to ordinance committee so we can resume the agenda for the committees.

Okay, the time is six fifty-four.

The ordinance committee is now in session.

First order of business is PCO 13-25, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title.

Uh, this is up for first passage.

And I believe the administration reproposed this without the sub A.

And I see our city solicitor is here to speak on the order.

Good evening.

Thank you, Michael Orcillo, city solicitor.

So as you recall, this was brought to your attention um a while back with regard to the assignment of tax titles.

Um the present ordinance had some um legal issues with it.

That directly contradicts both state law 449 18 relative to tax title transfers that mandates that only the redemption price must be paid for the title to be transferred.

It can't be a highest bid situation.

And then recently in the last couple of years, there was a United States Supreme Court opinion named Hennepin County, which basically states that if a tax collector collects more than what the redemption price is, that has to go back to the original owner because it violates the takings costs.

So for those reasons, we need to make changes to this ordinance.

As a practical matter, also the city has many, many, many, I mean, hundreds of tax titles sitting out there.

And they they're just sitting on the city's books with not making any money or taxes on them, obviously.

And so the thought was we'd streamline this process by allowing the city treasurer in consultation with other members of the administration, if necessary, to um basically transfer tax titles upon the payment of the redemption price.

Redemption price of the taxes owed plus interest and any fees or accrued penalties.

It's a pretty straightforward process, which would um I I think allow the city to get through the backlog of these tax titles that are just sitting there.

Remember, a tax title um is owned by the city because at the tax sale, no one was interested in bidding on it.

So it's you know, there's not a lot of value there, otherwise, someone would have bid on it and built a house or whatever.

A lot of these cases, these tax titles go to the adjacent property owners if they pay the redemption price.

You have um the administration's recommended approach, which is the simple, straightforward, I'll call it the uncersome approach to just do it the way most other cities and towns do it.

So let the city treasurer, someone comes in, pays the redemption price, tax titles transfer it.

When we were here last, there was some concerns about a lot of the language that had been eliminated with um regard to first passing it by various um council committees, the land trust, etc.

etc.

Um, we did redline um the old ordinance, which addressed the legal issues, but kept in some of those other procedures.

But again, um, in our opinion, it's rather cumbersome.

We think it'd be much more efficient and efficacious for the city to move forward with the simpler version.

Again, this is the version that works in most other places in the state of Rhode Island.

More than happy to answer any questions that you have.

Councilman Rex.

Thank you.

So to clarify, does this uh this ordinance it would apply to all tax titles?

Uh that is replace the bidding process uh that's currently in place.

That that is correct.

And and Mr.

Ricks, we have to replace the bidding process because that's unconstitutional and against state law.

Thank you.

And I agree, and beyond that, uh the bidding process is it has its own separate practical problems too.

But uh in replacing that bidding bidding process.

Well, I would agree with you that the uh that there are some tax titles out there where there is a lack of interest, but many of these tax titles, it's effectively easy money for a person who has a system and does this in bulk, and there is competition over those.

So uh I suppose that uh what I'm concerned about is that last sentence.

Uh last sentence that reads, in the event that more than one person seeks assignment of the tax title for a single parcel, then the tax title shall be assigned to the person who first tenders the redemption price to the city and signs the above referenced form.

So I'm not saying that this would be something that would be a problem under the current administration, but thinking about it into the future.

There have been issues with the various cities and towns when it comes to any sort of bidding or purchasing process where, for instance, uh something is available to multiple uh persons, and it winds up being the person who's friendly with the particular uh city employee and winds up getting the business effectively.

Uh obviously we want to avoid situations like that that could potentially occur at some point in the future.

And the other image that comes to mind is the idea of people getting creative, kind of a black Friday type thing for uh securing hundreds of these, and uh I don't know, uh camping out in front of City Hall with a stack of papers trying to beat out the next person through the opening of City Hall and rushing in.

It so I feel like we could have a better process there to make it a little bit more random among the people who are interested in having tax titles rather than have a situation of uh risking effectively handing business to uh all of this business effectively to one person.

You raise a point.

Um I I guess my response, um, counselor would be that at least up until this point, we haven't faced that issue.

And and when I say there are hundreds, I I know Kyler could probably say exactly how many.

I uh 1400 is in my mind right now, but don't quote me on the number.

If that were going to occur, I would have assumed that would have already occurred by now.

Um again, the real um competition is over the tax sales, not these tax titles that no one but no one was interested in.

And remember, if there is that one person out there who's trying to jump the gun, um, in each and every case, the redemption price plus interest and fees are gonna have to be paid.

And then on top of that, that person still has to foreclose the rate of redemption in superior court, which as I'm sure you know is a very expensive process.

So another approach might be to adopt it as is, let's see how it works out over the next six months to a year.

If those type of abuses arise, we can always address it.

But given that historically that hasn't happened, I'd be very surprised if that would be an issue.

But just my thoughts.

I mean, I I would uh respectfully beg to differ because at the auctions, which I mean, obviously we don't have the current process in effect, uh, but at the auctions, they are quite competitive from my understanding, where numerous people will each go for the exact same amount because it really can't be more or less.

I understand that uh uh you know there's a distinction between what was on the books and what was actually happening in practice, of course.

But the that's basically the whole notion of why people would uh stand up and shout one percent, which would lead to some of the ongoing problems where it truly was a matter of uh these are properties that the right for redemption should be exercised, and then because you have a bunch of people who are competing against each other in nonsensical ways because they're irrationally exuberant, then properties wind up staying locked up, such as uh I'm thinking of one in particular in Ward 2.

But uh so I think that there is uh competition there, and I feel like this is the sort of thing that uh uh could be avoided by having a little bit more detailed uh process on uh how these are submitted instead of uh first person who makes it to the desk or well that sort of basically the first person who comes up with a check.

That's what the most important thing is.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Solicitor.

If I may, just so I can clarify what we're talking about here is properties that are sort of how I understand it in my feeble mind, been have been dormant and have been held, tax title has been held by the city for some period of time.

These this ordinance here is not does not pertain to new properties that have fallen short on property and then are going to be subject to the competitive bidding process where people will have kind of an equal opportunity to make the first offer.

Is that correct?

You have that no, you had that exactly correct, and it's it's great to talk in Wayman's terms.

Yes, when uh someone doesn't pay their taxes, they get notice, the property eventually goes up to tax sale, it's a public auction.

Anyone in the public can come bid, including the taxpayer.

Um what happens is that there are certain parcels which the bidders believe have little to no value, just not worth bidding on them at all because the cost of acquiring them and then having to foreclose the right of redemption doesn't even come close to what the value of the worth is.

In those cases, the city in essence gets stuck with them.

So they just kind of sit with the city.

The tax title transfer ordinance is um an effort to try to get as many of those off the books as possible by at least getting back the amount of taxes that are due.

Um again, plus whatever interest and fees.

So yeah, it's two different processes.

Understood.

Thank you.

And in my understanding, I think there's roughly a thousand of these or so sitting on the ball.

Well, probably at least.

And those are the only properties that we're talking about, not the desirable properties.

Not the desirable ones, or not those going forward that'll be put up for um tax sale and ultimate bits, et cetera.

Thank you for the clarification.

Councilman Deloise.

Yes, um, in the last few months I did some research.

Uh some people uh reached out to me regarding um they wanted their father had passed away and they wanted to redeem, he had like 10 properties, and um the properties it was going to cost them about 48,000 dollars to redeem them.

The and um doing some more research, uh Mr.

Kravitz helped me out with that.

These properties, a 99% were wetlands.

A lot of these properties that the city has taken over through tax title are worthless, and that's why nobody's bidding on them.

If you can redeem and get any money back, I think it's a good thing.

That's what we're trying to do.

Right.

Any other comments or questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I just had a uh clarification question.

Uh over the last several months, we've been discussing uh the PCO-13-25 with many, many discussions, and I know there were some issues with it, but then all of a sudden it disappears, and now we're retroing back to the original.

Can someone explain to me what happened with that discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh from a uh on the process, uh PCO 1325 has effectively always been the matter before us.

Months ago, there was a secondary effort and a proposed sub A was brought forward to try and offer alternatives, but that item was never formally presented or acted upon by the body.

It was put forward, but the uh the matter had been continued and continued on.

So it never formally was recognized.

Um so we've always been on PCO 1325, uh, the original uh request by the administration.

Okay, so I'm going to make a motion that we consider bringing back PCO 13-25 because there were a lot of concerns by other members of the council that were talked about, edited, and it seems like we're just abandoning those.

And if we do a vote, I'm I'm good with it.

I just don't want to see the concerns of the council uh and the work that was done all of a sudden retro back to a lot of concerns that we had with the original proposal, which is right here.

So I'm going to make the motion.

Uh well, um, just a couple of process things.

One, we're in committee, and you're not actually on this committee.

Okay, uh, but it's noted that you have interest in the alternative language, so that at the appropriate time, should there be an interest or you know, before the body, that would be the the time to present whatever alternative you you may that's fair.

That's fair.

I'll look for all the all the notes.

There are a lot of concerns when it came to over sight and and things of that nature.

So uh we'll be discussing what gets the floor.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Mudo.

Is that all you had?

Councilman Lattison.

Thank you, Chairman.

I am going to read some comments into the record that I received from a couple of my constituents and their concerns with this.

Um, it does go back to actually the first one is August 18th.

So this would be reflective of the PCO 1325.

Although in my binder, I also have a PCO 1325 proposed sub A.

So I'm going to say that we never voted on the sub A.

Uh, Mr.

Chairman, Councilman, just so I can weigh in, just keep process clear.

We are on the uh original item.

Uh the alternative language was uh never acted upon.

Okay, it was disseminated, but never acted.

So it was never formally presented while people had the opportunity to digest it in an effort to try and provide a transparent alternative.

Um, it was delayed amongst the conversation here.

So should anyone have interest in that proposal um at the appropriate time, it can be presented on your you know, clearly there's but just want to make clear that the we have never acted or um on that matter.

