Good evening, everyone.

Let the record indicate it is 5.01 p.m.

in the work city council finance committee is called to order.

I need a motion on the minutes from March 9th.

Motion to approve the three minutes.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Minutes on March 23rd.

Need a motion.

Move favor action.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

And April 6th, 2026.

Made a motion.

Move favor.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Second favor.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay.

That takes care of the finance committee minutes.

We will move on to the consent calendar.

And I need a motion to approve the minutes on March 9th.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor.

Thank you.

Need a motion for the minutes on March 9th.

Again, we had two different sessions that night.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor.

Thank you.

The minutes of March 23rd.

Motion, please.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Councilman Foley, all in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

April 6th, 2026.

I need a motion.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve.

We have a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay.

Excuse me.

First item found on page one.

Structural firefighting coats and pants.

Chief.

Good evening, Assistant Chief Almanhauer from the Fire Department.

The bid for structural firefighting coats and pants.

Bid 2027013 has been reviewed by the fire department.

Three vendors submitted bids after careful evaluation.

Two vendors selected based on a combination of their price and conformity with the bid specifications.

For those that aren't familiar, uh is what you're commonly referred to as your forever chemicals.

It's your per and polyfluorinated substances.

So it's uh a chemical that's put inside of gear, stuff like Teflon pans uh that keep it resistant to oil moisture, things like that.

Uh turn out gear back in 2021, 2022 had these substances removed from the outer shell of it and replaced with a silicone, it's like a silicone replacement.

Uh the idea was that these PFAS forever chemicals are potentially or are they been proven to cause cancer and other ailments.

Uh when we noticed when they took the intentionally added PFAS treatment out of the outer liner of it back uh five years ago, we started having some durability issues with our gear.

Uh they don't repel diesel fuel and gasoline as much as they used to uh when we had the uh the PFAS uh treatments on them.

Uh now the only parts of our gear that remain with intentionally added PFAS is the moisture barrier inside.

Kind of think of it like a Gore-Tex uh moisture barrier.

Uh the state of Rhode Island passed a law uh a couple years ago that banned uh not didn't ban intentionally added PFAS in firefighting gear, it actually had them notify us if there were anything that they were selling us had intentionally added PFAS in them.

Uh and then a new version of that legislation signed last year uh allowed does not allow vendors to sell any protective gear in the fire service with intentionally added PFAS as of January 1st, 2027.

So with all those changes in the legislation uh and all the issues that with durability and longevity of gear with the not with the new fabrics that they're using and new barriers that they're using, uh we let the old bid expire and we kind of let this play out for a little while uh with the intent to have it to you early in the the the spring of this year to for our purchases this year.

So you'll notice on the bid that I have both a compliant this year, PFAS with intentionally added PFAS and a version that if we have to buy the gear after January 1st, 2027 and comply with the state law, a non-PFAS version of it, which is obviously more expensive and doesn't really have a durability test in like like the old gear does I think one of the the key words that you just said was sell.

So during this current year, there's nothing preventing anybody from selling that gear this year.

Correct.

They cannot sell it to us after January 1st, 2027.

What we have, we have.

We don't have to stop using.

We just can't buy any new gear after January 5027 that has PFAS in it.

And with the gear that you have now, has any testing been done on that gear to determine unequivocally determine that the um PFAs are part of or contained in any of that gear?

Yeah, the moisture barrier that we currently use, which is Stead Air 4000, is a is made of basically a version of Teflon.

So it's a known additive.

It's that's why they call it intentionally added.

You get these things in your gear, like in your drinking water unintentionally, just from its environment.

Uh these are chemicals that are intentionally put in there because of the properties it holds as far as its moisture resistance.

Uh so yeah, we know that the barrier that we currently use, that's the gear that is being used in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, like it's proven and tested.

Uh when we get into the non-PFAS fabrics, it doesn't have as much history of testing and durability.

So it's still up in the air as to how long this gear is going to last and how long those new moisture barriers are going to hold up.

So when was the last time your gear was tested?

Uh we don't test the gear.

I mean, we know it's in there, so we don't kind of have to test it.

If we had non-PFAS gear, like if I had bought PFAS that was sold to us as non-intentionally added PFASes, and we wanted to go down a testing process to make sure there was no PFAS in that gear, uh, we could do that, but right now we know it's there.

So the point to tested is pointless because we already know that that exists because it's in the materials that we we create it with.

So you say that you know that the gear contains this.

Is there um labels on this gear that indicates that these things are present?

Yeah, when we specify gear, we specify the materials it's built from.

So these are custom built sets of gear, and we specify each of the layers and what material we want in those layers.

If you look at the full specification for the bid, it's and it's a you know 12-page document of just technical specifications on the fabrics.

And when was the last time that you purchased any of this gear?

Last time we purchased gear was the was the turn of 20, right around 2020, beginning of 2025.

2025, end of 2024, I believe we got it delivered uh spring of last year of 2025.

And you say here in your position paper that in June 2025, Rhode Island expanded the scope, which bands intentionally added.

Correct.

It went from notify to ban.

Okay.

And when this last set of gear was purchased, um, was the department aware of this legislation?

It we weren't aware of the let that the legislation was gonna be changed to we knew it was the the notify was there and we were notified.

Uh we weren't sure until you know, we weren't sure if this was gonna pass through.

Uh when it when it did, we were aware that it was being presented.

Uh, but like most of the stuff that goes to the state house, not everything uh goes through final passage, but it did make through final passage in June uh to absolutely ban it from any of our protective gear.

And this is gonna be split up into two fiscal years with 70,000 coming from fiscal year 26, and then the 1584 from fiscal year 27.

So what is your balance in that item right now?

So right now we have a little over 71,000 dollars, 71040 left for turnout gear for this year.

We haven't bought any yet uh for this year, and then we're we're the budget request for next year was 158,400.

That's because we're gonna have recruits next year.

We did not have recruits this year, so they all need a full set of gear, which is expensive.

How much of this gear have you replaced since 2025?

Since 2025 since the order we got in 2025?

We haven't ordered any gear since 2025.

Okay, so nothing in fiscal year 2025.

Yeah, we did we did order uh 20 nope, I'm sorry.

28, 12, 30.

We ordered 40 sets of gear in fiscal year 2025.

We haven't bought anything since then.

Did you say 40 sets of 40 chief?

Today I I did a little um research into this item from previous years, and I'm just gonna run through some of these numbers with you and I'm gonna ask you for reasoning for these changes.

So in 2020, 2021, 2022, you budgeted 85,000.

In 2023, you budgeted 99,400.

In 2024, it jumped up to 129,600.

And then again in 100, yeah, in 2025, again you had 129,600 budgeted, and you spent 99% of it.

In 2026, you reduced that budget down to 72,000 from 1296.

And then you didn't spend anything out of it.

What was the what was the reason why you reduced your budget from 129,006 to 72,000?

We uh we didn't put a recruit class on this year.

So you didn't what?

In the previous recruits, we don't have new recruits this year.

This year, because of the safer grant that we have for those 20 firefighters is coming to an end.

Uh, we didn't put a recruit class through this year.

So every year that we put a recruit class through, it's either 12 to in some of those years that you're talking about, up to 24 recruits that we had in those years.

