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.

Is there a second for that motion?

All right.

So it's seconded by Councilman Mudo.

So the motion before us is for unfavorable action.

Oh, you have a question, Councilman Rix?

Yes, brief question.

Uh just to make certain that uh I'm not missing anything.

Uh we would be uh voting on well, the underlying item as amended by Councilman Gabhard and the substance of the amendment the item has amended is that uh the general uh by right use in that zone along route two has not changed, however, uh special use permits for general business, light industrial and general industrial uh anyways that uh potentially allowed by special use permit as to those three different zones, correct?

So what now stands before you is an amended version of PCO 1825?

It right now the proposal maintains the existing standards and only expands to the extent that you can now also have special use permits for the non-Route 2 corridor area that is general business zoned.

So we are uh effectively looking at a document that undid the changes on LI and GI.

So the S's would are still are back in place, and the footnote 29 would be amended to expand for the non-Route 2 corridor area to have the ability to to cite something with a special use permit there as well.

Thank you.

That's what I thought.

I just wanted to make sure that I was 100% clear on that.

Thank you.

So is it questions, Councilman Nappa?

So given the change is fairly substantial.

I'd be interested to hear again from the planning board what their input would be, or at least from the director, what his input would be as far as allowing the special use throughout GB.

I mean that that's that's up to the planning board under the state enabling legislation and the the zoning enabling act 45 24 51.

It's been the same since 1991.

It's the planning commission or planning board that would opine on that and councilman de Louise.

Did you have a question?

Thank you.

Um, I just have one question.

So any person, well, would would this still require the applicant who wants to put one of these facilities in?

Are they still going to have to appear before a zoning board well as it's written now?

No, not if it's within the route two corridor.

Um as is proposed now, they would have to appear for a special use permit outside of the route two corridor within other GB zones.

But you can now go to the planning board under what's called a unified development review and have the planning board in effect act as the zoning board for matters of special use permit.

So it could go either way, it could go to the zoning board or the planning board if the applicant uh seeks to have a UDR review.

Well, who who determines whether it goes before the planning board or the zoning board?

With the applicant in their application, they they can check if they check UDR, then it would go to the planning board with that board again acting as the zoning board.

Okay.

All right, so right now before us is a motion for unfavorable action.

It was seconded councilman appa.

Just for clarity, can this be referred back to planning board to get an opinion on this larger change?

Or should it be?

So my understanding is that the the planning board sent their recommendation, which was leave the status quo and don't make changes.

That was their recommendation.

This is the matter before you now is proposing a expansion to the status quo in the non-route two corridor of general business zones to allow special use permits to cite these businesses in those GB non-route two areas.

Understood.

Thank you.

I was gonna have it through the vote.

The more we talk, the more confusing this gets.

All right.

So my motion is to move unfavorable action on PCO 18-25, which goes to what the director said was the planning board's recommendation is to leave it as is right.

But but the only caveat is bear in mind that 1825 as before us right now is as amended by councilman Gebhart's motion, which still is against the planning board's recommendation, so your your statement still is accurate.

So when if it's a yes vote on unfavorable action, that puts unfavorable on PCO 1825 as amended.

Yes, it means it goes down and is done.

Yeah.

Why you look like maybe it ain't yes?

Okay.

You have moved and councilman meadow has seconded your unfavorable action on the amended item.

If the yes is when the matter um concludes and nothing changes.

Okay, got it.

And that was a good that was basically the preface I was gonna make.

So thank you.

Actually, so a no means this is changed as desired by Councilman Gebb.

Well, actually, a no means it's still live because then someone has to move for favorable action after, but you get the idea.

So motion for unfavorable action stands before us.

Clerk will call the roll.

No, Mr.

Deloule's no Mr.

Pauling, no Mr.

No.

Mr.

Curry, yes, the last no Mr.

Nav?

No.

Mr.

Rev.

Yes.

Sorry, microphone issue.

Playroll is holding off for suspense.

All right, do we have a motion for favorable action?

Well, move favorable.

Councilman Gebhard is move favorable action.

Does anyone second?

Seconded by Councilman Nappa.

Shouldn't be any further discussion because we've already pretty much hashed this out.

So and there are no lights.

Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Navy?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Mr.

Navan?

Yes.

No.

Seven three.

Six three.

All right.

So next is PCO 1825 as amended passes first passage.

Next we have PCO 9-26, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick for 332 Post Road LLC applicant forward 332 Post Road Assessors Plat 221 Lot 26.

This would be first passage.

On the agenda.

All right.

Hearing none so ordered.

And then now Councilman Gebhart.

Yeah, committee report, Councilman Rix.

Committee recommends move for public hearing.

So for action, Councilman Gebhart.

Um move favorable action.

Move to open the hearing.

Seconded by Councilman Laddis should open the public hearing.

All right.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

So so opened.

We have the petitioner.

Point of order for what it's worth.

We have heard from the petitioner that they are not going to be here this evening.

So that is correct.

Uh the petitioner ran into some issues this evening.

So uh recommendation would be to continue this matter to the next meeting, which would be uh May 11th.

All right.

Does anyone here wish to speak on this matter?

PCO 9-26, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the city of Warwick 432 Post Road LOC is the applicant regarding post-order assessors plat 221 lot 26.

I was wondering, I gotta know.

I want to know what's going on.

Director Kravitz, could you potentially give a quick summary of what this is seeking to do?

Yeah, the applicant um would like to construct uh three buildings totaling seven units on the property.

So let's be your part to get back to right.

It's it's one step in a process.

So bear mine, there's a stenographer here, she needs you to be on the mic if you're gonna speak.

We can bring the mic to you.

So just when you get there, please just state your name and then have at it.

Bernard, B-E-R-N-A-R-D, Karen 4343 Post Road.

I don't know if you need that.

I live across the street, but I did receive um a letter, and so that's why I'm here because I just feel that seven condos is just too many for that spot.

So I don't know what kind of testing was done with it.

Was there traffic studies done?

Um it just seems like a with the space that they're putting them in, we're gonna end up with a lot of traffic and some issues in that area.

We have accidents there at least once a month already.

So adding seven units and very little parking and that congestion just might just be a little too many.

That's all.

That's my only.

So I don't know how that's being issued.

How's that's been being looked at?

Yeah, so normally if the petitioner was here, we would ask those exact questions, or rather you would turn and ask them and they would respond.

So if you have any other questions, feel free to state them now.

That way we can make sure they are addressed when the petitioner is here at the next meeting.

Okay, no, that that's really my questions because you know I got the letter and I'm here because I want to know really what's going on, what kind of studies were taken for that type of situation.

Um drainage over there is very poor.

We get floods every time it rains, you know, adding seven more units, and how's that all gonna be addressed?

Um when there's waterfront events, people are parking all on the streets already.

So where are you gonna put the extra people?

Um there's a historic house on that land now.

Is that going to be demolished?

Has the historic society even looked at that?

I mean, there's just a lot of concerns over there, and I know there are a lot of condos and a lot of apartments on the other side of Post Road, but across the street, we're all single family residents.

So they don't sell.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening, Michelle Comar Ward 1.

Uh, I am not a notice to butter within the 200 foot radius.

Um, but I can tell you, Councilman Um Gephardt, you're lucky man to have post road in the shape it's in.

And I my comment is not to turn post road into a traffic impacting congested area like Centerville Road with zone changes.

Um my husband and I will purposely take post road going down to East Greenwich or South County versus the highway, which is faster just for the scenic view.

It's low traffic, it's nice the way it is.

Um the house that's gonna be demolished was constructed in 1850.

It's part of my scenic view going down post road.

My husband and I got married just up the road from this site at Clouds Hill Museum.

So it's a it's a favorite spot.

I mean, the developer has the right to develop his land, and if the building is not on the historic register or contributing property in a historic district, they can do what they want.

Um but it is on the work comprehensive plan future land use map.

It's designated for commercial use.

And commercial use to us is office, maybe businesses.

So it it doesn't have a designation in the future for our existing plan for residential use.

And I believe the proposal is for going from uh one structure that 1850 house, which supports a commercial business and one housing unit.

I can ask the applicant when they're here and convert it to seven residential units and um some office use.

I'm not sure.

It's not clear in the application.

There is a discrepancy in how big the parcel is in the application on the survey plan.

I think it's 0.85 acres on the Warx tax assessors database, it's 0.95 acres.

I don't know if that's significant enough to evaluate if this density, this increased density use of land is compatible with the surrounding area.

The map in the council's um package that was emailed to people on the distribution list within the 200 foot radius, it looks like it's single family homes.

The density is low.

This would be a high density, more intense use of one lot.

So that's my comment for now.

Maybe the developer will find this helpful when they do come before the council.

Thank you.

Hello.

Thank you very much for having the meeting tonight.

Um my name is Sally Gruber, G-R-U-B-E-R.

And I do not live by this property, but I traveled to see the property uh so that I could experience it.

And it's a very, very lovely property.

It's beautifully landscaped, and there's a very lovely solid looking historic home on it.

So the idea of of changing this property.

I mean, Rhode Island is such a great state because of its people, ocean, woodlands, and history.

And I feel we should try to support those four aspects.

And that that property, I don't have as much knowledge as the residents that live very close, but it's a beautiful property, and we need more of these properties in our state in our city.

So I'm very, very skeptical about building all of these structures on that very small piece of property.

Thank you very much for listening to my concerns.

Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak about this?

Is there any other members of the public that wish to speak about this?

Is there any other members of the public who wish to speak about this?

All right.

So given that the petitioner can't be here tonight, we can entertain a motion to continue this.

So moved second.

I heard somebody make it.

Councilman Gilhard made it.

Yeah.

All right.

Clerk, please call the roll on the request to continue the matter.

So May 11th.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Next is PCO 10-26 and ordinance amending appendix A zoning ordinance of the City of Warwick regarding voting thresholds.

Thresholds for the changes to historic district zones of city of Warwick petitioner.

It's a citywide properties.

Committee recommends, excuse me.

Committee recommends public hearing.

Councilman Richard you please make the motion.

Move to open public hearing.

Seconded by Councilman Ford.

All in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Seeing on public hearing stands open.

So Director Kravitz.

The amendment relates to the HDC and how they operate.

You'll see in the ordinance that there's this provision that says they need to have, I think it's four affirming votes, whether they're approving or denying something.

So attorney Titz has suggested to staff he he actually made this recommendation to simply delete and strike that uh that provision.

It's not consistent with other state statutes that it will rely on a simple majority to pass or deny items.

So is it fair to say this would change it from the four members who all have to agree to instead be simple majority?

Right.

All right.

Any questions for Director Kravitz?

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So with this one amendment, the that is the only amendment that I actually am seeing here is the strike through of that uh well, two sentences.

Uh there wouldn't there wouldn't need to be any further changes to ensure that the uh ordinance is read such that it is a matter of a simple majority vote?

Correct.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure that I was a hundred percent clear on that and that there weren't any other amendments that would be necessary.

Uh on the merits.

I'm I'm fine with this.

No objection.

All right.

Does any members of the public wish to speak on this?

Do any members of the public wish to speak on this?

Do any members of the public wish to speak on this?

All right, seeing none, we can entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

Councilman Lattis.

Seconded by Councilman Muto.

All in favor?

I all opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Is there any further discussion on this matter?

All right.

See now we can entertain a motion.

Move.

Move favor.

Second.

Motion made by Councilman Lattice or seconded by Councilman Ricks for favorable action.

Any further discussion?

All right.

See non clerk will please call the roll on favorable action.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

So all right.

So we're gonna as long as no objection, jump back to public comment because those who were able to stay have been waiting quite a while.

Is there any objection to that?