And so it it I would just caution to say that it is your interest to discuss or have amendments that resemble issues uh that are contained in the uh at that one time proposed sub Act okay.

Thank you for that.

So I'm gonna read some of these concerns from my constituents, which um definitely become my concerns.

And first one is number one, inside deals.

This would allow the city to strike deals with buyers completely outside the public view.

One result could be that lots that have not been up for a tax sale for decades that neighbors or others have interest in could be sold off to insiders without any notice at all.

So I'm gonna stop one question at a time and ask for a response from the solicitor if that's okay with you, Chairman.

If I can get my mic to work, I'd find that to be appropriate if you have through the chair to the solicitor.

Mr.

Solicitor, could you comment on that particular item?

So the only way I can comment is that anyone who's interested in a lot, um, whether it be adjacent to their own personal private property today, or whether or not it is a parcel that's somewhere else, and they think it's really increased in value.

Um, under the present ordinance, they could have come forward, absolutely could have come forward and gone through this process and paid the redemption price, and that just isn't happening.

The the reality is that of those thousand or more parcels that are out there, again, they have little to no almost worthless value to anyone, which is why they've been sitting there and why no one has approached the tax collector or anyone to try and redeem the property.

I don't see how changing the ordinance to number one comply with the law, which is most important, but number two, to have a simplified version to allow the treasurer to move forward with transferring these tax titles for the redemption price.

This city's never going to get more than the redemption price on any of these parcels.

So it's not a question where someone's going to be able to come in and bid 10 times more of its worth because it's now worth a hundred times more than what it used to be.

It it just isn't that type of an issue.

So I don't I don't believe that that is a concern.

Um, based upon again the history up to today, and based upon the fact that the city can only collect the redemption price no matter what.

So, Mr.

Solicitor, with all due respect, um more concerned with the situation going forward, and I'm going to repeat or rephrase my question.

And if you could give me a yes or a no.

Could a property be sold off to insiders without notice at all if this were to pass I I don't I'm having trouble with you're inferring insiders, meaning you know, I know what an insider is, someone on the city council, someone in the administration, a friend, someone in the social a friend or whatever.

Um I don't see how under this ordinance the process is any different.

So I'd say no.

Okay.

Your answer is no.

And we can change the word from insiders to anyone, if you know that makes everybody feel better.

Item number two, neighbor and conservation interests.

Many tax title lots are in place that have been difficult to build because they have high conservation value.

Many others are effectively the side and backyards of homeowners.

Those with these types of interests should have some opportunity to purchase the tax titles should they be sold.

The existing law provides both notice and right to match to neighbors.

Does that right continue in PCO 13-25?

There is no there's no longer any reference to saying that certain people, whether they be neighbors, the land trust, or whomever, get um knowledge ahead of time about it.

Um all of these tax titles are public documents.

Anyone who's interested in any of them can become aware of them simply by going to the tax department and they can find out.

And again, the history has been that that's simply not happening.

Um, certainly, if there was a piece of property that was adjacent to present land trust or conservation property, I would assume the land trust would show great interest in that, and for a very small fee, pay the redemption price to add it to another adjacent parcel.

There is a practical issue with that, and that is someone still has to go through the process of um foreclosing the right of redemption, which unfortunately is not necessarily unfortunately from a legal perspective.

It is fortunate because it protects the original tax title, uh, the original um property owners.

You have to go through a pretty onerous and expensive process to make that property valuable, meaning to own the the actual fee to own the real estate, not just the tax title.

But the answer to your question is no, this um PCO 13 25 does not require that notice first be given to neighbors or anyone else.

Did it require it prior to PCO 13?

Yeah, there are provisions in the prior ordinance about notice I know to the land trust for sure.

Okay, so that language has been meditated.

Yes, it has.

Um again.

Exactly to the point of this person.

We we modeled this on the way it works pretty much everywhere else in Rhode Island.

Uh, with all of course, wark is very special and very dear to my heart.

Um, but this process that we've outlined in the ordinance before you works very well everywhere else.

The current process that the city of Warwick has in its ordinance does not work well because we've not been transferring these tax titles.

They've been sitting there some for decades and decades, and the idea is to blast through the log jam and try to at least bring in some money for these tiny little pieces of property.

Um, as you pointed out, many of which are wetlands.

Um you certainly can't build on them, uh, etc.

But this is just a way to try to move things along in an efficient way.

Another question and concern from a different constituent.

He states that PCO 13 25 deletes current process and completely gives too much power to city treasurer, and the discretion lies with the treasurer.

Is that an accurate statement?

Yeah, this this ordinance gives that discretion to the city treasurer, absolutely, and we believe that's the right way to handle these tax titles.

Who is involved in the process of coming up with this change that we now are looking at called PCO 13-25?

In discussions with the treasurer and the tax collector, etc., my office became aware of the fact that the process as outlined in 20 N2-14 was inconsistent with state law.

So we are the ones, my office, um, and and whenever things like this are flagged, we want to do what's best for the city, obviously, and correct any legal deficiencies.

We recommended that um this ordinance be amended, changed in order to um bring it in compliance with state law as part of those discussions.

Um it was brought to our attention that for all practical purposes.

Um the city was sitting on a thousand or more tax titles with no movement whatsoever.

Um how is this handled elsewhere?

So after a series of discussions and doing some research and looking at other model ordinances, um my office um came up with this language for your consideration, and I think I've explained all the reasons why.

So doesn't this give him or her complete control on this process without any advice and consent from the council or appeal rights?

That is correct.

This ordinance does not provide for advice and consent from the city council.

But again, frankly, I I'm not sure when the last time anything became before this council on a transfer of a tax title.

I'm sure there are occasions I've not been here for more than four years myself.

However, again because the law is so straightforward, meaning that the city treasurer can only transfer the tax title upon payment of the redemption price.

There is not really much, if any, discretion.

There isn't a lot of power, so to speak, that's being vested in the city treasurer.

All they're doing is carrying out the mandate of the law, which is if someone pays the redemption price, I can transfer the tax title, and we transfer that without any warranties or any guarantees that the property will eventually um that that a foreclosure and the right of redemption will occur, etc.

etc.

So it's not as if the city treasurer is saying, Oh, you know, because this price is a good one, I'm gonna go here, or this is not so good, I'm going to go there.

It's very practical, it's very straightforward.

They simply want to be able to transfer as many of these titles off the city books as possible, collect the money that's due to the city, and move on.

It's it's that simple and that straightforward, and it's certainly something that the treasurer has the ability to do.

If this were to pass, does it eliminate public notice?

So when you say eliminate public notice, so I I would envision some process whereby the um treasurer's department will make it known to the public.

Hey, here are all these tax titles that are out there.

If you're interested, please come see me, pay the redemption price, and you can have it.

There'll be some type of process.

There will be some type, but there is not any process identified in PCO 1325, right?

No, the PCO 30 30.

I'm sorry.

PCO 13-25 just sets forth the procedure for the assignment.

It does not reference anything about correct notice.

Exactly.

And is there a list of inventory in the location of this inventory as it exists now?

I'm I'm getting uh a head nod that yes, the there is a list of the inventory.

Is that list available to the public?

Yeah, yeah, uh, Chief Staff Bulfacente.

Yes, there is a list, and it is available to the public.

Is that list posted on our website?

No.

It changes it.

So the lots are identified by platinot, and I believe the ownership, the current the original owner that we took the tax title from.

There's no other information on that the value or anything redemption cost or anything like that is not available because that changes based on uh but time there is a list of the inventory in where it is located by platinum a lot.

There is a list of the inventory in where it is located by platinum a lot.

Correct.

Yes, the land trust has that.

But it's not posted.

It's it's available upon request.

Okay.

But it's it's there someplace.

It's available upon request.

Now, this PCO 1325.

Um, does this in fact give the treasurer the discretion to sell to the first buyer that comes along?

Or is this going to follow Rhode Island General Law that provides for a 10-day notice to the landowner?

So I Mr.

Osillo, before just as a point of order.

Councilman, I think you're I think what you're alluding to would be the initial tax sale.

Like those notices are pertinent to the tax sale.

Correct me if I'm just so I can understand where you're in.

I'm alluding to questions that my constituents and um the one I just read was someone else's constituent, but it was sent to me.

I I can answer questions.

I'm reading I can answer.

I I can answer.

I'm not alluding to Mr.

one moment.

Excuse me.

I'm not alluding to any particular tax thing.

I'm alluding to questions that my constituents have asked me to put on the record.

My job is a good question.

Councilman, I'm just trying to understand what the basis of your question is, so I can understand what you're asking.

Well, the question is is there going to be a notice to the landowner when this then?

I mean, you know, we can find it amusing if you'd like, that's fine.

Um, this is serious to me.

When my qu my constituents ask me for questions and they're looking for answers, I take it serious.

I don't find it amusing.

So that's the question.

I can answer the day notice.

I can answer the question.

Thank you, solicitor.

No, there is no further notice because all of the notice requirements, and there are many, um, all apply to the original tax sale.

Um, and I'm I'm just looking at it.

Yes, okay, good.

I'm gonna stand corrected.

Um, thank you.

The um requirement is that registered or certified mail be sent to the owner at least 10 days prior to the assignment.

So, yes, there is a 10-day notice.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

That was an important question of my constituent.

And um, what what is the um the process leading up to the value of the property?

What factors are um in line in that are the is the process that's going to generate these potential tax revenues.

So does one lot sell for you know $20 and another one sell for $2,000?

Is is there a process in place that establishes these factors?

Good evening, Kyler Jones tax collector, and treasurer.

Good evening.

So, right now, in order to have the tax title assigned from the city to the person looking at purchasing this tax title, the amount to redeem would be what it was sold for at the tax sale.

Say it was uh tax lien we took in 1980.

So, what it was sold for then, all the taxes that have accumulated from then to the day that they want to purchase it, including any outstanding interest and fees, and each price that you're asking would be different for every parcel depending on when it was sold in the accumulated taxes since okay.

Thank you for that.

Um another item.

It says there is no legal basis requiring removal of the notice and process requirements in the existing ordinance.