Uh, and each of those recruits needs a full set of turnout gear, which is pants, coats, helmets, gloves, it comes up to almost 55 or $6,000 per recruit for them.

So in the years that you see it's heavy, it's years that we had a lot of recruits coming through.

Uh, and then this this fiscal year it was reduced because we didn't intend on putting a recruit class through in this fiscal year.

So I took the money, I I reduced the budget by the amount of the gear that would cost for the recruits.

That's why you saw a drop this year, and then an increase next year because we plan to put another 12 through in the next fiscal year.

So that's the increase.

And you you said that you had um some recruits come in under the safer grant?

Correct.

Okay, and the safer grant has expired.

It is penned in an extension amendment.

Pending an extension?

Correct.

What happens if you don't get the extension?

Then they will that grant will end on July 1st.

Those those personnel will be will end on July 1st.

The employment of those personnel correct will end.

Correct.

Okay.

But nothing right now is getting approved for FEMA because they are shut down.

And it also says here that um the fire department was required.

Let me go back to this to only modify its PPE specifications, but to test compliant products for reliability prior to advertising this bid.

That's this bid we're talking about now, right?

Correct.

And what was the cost for that testing?

Nothing.

No cost.

We reach out to the manufacturers.

Uh and we expect typically that if you bid on our gear that you will provide us with what we call demo gear.

Uh so at the two manufacturers that we recommended, uh, provided us with two full sets of gear.

Uh and those are usually given to our firefighters on the busier apparatus.

It allows us to let them wear them and you know, for a better lack of better term, beat up on them for a little while to see the durability and the usability of it.

So uh they've uh all these companies have given us two sets of gear to try out before we allow them to bid.

Well, we allow them to bid, but before we take them seriously on a bid and assuming that this gets approved this evening, your budget for 2027 is gonna reflect 158,400.

Yeah, as of the as of the writing of this letter okay.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Do we have any questions from members of the committee?

Hearing none, we have any questions from members of the council.

None.

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, uh, thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

We'll move on to item number two, 2026 454, found on page seven, and it is permitting and design phase for East Avenue Check Valve Chamber.

Good evening, Director.

Good evening, Jerry Willet Water Department.

The water division maintains the check valve chamber is located off East Avenue, main service from Natick Avenue meter house to the water distribution from the west end of the city.

Um department is requesting to engage with Stan Tech Consulting Services for engineering design and permitting of this project to replace and rehab this check valve as well as the bypass.

Um please consider this memo request for an exception to the notice under section 566 of the Warwick code for stand tech consulting services and you bound of 111,500 for services rendered as outline and the attached documents, this contract will be a one-time expense until completion of the project.

Okay, thank you for that.

In your position paper, it says the check valve is long overdue for replacement.

How long overdue for replacement is this?

15 years.

Correct.

So in 2001.

Says the vow is in the chamber were evaluated in 2016.

However, the project never moved forward.

So that's six years ago.

I'm sorry, 10 years ago.

And did you just say that the replacement was overdue by 16 years?

15.

The valve report.

Um the valve report in in in the uh stand tech proposal, I believe it states 15 years.

The valve report came out in October 2016 as a result of issues with the valve.

So my guess is that the issues went back five years.

It's it's just concerning to me when I see these type of items that come before us that are long overdue for replacement compressors that should have been replaced, etc.

And here we are now.

We've got this do or die situation.

It also says here this request is stage one of several for the replacement of the East Avenue check valve chamber.

Once this is completed, the department will move on to the next step.

How many replacements of the check valves are going to be required at East Avenue?

There's just one replacement of the check valve.

There's only one check valve.

It's the first step.

Um is engaging Stantec consulting services.

The project's still gonna be design permitted, put out the bid construction, um, engineering services during construction.

This is this is this letter.

This design is just um phase one.

For the first step.

It's one project.

So the the check valve chamber, is that the housing that holds this check valve that you're looking to purchase?

There is a chamber that houses a 36-inch check valve that's broken open.

Okay.

There was also a bypass.

The 36-inch isolation gate, if I'm not mistaken.

I I mean I'm the isolation gates are broken.

The bypass is broken right now.

100% of the flow is going through the bypass.

So it's a real mess.

It says this contract will be a one-time expense until completion of the project.

Do you have any idea as to what the final cost of this repair will be for this long overdue replacement?

I want to say 1.3.

I I I didn't write it down to come here tonight.

This is just the engineering.

You said you think it's like one thing.

I think it's one point.

I I can't remember what I put in for.

Okay.

That you put in for.

Just for conversation, what would happen if this check valve decided tomorrow to fail?

Tell us what what would happen.

You drain the system.

I'm sorry, you would drain the system.

If there was an issue, you would drain the system.

Um this check valve needs to be fixed to get the altitude valve to function properly and maintain level in the ball tilt tanks um to get the turnover.

No, I'm not disputing the fact that it needs to get fixed.

What I'm looking to put out there is what would happen if this failed.

Because as you said, it should have been replaced 15 years ago.

According to Stan Tech.

Right.

I think that somewhere along the line, things need to be revisited with the infrastructure and priorities established for other items that have or are in need of replacement that should have been done years ago.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Napa.

Evening, Director.

Um, just out of curiosity, the 36-inch check valve is massive.

How many is this the only one the city has, or do we have others throughout the city?

This is the only one.

Are there any other like items?

And this is just for my education.

There are any other valves that are super important that are kind of on your target list to get into the preventative maintenance arena so that we don't have an issue where it's 15-20 years go by and we just are kind of catching up from behind.

Yes, I have a whole list of valves.

There was a valve study done.

Um we have a list too, and and I'm working on that.

Um these are just the five things that I four things that I put in for the project priority.

This is top priority, top three.

So you're trying to be proactive and get ahead, so we don't have these issues that your predecessors have left in your lab.

This is the first step.

Second step is um we're looking at replacing the altitude valve at Bald Hill.

Um I had somebody check it out, and it it's we're just gonna replace the pilot valve.

Um, but in order to do that, the consultant that works on these altitude valves um is adamant that this check valve has to be fixed first.

Um it's allowing water to go both ways.

I'm not real sure how to explain it, but I I know in my head what's what's going on.

Well, thank you for your diligence.

That's all I have.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any further questions?

Any questions from members of the council?

Yes, Councilman Kirby.

Yes, uh Chief, I have a question to ask you.

To the best of my knowledge, that's K County water, is it?

No, Providence.

It's Providence Water.

It comes through the Natick the Natick meter house.

Yeah, it's on Natick Ave in West Warwick.

Um and then it goes into this east Av check valve.

It's the check valve just stops the water from going backwards, yeah, back towards Natick.

And right now the bypass is stuck open and check valve is stuck in the open position.

So that's not K County's uh water lines there or anything.

Nope.

Okay.

It comes right off the 102 coming out of Situate.

Um feel like I said, it feeds the Natick meet house and then it goes to East Av and from there it ends up going up Bald Hill to the tanks.

I just know that when we call dig save most uh for a lot of that area of uh Kent County water goes out with Marksham.

But uh that's why I'm asking the question.

Uh yeah, no, there are mains.

I mean it's Kent County jurisdiction, but there are mains.

Just like you know uh we have easements in Cranston.

It's it's our main, even though it's in Cranston, it's our main um on the uh Pentaclantic connection.

