The Warwick City Council met on April 27, 2026, at 7:58 PM, convening multiple committees and a full council session that extended past midnight. The meeting addressed a wide range of items including zoning amendments for cannabis facilities, a controversial transfer of tax-title properties, a resolution supporting state recycling reform, and a proposed ordinance to defer contributions to the OPEB trust. A motion to extend the meeting to 1:00 AM passed unanimously, but a subsequent motion to waive the 10-minute speaking rule failed (6-3). Several items were held for further discussion.
This ordinance was on first passage. The proposed ordinance updates the process for transferring tax-title properties, aiming to bring the city into compliance with state and federal law—the current ordinance was acknowledged as unlawful. Councilman Ricks cautioned that passing the ordinance without first identifying conservation-priority parcels would create a first-come, first-served system that could allow any member of the public to purchase properties before the city could preserve them. Councilman Lattiser objected, stating he did not know which deletions/edits were necessary for state law compliance versus extraneous changes. Jane Austen (Land Trust) requested a pause to allow a comprehensive inventory and strategic approach. The administration countered that the ordinance has been delayed repeatedly and that an illegal ordinance exposes the city to liability and potential court intervention. Councilman Gebhart moved favorable action, seconded. The motion passed in a roll-call vote: 7 yes, 2 no (Lattiser, Mudo). City Council President Snappy indicated he would docket a separate item to address conservation-priority properties.
This item came to the full council with no recommendation from the finance committee. The ordinance would allow the city to reduce OPEB trust contributions to no less than the employee match (currently ~2%) during the period before state reimbursement for school construction debt service begins. Chief of Staff Bill Fenti explained the city faces $15.8 million in debt service in 2027 and expects a ~$5 million actuarial reduction in pension contributions; deferring that $5 million to OPEB would preserve the rainy day fund. Councilman Lattiser argued the OPEB trust is a "shell game" and criticized the late receipt of the fiscal note (3:20 PM the same day). Councilman Ricks warned that deferring contributions means losing compound growth, potentially leading to a larger future burden. Councilman Gebhart proposed an amendment to require repayment to the OPEB trust within one year after state reimbursement begins. Mayor Picozzi asked for time to analyze the financial impact of the amendment. Councilman Napa moved to hold the item to the next regular meeting (May 11) or a sooner special meeting; the motion to hold passed without objection.
A resolution requesting the General Assembly to support a combined bottle bill (deposit return system) and extended producer responsibility (EPR) program. Senator McKenney, a co-chair of the joint commission on plastic waste reduction, spoke in favor, noting the state's recycling rate is only 14–26%. He highlighted that microplastics are now found in Narragansett Bay (an estimated 2,300–3,000 metric tons, per a new URI study) and in human tissue. The senator explained the program would be paid for by the beverage and packaging industries, not taxpayers. Mayor Picozzi expressed full support, noting the landfill is nearing capacity. Councilman Ricks emphasized Warwick's disproportionate impact due to its extensive shoreline. The resolution passed the committee unanimously and was sent to the floor with a favorable recommendation.
This resolution requests a charter amendment requiring an annual public hearing with a five-year financial forecast and actuarial presentation. Councilman Ricks noted that the council rules already require this but a charter amendment would make it permanent. The administration suggested an ordinance might provide more flexibility for future councils. Councilman Mudo moved to send to the floor without recommendation. The motion passed (6-3).
This resolution would require council advice and consent for mayoral appointments (e.g., department heads, boards/commissions). Councilman Ricks, the sponsor, presented the item for discussion rather than a final vote. He noted 90–95% of department heads are excellent, but added vetting could catch issues. Mayor Picozzi adamantly opposed, arguing it would deter qualified candidates who do not want to go public with their job search. Councilman Latticer initially supported the idea but was swayed by the mayor's concerns regarding attracting talent. Broad support emerged for limiting advice-and-consent to boards and commissions only, not department heads. The item was held to May 11th.
A resolution requesting the General Assembly to clear restrictions on the former Warwick administration building so the city can sell it. Mayor Picozzi described the building as deteriorating and a neighborhood nuisance (fences falling, illegal dumping, truck idling). The resolution passed favorably.