There is clearly no law that prevents Warwick from giving substantial advanced notice of tax title sales to property owners, property or butters, the land trust, and other interested parties.

That notice at least 90 days and process should be part of any ordinance.

Does the city have an objection to including that in PCO 13-25?

It does, and I'll tell you why.

Um, a couple of reasons.

First of all, we want to follow the mandates of the state law 44918, which sets forth just the notice to the property owner.

Second of all, um, we're trying to make this process more efficient, um, easier, and hopefully get the city to be able to transfer tax titles that have been sitting for decades with no movement by making the process simpler.

Um, and and that and that's why.

And as I say, the ordinance before you is pretty much the way it's done everywhere else in the state.

Um, and it's effective.

So the administration would object to um adding additional notice requirements above and beyond what is required by the state law, even though, as you point out, the city of Wark certainly could mandate such additional notice requirements if it desired.

And does do you or your office have an objection to extending an additional notice to those abutters?

Yes, we do we didn't write that into the law again because the thought is we're trying to help the city get through this backlog of tax titles that have been sitting there and we're collecting no money on it whatsoever.

I don't know how many different titles will be assigned under the new process if the council decides to adopt it, but my guess is many more than are happening today under the current process, which is very cumbersome.

Chairman, just so you're away.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Um all set.

You still have some time.

I know.

Johnson, you still have some time.

I'll yield my time and if I need to circle back, um, I would appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you.

Understood.

Councilman Mutil, did you have a follow-up?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

So again, I'm just gonna reiterate my uh my concern about notice and quite frankly, transparency with this administration.

To me, it seems like this is a power grab going back to uh minutes from the council meeting of 113 and 127.

Uh again, the this initially started with the objection that the ultimate decision lies with the mayor instead of a checks and balances with the city council.

And uh again, uh I don't know how this slipped by.

Um I'll finish reading the minutes here, but the lack of action uh doesn't seem natural to our process.

Uh you would assume that there were if we were settled on language, we would have done an action.

Uh I can't confirm at this moment, but I but I will be reviewing the minutes that uh we left it to check other language and then it disappeared and it comes back in this form.

So I am going to adamantly uh oppose the way this process happened, and I will be uh researching it uh you know through process.

Technically, if we didn't take the message uh the motion, uh yes, we all make mistakes on motions.

However, the intent, the intent in January was to find other language on PCO 1325A that was going to modify.

We did a lot of work on PCO 25A.

I have it up in front of me, and we were we were very close to a final decision, and then it disappears.

So I'm finding it very suspect at this time that this is as transparent as can be.

But that's what I'll say.

Thank you, Councilman.

So I just any other questions or comments from members of the council.

Okay, just to not to speak on behalf of Ms.

Austin, but she had to step out.

I know this is something that's near and dear to her heart.

Um, I believe she represented to me that there is an upcoming meeting with the administration.

Chief, if you can confirm that, what the date of that may be to go over some of these tax title properties.

So it's not necessarily to go over the tax title properties per se.

Um the land trust has put together a has the list of properties, and they've mapped out according to the the plots and lots and the GIS, and they wanted to you know show that to the administration.

So it's that's it's not to specifically talk about the assignments or particular ones, it's just to show us the mapping and and how that's worked.

Okay.

When is that meeting gonna be taking place?

It's it's not a public meeting, it's it's a internal work meeting with the administration.

So I understand.

So I mean I can tell you when it is.

I believe it's I just don't have my email open in front of me, otherwise I confirm it for myself.

Yeah, I I don't have it.

April, April 17th.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, and then further, Mr.

Solicitor, I just had a couple of follow-up questions.

I understand that the the um as proposed, the city can't track transfer for less than the redemption price.

Is that correct?

So we can't we can remove the thought of the impropriety of getting a buddy deal, I guess for lack of better terms.

Has to be the redemption price plus the and that would include fees and interest, yes.

Okay.

Um and then my lost my last question.

I had it.

Uh oh, would the city have any objection to also noticing the land trust in addition to noticing the landowner?

No, the administration would have no problem to add the land trust to the property owner.

Okay.

I have no further questions.

Uh seeing all the lights on any questions or comments from members of the public.

Come on up.

Michelle Comar award one.

Thank you, Councilman, for good insight, good questions.

And you correct me on my recollection too, because I didn't expect this to come back in its original form.

I expected a sub A.

And I'm kind of questioning why has this thing been lingering for months?

Council rules were written to get the things before the council, voted on, or take them off the docket.

Um, it's been on the docket for a long time.

I expected progress.

So I have uh a couple of comments for amendments, kind of um duct tailing off of some of the questions already here.

Um that the treasurer, the tax assessor provide the value for purchase within so much time above phone call.

So somebody has a list, which you can get.

We don't have the prices to buy the property.

So um it'd be nice if somebody had the time to go through all 1,000, but if somebody were to email or call, how long would it take to get that answer?

It should be like a day, would be great.

Can I direct that question to the administration?

Uh if someone if if someone of the public were to ask what the redemption price is, is that something that's ready available at the tax office, or is that something you would need time to calculate?

I just answered your two weeks.

So Bill Facente, Chief Staff.

I I know uh councilman uh E Louise just said two weeks, but it's about a week.

Week to two.

Yeah, right.

I mean, each each property goes back, there are properties that go back to the to the 50s, so that calculation of the taxes owed takes some time, and that's not the only thing that the employee is doing.

So it does take some time.

Thank you, Megat Chief.

Yeah, I would propose that some kind of amendment be made that um defines the process better.

The list is available to public so-and-so place, it'll take one week upon receipt of an email to the tax assessor or the treasurer to get the redemption price.

Um that these this list be circulated amongst state uh city departments.

Um the plan department may probably have the best handle of these properties, but it should pass through engineering water.

What if we need an easement?

We just gave the rights of forget, we just sold the property.

Somebody now we've got to pay for an easement, whether it be temporary for construction or it be permanent for an easement.

Um, I think we need sign-offs from the department for all these parcels, and I would recommend uh engineering DPW, the sewer authority, and the water department.

Um also that the land trusts sign off that they don't have an interest, or they're not seeking to close the right redemption on any of these properties.

Um, to address the transparency issue, maybe, and I'm not happy with the lack of transparency.

The process was open, people knew about it.

It seemed to run smoothly, but to help that matter out, just a wild suggestion is that a list of these properties that are sold for the redemption cost, taxes due plus um expenses, that that list be published in the Warwick Beacon, platinot numbers, and who bought it for how much?

I think that would solve people's question about you know, is there is there somebody getting a good deal somehow that jumped the gun or whatever?

I I think people would like to see that posted list.

Um question to I guess the solicitor, that 4,800, I believe, figure, is that per lot, or could it be a group of lots if they were contiguous?

What question are you asking?

Oh, thank you.

Um to close the right of redemption cost, I think I believe it was 4,800.

No, that's that's not what he said.

Oh, what what was the price?

He didn't give a price.

Gave no price.

What was the 4,800?

Like did I hear that?

I don't think he ever said 4,000.

Okay.

All right.

So is the process has to go.

Is the you're referring to the um the number of the state statutes 44918, maybe that's oh okay.

Sorry.

Okay.

So the to close the right of redemption, is it per parcel, or it can be a group of parcels that are contiguous?

It's I believe it's individual.

Individual parcels.

Right.

Each each parcel is its own separate parcel.

So each parcel has to be uh the right of redemption has to be closed and foreclosed on individually.

Okay.

Um thank you, Councilman Napa, for that clarification.

So this is on old existing lots, but not like this May or June, whenever it happens, this process will go back, will be the existing process.

Is that correct?

That is my understanding from the explanation given by the solicitor.

Yes, these are the old dormant lots that did not get sold at the tax sale and have been sitting because title was transferred to the city for many years.

And they've been held by the city since that passed.

Now I that is my understanding.

So it's all lots held by the city, tax title properties, and any future tax title properties held by the city that aren't sold at tax debt, aren't sold at the tax title.

Okay, auction.

Correct.

Yeah, public auction.

Thank you.

Councilman.

Ms.

Colmar wants to recognize your counselor.

Go ahead.

I don't mind being interrupted.

Councilman Delouis.

Can I can I just make a clarification?

Okay.

Let's simplify things.

Okay.

Say you own a waterfront home, and you haven't paid taxes on it in a year.

That waterfront property goes up for tax sale.

Okay.

The tax sale is advertised well in advance.

It'll be like February 2nd.

And that tax sale, people can show up at.

Okay.

Understood.

And it's uh most likely that there's going to be a lot of people showing up at that tax sale.

These properties that the chief of staff and the mayor, everybody talking about, are dormant properties that people just forgot about.

And the public and you know, I just if you're interested in a piece of property, they've made them the properties available.

Okay.

I've done some research on this, and these properties were basically left abandoned because they're basically useless.

Most of them are wetlands.

Now you want the city to spend money and resources advertising them all over again.

I I think it's ridiculous.

It's just ridiculous.

Thank you.

I understood um Councilman Napa's clarification pretty well.

I think people know that this May or June, it's going to be the bidding process.

People are going to show up like you described.

We're talking about properties from the past, many years of delinquent in taxes.

Um I do have to take notice, and I'm sure speakers did not intend to say it this way.

And there were a few speakers that said this, that they're worthless properties, they're not worthless properties.

Um they may be valuable in the future.

Like I said, check out all the easements, check out any projects by any of our departments.

They hold stormwater, floodwaters, they wildlife habitat.

Past administrations have valued these kinds of resources.

This administration doesn't really do an active land acquisition program.

And I know that costs money.

But these properties are not just useless.

That's why the land trust is interested in a few of them.

They're not.

And if they had money, if the city would close the right of redemption, that would be great.

Because these I'm sure they're picking out properties that serve a valuable purpose.

So I think that's the end of my amendments that speak to some of the council people's questions they had.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms.

Colmar.

Councilman Gebart.

No, go ahead.

No, no, please go.

No, please.

You're my councilman.

Ms.

Sherry.

Okay.

Anne Sheridan.

Ward and I.

So I actually have looked at this list.