Okay that's it.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we'll move on to item number three, 2027 001A fire apparatus repairs found on page 18.

Good evening.

Excuse me.

Christy Moretti Public Works.

Um, this uh bid and the bid after it is uh they again like we do with the parts, they share the c same cap.

Um we are requesting to award the bid for fire apparatus repairs and the amount of 100,000 dollars for a one-year period, June 8, 26 to June 7, excuse me, June 7, 2027.

Christy DPW um does the repairs.

Yes, our automotive division does.

Okay.

And what was spent on this last year?

So I didn't do the well, I should have done the math.

Um excuse me.

I I wrote down what the cap what was left on the remaining.

Give me one second.

We spent 82,828 and 86 cents.

18,000.

82,000.

82,000.

Yes.

Okay.

And what was your cap last year?

100,000.

Last year.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Kirby, just shut your light off, please.

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you, Christy.

We'll move on to um 2027 001 B.

That is found on page 25.

This is uh the second part of the request that was just made by the department.

Um, these added these vendors that we are requesting to add to the bid will also utilize the same cap as the uh part A of 100,000 dollars.

So, Christy, why are we let me rephrase that?

Did any of these vendors that you are proposing to add, did they bid on 2027 001A?

No.

No.

And do you have a copy or any information submitted by them to you showing what their hourly rates will be?

I do not, it's not required um under a 566 because they did not submit a bid.

Um, so basically, we will you know the automotive chief will reach out.

I can tell you that like allegiance is uh 220 dollars an hour.

That one I do know because we've recently had repairs done with them.

Um but the other ones are they're all relative to the industry and the the what the apparatus they're working on.

Um, but no, there is no uh pricing sheet.

Well, I disagree with this.

Um I will not support this bid, and again, we just come back to things that we've been talking about for a long time.

We just add in vendors because they choose not to bid, and they're getting this attitude that why bother bidding because they'll just add us on anyways, and even more do I object because we don't have an hourly rate from them.

Sure, we have an hourly rate from the other vendors, but I have no clue, and apparently um DPW does not have any documentation as to what these other vendors are.

So I'm going to allow questions from the committee, etc.

But I will be moving to hold this until the department provides us with what the hourly rates are that these vendors who for whatever reason chose not to bid, provide us with any questions from the committee, councilman Mudon.

Hi, Christy.

Uh, just a follow-up on the the reason why we're adding additional vendors.

What is what is that reason compared to the ones that have already bid?

So the fire department has um some apparatus that is that is manufacture specific.

Um so for instance, the coastal is the repair shop for all of our international rescues.

Um, obviously, because Coastal International is a brand, we can't send them out to a Ford dealer or uh Chevy dealer or um so that's why we make this request, and um, you know, much like the parts bids, it's unfortunately something that we need to do every year to ensure that we can make sure that the fire apparatus excuse me is repaired in a timely fashion in order to get it returned to service, and this is only for anything that we can't do in-house.

We repair rescues and fire apparatus, we buy parts from the individual dealers such as Coastal International.

If it's something that our mechanics can't handle in-house, that's when we send it out, or something if they're not certified to do, like pump work, that's when we send it out.

Which this isn't something that we do regularly on a weekly basis where we're sending fire apparatus out.

The majority of it is done in-house.

Thank you.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, I make a motion we hold this bid until the next meeting, where we will be provided with an hourly rate required by each of these vendors.

I will not support an item that isn't giving us an hourly rate, and we just have to um rely on the fact that they're gonna be competitive with the current bidders, and that makes no sense to me at all.

Uh that would never happen in my world of doing business that I award contracts to anyone and have no clue what their hourly rates are.

So that is my motion.

I make a motion to hold this item until whatever the next date of the meeting is.

Do we have to which okay?

We have a PCR PCR 5026, and the motion is to hold until May 11th.

Sir That's correct.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Councilman Napa?

I didn't hear what yours was.

Okay.

So that means that was a two-two if you wouldn't before sending it to the body take public comment here for months in front of us.

Okay.

Okay.

So before we well, the result here is we have two yes, we have two no.

What that means is it goes to the full council floor without a recommendation.

Is there any additional comments or any comments or questions from members of the public on PCR 50 26?

Are there any questions regarding PCR 50-26?

Hearing none, this will be sent to the floor without a recommendation.

Item number five, 2026001 HVAC maintenance found on page 27.

Christy Moretti again for public works.

We are requesting to extend the contract with this vendor environmental service environmental systems incorporated for an additional year as allowed in the amount of 75,000 dollars, which will bring the spending authority to 150,000 and expire on June 30th, 2027.

Christy, when was the last time this went out for bid?

Last year.

Last year?

Yes.

And I assume this is the same company that has been maintaining both of these arenas for the past several years.

They are in Warbarton, yes.

Yes.

The the water, the cooling tower is a little bit different because we have a company that balances the chemicals to treat the discharge off the top.

But yes, they did just install the new cooling tower for Warburton.

And have we had numerous repairs on the same components in the past year or two?

No.

We do our regular maintenance, our preventative maintenance.

Um for the most part.

We haven't had the same repairs.

Um the repairs that we've had, our our equipment is aging.

It was it was installed in 20 uh 2003.

So you can imagine it's 23 years old.

It's been you know working nonstop for the most part, um, you know, year round, except for when we close one of the ice rank.

So um, you know, it's been put through its paces and then some this company's done a fantastic job making sure that we stay frozen, they're very responsive to service calls.

Um, I have the technician's direct phone number, so if something goes down, I reach right out, they they come right out.

We we don't have any issue with this company, and um it also allows us to maintain the same hourly rate that we have with them right now.

How long have has the city had the contract with environmental systems we had them previously um under the Avadesian administration?

I'm not sure at one point we did have a different vendor come in called North Star um under the Solomon administration, but it wasn't under the purview of public works at that time, it was under the purview of the recreation department and um when Mayor Pacosi um became our mayor, he tasked public works with there were a lot of issues, so he tasked us with having it evaluated and taking over the the care and maintenance of the facility, which we did.

So they've been our vendor.

I want to say they've been back with us again since 2021-ish.

And with renewing the spending authority with them without going out for bid.

Have they agreed to hold their prices on their labor rates?

Yes, there's an email that says they agreed to hold the terms for an additional year.

Okay, all the terms and conditions, yes, okay.

And what's your reason for not going out for bid?

Um, in the the economic climate that we're in, a lot of times we see rates go up, we see parts, you know, the the uh percentages go up.

Um we just think it's in the best interest of the city to maintain this contract for an additional year and and then bid it, we'll bid it again in this this time next year.

Um we'll put it back out to bid.

Okay.

And of course you have their um discount rates that they provided to us last time in their hourly rates, etc.

Right?

Yes, it's part of the bid package that they submitted previously.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Nappa.

Christy, this company does the preventative maintenance on the towers and different items, like on a at the city's request.

Is that my understanding?

Yes.

They they come in and do repairs um, you know, when something fails, and they do our preventative maintenance.

Did they identify any problems or suggest any repairs to that tower that just failed?

No.

That tower again was installed 23 years ago.

Right.

So um, you know, it it's had its issues, then they've made repairs to it and patched it up, and you know, we've had it as long as we could, it just it failed.

It wasn't any anything that they did wrong.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Councilman.