All right.

So public comment rule 41 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 30 minutes during which citizens may comment about work, city government issues subject to the following stipulations.

The total period of time for public comment shall not exceed 30 minutes.

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

Each citizen signed up and present shall 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 for comment shall be issues directly if it is 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 person requires unanimous vote.

So by the way, bless you, whoever that was.

First up is Rob Cody.

Good evening.

Rob had to go, so he can't make it.

All right.

Thank you for letting us know.

Next up is Richard Wangseth.

I think he left, but I still got a try.

All right.

And last up is Darlene Netco.

Hello, Darling Netco Ward 7.

Um, I had wanted to talk about this uh during the intergovernmental committee um hearing, but that hasn't occurred yet.

So I'll mention it here.

The PCR-2126, the uh proposal to uh change the constitution of the school committee.

Um there are some issues with the makeup of the school committee as it currently exists.

The fact that two members are at large and those two members every four years have to um run a citywide campaign akin to what a mayoral candidate has to do, I think is uh very difficult, and it prevents a number of people from wanting to do it.

So while there might be uh some changes that need to be made to the makeup of the school committee, I think the current proposal needs a little more uh thought and work.

I think the um nine members might be too many.

I know instead of coming from each ward, they're coming from uh districts, so three from each district, which might make it easier to find people to run.

But I think um at this point, the proposal as it stands, uh needs some more consideration to the fact that even uh getting three people from each uh district might be difficult to do.

And I think um five maybe might be too small considering the size of the city, nine might be too large, and you might be looking for one of those Goldilocks situations, which is what is just right.

Um, on numerous occasions, I have also mentioned since the city uh side takes obviously such an interest in the schools, and then every year around budget time um has the same mantra, which is we just approve um the budget, we have no say in it.

Uh during the past year we endured the schools endured the uh budget commission, which was established by the city.

Maybe um the schools need to become a city department like every other department in the city, and then the schools answered to the city, and then the city has to own it and can't just sit back and blame the school committee and the school department for everything.

They would get a say, and then how the money is spent, and then they can't sit back and say, Oh, we just approve it, we can't say how it's spent.

So the current proposal as written, I think needs some more thought, and ultimately, if a change is to be made, why not just subsume the schools and be in charge if that's what you guys want.

Thank you.

All right, and we'll give it one last shot.

Uh and I know it was mentioned that he's not here, but at least given the opportunity.

Rob Cody and Richard Langseth.

All right.

So that concludes public comment.

Can I speak?

Mr.

Sunati, can I go?

I didn't have time to sign up.

We're not allowed to permit you to speak under that context.

I'm sorry, I apologize.

Um we're gonna move back to intergovernmental because we've had someone waiting here to speak.

Mr.

President, pardon.

All right, I'm giving glad I've been I've been giving it free free reign.

So it just go ahead.

You're subject to the same rules as far as what we normally do for speaking under this portion.

Just make sure you introduce yourself, please.

I'll withdraw my request.

Thank you.

Chris O'Connell.

So I'm just gonna assume tonight was a happy coincidence that you chose to wait until now to do the public comment.

So I'm just gonna stick with that.

Maybe because you wanted to get your public hearing out of the way.

I'll stick with that.

As for what Rob wants to say, you're gonna have to wait next month to hear what he has to say.

So but you're gonna have to listen to me tonight, Mr.

Mayor.

It's good to see you.

Miss Neko, Mrs.

Neko, I don't know.

Sorry.

Chris O'Connell.

Okay.

Well, if any of you are paying attention to what I'm posting on uh Mr.

Cushman's page, then maybe you would know me.

But it's all right.

Let me tell you something.

There's some snakes in this room.

One right in front of me and one right next to me.

How can you come up here in January and say that you're friends with this man while you're trying to ram one of these poles up him?

So just I don't know how you can.

As a reminder, we're not allowed to have personal attacks, but please can't.

That wasn't a personal attack.

I didn't attack his character.

I said he was doing an action.

Big difference.

Because it was true.

I don't understand it.

I really don't.

For there to be some sort of conceited effort to go after this man.

That's why I do what I do.

Someone I respect.

And you stood up there and said, Oh, we're friends.

Why you try to remove him?

That's where I'm coming from.

It's the truth.

I don't know why you guys wanted to go after him.

I really don't.

And you could have had your 50 million dollar bond, but you wanted to put this guy in charge of it.

No way in hell is that gonna happen.

Absolutely not.

I would have voted for the bond if he was in charge, but then you tried to take him out.

So there's no more trust.

There's just no more trust.

You can make amends.

I think you can make amends.

All you gotta do is just realize where we're all coming from.

And uh as for the schools, we have the highest per-pupil rates in the country.

They're well funded.

If you make the hard decisions now, you won't have to worry about all this other nonsense.

It's the truth, and as for all this other fire department stuff, I think it's funny.

I really do.

I understand they may be reserved, some of those may have been reserve rescues, but if you're driving around with broken headlights, what else are we supposed to assume?

And it's not easy for us to ask questions.

We get any sort of freedom of information act gets turned down most of the time.

So what are we supposed to do?

I really don't know.

You got my number.

Why don't you just call me?

I can help.

I don't like doing this.

I really don't.

But when you make moves against people I respect, and then we trust, what am I supposed to do?

Stand back.

Seriously, I don't know what I'm supposed to do.

He's in my ward, and he's someone I respect, and a lot of other people do too.

So that's where I'm coming from.

So I'd like to put all this nonsense behind us and move forward.

The fight has to stop, and we all have to work together.

There's plenty of money in the city, plenty.

You got a super strong tax base.

All your problems can be solved if you just listen.

It's that simple.

So I'll just leave you with that.

I really don't like to do the personal attacks and all this other nonsense.

I can't imagine what it was like for you to drive by if you did drive by when I was out there in that cow suit.

I don't want to do that.

Once again, that's where I'm coming from.

So with that, I would like to see all you work together.

And if you can do that, then you'll solve all your problems.

Look at Cranston.

It's a crap show.

35 seconds, sir.

So you can fix the schools if you listen to this man, and you get the chairman to apologize, chairman of the school committee to apologize for that nonsense that happened.

Nonsense.

School's been operating in a deficit for a long time.

So there's plenty of money.

Figure it out, work together.

And give me a call if you want.

Because I got a lot of great ideas, especially with Rocky Point.

I can do a lot of good things there.

100%.

So thank you.

All right.

Uh we're gonna go to intergovernmental, unless there's any objection for the as we point out because there's someone here to speak on it.

By the way, are either of the two claimants here who are here regarding appealing a claim.

I think it's Mr.

Contrarius or Contrarius, I'm gonna butcher the name and Miss Croft, I believe.

Mr.

or Miss Contreras and Croft.

All right, just wanted to check.

So intergovernmental, please.

It's a governmental.

Yeah, that works.

Hello, sir.

Oh this was amazing.

You still won't need them.

I need to say that's I know this I'm done.

I thought this is a hospital.

Oh no.

Can't sweep.

Oh okay.

Good evening.

Time is now 758.

Air governmental comes to order.

First item of business acceptance of minutes from March 9th.

Do we have a motion?

Motion move favorable action.

Second.

Thank you.

So all in favor?

I minutes from April 6th.

Do I have a motion?

Motion move, favorable action.

Second.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Unless there's any objection, I'd like to move uh item number five, PCR 4526 resolution requesting the General Assembly to support recycling reform legislation S 312 and H7911 up first.

Any objection?

No objection.

No objection.

Okay.

I just wanted to note for the record I'll be recusing from uh participating in this conversation this evening.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

But then who shall guide us.

Okay.

I think we have enough lawyers.

We have to do that.

Yes.

Right there.

Yeah, right there.

Perfect.

So thank you.

Okay.

Senator, we can we can start with you.

I know you want to, you're you want to speak on this item.

So the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, and thank you to uh everyone on the committee for entertaining this this resolution.

Uh I was uh co-chair with uh repinty of a joint house and senate commission that looked at plastic waste reduction, and we actually expanded it to uh include uh glass and uh and aluminum and other uh materials.

Uh and we came out with a number of recommendations.

I um I would be happy to point any of you to the uh uh URL for that commission final report.

I'm not suggesting you read the entire report, it's a little too thick, but I'd recommend that you take a look at our letter to uh uh the speaker and the Senate president, which is brief, and uh and we also have findings and recommendations.

So we're talking about maybe six or seven pages worth, but what it does is it sums up uh what we found in the course of 18 months of of looking at this.

Um I will tell you that as a result of of this study, uh we put forth the bill that is present before the general assembly and the one that your resolution uh proposes to support.

Uh and it is not your grandfather's bottle bill.

There have been bottle bills put in over the years left and right.

Uh we took a very good look at what best practices are around the country, and so we have actually proposed something which would, if we passed it, make us the first in the nation to actually institute both a quote unquote bottle bill or deposit return system, DRS or whatever you want to call it, both the bottle bill and an EPR extended producer responsibility aspect, all put together in one bill.

And it would take a little bit of time, it would probably be at least a couple years, maybe three years before we could get a bottle bill up and running.

It would probably take a little longer than that, three perhaps four years before we could get extended producer responsibility going.

It begs the question though, first of all, why?

And uh there's a few reasons.

Uh certainly I would say the number one reason is uh we we pull our bin out to the curb each week, and most people think everything's being recycled.

When they find out that it's as little it's 26 percent that's actually being recycled.

When they find out that it's as little it's 26% that's actually being recycled I had found people that I've spoken to are a little ticked off.

And the 26 may be generous.

It might be as low as 14.

We certainly heard that in the course of the evidence that came into the commission.

So to begin with we're not doing a very good job of recycling.

The second thing is uh you may recall there was a study that you or I did and that came out uh in the past year or so commission ended up uh almost exactly a year ago this time the study had just come out at the time what the study showed was that in the top three inches of base soil they estimate that there are over a thousand tons of microplastics well in order to get to the soil they need to go through the water and we all know because we've seen them on our roadways and in our waterways and when there are beach cleanups I think when they cleaned up the Sogatucket down in South County they found 80,000 nips and and NIPs unfortunately with our present uh uh resource recovery and MRF materials recycling facility nips can't go through them so they're supposed to go into the landfill which isn't necessarily a good thing we're filling the landfill but more importantly and too frequently they end up being tossed out the window and when they're tossed out the window again they end up on our roadways and in our waterways and eventually when they break down they're in our bay and and and my gosh what is a greater resource that we have in Rhode Island than Narragansett Bay and when you think about it they're in our shellfish they're in our fin fish and when I take a swim in that bay I'm probably ingesting some so that's another reason why I think you're going to hear from the mayor and I know we've been hearing from multiple cities and towns that the biggest reason why cities and towns are concerned about this is the cost and the rejected loads that end up causing cities and towns to spend incredible amounts again filling up the landfill instead of being recycled as they ought to be that's clearly a reason why so having recycling reform would mean that we would actually save big money for the cities and towns and when I was at the recent uh League of cities and towns conference I was stunned actually by how many cities and towns were coming out in support of our bills.

So and we just throw out a couple of others but uh the primary one being tourism you know we invite people to come into our state uh and the fact is at times it looks like somebody just dumped trash by the side of the road and and I have a problem with uh the uh the DOT efforts to clean it up um that's another that's another matter but it would be nice if it never happened in the first place and we wouldn't have to worry about cleaning it up the reality is when we looked at this uh the study that we did taught us a couple of things most prominently almost everyone who came in from places like Oregon and Maine and we had witnesses from both those places the two best the two premier recycling uh states in the country said it boiled down to two things if you're gonna have a successful recycling program you need to have incentive and you need to have convenience if you don't have those two and in the appropriate measure you're not gonna have a successive program and so just to give you an idea on incentive uh it has to be worth the effort to keep somebody from tossing that nip out the window and so what we found is that the states that have five cent deposit uh they really don't care and people aren't too worried about getting their money back make it a dime oddly enough uh and suddenly people are worried so when I buy my case of beer and it's two dollars and forty cents that hurts a little bit and what that means is that people have an incentive to say folks have an incentive to walk as they used to do back in the day along the streets and pick up anything that they see turn it in.