I got the list from the city.

Very, very interesting.

The thousand lots.

There is a lot on there that goes back to 1965, which is amazing.

There are lots listed as having DOT interest, which should just be taken off exempt.

There's a lot identified as part of a city playground that's part of a school.

There's some that have partial takings, the lot's a mess.

The obviously what our valued solicitor is saying, the ordinance is on the books, needs to be changed because you can't, it's it's against the law to ask for more money.

I came here to talk about a whole different things, but the list that the city owns, these thousand lots aren't going to go anywhere, probably because the lots, the taxes owed on them over 25, 30, 40 years, is exceeds fair market value.

One of the other comments that I originally wanted to make was that unlike uh valued councilman, it is not the council's responsibility to get involved with with transferring a tax title.

A tax title is a collection of taxes that have already been assessed and due.

So it's strictly a process of the tax collector to say, I'll take your money, this is what's due, and end of story.

Um I had um I in one instance in the ordinances if the treasurer, I mean, to me, it's when the treasurer, without anybody else's input in it, is just collecting money, no different than the the city collector.

I mean, nobody questions whether the collector's taking the bill.

So this is an outstanding bill that needs to be paid.

Um to get these lots off, I mean, that's a whole different situation about getting these lots moved.

I think it needs the city to suck it up and do a complete um taking and file all the things that need to be done in Superior Court, get clean title to them, and then advertise them.

I mean, we could give these lots to abutters, we could make tax parks in and around the city, which you know, East Greenwich has got these little one little lots that where they have a couple of little pieces of equipment.

Why don't we have more of those in neighborhoods?

You don't need to have a massive park that needs to be maintained, you just a slide and you know um a standpond, and the the little cots are happy.

You could um have a little small dog park in park in some neighborhoods, which you know, and then rather than wait, you know for once the mappings are done, the taking's been done, then the city can go ahead and say, okay, we're gonna preserve um wetlands for open space, which we all want more open space, or we could maybe find some developable property that could be sold for a higher bid, because I really don't think you're gonna get with the change in this legislation, it's not gonna move anybody to come forward because the bills are too high to begin with, unless there's maybe one or two waterfront lots that might be worth it.

But if there are other lots in some neighborhood, the only person that's going to be interested is the neighbor next door who wants to expand their property, but who's already using it and not paying for it.

I mean, really, if you've got a lot next door, you're using it.

And the the the amount, I mean, if a lot's been sitting there for 20, 30, 40 years, it's the value of the outstanding tax plus all the legal charges that have gone on and on the interest and everything else.

Um it's got to be exceed market value.

Yes, sir.

Hi Ann.

Was it difficult to get that list from the city of all the no?

Actually, I filed a freedom of information, and I thought I was gonna be surprised.

And plus, I've been very lucky with freedom of information from the city.

It's like that stuff gets turned around for me.

I think maybe because I'm such never mind.

We want to run a transparent government.

Yeah, no, it's it's great.

I'm I was happy to see it.

So thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Councilman Giphardt.

Did you have follow-up?

Okay.

Councilman Laddissner.

You have about 90 seconds left.

Thank you, Chairman.

I'm still confused on how this became um went from a PCO 13-25 to a PCO 13-25 sub A.

Um, my recollection on changes such as this occur when amendments are made to, I'll use this as an example.

Amendments are made to PCO 13-25, those amendments uh are approved, and then the item gets assigned a sub A.

That's how you separate the old from the new.

And right now, what I'm looking at here is now something that says sub A or proposed sub A.

And that's where I'm confused.

How did this go from being assigned a sub A to now becoming a proposed sub A?

And the question through the chair to the solicitor.

Mr.

Sliffer.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman and uh Councilman.

Um, the history that I'm looking at, at least in my notes here, is this item was docketed last May 5th.

Uh and uh it was first brought up on April 18th, which was then held to October 20th, which was then held to November 17th, which was then held to January 5th of this year, which was then held to the January 26th meeting, which was canceled due to the snowstorm and rolled to the February 9th meeting and ultimately held to this evening's meeting.

At no point was a sub A ever acted upon by the council, which is the only authority to make any amendments at this time.

Uh at some point in the lineage of this, a proposed sub A was put on the city website and circulated uh for potential action, but that never occurred.

Um, so while in an effort to try and alleviate questions that came up at a certain time, it it never um was formally brought before the full council to be inserted in its place.

So it remains to this date something that could be called upon should anyone wish to use it.

It is uh something that was because of the technicality brought before uh or inserted into your package for individually people to consider uh think about and should that you know we are at a process that's had more robust committee discussion and potential council discussion, should all of you wish.

That's this is the process.

This is a the time for our uh the the committee does not make amendments as all of you well know, only the council does.

Uh we we try to discuss them and provide greater insight.

And so at some point during the lineage of this, and an alternative option was uh prepared, but it was never formally offered.

So, in an effort to try and enhance transparency, it seems to have cluttered a little bit of the process.

Um, but as we are here this evening, uh should uh when this matter um and whatever recommendation comes to the full council, it is a deliberate of all nine of you to decide uh whatever to do with it, and that's the process.

So this got designated as a sub A.

No, just because a proposed sub A was included in an agenda somewhere along this lineage, I'll find the exact date or try to um to provide an option, and that option was never formally inserted in place thereof.

The council has to make that action.

We never got to that point.

This is gonna be interesting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Councilman Mutual, I see you're late on.

Uh so clarification on the process.

So we had the PCR original.

We had the PCR proposed PCR, PCR sub A.

Oh, PCO.

PCO.

Okay.

Both being discussed.

Who makes that decision to put the old one on versus the one that's been discussed by the council?

Who sets the agenda?

The agenda, regardless of any item, the PC, the original item is always what is on the agenda, regardless of any um additional information provided.

The underlying item is always the action item on the agenda until the body decides to do something else with it.

Yeah, so we we we had the sub A for discussion.

Yes, I'll I agree.

We didn't take action on it, but that's what we were working towards.

And then all of a sudden, this meeting, the retro comes back.

Who made that decision to put the retro back versus the sub A that we've been discussing?

Councilman Muto, just so I can preserve the record.

Are we on is this a point of order?

It's a point of order.

Yes, sir thank you.

We always remain on the original item.

It is still available for anyone to insert alternative options into the conversation.

My question is who set this one on the agenda versus the discussion that we've had.

You all know the answer to it.

I want to sit, I want to get it on the record.

The nine of you voted to hold this item in its original form at the last meeting, as you did for many meetings before that.

Okay.

Let me let me let me put the bullet between the eyes.

The council president controls the agenda.

The last several months, we have been having the sub A, and all of a sudden, we have this item.

It is up to the council president to he could have put the sub A on this agenda.

Any one of you can offer anything at any time in the form of an amendment before the council.

Councilman, if I can interject.

So this was documented by council president on behalf of the administration.

My understanding is that the administration does was desirous of this returning in its original form, as it was docketed on their behalf to begin with.

And I if I understand correctly, we because we didn't take any action, we were just sort of kicking the can as we move the discussion.

That left that option open to the administration.

Is that a correct option?

No, that's not what I said.

From what I understand from the solicitor, it's always been on the agenda because we didn't act on the proposed sub A.

The proposed sub A was merely an informational item for folks to have at their available in case someone wished to offer it as a formal amendment before the council, and that someone would have a printed copy detailing the differences of approaches.

Um it is still something that anyone can raise at any time uh before the full body.

But the the original item was docketed and held and held and held.

The I that item never changes until formally acted upon by the full body.

Okay, thank you, Mrs.

Lister.

Seeing other lights on and no other comments from the public.

Do I have a motion on this item?

Sorry, could I ask a question first?

My apologies.

I suppose uh this is for the solicitor and/or the administration.

If the ordinance is passed as presented, or even a modification thereof, is there any objection to the council at a I was gonna say a subsequent meeting further amending this because there's two from my perspective?

There's two issues.

One, we have an unlawful ordinance that we need to obviously bring up the speed, and then two, there are other issues now that once it's up to speed that people want certain things addressed.

So if we could accomplish at least the first item tonight, in theory, if the administration is open to the prospect of we'd be potentially looking at this again in the near future to address the concerns or at least attempting to address the concerns that council members have raised if I may the administration would always be open to suggested amendments.

Thank you.

That was all thank you, Council President.

Do we have a motion on this item?

Move favorable action.

Motion to move favorable action.

Do I have a second?

Seconded by Councilman Ricks.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Moving on.

Next order of business is PCO 3-26, an ordinance establishing a financial oversight commission.

Another light item.

Councilman Muto, this is documented by you and Councilman Latticer jointly.

Uh defer the presentation to you.

Or Councilman Lassar, whomever.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh colleagues on the city council, residents of Warwick.

Uh we're proposing this ordinance, this fine uh work city council financial oversight commission, or uh as an ordinance, because we're at a critical juncture within our city.

Uh we're navigating very complex and modern municipal finances.

Uh where we need to manage long-term debt to assure the state uh sustainability of our essential services, and we need a structured export expert-driven fit uh fiscal management uh now more than ever.

So the proposed ordinance, PCO-3-26 establishes a work city council financial oversight commission designed to move us from a reactive posture to a proactive strategic one.

This is not just another board, it is fundamental shift towards greater accountability, transparency, and fiscal stability for the city of Wallach.

I'll take any questions.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any questions or comments from the members of this committee?

Questions or comments from the full council?

Councilman Latticer.

Um, yeah, Mr.

Chairman, I have um several amendments, and I would ask if you would prefer to do them when it comes to the full floor.

I would suggest uh we probably move it to the floor for any suggested amendments.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from the full committee?

Councilman Gebart.

Uh in order to not uh slow down the committee.

If you could distribute any of those electronically prior, uh I'd like to have a read if we're gonna vote on them this evening.

Is the have have your proposed amendments been passed to the solicitor?

Could could you just share those in advance of the of when we discuss them so we have time to review?

Sure.

We can get you a copy.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments from the council?

Councilman Foley.

Are there numerous amendments you're proposing, sir?

There are there are uh Mr.