And for the record, I wasn't suggesting that they did anything wrong with the tower, but I was suggesting that the inspections in the approvals and the sign-offs on the performance of that tower was done by them.

Okay, any other questions from members of the council?

Any question?

Councilman Napa?

Just for clarity, I I was sort of suggesting that maybe they missed it, speaking to their competences to evaluating the problem at the end.

No problem.

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item number six, 2026 309 found on page 32, international paving.

I'd like to request to amend this item um to add a job that needs to be done for the highway division.

I'm sorry, Chris, I couldn't hear you.

I'm requesting to amend this item for a job that needs to be done for the highway division.

For a job that needs to be done?

Yes, there's a there's an issue um uh at the intersection of Kilvert and Jefferson Boulevard.

Um the road is there's uh a depression there that we need to have them take care of for us.

So I'm uh requesting to amend the awarded amount by the amount of the job for Jefferson and Kilvert.

Um so the request will be to increase the spending authority by 75,165 for a total of 100 five thousand one excuse me, 105,165 um to do the two areas on Airport Road for the water division as well as the area at Jefferson and Kilbert.

Could you tell me that total amount again?

105,000 165.

165?

Yes.

Okay.

And that is for paving at Jefferson Boulevard and Kilvert Street in what else?

There's two areas on Airport Road that need to be fixed for the water division.

Okay.

So you're increasing um the the total excuse me, the total to 105,165.

Correct, but the increase that we're requesting on the original awarded amount of $30,000 is $75,165.

It was originally awarded for $35,000.

Right.

We have three areas that need to be need to have the work done.

That amounts to $5,165.

So the total cap spending authority, I should say, on this bid is 105,165.

Okay, right now you have a request for $57,200.

What are you looking for?

$75,165.

$75,165.

Okay.

So you want to amend that.

75,165.

Christy, why are we um doing any repairs to the roads or to the road on the airport road?

That's a state road, isn't it?

It is, but the um the issues that are happening over there are directly related to water main breaks, and it is our responsibility to restore the road as you know, for safe driving conditions.

Is there any reimbursement for the state from the state on that?

No.

And the reason is because it's our infrastructure.

Correct.

Okay.

This also says um repairs for roadways and sidewalks.

So I would assume that means the city is also repairing sidewalks.

Not at the moment, no, but if there was something like a water, this is this is with the water divisions bid.

Public uh highways using it as well for their purposes right now.

But it says that because if we have a water main breaker, we have something that needs to be restored because our infrastructure broke down, and we have to dig up a sidewalk.

We still have to fix it.

Okay.

So it's repairing sidewalks as it applies to in an infrastructure repair or maintenance or failure.

Right.

So like on Airport Road, there's no sidewalk to be repaired.

We didn't impede the sidewalk, it's just the roadway.

Okay.

I'm asking because I recently sent in requests in prior to recently for some sidewalk repairs, and actually haven't gotten a reply on that, but I just wanted to qualify what this particular item is.

So okay, I'm clear on that.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Nappa.

Just one Christy, the Kilvert Jefferson.

That's the sinkhole essentially with all the coins in it.

Yeah, basically the one right at the intersection.

Middle of everything.

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh my constituents will be happy to hear that.

Thank you.

I can't hear you.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman.

Anything else?

I just want to make sure the resolution number we're seeking to change what's printed as 57200 to become 75165.

Correct.

75,165.

Correct.

Correct.

Madam Clerk, I need a PCR on that, please.

PCR.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

I make a motion to amend as noted.

Wow.

Okay, we have a motion by Councilman Foley to amend PCR 51-26 to 75,165.

It's been seconded by Councilman Nappa.

All in favor.

Clarification on that.

Are we we're increasing it to a total of 105?

Not 75.

So the the reason I asked was we heard both numbers.

The number that matters most is in the middle of the grid here.

Um the 57200.

The note at the end would be adjusted to that 10515 number as well.

So note two would be adjusted after you made the amendment to the item inside the grid itself.

So we don't need to include the total of 105165 in this action, do we currently the request was to increase the spending authority from 57200 to 75,165?

If that amendment were to pass, we would update that note too to reflect that increase.

Okay.

When you say we'll do that, who is we if this amendment is favorably adopted by the full council, okay.

Um we would update that number at that time.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

No, no, no.

Sure.

So the vote again.

I think you want to call the vote again because he interrupted us.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Now we need a vote.

There you go.

And the motion is on PCR 51-26 to amend the amount from 57,200 to 75,165.

All in favor?

Aye.

I move.

I make a motion to move PCR as amended.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second to move as amended.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Question.

Who had the question?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Councilman D.

Louise.

Go ahead.

I I like a clarification on that.

Christy, didn't you ask for an additional 75?

That would make it 122.

No.

I thought you asked for an additional 75.

No, I asked for so the request for the water division was 57,200, I believe.

The public works division needs uh 17,965.

So it makes the total request um to increase the spending authority 75,165.

Yeah, I thought you asked for an additional 75.

Okay, thanks.

Councilman DLouise, did you want to make an amendment?

I'm only kidding.

All right, moving on to item number seven, 2027 035 e-permitting found on page 35.

E permit Bill Carlucci, uh, IT director.

This is a request under City Ordinance 566 exception to bid to award the annual service and support contract for the OpenGov Cloud Service to OpenGov Inc.

in the amount of $55,680 and 77 cents.

This is an approximate 4% increase from last year's cost.

Uh of this amount, the state will reimburse the city for the portion associated with the building department, which is 12,054 and 79 cents.

This leaves the city's net cost at 43,625 and 98 cents.

Uh the state reimbursement is simply because the building department is mandated to use this software, so the state has always picked up the tab for it.

Umrector DeCorde had actually argued for that up front.

I have a little bit of history with e-permitting.

A little bit.

So my question to you is how does the state determine what our reimbursement is going to be?

Is there a formula that they use, or do they just throw it a number and say, hey gang, we're gonna give you 12,000?

Thank you very much.

Uh as I've had out as I have outlined here, open gov actually has I wouldn't call it a complex, but a formula that says depending on whether you use a separate folder or someone else's folder, how many permits do you do in a given year?

They set the cost.

You'll notice that our low new department is only costed out at $9,996 and 15 cents.

That's the planning department.

So for open gov, they actually set the money.

They negotiate with the state on what they're gonna charge for those permits and all that good stuff.

They set the money per folder.

So each one of these groups is set for what open gov is charging us.

The state will reimburse us for whatever open gov charges us for the building department.

That's where the money comes from.

But does the state tell open gov what the percentage is that they're gonna reimburse?

No, the it's between city of Warwick and the state to get our money.

OpenGov in the state negotiate a multi-year contract for cost across the state.

But once that's set, each municipality will negotiate, not negotiate, will be told by open gov, here's what our rates are.

So when we sign up the building department, the rate comes out to twelve thousand fifty-four dollars.

This whatever that is, if the if open gov were to charge us twenty-five thousand dollars for that, um, because we did five times more permits, the state would reimburse us to twenty-five thousand.

Whatever it is we pay to open gov, they will reimburse us for the business uh for the building department.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you, Director.

We'll move on to item number nine, mobile self-contained food concessions.

This is a revenue item.

Uh excuse me, did I skip one?

Sorry.

Um, cruise sense software support.