So you need that you also need the convenience and what we have now is we're starting long after the first states Oregon started in 1971.

And so we do have the benefit of learning from places like Oregon in Maine and they've gone through twists and turns along the way and they've tweaked their systems to the point where they have exemplary recycling systems.

And so with that in mind, we're in a position where having learned from them, we can institute a system that incorporates all those tweaks and puts us in a position where we can have a best practices system to begin with.

So for all those reasons, I am fully in support of uh of your resolution.

I guess probably the biggest thing, and and some of the people don't fully realize is most of the time when we're talking about a program in the state, we're talking about state money.

And uh obviously we all pay taxes.

The interesting part about this is that the DRS system, the bottle bill part of this deposit return system, would be paid for by the beverage industry.

The second aspect of this, EPR, which is really packaging recycling, mostly plastics and cardboard, that type of thing.

Think of what you get from Amazon.

That would be paid for by the packaging industry.

So one of the things that has made the speaker happy, because usually when you're talking about any program, he's going to say, Well, we don't mint money down in the basement of the state house.

We need to balance our budget every year.

This is one of those things that's actually made him brighten up a little bit because the fact is the industry in each case is paying for this.

And I will say we had people come in to the commission from the Cannes Institute, from the glass industry, from uh the plastics industry, and they told us all the same thing that they need this stuff back because to create just as an example, a quote unquote virgin plastic container costs far more than to create that using recycled material.

And so, for all of those reasons, along with the fact that if we're going to have the industry funding these things, they have an incentive to do the best they can.

That means they're going to make improvements to the MERF, which will allow it to have NIPS actually be recycled, and many other things that presently aren't done by the uh uh the recycling uh system that we have.

And so I I simply want to uh note that um if you have an interest in further information, there is an organization out there called Chipper, uh CHPR.

It's the Coalition for High Performance Recycling.

And uh if you uh Google them, you will be able to get more than enough more information than you want.

Um, but uh this is a very good resolution.

I appreciate it.

I'm happy to take any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Um thank you for all the information and thank you for taking the time.

Uh members of the committee, do you have any questions for the senator?

Councilman now.

Senator, thank you for taking the time.

Um, just a question that might be rolling through some other folks' mind as well.

Um the bottle deposit program.

The folks that are purchasing at the stores pay the deposit up front, they keep their cans, they turn them in at location A, B or C and get that deposit back.

The unreturned money, the un the bottles that don't go returned and don't get the money back.

Where does that where do those funds they unclaimed deposits?

Unclaimed deposits, yes, stay with the system.

Doesn't just go to the state's general treasury.

Absolutely, and that was one of the things that we looked at again, best practices gets plowed back into the system.

The other thing that's interesting, and perhaps I didn't touch on it, is because we've learned from the best practices, we have things like there's a there's a uh an NT out of uh Maine called Clink, C-L-Y-N-K.

And Clink is now not just operating in Maine, but they licensed their technology to Oregon and to parts of New York State and to other places, I believe Iowa as well.

Um what Clink has done is what's known as a green bag program.

Right now we've kind of got our trash and we're recyclables.

There'd be a third green bag, and you could get those when you uh from Clink, uh, you know, when you go to the store or whatever, uh and and they're actually all recyclable as well.

But the interesting part of it is you get tags that have a QR on them.

You slap on the QR, you you throw your bottles and cans in over the course of a week, and you drop that at these places that are pristine.

I mean, they'll they'll be up in Maine.

If you're familiar with Hannaford grocery stores, they're at every Hannaford.

They've got a contract with Hannaford to do this.

But they can be at any number of places, and we would have them in enough strategic locations around the state that uh they'd be again convenient.

You drop those things in, and you don't have to do like you did in the old days, stand at a reverse vending machine and put in one bottle or can at a time.

It takes ages, clogs up the lanes in the in the supermarket or whatever it might be.

Um if you're a small retailer, we we heard from all the small liquor stores.

We don't want to deal with bottles and cans, we don't want to take them back.

So we created a bill where we accommodated them and we made it such they don't have to take them back.

They can if they want, but it's an option.

Um course, after they told us that, they still came out against it and said it would be a massive inconvenience.

Oddly enough, um, somehow the people in Maine and Oregon are doing just fine, and it's not a massive inconvenience.

It's hardly more than pulling those bins out to the curb every week.

So it essentially you can take that, drop it at one of these uh big boxes that'll be in the parking lot of the grocery store, and they run everything through, you don't have to worry about it, and within no time at all, it shows up on the app on your phone or on your card for for us neanderthals.

Maybe we've got a card, but uh if you've got the app, it's there.

The other thing that happens in the states that have Clink is they'll throw in like a 20% uh if you use the funds from this, you get 20% off when you use those funds at the grocery store wherever you are.

So it whole number of things that make it different from the bottle bills we sort of remember from the past.

Yeah.

I hope that answers the question, Councilman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other members of the committee?

Councilman Meadow.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you very much, Senator McKenny.

Uh I do want to point out the the hundred um well a thousand metric ton was the was the original study by URI.

They just released a new study by taking 10 cores of samples from Narragans Bay.

And uh they now estimate anywhere between 2300 and 3,000 metric tons, and to give a you know, a uh sizing that's equivalent to 300 garbage trucks dumped their uh contents grinded, that's like compacted in our bay.

That's what they're estimating.

There also the conclusion is this is an exponential problem.

So it's not just building a little bit each year, it is exponentially growing, and the timing of this is is excellent.

And the third part, which is a little bit more disturbing, is yes, it's in it, it's in our waterway.

It it is now being found in our fish in our seafood that we eat.

And most recent studies by MIT is now it is in the human body changing the mitochondria of your cell structure.

So we are literally harming ourselves by throwing garbage and having plastics in our food system.

So I've I've not seen that study yet, but thank you.

And yes, there are any number of studies that show that having microplastics in the human body is not a particularly good thing.

Thank you, councilman.

Councilman uh DLUis.

Thank you for coming here, Senator.

I just I I want to know if if we could talk further, not maybe the next week or so.

I want to propose legislation.

Okay, there's one thing that upsets me, okay.

It's it's a ridiculous thing.

I want to go after the Amazons, I want to go after these companies that okay.

I have packages show up in my house every day.

Now I don't order these packages, but someone else does.

So what my gripe is this, okay?

The planet is it's only has so many resources.

I want to control or I want to find, come up with legislation that finds like an Amazon, okay.

So just one example, and I'll see you can see where I'm coming from.

So a pair of earrings appeared on my doorstep one day.

Okay, it was in a shoebox size container.

Okay, so I said, Robert, what did you get now?

So I ordered a pair of earrings.

I said, What are you talking about?

She opened open the box, and it was like one of these puzzles, like inside the box, there's another box, and then no, but councilman try to keep it to the current to the okay.

I'm sorry, but can we speak about this afterwards?

Absolutely because they're killing the planet by using oversized boxes, and it could have been put in like one of those bubble envelopes and shipped.

Oh, that's it.

Thank you.

I absolutely I share your uh frustration when I see that.

We did approach the problem from the standpoint of uh rather than going against the Amazons of the world.

How do we make sure that they've got an incentive to get all that back?

And maybe then they'll think about putting it into smaller bits.

Um as we go along, if we can persuade them to use smaller packaging, uh, I'm all for it.

But I that's I I think of it because when we did years ago, I was involved with workers' compensation reform.

And people said you're never going to get workers' compensation reform through.

And they had tried twice before in recent years before I got involved with it with some other good people.

When they tried before, one of the things they did was they went after the lawyers.

Um, everybody loves that, you know.

If you can go after the lawyers, I I eventually sort of explain that at some point if there's a nuclear holocaust, there are gonna be a few life forms that still survive.

Um, you know, scorpions and uh uh snakes and and probably lawyers.

And so the reality being, uh, learn to work with them.

And what we did with that comp reform was we changed the parameters that the lawyers could operate with it.

And when we did that, workers' comp hasn't been a problem for 30 plus years.

So I think in the same way, if we can work with the packaging industry, make sure that they want to get all of this stuff back, and they create the kind of methods that enable them to do that.

Uh it might be easier than going head to head with Amazon.

But thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you, uh Senator.

Um, I uh I'll I'll uh I'll go to Councilman Ricks.

Councilman Rick.

Thank you.

I think this may be the first time in the 10 years I've been on the city council that a member of the General Assembly has come down to ask the city council for support in favor of a resolution before the General Assembly.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you for explaining the legislation.

Uh with any legislation, any resolution that we're sending up to the General Assembly on uh uh in favor of or in opposition to anything that's pending before the General Assembly.

I try to be consistent with the test of uh should this be the type of item that the Warwick City Council is weighing in on.

And I would say that yes, Warwick is downstream.

Warwick has the most shoreline of any city or town in the state of Rhode Island, with the technical exception of Portsmouth, but they don't count.

Prudence Island, sorry, Portsmouth.

Warwick has more shoreline.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

So uh yeah, I would say that yes, we are here in Warwick disproportionately affected by this uh because of our rivers and streams, because of our uh beautiful shoreline on Narragansett Bay.

I read it through the legislation.

It's uh it's very intense uh to get through it all.

But uh yeah, I think it's very well crafted.

I think that uh you make an excellent presentation in favor of it.

So both as a matter of uh that procedural standard that I have to try to separate this from everything else, where I don't think that the Warwick City Council should try to be a mock General Assembly, but on something like this, because it disproportionately affects Warwick, and also simply on its own merits from reviewing this and also from hearing from my colleagues on the committee.

I'm confident uh in this, and I would certainly urge my colleagues to send this back to the General Assembly.

Uh with uh Senator McKenney uh from Warwick here advocating for this important change, try to clean up the environment here in our great city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

To clarify, he's from Southern Wallock.

Uh seeing no more lights.

Well, one light about to go off.

Um recognize Mayor Frank Picosi.

Your light is recognized.

Now I've spoken with Senator McKinney on this um subject many times in other state leaders too.

Um full support of it.

Uh he mentioned that my role as municipal leader, I'm more concerned with the financial impact, but we are concerned with the environment also.

And I have to tell you, spend the top conversation with the League of Cities and Towns, and you'd be surprised.

I haven't had one colleague yet that isn't on board with this.

Um it's something that's needed.

We uh the uh landfills in its end years, and we have to do what we can to stop burying things there because again, the financial is going to get very, very expensive for us to get rid of trash.

So this um, you know, uh I fully support and I urge you to pass this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Senator.

Well done.

Uh do we have a motion?

Thank you.

Uh apologies.

Do we have any members of the public who wish to to speak on this resolution to the General Assembly?

Seeing none, uh, do we have a motion?

Motion for favorable action.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh that'll move to the floor with a favorable recommendation.

Uh if there are no further, if there are no objections, I'll just move back to number one.

Uh so item number one for us is PCR 1926, a resolution of the General Assembly requesting amendment of the Warwick City Charter to require annual presentations at public hearings before the city council regarding city financial status and audit results.

Uh this is co this is primarily sponsored by councilman Ricks.

Councilman Ricks, is this ready to be heard?

And what's your what's your pleasure?

Thank you.