Chairman.

Can I I do not believe it's my place from here, but since there's numerous amendments, and since, as you said, here's another uh ordinance that needs a deep dive.

I suggest we hold it because I'm not gonna read his amendments in 10 minutes and be ready to vote on this.

If it's this consequential, as Councilman Muto said from Ward 6, I think we need time to digest it.

So I'm my recommendation to the committee is to hold this till we get those and we have adequate time to look at the numerous in his own words proposed amendments.

Fine with me.

Thank you, Councilman Foley.

Mr.

Mayor, did you want to be heard on this item?

If you're gonna move to hold it, we'll just come back next time.

Okay.

Any members from the public wish to comment or question on this item?

My understanding is if the committee determines to hold this, there is no further discussion on it.

I was gonna echo the saying.

No problem.

Um, just for clarification, the the chairman is has the control of the committee.

There is a precedent that on occasion has been granted latter to, but it's at the discretion of the committee chair on how to conduct that practice.

Okay.

That being said, uh, in light of the weight of the potential changes and to not muddy the waters further, I would ask uh for a motion relative to hold maybe just a recommendation from the sponsor on when to hold until that um mr.

Chair as the solicitor said, I've engaged in this numerous times, and um I would respectfully request that you allow comments from the public on this in its current form, because speaking for me, it very well could give me some additional um thoughts on this particular item.

It could perhaps change my thoughts on this particular item.

So I I would respectfully public have an opportunity to uh weigh in on this.

I I was just about to offer a motion.

I was just looking out of deference for a date.

Um so I propose uh mo move to hold until the next meeting.

Okay.

Do I have a second on that?

Second by councilman Ricks and Councilman Lattiser not to dismiss your concerns.

I understand them.

Um you are very reachable.

I think if any of the members that are public that are here certainly have your contact information to be able to share their comments and questions and concerns with you.

But as I said, if as to not muddy the waters further in a public setting, I think it would be fruitful to get all of the amendments proposed out.

We have a motion in the committee.

Councilman Latison.

Um, if I may, through the chair to members of the public present and listening.

Any questions or concerns or suggestions that you have regarding this particular ordinance?

Please phone me or even better, email me those questions and concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you for being so accessible.

I apologize, but we're just gonna I'm all set.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

And we have a motion on the floor to hold till the next meeting, which is seconded.

What's the date?

I that's what I was looking for.

Um the date of our next meeting.

Yes.

April.

Motion to hold till April 6.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

4040, held till April 6th.

Okay.

Okay.

Next order of business, PCO5-26, an ordinance amending section 64-5 of the Code of Ordinances relative to the compensation of other officials documented by Councilman Kephart.

Councilman Gibb Hotel offer you the floor.

Um, I uh so I did introduce this uh on the recommendation of uh one of my constituents.

Um subsequent to that, I did hear from uh the administration that there that this could cause some consternation.

Um to me, it looked on the merits the same as the one we had done previously.

However, this board is um somewhat different in nature and that they sort of need to stand at the ready for appeals uh that could come in.

Um so they they do need to be available and ready to meet.

Um it is a very low dollar amount um that they are afforded in their stipend.

Um but I'll I'll let someone from the admin make that explanation.

But I was satisfied with their explanation of of why this would could be more disruptive than a benefit.

Are you proposing to withdraw?

I I too.

Yeah, but you are with our I'm not making a motion.

I uh was gonna let them lay in.

Uh Chief or Mr.

Mayor, did you have I I would just note there's two pieces to this puzzle.

One is relative to the personnel hearing board.

There is a um a clarification to the ordinance in part B that um has been discovered to be incorrect in three different ways.

Um so the deletion of that as it's not required to be here, but is also present in a incorrect manner, uh, maybe something you all may wish to consider.

I have clean up, I've forgotten about that.

That is that is correct.

There is some type of cleanup in here.

So we could amend it on the floor later, Mr.

Mayor.

Um, Councilman, actually, you could eliminate this board.

It would solve the problem.

We'd have to eliminate the board and eliminate the pro and change the process.

They're entitled to this process now only because it's in order.

So I mean, you're right, we don't pay them, but I'd be hard to get them.

If we need them, we need them immediately, and um, we have to bring them in.

Not gonna keep people on boards for two or three years without being paid, there'd be a disconnect.

So we wouldn't offer this uh option, but if you use the ordinance and just get the person up hearing board and we change the process, that would solve it.

Can I ask him a question?

And I'll tell you, since um I've been here five years, no one has requested this, and we've parted ways with a number of people.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Any other comments from the committee?

So Chief Staff.

Before you make a motion or to amend and just eliminate the personnel hearing board, there are other sections of the code of ordinances that are references it.

That new policy and new appeals, because this is a um it's a federal law that we have to have due process.

We have to do some that'd be a separate, a separate matter, right?

Correct.

I just didn't want you to to make an amendment to eliminate the personnel hearing board right now based on you know what you hear.

Um, but it is a um it is a federal law that we need to provide um due process.

The round supreme court has held that as well.

Excuse me, it's a it's a state law round supreme court.

So the suggestion would be to or the request would be to leave the language as is separate from the cleanup language we have later on.

Uh yeah, yes, councilman for tonight.

And I mean you could dock it tonight that um and we can have a draft of the ordinance for you ready for you for the next meeting, or the one after that.

All right, thank you.

Councilman Lattiser I want to request um formally request a absent or say I should say an intend an attendance report on every committee, including the personnel hearing board, beginning with fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year to current date.

Let me rephrase that an attendance report on every board listed on PCO 526, board and commissions, including the personnel board from 2020 through current day of 2026.

Now I can do it through an app a request, but it's just something similar, easier to ask respectfully for that now.

Thank you, Chairman.

Any other questions or comments from Councilman Foley?

Uh don't want to keep kicking the can down the road, but since the mayor and chief of staff have mentioned about drafting something, would a good recommendation be once again to hold this just to the next meeting to get that new language.

Through the chair, so so we could I think what we should do is make an amendment to remove the change to the uh to this particular commission, leave the cleanup that we have later regarding the Kent County Water Authority, which is just incorrect.

Uh um councilman, I would uh on this point if the intent is to do it a separate cleanup, uh and there is no urgency necessarily to independently fix the matter, it could be part of something that is just held for a later date if we're gonna be touching these other sections as well.

So just hold the matter until we get our head around what other changes may be offered to this particular section of the code ordinances.

I have a question on that council president will work to hold it.

Well, let me let me see the title.

So are all the ones being fixed under section 64-5 that we would be doing prospectively with Kent County Water Authority, because if not, we can just dock at something tonight and catch the rest of them.

My understanding is the cleanup that the mayor seemed to be implicating has to do with other sections of the law.

So the we may still want to address the existence of the this personnel hearing board or not.

And if they're proposing an alternate process, we may be deleting that other piece, but for the sake of the timing and the publication of all of these ordinances, it may be just reasonable to wait to address them concurrently in one item at a later date.

That makes sense to me.

Okay.

That being said, do we have a motion to hold?

I believe that is the desire.

Move to hold till April 6th.

Motion to hold it up a sixth.

Do I have a second?

Excuse me.

Second by Councilman Ricks.

All those in favor?

All right.

Motion by Gebhardt, second by Rix.

Okay.

Next order of business, PCO 8-26, an ordinance establishing a real estate non-utilization tax.

Uh now that I'm reading this.

Do we have an issue with how this is docketed?

Because it says real SD.

Or is that just a scriptness error that we can overlook?

So the title is real SD, not a state.

Can we just assume that's a scripturus error to overlook?

Or do we have to amend that?

Uh yes, the there's a scrivener's error on the agenda itself, not on the underlying uh PCO.

Is that something we need to take formal action on?

It'll it'll be corrected.

Okay.

All right.

So purposes of committee, we don't need any formal action on that.

This is docketed by Council President Sinopi.

Council President, I'll defer the floor to you.

So this one I'm gonna make sure PCO 8 26.

Yes.

So this one I'm gonna ask to be held to the next meeting, please.

Okay.

Council President suggesting this be held to the next meeting to have a motion.

Move for hold to fall six, seconded by councilman Rix.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Next order of business, last order of business for first passage PCO 22-25, an ordinance prohibiting camping on public properties.

Uh this was docketed by myself.

I uh came across an issue just as a background.

Uh came across an issue sometime last year with uh an encampment that became very problematic and became a safety hazard uh in discussion and working through that issue with the administration with House of Hope with adjacent property owners.

Uh, we realized that there was an issue of how do we address um issues of encampments and how do we handle people that are unhoused and have uh no choice but to find themselves um find seeking shelter in in some way on on public lands.

So I recognize that there's a twofold issue here.

Uh one, we have to keep uh public safety in mind, and two, we have to also keep the human aspect of how do we respect the dignity of people and um connect them with services they may need.

So, in no way was this designed to be docketed as an end all be all or something that I am married to the language.

This was um mirrored from a neighboring town that enacted something similar in an effort to spark conversation.

Uh, sometimes we need to kind of poke the bear a little bit to get the appropriate folks out to get the input from people that I see here in the community and people that have reached out by email and people we have already heard from in public comment to navigate this tricky water uh and find the best way through, both from the city perspective and from uh a public facing perspective that how can we serve our community best and what it's a difficult balancing act, right?

So um I think we have to entertain the conversation and and further the discussion and see where it goes and find some middle ground that we can all be at least partially happy with.

Um, I think in something like this, and a lot of ways I can relate in my professional life.

We I we deal with things in family court that are sort of when both sides walk away a little bit unhappy.

We found sort of a middle ground now.

We're not, I think we can all recognize that we're not all gonna be completely happy with whatever the outcome, but I think we need to do the best we can to make sure that everyone is heard, their opinions are valued, and we find some way through this that makes sense to address an issue that I think we can ignore.

Um with that said, I am there are some uh members of the police department and also I believe uh municipal courts, the municipal court judge had some input.

Um she wanted to be heard on some issues.

There were some members of the administration uh that brought some issues to light.

Um I would like to hold this, but I also recognize you guys invested a lot of time.