That is item number eight found on page 39.

You wouldn't want to deny yourself an opportunity to hear me ramble about you wouldn't want to deny yourself an opportunity to hear me ramble on about software some more, would you?

This is a request under city ordinance 566 exception to bid to award the annual service contract for the emergency services workforce management software to vector solutions as the sole provider of their software and service, uh software as a service product, cruise sense workforce management in the amount of $52,609 and 46 cents.

Uh this is just under a five percent increase from last year.

We always look at software as 10% is the line.

15, you're pushing it.

Anything under 10, we're doing okay.

So especially with some of the increases we've seen recently, uh, it's a fairly favorable.

If there is a favorable increase, it's a favorable percentage of increase uh to go through.

Uh there's a breakdown there of all the different cost components that goes into the software.

Basically, the software is used for the fire department to schedule their time off overtime to put out overtime within the union contract rules and uh all the manipulation of that stuff.

And this cost breakdown for the software, it lists fire department 236 annual police five annual.

Where did those numbers come from?

It's the number of licenses we hold for each of those departments.

If you remember back, historically, the police department and the fire department were both using this software.

The police department have migrated back onto IMC, their ERP type system for the uh lack of a better term.

Um, they kept five of their civilians on it.

Uh these are just the numbers of users we have on the system.

Um I don't know if it's a hard count.

Some software has actually put a hard count in, uh, but we haven't been challenged on these numbers.

So these licenses, those are individual licenses.

So that would mean, as an example, the fire department for this contract is determining determined by 236 firefighters.

236 users of the system that would include firefighters administration support staff, yes.

Yeah, well, anyone that wears the fire department uniform might consider part of the fire department.

I stand to stay corrected.

The chief, the assistant chief just told me it includes 12 civilians in a breakdown.

It what 12 civilians.

He has a different opinion on whether you're in the fire department or not.

Okay, so we have 224 firefighters and 12 civilians.

And the 12 the civilians have to be licensed, have to get this license as well.

Yes, anyone use the software licensing is per user.

If you use the system, you're gonna pay for a license.

Okay, um, something that I found pretty interesting is the software allows the fire department to effectively and efficiently administer and track management of their respective workforces and areas of requested time, schedule time modifications, um, yada yada yada yada.

So with with this software, any questions that should be asked regarding um any of these items, overtime, time off, change of shifts, etc.

Should be readily available at the click of a mouse, so to speak.

I'm always careful with this equipment.

Having spent so much time dealing with software in my career, I'm kind of very careful not to say at the click of a mouse.

Um, there is a reporting feature on it.

However, this is the operational piece.

Okay.

This is the hey, send out a blast of email saying this is an overtime shift available.

Do you are you available?

Are you gonna take it?

Respond back and forth.

All of that information still gets consolidated into Munis.

So payroll is still run out of our ER.

But it's it's all tracked electronically through this this software.

Okay.

It's not like it's paper-driven or anything like that.

Okay.

Um this also says as the sole provider of their software.

So is that to suggest that these the programs that we're using now?

When we say that they are the sole provider of their software.

That's not to suggest that there isn't a competitive software out there that could do this same job.

Correct.

So why isn't this bid?

This isn't the software per se.

This is the support licensing of the software.

Okay.

When the bid went out, um once again, historically, that was both police and fire.

They went out to bid.

They looked at all the different packages that were available.

This is the one they selected.

Very similar to Tyler's Munis product.

Once you select that product, you're correct.

You have two choices.

You can continue to do it as a sole source, meaning no one else will offer this licensing and support um for this product, or you can say we're gonna migrate to a different one.

Migrating any software product is a task, not an unsurmount surmountable task, but it is a task.

It's not something that you would go into lightly.

Um there would have to be a motivating factor.

Could be cost, could be service, could be you know, product functionality uh or something along those lines.

Okay.

Um questions from members of the committee.

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you for that, director.

We will now move on to item number nine.

Say what?

It's under revenue.

It's on the all right.

So I'm gonna be calling for the revenue.

So um, any other items from members of the committee that you would like to have held.

We have quite a few of them.

Councilman Napa.

Yes.

Okay.

That's the one you want.

Anything else, Councilman?

Councilman Foley.

Councilman Mudo.

Any okay.

Any members of the council have any items that they would like to have pulled out.

Any items from the public?

Any members of the public?

Are there any items in the bid package that you would like to have held out for questions?

You're gonna pass.

Okay.

All right.

Um let's go to item number nine.

It's mobile self-contained food concessions at various city locations.

Polly Weber Parks and Recreation.

Holly, could you just keep that mic close, please?

Sure.

Just incredibly difficult to understand.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So we went out to bid for the mobile concessions for the beaches and athletic complexes.

And we had two bids come in, and we are looking to award both of them as listed.

Total of $13,100.

Okay.

For now, I'll defer to Councilman Napra.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Director, I just had a question about how you decided that only those particular fields were gonna get chosen to get sent out for a bid rather than including some of the other fields that are around or facilities that are around like uh Rocky Point or uh so Rocky Point is state, so that's under the state bid program.

That's why.

Okay, that makes sense.

How about other areas around the city?

These are like the most utilized areas that would be worth the vendor's money to be there.

If you look, Mickey Stevens wasn't even bid on this year because it's not overly utilized.

Do we not get a bid out for um Winslow or that's not ours, that's the Apenon Girl Softball and Walk Firefighters?

They do their own concessions.

I mean, but there are trucks that go there though.

For them, it's ours.

That's still city owns the field, correct?

The airport owns the fields.

Okay.

That's all I had.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um.

So Holly, you said this is for the most utilized areas.

What about the areas that are not so utilized?

Are those also going out for bid?

Such as I don't know.

You said for the areas that are most utilized, which makes me ask the question, what other areas are there?

Uh we have other like park areas like Asprey Park or something like that, that it wouldn't be worth the vendors' time to stay down there because the traffic isn't revolving.

So those other areas won't be bid.

They will not be bid.

Okay, so suppose a vendor wanted to go to those other not so utilized areas.

Would they be allowed to do so?

They can drive through and stop if someone s waves them down, but they can't sit and park.

Okay.

And what about the this is um strictly for lemonade, right?

No, it's any type.

So the the second vendor for Conimicate actually has a variety.

They have salads and sandwiches.

Umlate Park Cafe.

Yes.

So there is no one else that bidded for any of these items?

No.

And how many vendors were notified of the bidding?

98, which was the current um license held in Warwick.

Okay.

And out of the 98 that were notified, I assume they were notified via email.

Uh yes.

Okay.

There was only two that bid.

Yes.

Interesting.

Which means that no other food truck venues can go to any of these locations during the course of this year.

Unless it's a special event and they're brought in by that event.

Brown.

Or private permit.

They're brought in by whom?

Uh if we if I have an event, I can bring in other trucks as long as they have the Warwick Peddler's license.

Okay.

Like National Night Out as an example.

Yes, perfect example.

So all those type of events, um, fireworks at 4th of July, etc.

Correct.

And that would be something.

How would how would the city reach out to those vendors to participate in those areas?

Um, same process that's set up.

It's not for bid, but it's for application.

But I mean, we can set up a meeting to discuss that at any time.

So let's use national night out for an example.

I know that's a a major issue.

Um, or major event, I should say.

Sure.