Uh yes, if we could uh I would recommend favorable action if your committee would entertain this this evening.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh I will open the floor.

Any members of the committee um have any comments, questions, etc.

on PCR 1926.

Councilman Napa.

Just as an observation, um and uh perhaps to get some uh insight from the sponsors here.

Um I believe that this is something that we now require in our council rules.

Um is the intent of this particular resolution to make this something different, or is it to echo and just further codify what we currently require in our council rules?

So if some one of councilman riks or councilman Lattice or Councilman Mudo could just shed some light on that for my own edification um to educate me a little bit on the how we got where we get where we're at.

Councilman Rick.

Thank you, Chairman.

So, yes, this is largely to codify what already exists in uh the Warwick City Council's rules.

It has one addition of uh clarifying that that financial presentation is to include a five-year forecast of the city's reasonably anticipated res revenues and expenditures.

So the primary purpose of having this in the charter as well as in the uh council rules is because the council rules they can be easily changed from one year to the next.

They may be suspended by unanimous consent, or they may be amended uh within the course of a year.

And I think that something like this, especially since it has been a regular feature of the city council for as long as any of us uh presently on the city council uh have been here to have uh the this type of financial presentation prior to the uh budget hearings, uh sometimes with, sometimes without the five-year forecast.

I think that that's an important uh inclusion in this type of presentation.

But uh yeah, I think that having it a more permanent fixture, it's something that's tried and tested.

It's also something where having it in the charter also gives those assurances uh to the members of the public that okay, this is fixed.

This isn't going to be something that is uh that's necessarily optional.

So additional uh public transparency on that point as well.

Thank you.

Uh councilman, did that answer your question, Councilman Napa?

Yeah, other members of the committee.

No, um councilman Lattester.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um initially agreed to co-sponsor this because under our new council rules, as you all know, it takes two co-sponsors to to get these to the floor.

Um and I concur with the comments of councilman riks.

I don't see any negatives to this.

I think the additional oversight by the city council on these appointments, I think it um is good governance.

And I think it also makes um on some of these appointments good financial uh accountability.

And for those reasons, I will be supporting this, and I would respectfully request that the commission um give favorable action on this also.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um interested in hearing any uh opposition.

Is there any opposition or is there thoughts from the city on on this?

Not really any opposition um to the concept because I think those reports are very important, but the charter change is a very drastic step.

Um I don't see why it could be done in ordinance with the future councils, you're not tying their hands, they may want to alter it or tailor it a different way.

Once it's in the charter, it's in there and it's it's hard to change.

So I I have no objection to the concept.

I think those reports are important, but I think it could be done by ordinance too, which is less drastic than change in the charter.

And if a future council, uh Councilman Latter says it all the time, we're not going to be here forever.

Um they may want the flexibility to change, add to it, tailor it in a different way, and whatever.

But once it's in the charter, it's a long road to chart to change it.

If that makes sense to you.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I support it and don't support it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um to the solicitor.

Um, in terms of effectuating something similar in ordinance, is that as straightforward as finding the right place to put it and and docketing an ordinance, and we could enshrine this and uh yes, this is a resolution, so we wouldn't be able to um convert it into that way.

But if they were documented this evening, we could follow up with an appropriate slot to codify the uh this practice in ordinances.

Okay, thank you.

Um thank you, and I certainly respect uh having an ordinance to the same effect as an alternative approach here.

Uh the reason that I think that having this in the charter would be superior is because uh this as a baseline, I really think that uh especially if we here tonight after so many years of basically having this exact practice, uh, are not finding a uh reason not to uh continue with this practice.

I think it is a good idea to have it baked into the uh the charter.

So well, I suppose the corollary of make it very difficult for it to be changed.

Uh that's not to say that additional uh requirements or different changes from time to time.

Uh well, I'll put it the opposite way.

Uh it could be that uh some tweaks of say additional requirements or additional elements could be beneficial one year to the next, but that's something that really could be done on a year-by-year basis, basically adding some additional elements or flavors uh to it.

Maybe in a given year, let's say a major bond goes out.

Maybe we want to try to, in addition to having a five-year forecast, have an additional uh further out forecast.

Uh perhaps in the event that work is undergoing a financial crisis, maybe we would want a more detailed report that really uh syncs in with okay, we want the actuaries to come back with very specific uh guidance or I'm spitballing here.

You can see, but you can see how there are different elements that could be added onto this.

However, for this particular item, I think that having the uh the base into the charter would be beneficial, and it certainly gives us the flexibility to add elements one year to the next.

Uh completely at the city council's option.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh okay, so I think before us stands sort of some options.

Um one is sort of the more permanent and uh sort of binding um addition of this as a annual routine uh for the city council to get uh into or and or the city to get into, um, because obviously this is collaborative process.

Um and then there's sort of the more uh fungible um option of of the ordinance, which of course is not entirely fungible.

It takes you know uh a process to alter an ordinance um after some time, including multiple hearings.

But um, but it may, you know, from uh from a public optics perspective, you know, putting it on the ballot certainly carries some weight.

Um and you know, I don't see anything here that is out of bounds or that would go you know would no longer be in vogue, you know, to have a five-year forecast or to have a public meeting about the city's finances.

Um, you know, it could in some ways be redundant to the budget, but I think focused on the you know the both the findings of the actuary and the auditor is not entirely out of bounds.

Um but uh would love to hear from the public, uh Ms.

Colmar.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Um Michelle Comar Ward 1.

I'm in favor of the auditor coming annually for a public hearing and presenting a five-year plan for the QA session with the council people, the mayor, the public.

Um, so I'll leave it up to the council whether they want to go into charter or an ordinance.

Um, my purpose tonight is just to bring up another amendment for your consideration.

Um, the other helpful uh financial consultant that comes for the council is the OPEC actuarial, Mr.

Newton.

And should you add him to the ordinance or the charter?

Not him per se, but that that the OPEG actuarial do a presentation and I don't know, a five-year forecast.

I don't know if that type of financial consultant should come before or after the financial auditor.

So I'll leave that up to the council to figure that out.

But that's my suggestion for tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Corner.

I I believe if I'm reading this correctly, that both are envisioned in uh PCR 1926, and that uh the first paragraph reads that there'll be a public hearing on the city budget.

City should or prior to shall convene a public hearing with an actuarial firm to present on the financial status.

So that would be the um that would be what we just had, yes, actuary.

I'd like to like to well, we have two consultants.

Um the auditor, financial auditor that does the financial status healthiness of the city's finances.

Then we have the OPEC actuarial.

So I didn't see those words in there.

Yeah, I think actuarial firm refers to the the firm that does the the actuarial work for pensions as well as right.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um okay, so I think both of those are covered in here.

Any other members of the public uh have anything to add on this?

Seeing none.

Um so we have some decisions to make here whether we want to go forward with this, um, as is with a recommendation to the group, um, whether we think uh we want to just pass it to the group with no recommendation and consider the ordinance route.

Uh, I'm open for uh a motion from any who'd like to offer one councilman meadow.

I'd like to make a motion to move to the floor with no recommendation and for discussion, please.

Okay, I'll second that six three all in favor?

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Okay, moving on, PCR 20-26 resolution of the General Assembly requesting amendment of the Ward City Charter to provide for council advice and consent for charter article eight mayoral appointments.

Yeah.

Did we?

No.

Oh, sorry, going back to uh PCR 1920-26.

Uh, may we vote?

You may.

The motion the motion is to send to the floor without recommendation.

Moved by councilman Muto, seconded by count uh councilman Napa.

Can we vote?

Aye.

Aye.

40 aye.

Okay.

Now moving along.

PCR 20-26 resolution general summary requesting amendment of the war city charter to provide for council advice and consent for chapter article eight mayoral appointments.

Uh sponsor, councilman Ricks, Councilman Ricks, would you like to take us through this?

Thank you.

So I'll just start off by saying that I unlike the previous item, uh I'm not necessarily anticipating that we uh uh finalize and have a final vote on this item this evening.

However, I would like if we could be able to kick off a conversation so that uh between now and the next meeting, we're able to uh really have uh be in a position uh to move forward.

This one is a little bit more complicated.

So uh broad overview.

There are really two ideas here, two interests.

So there is the interest for public transparency and the vetting of appointees, both by members of the public and by members of the council, and the second interest here is a matter of checks and balances between the branches of government here in Warwick.

So, as to that first item, now I don't think that would be productive to get into any uh particular individuals.

After, well, this is my tenth year on the council, I have served under three different mayors.

I am not here, I'm not trying to pick on any particular mayor, certainly not.

Uh, so I don't want it to come across that way.

Uh suffice to say that I think that over the years, uh, all of us, even before we have been on the city council, we've all lived in Warwick, we've all paid attention, and from that perspective of city council vetting of candidates, and the perspective of uh government uh that is legislative oversight here, as it stands right now, the Warwick City Council has very little oversight over departments.

Our budgetary powers, contrary to uh public impression of what a legislative body generally has, our budgetary powers are in fact very limited, and the powers that we do have there are very large exceptions.

So when it comes to who is making various decisions day in and day out, largely that would be of course department heads working with the larger administration.

So it is it is critically important for highly qualified people to be there in positions as department head.

Now I would say 90%, 95%, perhaps 95% plus of the time.

We do have excellent people doing a great job in these various uh positions that are appointed by the mayor.

And I would certainly anticipate that that vast, vast majority of the time, advice and consent powers as to these different positions that would be proposed here to be subject to city council advice and consent.

That similar to those positions where the city council already has advice and consent, it will function similarly.

That would certainly be my anticipation here.

So those positions we currently have, advice and consent as too would be, for example, city clerk, municipal court judge, probate court judge, position such as that.

Which a small aside here, just for some perspective, there are basically three ways that uh Rhode Island cities and towns handle appointments.

So one way is the way that the City of Warwick's charter is currently constructed, where the vast majority of appointments to non-union positions are at the mayor's pleasure.

Uh mayor has a sole discretion as to hiring and firing, and in Warwick's case, uh also uh effectively within the city's total tax authority, control over the salaries, obviously come budget time.

The city council reviews the salary line items, but I was I had a rude awakening in my very first year in 2017, and that's a story I think you all know.

Uh when there were double-digit raises across a dozen different department heads more or less.

Councilman Lowiser, I'm sure remembers that well.

Anyways, to get more direct here, the three different ways, broadly speaking, that Rhode Island cities and towns handle appointments.

On one extreme, you have city, one city, and many towns where the city council or town council, the legislature appoints a city manager.

That's one extreme.

The other extreme, I would say, would be a situation similar to Warwick, where a mayor is elected, and the mayor has a sole authority as to appointing hiring and firing virtually all uh persons in non-union positions, with a few exceptions.

And that's actually the case.

Warwick, it appears from some brief research, uh, is similar to I believe Pawtucket, Boon Socket, and East Providence in that regard.

And then in the middle, you have that uh more of a compromise as but as demonstrated by say Providence, Cranston, and Central Falls, where the vast majority of appointees are named, are hired, nominated by the mayor, but are subject to the legislative approval.

I'll also note that the last city and city in Warwick, excuse me, the last city in Rhode Island, uh, Newport belongs to that earlier category, along with many, many towns of having a city manager appointed by the legislature.

So I think that getting back to those two interests.

I think that there is a benefit to having the names appear on the docket, because I think that we can all think of situations where simply having that level of public vetting and of legislative vetting, simple, not intend to be uh any undue hassle, but some simple vetting can make sure that uh someone who has uh slipped through a little bit of the uh vetting process of the administration, something need to be caught before an appointment goes through, and then also it is for the city council a matter of accountability as well that department heads uh do come before us once every four years to be appointed.

Uh, that is for their nominations for their appointments to be either approved or rejected.