I'm going to use my discretion, allow anyone that's here to comment on this to please comment.

Um keep your comments brief.

But it would be my intention to request a hold until a f a future meeting so that we can flesh out some of these issues and keep this conversation going and get to a meaningful point.

So I welcome any comments or questions from the public.

Please feel free.

Uh yes, how are you doing, committee members and councilman?

My name is Miles Brown husband, and I am a I'm a disability advocate in Rhode Island.

I know in my job and my work, I deal with this same same discussion all the time.

You know, homelessness in the epidemic in Rhode Island in Warwick on homelessness as a whole.

And I believe that this ordinance is ridiculous, you know, because we need to you need you know, we need to remember that these people are humans and we have to be humanitarian.

So in some ways we have to figure this out as a whole for the state in the meaning in the city of uh of Warwick, and um, I just wanna um because I know that I only have a limited time, uh, but I'm gonna give you a little story.

Um, you know, if I may.

I have a I have a disabled brother, he's a drug addict, and he's living on the street and he's homeless.

He has nowhere to sleep.

So if he can sleep, I mean these camps per se, that will be that would be amazing.

And this is I just want to state again that this is an epidemic in Rhode Island, you know, that we need to fix.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments and for your time here this evening.

No problem.

Is there anyone else here from the public that'd like to be heard?

George.

Jeremy Langel, Ward 5.

Uh, I'm also the executive minister for the state council of churches.

So I can tell you uh we we definitely oppose this legislation, this ordinance as it's currently written.

Um, however, uh I do appreciate your comments about needing to include a broad spectrum of people.

Please add the religious community to your list of people who need to be involved.

Uh you know, the council of churches was the lead plaintiff that sued over SNAP benefits back in October.

Uh we were joined, of course, by many cities and so forth and the United Way and on and on and on.

Uh, so this is an issue that is deeply important to us.

This winter, the council of churches opened up a hundred beds in three of our churches in Providence for folks who had nowhere to go.

The condition was we opened at 22 degrees real feel.

We were open for 50 nights, and we had more people than we had space for.

So my my advice to you this isn't it, this is a systemic concern.

The state has no resources.

I can tell you now that the urban core has no resources.

So when we take down encampments, and I understand all the technical language, I understand the concerns of mayors and so forth.

There's nowhere to go.

I'm telling you this because I spend a lot of time working on this.

So please include us.

I'm happy to help us meet all of our needs.

I'm I not only because I live here, um, but because I spend a lot of time not usually here and other places.

Uh, and I and I don't want us to see it to become a community that goes down a path that we we don't want to be known for the community that does this.

So please reach uh Ed knows how to get a hold of me.

I'll call him.

You can reach me out.

Um, I think we can find a path for it, but just loop in a faith community because we're here to be a part of that solution.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

What was your name by the way?

Sorry, Jeremy Langel.

Ward five.

Any other questions or comments from members of the public that wish to be heard?

Okay.

Seeing none, uh, I would probably suggest this be held not till the next meeting, but perhaps the following.

Um to allow for some time for this discussion to go on.

So if they're possibly Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry, Councilman Lapser.

Uh, just uh a reminder.

In May, we have a pretty packed uh agenda with budget hearings, etc.

So I would respectfully suggest maybe hold till July or I mean um June sometime, but May is pretty packed.

Just my observation.

Oh fair.

Uh perhaps June.

Listen, June 15th.

If there's a motion to hold till June 15th, I think that's more than ample time to get a conversation rolling to have a motion.

Okay, second, second and all in favor.

I for all hold till June fifteenth.

Okay.

Seeing no further business in front of this committee.

It is eight twenty-five, and we stand adjourned.

That concludes committees.

Um could we please reconvene in the council?

I need to be able to make scroll.

I do not should I don't want to be here yet.

So I can read it.

Yeah, here we go.

It's an photo.

No, I know that should be this.

Isn't it off of uh show?

It's kind of uh parallel to post road trade and park.

Is that I I don't think we'll download that.

Yeah, exactly.

All right, so we'll return to the full council as of eight twenty-nine PM.

Which brings us back to specifically the consent calendar.

So PCR thirty-four dash twenty-six revolution relative to bids.

This is finance councilman Lattice, sir.

Committee recommends favorable action on PCR thirty-four dash twenty-six.

For action, Councilman Lattice.

26.

Second.

Motion made and seconded.

All right.

Are there any questions regarding well?

And there are two items removed, correct?

That's correct.

All right.

Are there any questions regarding the remaining items left on PCR 34-26?

All right.

And that concludes the consent calendar for this meeting.

So I guess does anyone have any questions regarding the consent calendar?

I know the answer's probably no, but all right.

So do we need to do a separate motion to vote on the consent calendar?

The consent calendar was moved and seconded.

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

Mr.

Snapping?

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Mr.

Gap.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

So now we'll do the first item removed.

It's 2026-401 is now PCR 35-26.

Councilman Lattice, sir.

Oh, yes, Mr.

President.

Um, the committee uh made a motion to send to the floor without a recommendation.

All right.

And so there's there were two things going on in committee.

One that there was a request to hold that didn't pass, it went to two, but there's also an issue as far as an amendment desired by the administration.

That's correct.

So do we want to do the amendment first and then someone can make whatever motion they want to make the whole it's fine?

We can do the amendment first.

Uh in the amendment uh for PCR 35-26 was to add an additional vendor, which was um de-ambered.

All right, motion was made to well and move favorable action on the amendment.

All right, is there a second?

All right, motion made in second.

So is there any questions or comments regarding adding DMBra to this bid?

All right, seeing non-clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappin' Mr.

DeLouis, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Gapot, yes, Mr.

Carvey, Mr.

Lattice, yes, it's a muta, yes, Mr.

Raves.

Yes, nine yes to amend.

All right, so now the bid stands before us.

Amend it, PCR 35-26.

So I assume you have a motion.

Mr.

President, I'm gonna make a motion to hold until the um next meeting in or the first meeting in April, April 6th, and my reasons for doing such is exactly what I mentioned um in the committee.

All right, that I had um submitted questions back in December that were prudent to uh this item, have not received answers to those questions, and until such time as I do, um I think that this should be held.

I did I kept up my end of the bargain.

So first, is there a second?

All right, second of my councilman meadow.

And so I just want to make sure I'm clear as to what your questions were.

So hold on one moment.

Scroll accordingly here.

All right, so regarding the bid documentation, and correct me if I'm wrong, so very well maybe you wanted to know why the bid went over last time.

Is that correct?

Um, just bear with me one minute and I'll get to it.

Okay.

So right now I can't put my fingers on it, it's in here somewhere.

Um the first question was why did DPW exceed the spending authority uh that was approved by you say received?

I'm sorry.

Exceeded.

Exceed, all right.

Sorry.

And um also I requested a copy of all the invoices that resulted in that um issue to come in where they overspent uh that particular budget or line item that was approved.

Um and there were another four questions, which as I said I can't put my finger on right now, but they're all pertinent to um do we approve a million five?

Um if they did they overspend um a hundred thousand, two hundred thousand, what were the invoices?

When did they occur?

And that would have an impact on whether or not this amount of monies right here should be adjusted.

Here it is, I got it right here.

Um please send me a copy of all invoices that led up to the DPW overextending its spending authority on street improvements.

Further, what is the reasons for exceeding the spending authority of which was approved?

Secondly, what monies remain in the line item that, if I recall correctly, began at 10 million.

Is this over expenditure a result of a gap between what DPW is paving spending and the delay from when we receive their payment?

Next question: what is the actual lead time from when we submit our request for reimbursement from Ride and when we receive the monies from Rhode Island Energy?

Next question.

What is the process that is used to request this reimbursement?

It seems that there may be a crossover from what spent and what is reimbursable uh in actually being re reimbursed.

And I didn't get any answers.

And I asked again last week, and I still don't get any answers.

So you're your statement say you received no response, basically, correct?

I'm sorry, you received no response.

I have not received any answers to those questions.

Yeah, that's my that's my response.

Mayor.

First of all, none of that has anything to do with this bid that has to do with last year's bid.

On December 15th, all the invoices were um sent to Councilman Latticer.

Uh questions came last Friday.

We could answer those questions now, but again, it has nothing to do with this bid, which is before the council.

We're trying to contract with these companies so we can get into their schedule.

We can't delay, and as I said, it has nothing to do with this bid.

That's what's before this council tonight.

Excuse me, Mr.

President.

Um, through the chair to the mayor, did you say those invoices were sent to me?

Councilman, on uh December 15th.

I emailed you the FY 2025 Excel spreadsheet showing the expenses for the paving code as well as the FY26 on uh as of December 15th.

So, Chief, when I sent you the email, I believe it was Friday.

I noted on there that if I happen to miss it, could you please resend it?

I'm sorry, councilman.

I get a lot of emails.

I was going to address it today.

Well, but you you were started out saying you never received a response and didn't allow me to ask.

I asked the question on on Thursday or Friday.

If I also prefaced it by saying, if I missed it, okay, fine, shame on me.

Then just resend it.

No response.

I asked again this morning.

I forwarded again.

I said, did is there a response to this?

And I didn't get a response.

Councilman, I do get a lot of emails, and I was in what I get a lot of emails too.

It's just one person at a time.

What one person finished before the other one?

We were going to address it this evening at the council meeting.

Can answer the questions you asked.

The administration has required that I ask as many questions as possible before the meetings.

Well, I'm asking them.

Correct.

You asked on a Friday before a weekend.

Fine.

Okay, then I'll uh never mind.

I'll ask my questions when it's convenient for me.

Does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the current motion before us, which is a request to hold councilman Mute?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'm I'm going to support the motion to hold again.

Uh it's not just councilman Latticer, it's not just me.

It is many of us on the city council who we get selected answers for on our questions.

And we get put, or we always get put behind the ape wall with a bad decision or a worse decision.

We need to stop this.

We're spending a million and a half dollars at a time without real responses.

So I will be supporting this and uh looking forward to the answers that come back to Councilman Lattice.