Um for the vendors who would participate in the food truck at national night out.

How would those vendors be selected?

So that's not part of this bid, so I didn't come prepared to speak on that.

Interesting.

Thank you, Chief.

Go ahead.

So I know that that's not part of this bid, but are these vendors are they exclude?

Is I guess let me figure out the best way to word this question.

Does this bid include their participation in those nights such as national night out?

No.

Were they made known that they are this is there are dates that are excluded from their bid on this?

Once it's awarded, they will.

They they can be there just not during those hours.

It's usually like a three-hour period of time, two-hour period of time.

But when they bid they knew that they didn't know that they were they did know that there would be times that they could?

Yes.

Okay.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Okay.

So we received our direction as to what we're gonna be able to question on this.

So uh I'll be circling back on those other food truck events.

Um, I think it's no secret that um there's certainly some questions on that.

Okay, any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Councilman Ricks, please.

Thank you.

I think that uh from reviewing this.

I'm glad that the uh recommendation is to approve both of those vendors that have uh non-competing food items.

It looks like the process from this for this year has improved from that used at some times in some previous years.

I know that the process has changed around from year to year, different years, but uh it is a little bit disappointing, of course, that it wasn't a more competitive bid.

Uh I know that it's uh typically a bit more competitive, and we're hearing from some of these different vendors, but uh well, obviously we can't force people to put in a bid, and hopefully people see these uh improvements to the process and are more willing to bid in the future.

Thank you.

I have a question for the chief, please.

Good evening, chief.

I figure I'd go directly to the source.

Um I want to request a list of all the vendors that were emailed for bidding on these.

I believe it's on my website, but I can send it to you.

It's what, please?

I believe it's on the website, so but I'll send it to you.

But somebody can send that off to me.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And Holly, I'm sorry, I believe you said there was ninety-eight.

Yes.

Okay.

And you should be able to get that to me the next day or so.

Yes.

Thank you.

Or the members of the committee, whoever else wants one too for that matter.

Sure, go ahead, councilman.

Sorry, I just one thing popped in my head.

Bidding on these, this doesn't like require them to be there on certain days, so if they don't have adequate stuff, they can dump off.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

One more time for members of the council.

Nothing.

Okay.

Members of the public.

Any members of the public have any questions on this item?

Okay, hearing none.

Thank you, Director.

All right, we have nothing else on that.

I will as soon as I get to my page over here, so I can see what I'm coming up with next.

Okay.

So I need a motion on PCR forty-seven-26.

Motion move favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, I need to believe the uh next item is going to be PCO six dash twenty-six, an ordinance amending section sixty-walk on this one because it's like a while.

Definitely not get started.

Okay.

Um fair enough.

In the interest of time, um, interrupting this item, uh, the council president has just asked if I'd be interested in moving this or holding it.

Um sorry.

Right, till after we get through the the public hearing, and that's that's fine with me.

I think this is gonna require a little bit more time than what we have, which is about 15 minutes.

So um if the finance committee would uh recess, we'll bring forward the other committees and and the council for six thirty.

Okay, thank you.

Let the record indicate the finance committee is recessed at six fourteen.

Would the public properties committee please convene?

Right.

I don't know why that was on top of my agenda.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Here we go.

Okay.

Let me get to the right one.

No, no, I need to make sure that I do.

I R D Y R D Yes.

Okay.

So I'm just asking there's a title, like Council Member Council Member.

Shall we start?

Sure.

Yeah.

It's uh Salvatore.

D Louise D E L U I S E.

Council.

I didn't see it.

Oh, yeah.

Um the agenda.

Uh no.

Uh that's the full meeting agenda.

Uh yeah, I can't.

Sure.

Jeremy Vicks, Jeremy, J E R E M Y, Rick's R I X.

Oh, cheer.

Cheer.

Councilman William.

Foley.

F O L E Y.

You're welcome.

Now you're good.

Are we ready to begin?

Okay.

City Council Committee on Public Properties, Land Use and Community Affairs comes to order at six nineteen PM.

First up, we have acceptance of the minutes from March nine, twenty twenty-six.

Do we have a motion for favorable action?

Move favorable.

Second.

All in favor?

I guess.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Action or motion by Councilman Foley.

Seconded by Councilman Day Louise.

All in favor?

I four zero approved.

An ordinance amending appendix A.

Zoning Ordnance of the City of Warwick regarding the geographical areas where retail sales of marijuana and related products can occur.

City of Warwick Petitioner.

Council President, would you like for us to move this to the floor?

Council President requests moving to the floor.

I will make the motion that we move this to the full council for a hearing, public hearing, that is, without a recommendation by this committee.

Do I have a second?

Second all right, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye four zero okay this is Councilman Gebhardt.

This is for first passage public hearing.

It is PCO nine twenty six in ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the City of Warwick four three three two post road LLC applicant applicant is listed as four three two one I'll repeat four three three two one post road this is Assessor's plat two two one lot two six Councilman Gebhardt I take it that you would like this to be moved to the floor for public hearing I'll make that motion second councilman foley seconds all in favor?

Aye four zero the third item and final item on the agenda for this committee is PCO 1026 and ordinance amending appendix A zoning ordinance of the City of Warwick regarding voting thresholds for changes to historic district zones City of Warwick petitioner citywide this is the Council President on behalf of Mayor Picosi first passage public hearing council president I take it that uh you would like this to be moved to the floor for a public hearing council president make such a request I will make a motion to the same effect do I have a second second thank you all in favor?

Aye and that's 40 there being no further items on this agenda the committee meeting closes at 623 p.m will convene at six thirty p.m in six minutes

All right, City Council will come to order at six thirty one PM.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Here.

Here.

Here.

All right.

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

Unless there's any objection.

We're gonna skip.

So is there any objection to jumping to PCO eighteen dash twenty-five under referred business?

All right, seeing none.

First up before us is PCO eighteen dash twenty-five and ordinance amending appendix A.

Zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick regarding the geographical areas where retail sales of marijuana and related products can occur.

City of Warwick Petitioners citywide.

This would be first passage, and we're here for a public hearing.

So Councilman Ricks.

Move to open public hearing.

Seconded by Councilman Lattiser.

Any discussion?

All opposed.

All right.

So public hearing stands open.

And this is the petitioners, City of Warwick.

So whoever wishes to speak on behalf of the city of Warwick.

Hi, Tom Kravitz, City Planning Director.

Excuse me, Council President, what item are we on?

Yep.

So this is PCO 18-25, an ordinance amending appendix A zoning ordinance of the City of War regarding the geographical areas where retail sales are marijuana and related products can occur.

Right.

The um planning board had made a recommendation uh to leave the uh zoning the way it was.

All right, and the proposal would be to change it, correct?

Right.

They felt as I said in my memo that given the special use permit requirement, um, that affords the planning board the opportunity to address a number of items, you know, related to traffic, lighting, architecture, neighborhood, general characteristics on a case by case basis.

Right.

Does the so is the city taking the position of the planning board taken, not taking any position?

I I don't believe I'm we're not taking a position.

Already would you say to convey the planning board's advisory proposition to go for a council right?

Does either councilman Napa or Gebhart want to introduce explain the hand up?

All right, Councilman Nappa.

Okay.