And this is also not just a power held by the legislatures of many Rhode Island cities and towns, but would also be similar to what we see at the state level and the federal level, as well as state level across many, many states.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

I didn't want to interrupt you, but you you've got about a minute left of time, so I I wanted to give you the opportunity just to reserve some in case someone says something and you want to respond.

Um advice and consent.

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

Uh I could go to them first if you prefer.

Through the chair to the administration, I'd like to hear the administration's point of view on this item.

Mr.

Mayor.

Just a little clarification.

Were you talking about holding this, but you still wanted to have a conversation tonight.

Yeah, I think that uh ultimately it would be better for this to be uh held rather than actually come to a vote.

But I did want to get the uh conversation started, especially since unfortunately that for better or worse, there are a lot of restrictions due to the open meetings act.

So I wanted to make sure to address all of my colleagues uh in a permissible way.

As long as it's allowed.

Of course, okay.

Um I have to state I'm adamantly opposed to this uh charter amendment.

Um the current system works, it's not 95%.

I've been able to attract um the best and brightest directors out there.

That's gonna stop if they have to be uh a public hearing before they even know whether they have the job.

Um the people I've hired had jobs in other towns and cities, they didn't tell their employer they were seeking other employment, they would find out, and they may not get the job here.

Um we have a we have a grueling interview process with our directors.

Um probably Tom could Tom Cravis, he's still here to talk to you about it.

Uh we had we put experts on the panel, there are follow-up interviews, and then yes, it ultimately comes down to my decision with my staff.

Um, but they've worked out now.

If they had we had to go from that to coming here, and no offense, councilmen don't know enough about the job to add anything to that.

I mean, really, you don't know the operations of the DPW, whatever.

We put the people at work in these jobs, and um, you know, since I've been here, there haven't been large salary increases.

We set the price, we set the um the salaries of what we've normally done.

Um, so I'd have to be, I am adamantly opposed to this.

I would fight this with the statehouse and campaign against it.

Um it it works the way it is, and I can't speak to what was going on in 2017.

But since I've been here, I mean there were no political coronies.

I had to go out and find people, and I found the best there was.

I mean, you'd be talking about even my person my staff.

Um, uh if you have a new mayor coming in, they couldn't even have a chief of staff until they came here.

So I don't know how it could work like that.

Um of the appointments uh boards, I don't know why the planning board is not included with the other boards um that need advice and consent because boards they're they're like another branch of government, and yes, I think the council should have advice and consent on all of them.

I don't know why some of them left out, and I don't know how to fix that without changing the charter.

But I I don't see what separates the zoning board or the planning board where the council wouldn't have a say on you appoint, because that's a whole different animal than employees of the city.

But the directors are really important.

I mean, I was elected to run the city, I am the CEO, and I need to I need to know who I'm working for.

And I Ken Hopkins is a good friend, and he has had a hard time attracting directors to different positions because of the vetting process they go through.

It gets political, it just does.

I'm not talking about us, but we're not always going to be here.

So, like I said, this one I'm adamantly opposed to.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Councilman Muda.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh actually, the mayor brings up the excellent point when it comes to the hiring of operational managers.

Uh it does expose uh the city to lose a good talent.

However, I do agree with you.

I think on the boards and commissions, we might be able to make some adjustments that would be uh you know, advice and good.

Councilman, if I may, I don't know if it's proper to ask um because some of those aren't in the charter.

I don't know if there could be a subsequent ordinance.

I'd have to we'd have to do some legal research.

The solicitor, that'd be related to like planning board, zoning board.

It's a board instances here um to effectuate any change of advice and consent of things that are laid out in the charter would need to be spelled out in the charter itself.

An ordinance couldn't get fill.

Could we if we removed those items for the charter, that would free us up to spell it out in an ordinance, correct?

Theoretically could get another way at it if you were removing them from the charter and only enshrining them in ordinance, or even just putting in the charter, hey, this can be done, but further elaboration will be via ordinance.

I would say that you could do a charter amendment that did a generic authorization to provide boards and uh the advice and consent of any board and commission created either in the charter or via ordinance they're under the only reason I mentioned the doing it via ordinance is that way if there was something down the line, just like the discussion we just got done having on the charter change where we want flexibility in the long run rather than getting stuck in something and then having the same exact conversation when we realize we're trapped again.

Uh similar to the charter changes that we gave discretion, you could uh that were voted the last uh special election.

You you could write uh discretion to the council to set those standards and ordinance without having to itemize each one.

It just would need to be a generic uh catch-all.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Lattisser.

Yes, uh so I've always tried to put myself in the position that I'm willing to listen to someone who wants to give me a different spin on things.

And admittedly, in the beginning of this resolution, um, I was pretty much made up my mind that this would be the proper thing to support.

However, the different spin has been presented by Mayor Picosy, and now I take a step back and I put myself in the shoes of an employer for probably about 50 years.

However, the different spin has been presented by Mayor Picosi, and now I take a step back and I put myself in the shoes of an employer for probably about 50 years, and I hear what the mayor's saying about the problem of attracting good new competent people, but yet expose them at a public forum so that their current supervisors can can them.

Um so uh Mr.

Mayor, you you presented a new spin for me to rethink this.

Um however, I strongly support making changes in the appointments of the boards and commissions.

I agree with I think um I know you do, Mayor.

Um I think that you know that has been something that's been lopsided for years, and I've sat here now through three different administrations, and um let's just say that there is the appearance that may stack the deck because lion's share of the appointments.

So I would strongly support that change, but I would have to concur with the mayor that when it comes to his staff, his department heads, I think the CEO to have the confidence, the trust, and the respect of who he hires or she hires, because ultimately he or she is gonna own those decisions, ultimately, you will have to stand tall before this council at some point for us to force an appointment if it were to clear what fired and you attract these people to force the mayor to take let's go to the chief of staff, he's here to take a chief of staff that the mayor can't connect with, can't gel with, and can't work with, or there would be even if it were assumed animosity.

Um I don't think that's I don't think that's good business.

And no, Mr.

Mayor, I won't I won't repeat it.

No, no, uh, I don't think that's good business.

However, um I would ask you this during the interviewing process, the assessment process, while it's being done in um a confidential manner, so to speak, it's not in a public forum.

Would you have an objection if there were two members of the city council that were able to participate in that review I'd have to think on that, but I I asked the tough questions, you know, offhand offhand.

I mean, I like I said, I have to you say it and then I say no.

Can I want to think about it a little longer because the people I put on these committees, there's always someone for personnel, but there's someone people that know the jobs.

Sometimes it's someone that doesn't even work for the city, uh, a forming former planning director.

Is pe like I said, it's a very, very thorough because directors are the most important thing.

Mayor, can I can I just pause you there just because we were a little bit off track of the advice and consent, but I think it's a it's an interesting idea and something that definitely I think we found a lot of covers.

As the sponsor suggested, he's gonna be looking to hold yeah, but it's just we're gonna we're gonna go to the public uh because I see a couple members uh looking to add something here.

Michelle Comar Ward one.

I was a I am opposed to this resolution, and I think the voters, and I'm talking from the side of the podium, voters vote for a mayor, a person, and a platform, promises, goals, vision for the city.

That's who they vote for, and the mayor needs to have people on his staff on boards and commissions that he appoints that share that same vision.

I'm not saying they have to agree with the mayor 100% of the time, but they have to be on the same page of the vision for the city, and so I'm opposed to this for this reason.

Um I don't know, I've seen other strange things where these things can get political, and if you have just the mayor take care of this, it doesn't become you know party-oriented or or you know somebody from somewhere else, and really in my 25 years of coming to council meetings and different mayors, I really haven't seen any bad apples.

And really, in my 25 years of coming to council meetings and different mayors, I really haven't seen any bad apples.

So I think the system works the way it is, and I think that's what the voters expect, and that's who they vote for, and they vote for the mayor's platform.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Kamar.

Chairman, can I just make a couple of other comments?

Um I would not change the way the clerk is right now.

I think that's important for advice and consent because the clerk, first of all, she's different than departments.

She runs the legal part of the city, and the city council works very closely with her.

So they should have a say in that.

And same thing with the judges, they should be confirmed.

Um, and as I said, the boards, it should be all of them should be advice and consent, and it should be written any new boards that may be formed or whatever, or you know, times change.

You may need a technology board or something like that.

It should always it should be it should be written that way.

It would be all boards created existing and created.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm gonna go back to the public.

Look like a state.

You can step forward.

Or not.

Okay.

Uh we've heard from the public.

We've heard from the committee.

Uh, I believe I have a light, uh, councilman Foley.

Uh I I agree.

I know that it would be hard to believe this, but with the mayor, uh, having been in the public sector, having been on interview committees for school positions, directors, whatever.

There are a number of people will not even apply if they're going to be in the public.

So right away, you lose a large percentage of qualified candidates.

That's A.

And I do agree with my constituent Michelle, who was just spoken saying the people elect the mayor to run the city.

They elect us to legislate, not to run the city, but to legislate.

We have roles for advice and consent as laid out by our city charter.

I agree that why there are some boards that aren't included, doesn't make sense.

We can address that in another format.

But uh, I do I will not support this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Okay.

Um I see Councilman Ricks.

You you have one minute.

Thank you.

I'll try to keep it to a good one minute.

So I think that councilman Latticer brings up a good suggestion.

I thank the mayor for uh speaking on this.

I can understand that concern.

I think that Councilman Lattiser's suggestion is perhaps worth some further conversation.

I also want to make clear that the idea behind this and the structure of this is not intended for any change as to the chief of staff position or others in the executive departments, that is, say the uh the mayor's office manager uh positions of that nature that are paid less than 100,000.

I generally have a concern that this would seek to address as to the city council having oversight over other positions as well, appointed by the mayor in excess of the mayor's salary.

That's generally being a concern of mine that came up uh during the previous mayors.

Uh last thought that I have just to put it out food for thought is perhaps what would go a ways towards addressing some of the concerns is that if some of the department head or other appointments uh may be subject not to a majority vote by the council, but as suggested by a member of the public that I spoke with uh this last week, perhaps a matter of approval of at least three out of nine members of the council have that lower threshold.

So food for thought.

Thank you, councilman.

Uh okay.

We've heard from the council, we've heard from the committee, we've heard from the public.

Um allow me to summarize and see if this is where we're at.

It sounds like this is kind of a no-go um uh around the committee table.

Um you guys can make a motion after this.

It does sound like there's interest in uh this looking at boards and commissions.

Um there's a lot tied into this as currently written, revolving around the the this the mayor's appointed positions.

So my suggestion is that we would go unfavorable on this and let someone docket something separate related to the boards and commissions as I think it's even in separate sections of the charter.

I don't think there's an easy migration path from this uh ordinance or this resolution to what ultimately could be something that I think it sounded like there was a lot of support for.

So that's just my suggestion, but I'll take any motion that comes.

Councilman Muto as a co-sponsor, I would prefer to defer to you.

Um I think we've heard enough to make some adjustments to this.

And oh, yeah, I I'd like to hold this, make a motion to hold till 51.

Hold till 511.

Okay.

Um motion to hold.

Any discussion.

I'm a little bit unclear on what would change other than everything about this between now and 511, but if that's your pleasure, I think it only delays maybe what we could work on.

But um uh we have a motion to hold.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay, so six, three.

All in favor?

I so held, or so recommended to be held.

Anyone need a break?

Are you guys good?

Okay, just keep it rolling.

All right.

Uh I'm gonna uh with if if no one objects, I'd like to go to number six.

Um, because that is PCR 4826 related to libraries.

I know the um uh the head of our library is here, and he's been I think his book is almost done, so let's try to get him out of here if we can.