Can everyone that doesn't get answers please raise their hand?

What do you say?

I'm sorry.

I I want to see all the councilmen that can't get answers to the administration raise their hand because we were just accused of that.

Thank you.

Councilman Gebhard.

The way I look at it, this city has a few key responsibilities, uh, which we endeavor to fulfill our obligations on picking up the trash, plowing the snow, and keeping the roads paved.

And so efforts to obstruct the core functions that the city delivers to its residents with their tax money.

Does not seem like an exercise in anything positive to me.

It is the time of year when we need to start paving.

I'm not sure if folks have noticed, but the roads are falling apart from the winter storms.

Rhode Island Energy is going to be out there doing work for many years.

We've essentially followed Rhode Island Energy around and taken advantage of their dollars to pave more than we would otherwise if we went it alone.

We need to keep the process moving forward so we can deliver the services that are expected of us, of the mayor, and of the city.

That's all I have to say about that.

Councilman Fol.

All right, Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, so just a couple of things.

Councilman Latticer, if your questions are truly not being answered, I don't I agree with you.

That's unacceptable.

If that is in fact true.

Um, however, that being said, I recognize that there is an issue, there could be a potential issue there that you're bringing to the table, and I fully support you getting all the answers you need.

That being said, I think we also need to, as Councilman Gebhardt said, balance out what we need to do to keep this city running smoothly, though there may be some communication issues we need to address.

I don't think we should hold this particular item hostage to address a possible breach or break in communication and an appropriate back and forth correspondence.

So I think we should set that aside and deal with that as that issue is a standalone issue and approve the funding that we need to get the roads paved and up to an adequate level.

Uh I don't find that the item that's presented before us is outrageous compared to spending that we have had historically and what we're looking at drug drivering on the city and the condition of the roads in the I'm no expert, but when I look and say we got a lot of work to be done, I think it's a reasonable ask.

Uh I support the bid.

I do not support the lack of the breakdown in communication, but I do support this bid item.

So I just want to make it clear that I am bifurcated on the issues that lay before us right now.

All right.

So my my own individual thoughts.

Uh I think Councilman Nappa stole most of what I would have said.

Uh it is notable that due to the ridiculous weather we have, specifically the rather historic blizzard, the roads are actually in worse shape than they normally would be at this point.

Because the plows unsurprisingly tore them up to a certain extent in an effort to pave or plow, which that's how it works.

The plows inevitably tear up the road more.

That's an unfortunate consequence.

Um we definitely need the paving.

There's no doubt in that.

I think this discussion would be different if no response at all had taken place, or at least caveat it, I should say.

Um for both sides.

Councilman Latticer deserves response to his questions, even if it's it's not happening.

Even if it's a negative.

Uh and at the other end of the spectrum, bear in mind that we recently were able to have everyone in agreement where we get the bid packages even sooner than we were before.

So, in order to make sure our questions are actually addressed, the sooner we can get them to the administration, the better.

I know that's a that's not always possible.

I'm not pretending that it is.

But just both sides should keep that in mind.

Uh and it doesn't really seem like a situation where the blame game would work here.

It I feel like everyone can see how this could have should have gone on both ends of it.

So I think it kind of speaks for itself.

Uh Councilman Foley.

Uh yes, I fully support what Councilman Gebhardt said.

And since I see no new lights on, I call the question.

All right, questions been called.

There are in fact no new lights on.

So clerk will call the roll on the motion to hold.

Sorry, Mr.

Snappy.

No, Mr.

Delouise, no, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephardt, no, Mr.

Kirby, no, Mr.

Ladiser, yes, Mr.

Muito, yes, Mr.

Napa, no, Mr.

Rick, yes.

No motion fails.

All right.

Do we have a motion move favorable action?

Amend it.

Bid.

Apparently there's a request for favorable action.

Is there a second?

As amended.

Councilman Foley, Councilman Napa called the second.

Is there any discussion on the request for favorable action on the bid as amended?

Councilman Lowser.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So let me be clear.

I asked to hold it as financial accountability, which I had not received.

Has nothing to do with hostage.

And by the way, I do agree with Councilman Gebot in the condition of the roads and council president, etc.

etc.

I I do dodge ball around the potholes the same as all of us.

This isn't about holding something hostage.

It's about financial accountability.

And uh wait till um DPW, they're probably already dealing with the influx of um damages that are occurring.

So that's my position.

Um it's about financial accountability.

Has nothing to do with hostage.

All right, is there any further comment?

Oh, Councilman Rights.

Thank you.

I concur with Councilman Lattice, sir.

I think that we need better communication here, especially on such a significant item.

One and a half million dollars.

It is core function.

It is a core function of the city, and we have to have more information on multiple levels when it comes to the paving of the roads.

So I'll likewise vote favorable action on this.

That's all for now.

I yield councilman Foley.

All right.

There are in fact no new lights, so clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

Deloues, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gepon?

Yes.

Mr.

Carvick.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladisa.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Napa?

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Nine yes.

Amendment.

All right.

Next is 2026-416, which is now PCR 36-26.

My understanding is that this was polled so that a member could recuse Councilman Lattice.

That is correct, Mr.

President.

Um, we have uh one member of the council that needs a recuse.

So it was moved.

Um favorable action.

All right, motion for favorable action, seconded by councilman Muto.

Is there any discussion on the motion for favorable action on this item?

Councilman Ricks, is your light just on from the last discussion?

All right, yeah, figured.

All right, so seeing no lights, uh clerk will call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, Mr.

Deloues, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Getpock, yes, Mr.

Mr.

Ladisa, yes, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, there is recuse.

All right, that brings us to unfinished business PCO 13-25, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title to property.

This is ordinance, so councilman Napa.

Stand by okay.

This was recommended for favorable action.

So for action, Councilman Napa.

Motion to move favorable action.

Is there a second?

Nobody.

All right, Councilman Foley, Councilman Ricks.

All right, so discussion.

Councilman Rix.

Yeah, so I suppose that my main concern here is that this isn't fully well, isn't fully developed for lack of a better word.

I think that it really opens the door to uh some potential issues with developers and with trolls.

It's uh we've had some issues, some different items come up in front of the council where we've had neighbors coming in and complaining about uh what's happening on that land next door.

Well, I guess we're gonna see what happens if we put up about a thousand of these pieces of land to make them so easily available, see what happens.

It's uh it is concerning.

I saw just one example here, a piece of land that the city possesses tax title to, which is potentially buildable.

I don't know that for a fact, and I certainly haven't done a title search uh fully.

I haven't uh looked into okay, is there potential adverse possession claims?

I I haven't done any of that particular research, but I am familiar with that particular parcel, and it happens to be where the entry to the Patoxid River walk is owned by the city of Warwick in tax title only.

So there are a lot of different properties out there that we might be seeing issues to, and if we have such a simple process where it becomes a matter of okay, all of these they're up for grabs, go ahead, just cut the check, fill out the form, show up first come, first serve.

Well, people are gonna snap up some of these that maybe as a city we would rather not have subject to private development.

So I mean, I suppose that's up to us as to what direction we want to move forward in as a city.

I also understand that we need to do something.

Certainly there's a lot of uh land that's been sitting there that uh you know, say a neighbor has been using, and we can't just let certain situations continue on forever and not be collecting taxes.

That's not fair to everybody else in the city.

So I do agree some action is needed here, and there's always gonna be pros and cons.

So how much are we all comfortable that we have fully reviewed and fully understand this entire situation with a thousand parcels across the city, and we're ready to deal with all of these possible implications.

If we're comfortable with it, let's move forward.

If we have some pause here, then maybe we want to give it a closer look.

That's all.

Thank you.

Councilman Lat Councilman Lannister.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I concur with uh many of the comments that Councilman Ricks has stated.

I also have my own concerns as expressed and or put forth in the questions that I had asked earlier.

Um still not certain on the clarity of some of those, as well as concerns from several of my constituents that have with this particular change.

In addition to um were we initially voting on 1325?

Well, we'll be voting on 1325 sub A.

Clearly different items.

So for that reason, I will be voting no on this item.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, I'm not gonna re reiterate all the things that's wrong with this current uh piece of legislation.

Uh I will at this time uh be proposing uh several amendments to make it easy.

I'm going to my amendments are going to reflect the previous uh sub A that I'd like to bring into the uh for consideration yes, I want to bring back the sub A version because there was a lot of thought that went into that and it answered a lot of questions and it it dissipated.

So I that's the amendment I'm gonna bring uh bring to this.

So councilman Muto has moved uh to bring forward what was previously identified as PCO 1325 proposed sub A as a formal amendment to replace the existing statute.

Um is it is does anyone not have it in their binders or needs a moment for us to double back so based on buy based on the shuffling happening, we should give people a moment while that happens.

The administration do you want to comment on the motion before us, which is the proposed sub A.

So the administration uh Bill for Sending Chief Staff, administration is against the sub A.

Um we don't have it right now readily available to look at.

There were a lot of um, if I remember correctly, a lot of back and forths between abutting property owners notice the butting property owners, then if one person received came in with money, then the notice went back to the abutting property owner, and they got another chance at buying it.

Um the council has is asked and answered the administration is willing to make amendments to this in the future if it does not work.

Um we're trying to clean up and streamline the current ordinance to make sure that you know the tax properties are disposable and off of our books and back on the tax rolls.

Um we're working with the land trust on various other properties, and it's I mean, there's no reason to go back to the sub A.

So councilman Gipphard.

Oh, I well, hold on.

I should so wait, Councilman Meter, did you want to like explain your stance first?

Because if so, I would go to you.

Because it's your it's your motion.

So yeah, so my motion is because we did go, so the sub A, uh, it answers several questions, uh, very high level.

It maintains the uh balance and checks and balances within the ordinance.

This new ordinance gives full rights to the treasurer and ultimately the mayor.

The the existing legislation uh has the checks and balances with council approval.

Uh this is all about the checks and balances and transparency.

I can go through each one uh if you'd like, I could pull that up.

But the goal is that uh there was conversations around all the other items.