So essentially the nexus of this um was that recently there was an application to the zoning board um to have a special use permit approved in I believe it was a light industrial um area of the city that uh was neighboring and uh butting in a very much adjacent to a neighborhood uh and also a um a daycare uh where the applicant was looking for um special use permit to be able to use retail marijuana sales.

So this was sort of a um an issue that was brought to light for me at least um to say that we have maybe an issue which I did some digging into what the city council has done before, what the city had looked at.

Um I think very intentionally, city councils in past had um opened up that route to corridor um to direct and say like this this is where we want our retail uh marijuana sales to be, and sort of um not so much secluded because that's a massive corridor, but this is where it would have the lowest impact on residential areas and areas where we may not necessarily want upticks in the amount of traffic that those type of facilities bring because they are very successful.

Um, and also that sort of retail shop in and around neighborhoods or schools where there are populations and pockets of bus stops and children and uh neighborhood atmosphere.

So that process played out in the zoning board.

Um we looked at where we stood as far as what was allowed and what was not allowed, and I think um, at least in my mind, that I I think intentionally the city made it seem as though we wanted to sort of keep the marijuana retail in an area where it have little impact on those residential areas and those vulnerable populations.

Um so that's what the nexus and how we got to where we are today.

This went to the planning board for recommendation, which I am a little bit confused about because the zoning board is the one that made the decision relative to special use permits, if I'm correct, based on how this fleshed out in real time.

Um so I would be more curious to hear from zoning board as far as whether because they're the thumbs up or thumbs down on this, um, what their opinion would be.

I hear I hear and understand and appreciate what the planning board has said, uh, but I think the zoning board is also important relative to input on this item because they're the first stop.

So then councilman Gebhard, I see the light on I thought we were trying to accomplish two things here.

Um that I don't see reflected here.

So light light industrial, I don't have strong feelings one way or another.

I tend to think that the planning board memo that stated, hey, we have sufficient control because we have a special use permit and we go through a process.

I I thought that that was I was satisfied with that as sufficient.

But I thought the other piece that we were asking for, because it seems strange.

So we we directly without special use permit allow this use on route two, which I think was always the intent.

I think part of the missed intent though was if you wanted to operate such a facility in a general business zone anywhere else, similar to light industrial and general industrial, you should also be able to get a special use permit.

What why is it why is it different?

You still have the benefit of being on route two, and that you have no additional permitting needs at all.

That's the fast pass.

And then if you find a viable site in general business or late industrial or general industrial, then you go through a process.

So there's a lot of oversight around where these get sited ultimately.

Um, but I had thought, and maybe I I misrecalling, but I had thought that we had um also suggested that the planning board look at a modification to general business to include um the opportunity for a special special use permit.

I think those are all my thoughts.

Happy to answer any questions if that generated any for anyone.

If I could just caveat off of that, I think my recollection would be the same as Councilman Gebhardt's is that we looked at other uh GB districts, general business districts, such as like the north end of Warwick Ave, where that's sort of more industrialized.

Um and the more southern portions of Route 2, sort of at the city boundaries where that might be appropriate.

So I my recollection is the same as Councilman Gebhardt describes that this uh the intent here was to maybe also open up to special use permits in other areas of general business to allow more opportunity at the same time as sort of maybe readjusting what we're looking at in light industrial and general industrial councilman Gebhardt.

They um originally the light industrial general industrial wasn't on my radar.

I know there's an acute scenario that came up um in a different part of the city, but I do have recollection to several years ago, uh some conversations with the planning department.

I don't recall who um, but just about that we have a limited finite amount of light industrial and general industrial zoned properties in the city, and sort of once they head you know towards general business or away from industrial, they're difficult to get back in terms of zoning, and so though that you know having a place for those uses where it is appropriate is valuable to the city.

So not converting those through special use permit into sort of more of a general business use and eliminating a light industrial use.

Um that that had been explained to me at some point as a reason to be opposed to allowing this type of business in that zone, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

I think with the special use permit, the planning department can apply suitable judgment to each application and allow it where it makes sense and disallow it where it doesn't.

So thank you.

Councilman Lattiser Thank you, Mr.

President.

Hi, Director.

Thank you.

Um, so I'd like to hear you elaborate a bit more on the position that the planning board took on this item and what their reasoning was they felt comfortable leaving the special use permit provision in the use table in the L I and GI zones because when an applicant is trying to achieve a special use permit, the planning board has the ability uh to apply more standards to their review.

They're mainly concerned with this case, probably traffic, um proximity to residential neighborhoods in some of these industrial districts, um architecture, lighting, um, so they can um apply those special use permit standards to their findings on a case-by-case basis.

So they felt they felt as though to change it to you know not allowed.

Um they just didn't support that notion.

They they felt they also talked about the number of licenses coming out.

I mean, if we're lucky, I think this the city could get maybe two more if if that so it's not like it's uh a real issue yet, you know, as of today.

So I don't particularly have a major position with um with the item itself, but I do have concerns with a broad brush approach to controlling a specific business entity.

So today this could be eliminating a special use permit approval for marijuana.

Umorrow it could be for selling whatever, some other unknown.

It could be from selling flooring.

You can't sell flooring in this area because of whatever.

We have let me rephrase that the business community has more than their share of challenges and uphill battles with trying to stay afloat, whether it be this industry, the restaurant business, the hotel business, etc.

etc.

We are known for being uh less than a business friendly state.

The position that was unanimous with the planning board, correct.

And the planning board that's their job to foresee the future of the community to plan, to plan development, to plan businesses, to plan recreation, etc.

etc.

I have I have a concern with specifying a particular business entity and saying we're just gonna give a broad brush to this, and we're going to take away something that or to put more control into regulations.

And I'm not I'm not so so cool on that, but um I would like to hear from hopefully members uh of the business community on on this item as well, but to I'm just not crazy about um what I'm seeing here, and particularly now that um the recommendation I should say is that accurate the recommendation of the planning board is to leave it as is.

Well, yeah, if anything, um the the special use permit was is in there right now.

That's how you passed this the first time around.

Right.

It was put forth by the council to not allow the use in the district at all.

So take it away.

So the planning board is saying, well, no, leave it as a conditional special use permit.

Um, if anything, I think what you're speaking to is actually the planning board is actually more supportive of potentially allowing the use in those zones versus not at all, right?

So it's gonna be it would be case by case basis, right?

As opposed to a broad brush, see you later, we're done.

Yeah, that's how it's always been okay.

Thank you.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So I am a little bit divided on this.

I'm certainly open-minded to arguments.

Uh I very much respect Councilman Latiser's uh take on this, and I do agree with many of his points.

At the same time, I can also see a counter-argument in the form of uh, as I believe uh some of our colleagues expressed earlier, that the intent of our previous ordinance was really to make sure that these types of businesses are directed towards specific areas.

That's certainly my recollection as well from that time.

It's also something that I continue to think makes a lot of sense.

So if this is if this is more of a clarification, and uh otherwise helping to give the uh potential business owners a more clear direction as to what uh the city and its boards are going to uh are going to be encouraging.

Well, I think that there's also a benefit to there in that uh because of how a special use permit is uh well by its nature, discretionary uh regarding the interpretation of various factors.

Uh there is some element of subjectivity in there as much as uh obviously we try to make that process of a special use permit as objective as possible.