Um so next up is going to be item number six, which is PCR 48-26 resolution to the General Assembly in support of legislation funding state aid to libraries at 25% of the local funds expended.

Uh, this is uh council president Snappy on behalf of Mayor Burkosi and uh defer to them.

Okay, would you like to speak?

Director, good evening.

Hello, how are you?

Good, good.

Uh thank you for um hearing this.

Um, over the past few years, um, Ryla, the Rhode Island Library Association has been bringing resolutions to the various councils.

Um state law actually requires that grant aid or state funding for libr for public libraries be funded at 25% of expenditures for the two years prior of municipal funds.

Um, and in the past few years, um, the governor in his proposed budget level funds it.

Um, we have been fortunate um in the last few years that um over the course of the budget season at the General Assembly, um, they have restored it to the full 25%.

Um, and I'm um along with the mayor are just coming before you to ask um the council to pass a resolution in support of doing the same thing this year.

Um, I like to say when I talk to um folks who are interested, um, this is one of those funded mandates, and it would be nice if the state followed through with the thing it's promising.

So we're just asking you to support that.

Thank you, Director.

Um do we have any questions?

I know this council has always been big supporters of the library, and uh hopefully it will continue to be.

Councilman Apple.

Yep, director, thank you for taking the time.

Uh this is a this is something I think is a no-brainer, directly affects the um services that we can provide by and through the library to the cities or the multiple locations of libraries around the city.

Um you have my full support.

I hope that my colleagues jump on board.

I don't see why they wouldn't.

Um, but again, thank you for your time and kind of clarifying what we're looking at here for the newbies.

Thank you, councilman.

Uh seeing no lights.

Uh do any members of the public uh have anything to add?

No, okay.

This one seems uh motion move favorable action.

Three, four.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you, Director.

Okay, let's get back to we're on numero four, right?

Three.

Ah, yes, three.

PCO 2126, a resolution of the General Assembly requesting amendment of the Warwick City Charter to expand the membership of and alter the election districts of the Warwick School Committee.

This is on behalf of Councilman Ricks, Councilman Lettester, and Councilman Muto.

Uh as the lead sphere muto, do you do you have this?

Do you do you have this?

You want me to go to Councilman Ricks?

Okay.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So similarly, wanted to put this out for discussion, not necessarily anticipating a vote this evening.

Oftentimes with these matter of uh making sure that the public sees that this is something on the radar, has an opportunity to comment, and I would uh at the end of the discussion request that it be held to May 11th.

That should certainly, if we are able to uh uh reach a compromise, work out some of the language, any details, uh, still give us time to get this to the General Assembly and follow that process.

So the principle behind this, the general the big idea here is that for decades, what might have made sense way back when the current school committee composition was uh was put in place of two citywide at large members plus one uh district member in the three districts across the city.

That might have made sense at one point in time.

I have a hard time imagining that, but nowadays to run a citywide race, I try to look at it from say both sides of the coin.

It is from a perspective of the voters, very difficult to get to know a candidate running citywide for a relatively low profile position from a candidate's perspective, it is extremely intimidating to run for a citywide office for a position that pays merely $4,000 a year.

How are you going to get your message out to all of those voters?

So I just don't think that in an age where Warwick's population is over 80,000, citywide school committee members simply no longer make sense to me if it ever did.

So I also think that having a larger school committee would be beneficial for multiple reasons, divide up the work, have more people, uh with uh uh various backgrounds, knowledge, expertise that they can bring to the equation, uh be able to function better as uh as a subcommittees.

School committee currently has subcommittees, but as we on the city council know, a larger committee is simply more effective, both in terms of actual communication without running a foul of the open meetings act, as well as being able to better divide up the work.

So I think that a larger committee is a good idea.

I think that the school committee, as a matter of separation of powers.

I obviously think that checks and balances should be always something we consider here, but with that said, I think that an all-elected school committee is extremely important from a separation of powers point of view, because the checks and balances when it comes to the executive, the city council, and the school committee, those checks and balances come into play with the budget approval process and the like.

So, for those reasons, I would not be in favor of a appointed members to the school committee.

Leave it up to the voters, is my opinion on that.

So I had initially come from the perspective of simple approach, nine members, have the school committee electoral districts mirror the nine wards.

I spoke with some members of the public, some members of the school committee.

There were ranges of opinion, of course.

But I was persuaded from that particular opinion of simply mirroring the wards by the thought that well, what if you have multiple people from one ward who are highly qualified, very interested, and at the same time, less interest from people in other wards.

So perhaps keeping the districts, but having the ability to elect top three, I could see the benefit of that.

It would also make for a smoother transition to keep that part of the framework.

So I am not absolutely married to the proposal as drafted, but I wanted to give that introduction as a kickoff towards a larger discussion, put it out there for the council, for the mayor, for the school committee, and for the public, so that we could have more of these conversations, refine this, and see what we can do to improve upon the current structure.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councilman.

Um, given the hour and the meatiness of this topic, I was going to recommend that we uh we move to hold, but we have opened the discussion.

So do you really urgently would like to say something?

Well, just to put out there, I'm not opposed to it at all.

Uh um, I'm a former school committee chairman.

Five doesn't work.

Um, it's the contents, I'm not crazy about these.

We'd be the with the exception of province, we'd have the largest school committee in the state.

Most of it, five to seven is a financial impact because school committee members, in addition to the four thousand dollars, they get benefits, and I don't know what else they they might get.

So there would be a financial impact.

I'd like to see probably seven, seven districts.

It is hard to run, but I mean, in three wards, it's also difficult to run.

So you may be um and the discussion.

I know a lot of members are in favor of appointed an appointed component.

I I I hear it all, and I'm not crazy about it myself.

Doesn't seem to have worked in Providence.

So um I think this is something a committee should be formed, and you should get someone from the council, some from the administration, someone from the um the school department, uh, perhaps Tim Duffy's executive director for I ask.

Uh he's been around for like 30 years.

So as I said, as a concept, yeah, I can see it.

I just I'm not crazy about the contents.

And councilman Ricks even said that he's not married to them either.

So I think it's a good discussion to have.

Thank you for starting it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman, uh, your lights on.

If you could just keep it brief, we are gonna hold this.

There'll be plenty of time for other conversation.

Just keep it brief if you could.

I always keep it brief.

Sure.

So this is an idea that um is not brand new to city council.

It's something that I had proposed years ago.

Um and there's definitely something for consideration here, whether the magic number is nine or seven, um, I don't know.

For me, the number five doesn't work.

Uh simply because you can end up with three individuals controlling some 52 to 58 percent of the budget.

Three individuals making that decision, three out of five.

That's always been um concerning to me.

Where if we end up with nine, one from each ward, that would be palatable.

If a different makeup to increase to seven were the wish of the body, I wouldn't object to that either.

But I do think it's um certainly worth the exercise.

I want to thank Councilman Ricks for putting this forward.

Um, it's absolutely um the appropriate time to uh let's at least engage in this discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Um, since we've opened it, any members of the public have anything to add on this, Ms.

Colmar?

Uh Michelle Comar ward one.

Three districts, three elected school committee members equals nine.

Is that right?

All right, math lesson.

Excellent.

Three times three is nine.

I said there's three school districts.

You have three elected school committee members per district that equals nine people, so you won't have a tie.

So I think that works.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Gilmar.

Ms.

Nekko.

Hi, darling netco award seven.

As I I said earlier, um I'm kind of and this is unusual, and kind of with the mayor on this one.

I think maybe a study commission is actually a good idea to figure out exactly what might work best.

Um five is a small number, and as I said earlier, uh having the two citywide positions has become difficult.

Um yes, three from each district equals nine, but if that creates one of the largest or the largest school committee in the state, that might not be what we need either.

Maybe seven is the magic number, however that works.

Um I would just caution against leaping into anything without thinking about the ramifications.

Um this current method has been in place for a number of years now.

Um it it is functioning sometimes.

Um I think it is uh maybe too soon to just leap into something right now.

So due diligence and study, I think are both warranted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Natco.

I know they're all watching, so I'm glad they got some uh amusement from the evening.

Um do we have oh hello?

Could I stand some of the time just because I can't sit for eight hours?

Your name for the record you have to.

Uh Corey Pontius Word 8.

So I have some personal history with uh operation at school committee.

I grew up in Burraville where there is seven members.

I believe there are still seven members.

I was a student council school committee liaison.

I took it very seriously.

Uh and eventually, because of uh Eddie Pacico, state rep, now head of uh Special Olympics for the state, um, got something past that created an elected uh high school individual to actually sit in on the count or sit in on the committee, which was obviously very informative for a uh 14-15-year-old.

Is there an individual from Tollgate who interacts with the school committee?

Does anyone know?

Okay, so uh uh I'm not saying the solution for this is just to get more students involved, but I think that there's uh as has been alluded to several different we'll say challenges that the school committee faces.

Maybe it's a personality base, not to mention the amount of work and money that comes before them.

So I think that the analysis that could be done by forming a committee to take a look at the different ways that this could be developed is a great idea, partly because of the way that this could be spun without more time being spent on it, and we certainly don't want any media wars or improper dialogue happening behind the scenes when the purpose of this is just to help the students get a better experience and the you know city be run more efficiently.

So I hope that that advice is helpful.

And if anyone has any questions about my experience in Verville, um, at least on the school committee, happy to talk about that.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Do we have a motion?

First, I want to play the lottery because I think lightning struck three or four times in in this committee.

With that said, I'd like to motion to hold uh until what four uh five to one second.

Okay, second three.

All in favor?

Okay, moving on to our final item of business final item.

Final item.

Final item.

Number four, PCR 33-26, a resolution requesting the General Assembly to amend Rhode Island State Law 452-6 to clear the title for the sale of 34 Warwick Lane Avenue.

Council President Snap Sinapy on behalf of Mayor Picosy, Council President, Mayor.

What's happening at Warwick Lake Avenue?

That you need our help with tonight.

It's gonna be a group thing.

Um, as you know, we tried to sell um the former work um administration building a couple of years ago.

We ran into the problem that there were indeed restrictions on it.

It's a very long, lengthy process to find all these ears through generations.

It's almost impossible.

Then we found out the General Assembly could just make it go away for us, and that's what we're doing because we want to liquidate that property.

The building, it's not getting better, it's deteriorating more and more.

It's gonna come have to come down.

The fences are falling down, the neighbors are getting upset about it.

Um, we still have to maintain it.

So this is a very quick solution to getting it done.

Thank you for being proactive on that.

Do you have anything else to add?

That's okay.

Well, I got excellent.

Any members of the committee?

Uh, Councilman DeLuis.

I just um well, I believe it was the police department that helped one of my constituents.

They were tractor trailer trucks being parked on that property.

Yeah, and they were at night, they were getting the fumes in the house.

I took pictures of it, but so um one gentleman has a problem with the fence falling down.

He wants that fixed.

Yeah, uh, but the city took care of a request that I had because these tractor trailer company was based in Cranston, I believe.

And then the guy was um complaining about the fumes when they ran the trucks at night.

So the city did a good job.

They got rid of those trucks within a few days.

So, but I understand that what Mayor, let me ask you a question.

What what needs to be done to clear the title?

Just an act of the General Assembly.

It's that simple.

Oh, so there's no money involved.

There's no money involved.

Well, there will be when we sell it.

Yeah, this resolution that's before us, we authorize this.

It'll go up to the General Assembly and they will read it, act on it, and then no further discussion on this.

In addition to uh the parking trucks, there people dump mattresses back there all the time.

As I said, that fence is falling down, and people don't want us to fix it, they want new fences, which we're not gonna do.