A claim for a tire and alignment totaling over $300. Councilman Latticer argued the $64 difference should never have come to the council, as the process cost more than the disputed amount. The committee voted to pay the $300 cap.
Held to May 11th because the claimant did not attend and council had questions about responsibility for tree damage.
Amends the zoning ordinance to change the HDC from requiring 4 affirmative votes to a simple majority. Councilman Ricks confirmed this was the only change. The item passed out of committee favorably.
Continued to May 11th because the petitioner was not present. Several residents spoke in opposition. A motion to continue passed unanimously.
Councilman Latticer opposed because vendors did not provide labor rates. He moved to hold, and the item was held to May 11th.
An amendment to increase spending authority from $57,200 to $75,165 was approved, and the amended contract passed.
Both items were sent to the floor without recommendation, as their outcomes depend on other pending items.
Moved to the floor without recommendation.
The ordinance passed first passage 7-2.
Right, they'd still have to overcome any skepticism from the neighbors. They're still gonna have to, or they don't have to do any of that, and they can just go on route two, and they don't have to talk to anybody. They just fill out the form, sign the check, and away they go. Um, but this puts back in the court of the of the entrepreneur or the you know the business owner trying to to launch this to dig through the the vacant parcels across the city and try to identify the you know needle in a haystack that might actually be a good location in a general business zone that isn't surrounded by neighbors that isn't within 500 feet of a school that isn't with in 500 feet of a daycare. I mean, there's all these requirements on these, you know, from the state level, and then what we have in our in our own general zoning, and then the high bar of then going to the to the uh zoning department or you know, zoning board and trying to you know get a very uh special use permit in order to open it in a particular place. So I think everyone's aligned. This would only just add a little bit more stock for you know, someone who is looking to open this type of facility to kind of scour around and find a place that might work without us. We shouldn't be the ones identifying these parcels. We want it there, like that's not how it works, right? We've kind of set the playing field and and let people invest where they um where they want to, but like I said, um oh, one other thing I want to adjust. It has been working, but only because nothing's opened, right? Like none of these have actually opened. Um there was supposed to be uh uh this lottery, um, where there was gonna be 20 plus uh released across the state. I would venture to guess that anyone who put in for that in Warwick is either you know in a light industrial or general industrial zone um that we may or may not even know about um or is is looking at route two, but um obviously that process is now off the rails, and um you know they're I'll leave it at that. Um, you know, that's thank you. You get it? All right, so uh that my only thought that comes to mind is if we're gonna keep it in light industrial industrial and general industrial, that the logic for keeping that in special use permit seems to equally apply to general at least in part apply to general business along the lines that council McGebhart state it uh that's just uh just a thought. Uh but right now there's the current thing before us is the no and no and light industrial and general industrial. So if there is gonna be a proposed amendment, we'd want to have that uh councilman Latticer, Mr. President, will you entertain a motion on this item? So right after I've said that his light lit up, so I want him to have the opportunity to amend, if so. So are you trying to amend? No, sir. Would you would it be right if councilman gapar had the opportunity to try to councilman get part? So I'll I'll put forward the original amendment based on the discussion. If folks here are on board, great. If not, then we'll go to the second vote, which would be to just shoot this down and it goes back to how it's always been. Okay. Um so my amendment would be as described, uh solicitor. Uh so councilman Gephardt is moving an amendment to uh maintain the current special use permits and light industrial and general industrial, and to also allow it within general business uh special use permits to be issued. So it would undo the S to no that's being proposed, and it would require me to write some language into footnote 29 about allowing special use permits and general business outside of the designated by right zone. So is there a second regarding the proposed amendment? Seconded by Councilman Nebba. Is there any further discussion on this? All right, if not, can the clerk please call the role on the proposed amendment? Mr. Sinapping, yes, Mr. DeLouise, yes, Mr. Foley, yes, Mr. Geth, yes, Mr. Carby, yeah, Mr. Ladissa, no, Mr. Mudo, no, Mr. Napa, yes, Mr. Ray. No, yes, three, no motion passes. All right, and so unless anyone has any new comments, then we can go back to Councilman Lannister because I assume you wanted to call the vote. Um, I was going to be going with a different motion. So my motion was unfavorable action on P13-25. All right.