Uh there was a very visceral reaction to the first time this came on the floor, which which dictated a lot of the conversations that developed into sub A.

And by the administration's own admission, this has been going on since 1973.

If you know we should be thoughtful in our in our ordinances, we thought we were thoughtful in our ordinances through a process, and now we're retroing back to something that quite frankly, most people on this council at the time had a visual reaction.

So my stance is that the current PCO that's 1325 is insufficient, and the the sub A answers many of the questions and concerns of both uh council people and my um and my constituents and myself.

So that's why I'll be supporting it.

I my I am definitely a no with the current ordinance just because uh it's you know, we know it's not perfect, and since this was going on to 73, I don't see a rush to do that if people are uncomfortable with the sub A right now.

We have plenty of time to review it again.

So that's my position.

All right, so now councilman gives I'm not sure who can answer this, but is there something so between 1325, the original and the sub A.

Maybe this is for the administration or perhaps this the city solicitor.

Is there something in sub A that would have made it easier for the land trust to acquire a piece of tax title property compared to where now it is somehow more difficult?

And when you say now, do you mean 13-25?

Under 13-25.

So no, because right now the land trust is in the position of any other person or entity who might be interested in having tax title transfer to them.

Um, in an earlier question with regard to whether or not we are uh would it um be opposed to giving that same 10 day notice to the land trust as we do to the original property owner, the administration has no problem with that.

It's simply give them notice.

Yeah, but my understanding, at least in speaking with Miss Austin is that the land trust has been in possession of this list for many months, if not years, um, and has spent time to to review the properties.

Um were it not for an absence of funding, um, they may be inclined to move on some of those properties.

However, they've not come to this council and asked us for funding, uh, asked us for assistance, uh, asked us, told us, you know, we absolutely need this property.

I mean, I think the land trust has the biggest jump on the on on the entire universe in terms of folks who may look at these properties as they've been evaluating them over a long period of time, probably since 1965.

Um, in fact, given that our current stipulations are illegal, wouldn't that jeopardize their ability to take one of these properties, given that the process could be contested?

I would question the legality of any transfer that took place under the current ordinance on the books.

No title company is going to pass on it, that's for sure.

Right.

But you know, it just goes back to we're trying to just make this at a ministerial act as simple as one paying their taxes, as simple as one paying the redemption price, and it's done administratively.

Nothing higher, nothing lower, just what's owing to the city, trying to uncomplicate it, make it simple like everyone else does.

Um and again, I can't think of an example where this has been an issue where individuals have come before the council to say, I want this piece of property, and and it's just a very cumbersome process.

I I I don't know, I don't know why, but just trying to simplify it.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for those efforts.

I mean, obviously large changes like this comes with questions, and I think that's all natural, but to me back to layman's terms, we have the choice here is between uh continuing a process that's in the ill that is that doesn't not comply with state law or apparently the constitution, um, which is administratively burdensome, or uh to fix that problem, or I suppose a third option, which is the motion on the table now, which is to make it all the more bureaucratic in nature, it does not actually solve the problem that I think the proposed sub A purports to.

Uh, so to me, this is a no on the amendment.

This is a yes on PCO 1325, and let the city move on and try to clean up our our tax rolls and put these properties back out into the world.

Thank you.

Councilman Richard.

Thank you.

Pardon me, losing my train of thought here for just a moment.

Oh, if you want, I can give it back.

I can go to councilman Napa first, because I just realized on my list you had already spoken.

So I should go to people who haven't spoken yet.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Council President.

Um just some thoughts as I'm looking at the sub A.

I to be completely transparent.

I haven't looked at the sub A in quite some time because I've been sort of engrossed in conversations with Ms.

Austin and kind of investigating other avenues.

I wasn't expecting this to kind of creep back up on us, so wasn't fully prepared with this.

But as I look through it again, there's a lot of, and I sort of understand what we're doing here a little better, I think.

Uh subsection, just make sure I'm quoting this right.

It's B3, B4, B3 and B4 makes references to like transfers of deeds and restrictions on deeds.

I'm not sure that these are appropriate to be in the sub A because what we're talking about is just transference of the tax title, not actual deed of ownership, because that deed would once you own the tax title, then there's a process of the redemption through the superior court, and I'm by no means an expert in real estate law, but I'm not sure that the deed discussion or restrictions on deeds is even appropriate for us to be doing.

I don't think we can can confer that in any way, the assignment of tax titles.

So that's sort of one thing that came to my attention.

Um other issues that are that I'm looking at are the adjacent landowners, I think giving deference to them.

I I understand the thought to that.

However, when you're next to a vacant lot, any property owner is going to look into who owns that lot.

And I believe as Ms.

Sheridan said earlier, that vacant lot's being squatted on by the adjacent landowners.

And they, I believe, had the right to redeem it all of this time and didn't, because why would they come out of pocket for thousands and thousands of dollars and then have to go through superior court to actually have any ownership or right to possess that property rather than possess a type a tax title that could potentially lead to possession of said property in fee simple I I think it gives too much deference there?

I have no issue with giving deference to the land trust, and I think the administration made it very clear that they don't either, but I think we're not we believe if I were to vote to approve this, uh it would be kind of giving too much difference to those adjacent landowners and making this process too cumbersome.

So I think there are some issues.

I I council Muto, I completely understand why you're reviving this, but I think just a patent vote on sub A is going to be difficult.

Like I agree with some of it, right?

But I don't I can't sign on to the whole sub A.

And to be frank, as I said, I I haven't offered any suggestions to change the subway because I was too busy doing work with Jane on the side of other things that she was trying to do in conjunction with what we're doing here.

Um, but there are some issues with the sub A in general, and I think uh this process does need to be streamlined.

We need to do something, as councilman Ricks said, uh, but it needs to be appropriate, it needs to be streamlined and needs to be less cumbersome and needs to give deference, I think, to the land trust.

Um, and then one question I did have for the administration or for Mr.

Osillo, the question that popped out of my brain.

I remembered what it was.

If someone comes forward to redeem a property under any of these ordinances, can the city decline the offer and choose to instead hold the tax title basically and keep it in a dormant state?

Yes, the uh very first sentence of the ordinance says the city treasurer in his or her discretion.

So the answer is yes.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

That was just something that I was thinking through.

Um that's all that I have.

I'm just I think we need to do something.

I would like it to be simple and not cumbersome and give deference to the right folks rather than um try to make sure that we're taking care of the adjacent landowners that had plenty of opportunity.

Mr.

Russell, if you don't mind one more question.

Um did I lose it?

I think I lost it.

I'm sorry, I keep making the get up.

I'm here.

All right, councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Yeah, maybe it's just that where we've already been in the meeting for how many hours?

But anyways, my question has come back to me.

So there's talk about the land trust being able to purchase some of these various properties.

However, there's also the discussion of how for so many of these properties sitting there 30, 40 years, taxes not being paid.

The uh the amount becomes quite high.

If I recall correctly, I think that in the last 10 years or so, every single year, the amount that is uh provided to the Warwick Land Trust, I believe it's always been under 1,000, if I recall correctly.

That's been a key obstacle for the land trust, is that they simply are not budgeted any money to really buy anything.

And that's why, well, aside from properties that are effectively deeded or otherwise transferred to the land trust.

I don't think that there's much of a history there of them going out and buying property.

So I'm uh a little bit confused as to exactly where is the money going to come from for the land trust to actually buy these different properties in order to preserve them.

Is the city effectively going to be taking money from uh one hand and then giving it to the other?

Is there an actual mechanism there?

Or is this just uh optimism that the land trust will find money somewhere?

This also doesn't even get into the fact that they as it stands.

The land trust is not actually an entity in the city of Warwick, which is a separate issue that we eventually have to deal with.

Uh Councilman Napa.

That was the question that I just lost.

If the city solicitor wouldn't mind weighing in on can the land trust actually hold title to property.

Because it's not an entity.

Yeah, it's not its own um 501c3 separate organization, to my knowledge.

I think it's just an unincorporated association.

And therefore, like in many communities in Rhode Island, the land trust doesn't actually own the property.

The underlying city or town would own the property.

Okay.

So if there were properties that the land trust were desirous to hold, I guess, for lack of better terms.

Right, they hold and maintain and and maybe develop pathways for that type of stuff.

That would be an instance where the city could say, okay, no, we're not going to tender over assignment of tax title.

The land trust is holding this, and from my understanding, the city is desirous and on board with working with the land trust to kind of preserve those waterway pathways conservation areas that are not DEM problems or anything else.

That is correct.

Okay.

Councilman DeLouis.

Okay, looks like we'll be here all night, but I have a question.

So the way the ordinance laws written now, okay, it's illegal, is it's not in it doesn't go along with the other cities states.

Okay.

The other thing is as it stands, as it's written now, say I wanted to redeem a piece of property and it was ten thousand dollars for that particular tax title.

After I pay the money and all the fines and interest and everything, what the next step to actually get the D to the property is cumbersome.

And would this new ordinance make that a lot easier for that person?

No.

It would still be as cumbersome.

Right.

So it's a two-step process.

You're referring now to the Superior Court action, which is foreclosing the right of redemption.

Nothing we can do about that.

That's a state law.

It's very cumbersome, it takes a lot of money.

This ordinance does not impact that.

What this audience is trying to do is get rid of the cumbersome burden of going through multiple hoops to have the tax title transferred.

The proposal ordinance simply says if you meet the redemption price, the city treasurer ministerially can transfer the tax title.

As it stands right now.

PCO 13-25, the new one will make it the new one will make it very simple.

The amendment, the sub-A takes care of the legal issue.

The sub A takes care of that legal issue, but the process of getting there is involved.

And that's what we're trying to simplify.

We're trying to get around that process because again, the thought is it's a simple ministerial act.

X amount is owed.

If someone pays it, the treasure should simply be able to transfer it.

As opposed to, you know, the ordinance sub A talks about um this process that you go through, and everyone who has to be notified in 30 days before this and 30 days after it is a cumbersome process.

So this new ordinance would simplify all of that.

Okay.

It'd become as easy as someone paying their taxes.