Right.

Okay.

Uh council meetup.

I'll be very brief.

That's like the fifth time I've agreed with the mayor tonight.

So I think I have a fever.

But uh no, but this is actually a uh as uh councilman uh present.

This is a no-brainer uh to get the title cleared.

But one question for you, Mayor.

So if this is if this approach is good for 34 Lake Drive, can we also do it for do it for other properties?

Uh such as Gorton, yes, such okay.

Um 99% sure we'd have to check the specifics on it, but yes, I think so.

It's a dry run.

All right, of course, you realize that's not our property yet, it's still school departments.

Okay, that's not on the agenda.

Uh moving along, anyone else?

Uh council members, council members.

Wanted to thank Councilman Mudo for bringing that up.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Uh, any members of the public have anything to add on 3326?

Seeing none, do I have a motion?

I'd like to move favorable action.

Okay.

Second.

All right.

All in favor.

I aye.

And at 923, intergovernmental is adjourned.

Thank you.

Would the public safety committee please convene?

By the way, Chairman, I was I I should apologize.

It's Mr.

Croft.

I said Miss Croft before, just for when you get to it.

I feel like it obligated to at least mention it.

No problem.

Red Sox five, not this committee.

I am absolutely stuck.

Stretch.

Okay, it is uh public safety committee um in session at 925.

Skip.

First order of business is to approve the minutes from January 5th.

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor?

I'm all right.

A couple of items.

We have a couple of claims.

So I just want to ask first is uh Mr.

Croft or Mrs.

Croft here for their claim.

Okay.

Give me one second, and the other claim, I believe, is uh could uh Contreras is contraris, Mr.

Mrs.

Contreras.

No, okay.

So let's start off with uh PCR forty-two-26 resolution relative to the claim for Mr.

Croft.

Uh Councilman Foley.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Croft reached out to me prior to the last uh council meeting, and he works the second shift, if I'm remembering right for Ripta.

So it would be a financial hot chip for him to come to here to basically ask for an additional maybe 70.

All this is off the top of my head.

The gentleman explained in detail, and I know he provided documentation to you.

Uh, that the problem is it was a it's a newer vehicle, almost brand new.

The tires not anybody carries them.

He had to go up the dignatic mass or norwood to get a tire, and you're required to submit three estimates.

So he got two other estimates, and they weren't those tires.

So when the claim was reviewed, they went with the low bid or the low estimate, even though that tire wasn't the tire he needed.

So he's asking if he could get the full 300 reimbursement.

Thank you, Councilman Foley.

Councilman Latticer.

Uh yes.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

First of all, I don't even know why this thing came before us, to be quite frank.

Um, it's a $64 item.

The um the rule is you can pay up to $300.

The guy had a tire damage, and he had to get a front end alignment.

So just give him the $64 in this case and get him up to the $300.

Part of the problem here is when he smashed into this pothole, um, it screwed up his alignment.

So excuse my expression, but this should have never even become before us.

This should have been just approved.

Um, it costs a lot more to get it to us than $64.

So that's my speed.

I'm done.

Okay.

Anyone else on the committee?

Councilman Rex.

Yeah, so I'll chime in here.

I'm not an expert on this particular type of vehicle.

I know that a lot of newer vehicles.

What's gonna happen is if uh you're replacing one tire, then you have to get the alignment too.

Uh so anyways.

Looking at uh at all of the circumstances here, and also uh uh councilman foley, his conversation with the claimants.

I mean, for multiple reasons, it all makes sense that uh the actual damage here incurred was greater than the maximum 300.

We know that he paid for the tire, he paid for the alignment, and there's no way to uh practically get that all done for under the 300.

We have the quotes for uh that tire, similar tires.

Unfortunately, the one of them isn't a precise match for the reasons councilman foley explained.

Anyways, all make sense to me that it would be appropriate here to uh approve in that amount of 300.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the committee?

Anyone on the council?

Anyone in the public?

Anyone in the public?

Great.

So um I want to defend the process first.

Yes, I know it was the difference of 6340, and the process has caught cost probably more than the 6340 if we paid, but we have a process in place.

The rules are if it comes to us, we can do it.

Uh I would uh entertain a motion on the committee um for favorable action to pay the 6340.

Uh or yeah, yeah.

Um, Mr.

Chairman.

Nope.

Hold on.

It if you can make the motion, uh I believe your intent is to pay the the 300 cap.

If you can make the motion to be uh favorable action for a total payment of 300.

We'll do.

Thank you for that correction.

So uh we make a motion for favorable action to pay the cap amount of 300.

Question second.

Who asked who asked the question?

Myself.

I'm sorry.

I because reviewing the documentation, I I suspect I've simply confused myself.

So there's an invoice as opposed to the estimate for 2360.

But we're saying it went over because of an alignment.

Is that is that accurate?

Uh go ahead, councilman foley.

No, the tire that he actually bought was over the 300 dollars.

The other two estimates were for tires that weren't for his car.

Because the only place that makes or sold that tire was Natick or wherever Norwood.

So the process was to award it to the low estimate.

I'm good now.

I I I was correct.

I did in fact confuse myself.

I apologize.

Understandable.

All right.

So we have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Do you have more comments, sir?

Point of order.

Okay.

Uh page seven of eighteen in the packet.

I see a customer receipt of 236.60 cents for the tire.

So I also see documentation in there for uh payment of the alignment.

So that's how the grand total gets to over 300.

Just wanted to make that point of order so it's clear on the record, but uh no objection to the vote being held.

Uh just uh did we have public comment on this?

We did, we offered.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, memory.

Okay.

It's later.

I won't uh stop any further votes.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we had a uh we had the vote just to confirm.

We had a motion, we had a second.

All in favor?

I okay.

All right.

So let's do that.

Uh let's see.

The next item on the agenda is PCR 4426.

A resolution in regards to installing a stop sign at the intersection of Sandfield Street and Sefton Av.

Uh, this was uh this is actually in my ward.

Um the recommendation is uh from public safety uh to install the sign.

Uh any uh any comments?

Any discussion?

No objection.

All right.

Any any comment by the council?

Any comments by the public?

Any comments by the public?

All right.

No comments, no further discussion.

I'll take a motion.

Make a motion to approve PCR 44-26.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, motion approved.

Okay, we have a similar one here for PCR 4626, a resolution in regards to installing stop signs on Spencer Woods Drive and DN uh D Air Run Crossing, where each intersection intersects major potter road.

Uh, this is uh councilman uh get pot's area.

Uh but the rec.

I believe we went through the whole process, Councilman Gephardt, but please.

Yes, there's uh favorable traffic study and request favorable action.

All right.

Any comments by the rest of the committee?

Any comments by the council?

Any discussion or comments by the public?

Any comments by the public?

May have a uh motion favorable.

Move favorable action on PCR 46-26.

Okay, we have a motion with a second.

All in favor, aye.

Thank you.

All right, we have one other claim here.

So this is PCR 4726 resolution relative to claims for Contreras.

Uh this one came through us through the council president.

Yeah, so this was just submitted on behalf of the appellant because they requested it.

So that's because our process says it's just kind of an automatic thing, hence why my name's on it.

I haven't heard from them.

I did ask a question on the claim of the administration as to whether or not the tree had been previously flagged as an issue like disease, dead, dying, etc.

falling apart.

And my uh the response I received was that no, there was no prior indication that such a thing was occurring, and also I have a a number of questions for the claimant if they did show up because they said a part of the tree fell.

It there's no indication whether or not just that part was over the fence in the first place.

Because if that was the case, then it was by I think state law always their responsibility, or as opposed to that part that fell was on their other side of the fence.

Also, they're billing us for or attempting to bill us for the entire tree removal, if I'm understanding the document correct, when there's no indication that they asked the city to remove the city's own property, as opposed to just removing the tree that fell a part of the tree that fell in the house, which I get.

Yes, you would absolutely have to remove that.

But so I I just I got a number of questions, and even even potentially regardless of the answers.

I'm not sure in a normal circumstance we have any responsibility given that there was no prior notice and an act of God because this was via a storm, but I'm a big believer I'm giving a person the opportunity to attend.

We haven't heard from them.

I'd request to hold it just once more, and then if they don't show or contact anyone, then we tried.

Okay.

Any uh any other discussion?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Yes, Councilman Rex.

Thank you.

Uh what date uh would you recommend we hold it to?

My my knee direct thought is May 11th.

Because that's the next meeting.

Thank you.

Uh no further comments.

Thank you.

Any comments by the council?

Any comments by the public?

Any comments by the public?

Great.

All right, may I have a motion?

Make a motion to hold on May 11th.

Second.

All in favor?

I concludes the business in front of us.

Uh we are adjourned at 9 39.

Thank you.

Would the ordinance committee please convene?

Sorry.

A lot of things.

Yeah.

This is ordinance.

I'll come back.

Yeah.

Okay.

Time is now 9 40.

Ordinance committee is now in session.

First order of business is acceptance of the minutes that were from the meeting held on March 9th, 2026.

We have a motion.

Move to approve.

I have a motion to have a second.

Second.

Motion to second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Four.

Oh motion passes.

Motion, uh, next order of business is approval of minutes from March 23rd, 2026.

Do I have a motion on that?

Move to approve.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Last item.

Moving to approve April 6, 2026.

Second.

So moved.

Second Deloise.

And all in favor?

I aye.

Borrow again.

Okay.

First item on the agenda.

PCO 13-25 sub A, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title property.

This is on for second passage.

Uh believe we went over this a lot.

Uh anyone in the committee wish to have any comment or questions.

No one.

Anybody from the full council?

Members of the public.

Miss Colmar, yes.

Thank you.

Michelle Comar Ward won.

Uh so my impression from attending the last meeting where I think someone from the finance department testified and answered my question that the list of properties that were delinquent from taxes long ago, the subject of this ordinance.

It was readily available.

Come and get one, ask for one.

So a couple days later, I think it was on uh April 8th.

I went to the finance department, and I said, Can I get a copy of the list?

And they said, Oh, write your name down, and we'll get it for you later.

So, oh so I did that.

Well, lo and behold, it ended up on the busy clerk's desk as a public records request.

Now, readily available documents are supposed to be able to be picked up when upon request.

So this further just makes me believe that the the this has become a less transparent process than what we have now.

I don't know how many people had to go through the public records request.

I I had to wait the full 10 days.

And be ready to be the first bidder or the first person in first come first serve to buy properties for the back taxes due.

Now, next question, how long does it take to get answered?

I want I'm interested in property one, two, and three.

What are the bet back taxes due for each?

I don't know how long that answer would get.

So I just don't know if this is going to be a fair and transparent bidding process, because that less that list, the impression I got was readily available, and I had to wait the 10 days.

Not that I have money to spend on properties, but I'm all for the transparency, and I don't see it happening.

I'm opposed to this whole ordinance to begin with.

I've testified a couple times I'm against it for various reasons.

I won't repeat them here.

Um, but I I don't think it's a good way to uh resolve these delinquent property tax properties or to generate revenue back to the city.

I just don't approve of the method.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gilmore.

Ms.

Austin, go ahead.

Yes.

Jane Austen, uh, Chairman of the Warwick Land Trust.

Um the land trust is has been very interested in this process from the beginning.

Um, and concerned that before a new process is put in place to manage or dispose of uh you know tax title properties that I've accumulated over decades that we'd not have a clear understanding comprehensive database on what those properties are.

Um looking at the conservation value of these things, as a practical matter, these tax title properties are part of the existing network of our kind of green and open spaces.

Um they have valuable, um they come into uh into that situation largely because they're undevelopable in areas where development would be risky or unwise.

They're often um along streams or waterways and in low-lying areas.