Well, it's rather inevitable uh when weighing the various factors.

So if it really is a situation where it's very it would be very, very difficult to imagine where those factors would come in for a special use permit to actually be granted, then perhaps it makes sense to be more clear to the public about that, so that uh people aren't effectively wind up wasting their time going through a whole lot of process when what they should be doing if they want to operate that business in the city of Warwick is look to those areas where it is expressly permitted.

So I can see both sides, and I'm certainly open to uh hearing further discussion on this.

Thank you.

Councilman Neppa should throw to me.

All right, so at least two people have referenced the desire to potentially see something different in this.

So do either of you wish to introduce an amendment.

Oh, so at least the the prospect of what you want to do.

I'm not necessarily motion for it now.

Yeah, sure.

So um uh thank you.

Uh so I would I would propose that we amend this to return.

So essentially it's the zone uh the zone table.

Uh amendment that's already proposed.

I would essentially revert that amendment.

So light industrial LI zone would revert to S.

General Industrial GI zone would revert to S.

And under general business, I would add an S in addition to note 29, which provides below regarding the you know, by right zone of Route 2.

And that would be the extent of my amendments.

Thank you.

Councilman Apple.

Just to clarify Councilman Gebhardt's suggestion.

The S that would be added to the general business would not have any effect on the by right in note 29.

So this would be like a note 30, I guess.

Happy to at least step in and clarify so that the amendment that I heard from or the concept from Councilman Get's part.

Please.

Our current um section 511 of the zoning district says that there'll be no retail marijuana in any place currently, except you can do it by right in the general business area in no that's specified in uh footnote 29, which is along route two.

And you can do that by right there, or under the current uh law, you can apply for a special use permit under in a uh light industrial or a jet general industrial zone.

The PCO 1825 proposes to eliminate the special use permit access for light industrial and general industrial.

Councilman uh the planning board uh returned a recommendation that they don't agree with making such change, they recommend leaving it the way it is.

Councilman Gephardt is seeking to return to that, but add a clause within the general business zones that you would still have the by right district, but that you would provide that other general business areas could access a special use permit to cite that there.

Is that so the end result of that would be the only change to current law of where we currently sit today would be that the special uh anywhere in general business could apply for a special use permit to the zoning board to cite a uh retail marijuana facility?

That would be the councilman's intent from versus current law.

Right.

And I could enumerate some reasons behind that, but I wanted to get that on the table first.

Councilman Riggs.

I would be more concerned about uh special use permits for this type of business in a general business district or lots that are subject to general business zoning, that is more so than I would have concerns about that type of business in the light industrial or general industrial, since general business it's uh lining up and down uh many of the roads in Ward 2, for example, I believe up and down roads across uh uh much or most of the city.

So I I would have concerns about uh expanding quite to that degree so Director Kravis, any thoughts regarding that concept?

Yeah, thanks for asking.

I my concern is I've never seen in the use table in any zoning code.

Uh you know, it's either an allowed use, yes, special use permit or or not at all.

It sounds like you'd be like, I don't see how you can have it both ways in a G B.

It's either a yes or an S or an N.

It sounded like the amendment was to allow both by right and special use permit, which would be confusing.

Uh my understanding from Councilman Gephardt's uh intent was that within the designated zone uh in footnote 29, it would be a by right, but outside of that zone within for a GB property, you could use a special use property.

So you're speaking to the specific geography within GB.

Within GB, correct.

Okay.

All right.

So there's no other further questions.

We can move to oh, Councilman Naputt.

So I'm just pulling up.

I just pulled up the GS GIS mapping and did the overlay.

I think I'd like to also echo some concern with just going S for general business.

Um there are some portions of West Shore Road, actually the whole length of Westro Road, we're right outside a middle school, most of the length of Oracle.

That would be general business.

I don't necessarily know that we want to open the window of at least not I shouldn't say we I would not be supportive of opening the window in totality for all general business, but I think there are pockets in here for sure on northern ends and the southern southwestern ends of the city that potentially maybe expand the by right areas that make more sense to say like in that strip.

I don't necessarily know that we want to open the window of at least not I shouldn't say we I would not be supportive of opening the window in totality for all general business, but I think there are pockets in here for sure on northern ends and the southern southwestern ends of the city that potentially maybe expand the by right areas that make more sense to say like in that strip of looking at the strip on the north end of Warwick Av, for instance, where there it is very industrialized business, no schools, no neighborhoods are very limited, similar to what we see kind of down in the Bald Hill area, and then maybe the southwestern end of the city that we maybe expand the by right rather than car blanch special use.

I don't know if that made any sense whatsoever.

So just uh not so much dub tail as in like next steps.

So it sounds like there's uh at a minimum differing opinions, or at least thoughts on this, not just from us, but also from the admin.

So councilman Lannister, we can go to you, but then I'd I'd like to hear from the public so we can get that part underway.

So if anyone came to speak on it, we can hear their thoughts.

Sure.

I can hold my comments left.

Oh that I wasn't trying to do that, but if not, this works.

So any members of the public wish to speak on this.

So normally it would be anyone.

Can you just lead with whether or not you're in favor or against in your name, obviously?

Uh I know I know who you are, but I uh good evening.

My name's Armand, A R M A N D Lucy L-U-Si, live in Ward 9.

Uh I think you should just leave it the way it was.

Okay.

You have a special use permit for general and light industrial, and you have the cannabis corridor on route too.

Now, I hit a uh back in December, I went in front of the zoning board and tried to get a special use permit, which I probably should have gotten because I conformed to all eight points on a special use permit.

But there was a residential neighborhood across the street, and they came out with 60 people, and uh it didn't get approved.

So um most municipalities want these businesses in light or general industrial because they're not residential, those are usually the areas.

So uh what the city did a couple years ago was fine.

You made the the corridor on route too, and uh you know the planning board voted unanimously to to leave it the way.

I I don't know why the council would uh go in a different direction, but uh I don't intend to be in the cannabis business.

As a matter of fact, the lottery for the new retail stores, there was a federal uh court ruling that puts that on hold.

You're probably a year or two away from from doing another lottery.

So my suggestion is to just leave the ordinance the way it was when you passed it uh a few years ago, leave it on route to leave it on light.

I as a matter of fact, I think there was a special use permit given to another industrial area with it this year.

I'm not sure of that, but I believe that's the case.

So that's all I have to say.

All righty, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter?

Anyone else who wish wishes to speak on this matter?

Anyone else who wishes to speak on this matter?

All right, is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Moved and seconded by Councilman Foley.

Any further discussion on that?

All in favor of closing the public hearing say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, so the public hearing is closed.

Is it okay to go to Councilman Lattisser first?

Or do you want to absolutely all right?

Councilman Lattisser.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

So what I was going to say was just reinforced by Mr.

Lucy, and there's a perfect example.

The system worked.

He wanted to do a location in an area that the neighbors came out in force, they objected to their voices were heard, and it worked.

So the system clearly worked.

I haven't seen anyone come here or certainly communicate with me, objecting to the current system, or demanding some changes.

And I think the the amendments that Councilman Gebhardt as well as Councilman Knapper have just discussed pretty much takes us back to where it was in the first place, with perhaps a minor wiggle room here or there.

So given what I've heard, I think the current system that's in place works.

And for those reasons, I would not be able to support this.