Um by and large, they're largely low-risk, low maintenance.

Um, many of them are adjacent to city properties.

They have value, although they're not generating tax revenue, they have value.

Um, and they have been providing this value and are providing this value now.

Um, terms of resource conservation, habitat, storm water management, flood mitigation, air and water quality, heat mitigation.

Um they're providing community amenities now and supporting the surrounding property values.

So it screams out for kind of a comprehensive uh look.

Now, the land trust has made an effort, uh, a preliminary effort to do this by uh using the city's um assessors GIS mapping.

We've overlaid uh mapping on the part from DEM in terms of the conservation value.

We've been able to identify which parcels are adjacent to others, which parcels are adjacent to city property, and when you really look at the data that we have, um we get oh excuse me.

You we find that we've got about just under a thousand parcels, about 80% of them uh or or 70% of them are in uh areas that have been identified as conservation opportunity areas.

We took them uh we took the maps, we identified those that were in clusters of uh of areas with um with environmental value, and we were able to identify uh fairly readily about 40 clusters with about 450 parcels that it would make a great deal of sense for the city to make ineligible for uh for any general assignment.

This is just a first pass.

Um we think we've created a pretty powerful, useful and informative mapping tool, and would be happy to kind of provide it more readily.

Um but there is far more uh analysis that can go into it.

The planning department certainly has a lot of uh information and knowledge it could add the existing uh uh the existing ordinance for a tax title in incorporates the planning department, incorporates the city engineer, the uh conservation and wildlife uh commission, in addition to the land trust and other uh financial entities within the city.

All of these have some uh something to offer in terms of determining whether the city should abandon its interest um in these properties because they are providing uh potentially some value to the city.

Um so our request um is to find some way to incorporate this information in the city's process moving forward for managing these properties.

Um from the standpoint of the low-hanging fruit that we've identified, um we would argue that it would make sense to put them aside in terms of their ability for general assignment now to continue to develop a um you know a comprehensive database.

It's a just it's a discrete fixed inventory of on the order of a thousand.

That's not a big number in today's database uh databases.

It's not something that's gonna change dramatically over time.

Um when a tax title uh sales happen, a few properties will get added, those can be incorporated in the general analysis, uh, but it seems ripe and appropriate that the city should move forward before it changes dramatically the way it's either managing or disposing of these properties to ensure that there's some kind of a comprehensive analysis incorporated in that process.

And right now, that is not part of at least the uh ordinance that's being uh substituted for what we have in place.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Austin.

So just to kind of reiterate and caveat over what you said, uh, I think your description of your your effort is modest.

Yes.

Um the amount of work that you and your team have put into creating the database, creating the overlays, and just compiling the list and the it truly remarkable from just from where I'm sitting.

Anyone who has not had the opportunity to speak with Mr.

Austin that's sitting on this council, uh, please take the opportunity to do so that and just view what they've been able to compile.

It really puts it in perspective and uh amazing work.

So I I thank you for the effort you did on behalf of the land trust and with the land trust.

Um I had to keep in mind personally was that this ordinance um was docketed to change in I think at first I jumped on board with we got to pack all of the things into this one ordinance, and I had to keep straight in my mind that this particular ordinance only deals with the very narrow um issue of how do we transfer the title of these tax title properties?

Just that.

And then I think sort of we all jumped on board with we got to pack all of these other caveats onto it and qualifiers and uh mechanisms.

But I think in discussions with Ms.

Austin and uh kind of ruminating over this over the last several months.

I sort of for myself at least put it in perspective that made sense for me that this is sort of the end of the road.

When we get to the point of transferring it, this is the process and mechanism to actually transfer it out.

So I think sort of reverse engineering this and going back to what Ms.

Austin has described as creating a list or compiling an inventory of properties that we should seek to preserve for whatever the beneficial reasons are for everything you just stated.

Maybe we kind of move back in time now and say, okay, do we need to create a list that creates this ineligibility or at least these items that we intend to not transfer for those conservation uh effort reasons and sort of to passively protect those from the city standpoint to let them let sleeping dogs lie as far as those properties go.

So when we dock it tonight, we'll have a docket item relative to accomplishing just that, and however that develops over time, we will develop it.

But I would suggest that we get this portion passed, just remembering that this is allowing the city to effectively and efficiently transfer once we get to that point, wherever that remains, and then gets us in compliance with both state and federal law, so it allows the city to function the way it needs to, if and when we ever get to transfer any of these properties off.

That's my two cents.

Um any other questions or comments from the members of the public or Councilman Rex.

So I would encourage us to hold this this evening because I really do think that we need to have that process in place ahead of this.

I'll give a very simple example.

So let's say that we pass this legislation.

Well, then it's in place.

And what happens once it's in place?

Well, it's a clear process, clearly defined process of whoever shows up check in hand for the precise amount, first come, first serves, gets the property.

So you can't give away something and then also preserve it, because then you're getting into people's constitutional rights, uh, life liberty property, property being operative here, and then you're getting into a situation of a takings clause situation.

If we want to try to reverse it and undo it, which I don't want us to become the city of what was it, New London.

Anyways, it becomes a whole huge mess if we cross this bridge.

Once he cross the bridge, once you put them up, well, that's it.

So a little illustration here.

Let's say that uh we pass this, mayor signs it, I come on down to City Hall with a check in hand, I get the precise amount.

Okay, great.

I followed the process.

Uh I paid that amount, and now I hold that tax title.

And if the uh the owner of the uh the rights to that fails to redeem on those, well, now uh having paid for the tax title, I can foreclose on the tax title.

How to put it the problem here is that this is all being presented as if none of these parcels are buildable.

Well, that might have been the case, however many years ago, but things do change over the decades.

I'm spotting some properties, just you know, from my knowledge of Ward 2 and from my knowledge of being able to go on GIS.

I can't guarantee that they're actually buildable.

I don't have that level of expertise.

But from a cursory look from someone who has at least a little bit more knowledge than simply a general member of the public.

Some of these they look potentially buildable to me.

So do we really want to let that genie out of the box before we have a chance to allow the land trust to really go through and make sure that those particular parcels that we don't want anybody to snap up and potentially build on or otherwise otherwise encumber, even if it's not necessarily building a permanent structure on it.

Do we really want to let that genie out of the box before we uh do our full due diligence?

We do our full due diligence when we're looking at each and every particular parcel that comes up in front of us for any given city council meeting.

But here we're talking literally hundreds in one fell swoop, and none of us really know all the facts about each and every one of them, and that's after Jane Austen and the land trust have spent countless hours looking through these.

None of us could possibly know the details on every single one of these without even more due diligence.

So I think that we're just acting a little bit too quickly putting the cart before the horse.

For those reasons, I would suggest that we simply uh hold this for now, make sure we finish up that due diligence.

But uh, you know what?

If we go ahead and pass this, I've got my eye on a few properties.

I'll go ahead, I'll snap them up.

Hey, I'd just like to keep in perspective too that these properties uh have been sitting dormant for years and have accumulated years and years of uh uh taxes, gone on paid penalties, interest, and to my knowledge, no one's beating down the door to purchase these up.

There's no line waiting for this to pass where people are just gonna swoop in and snatch them.

So I I would like to just keep in perspective that point of view.

Um Delouise, and then I want to go to the administration.

Um I just want to uh give Michelle a little bit of information.

If you want, if you have a particular parcel of land, okay, you go to the Treasury Department at the Sawtooth building, talk to Dave, and within a week to two weeks, you will have all your answers.

You'll have the amount that it and taxes that is owed, the amount in penalties, and if it's ten thousand dollars and you want to redeem that tax title, you pay the 10,000.

But to reiterate what councilman Nappa has said, there's nobody beating down the doors to get these properties because most of them are wetlands, okay.

Has anyone seen the list that was posted by Ms.

Austin?

It's it's a gigantic list, okay.

There's 1,400 or more parcels, and you you look and it says wetlands, wetlands, marsh.

There's all descriptions, okay?

So everybody's worried about developers coming in, snatching up these properties, okay.

How long have these properties been on the been on the list?

Years.

I've I've researched some properties that went back to the 1970s.

Okay.

So if everybody's worried about the big bad wolf, you know, it's crazy.

We need to make decisions.

We need the city needs money.

There's no developers coming in snatching up these properties.

It's just it just upsets me.

People need to really understand what's going on.

That's all I got.

Thank you, Councilman.

Chief, if you want to give some perspective from the administration's standpoint.

Uh so the administration the administration would be against holding this again.

Uh, this has been held and held and held, and um right now we have an illegal ordinance.

Um we have met with Jane Austin and her uh members of land trust, going over her mapping.

We've asked for the share files, the shape files, to be able to integrate it into our GIS.

So we have that information as well.

We're more than willing to work with the land trust on identifying crucial properties.

But to keep delaying this to, well, let's add another person to look at it.

Right now, in the ordinance, it's at least 10 days, at least 10 days notice to the land trust for any property that is newly acquired and newly to be assigned.

That's the minimum.

We're open to working with the land trust.

We're not just gonna say tell Jane Austen and her land trust.

Sorry, yeah, we don't we don't talk to you anymore.

We got it passed, but we're done.

But you have to understand to Councilman DeLuise's point, you know, we have a lot of properties that we've had them.

They're not going to be jumping off of the tax sale list into some active development because they're most of them are underwater.

A lot of the ones that Jane showed us, I believe there were five critical areas that were abutting that had major tracts of land.

Those are the ones that we can look at when we have a request for an assignment saying, you know, where is this property?

Well, the land trust provided us with a mapping that it's crucial to them, or it's critical habitat, or it's a critical environmental uh parcel.

We can look at that and then say to the potential developer, you know, maybe this isn't the right lot for you.

But we're willing to work with the land trust, but we want to get this ordinance passed as it's written so we can keep moving forward and keep working with the land trust.

Thank you, Chief.

Councilman Latticer.

Councilman Mutter is Councilman Mudo, he's deferring to you.

Well, mine's mine's brief.

I again I just want to recognize uh just like Councilman Napa, the amount of work that you did, Jane and your team have done phenomenal work, a great analysis to show where the city can benefit.

Um so again, I I just wanted to publicly restate that and re-emphasize what you did was not easy work.

And I agree with Councilman Napa that you undersold the amount of work that you did.

What you did is very valuable.

Uh moving to the legislation.

Uh I'm actually open to holding this because people have already stated that this is these have been on the rolls for 10 plus years.

They're underwater.

Another two weeks, another four weeks to put something in the legislation uh that can secure uh you know the concerns that are being raised, uh, I would support.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Lannister.

Uh yes, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I actually concur with Councilman Mudo and his comments, um, as well as yours, as well as Councilman Rick's.

Um and I too met with Jane um last week and had a very lengthy discussion.

Received a good education on this because quite frankly, there are things in here that are above my pay grade.

And um what I'm hearing tonight is been hanging around for a long time.

These things have been sitting there.

Um the chief said we can look at these concerns that Jane has, we can talk about it, we can discuss it.

Um well, as Councilman Mudo said, I don't see where another couple of weeks or a month um is gonna make any difference in this whatsoever.

I do have um concerns with the things that have been brought to me.

Um Michelle Comar made some some very good points this evening.

And um, as I said earlier, sometimes people can put a different spin on things to make me look at things from a different perspective.

And this is one item that I find rather complex, and I will admit it's somewhat above my pay grade in absorbing all of this, and I am going to have to lean on um Jane Austen, Michelle, Councilman Rix's comments, and request that this is held and to look at this completely and totally.

The fact that um it's said tonight, because there's the conversation about holding it, that we can look at it, we can discuss it more with Jane Austen.

That says to me why it's even more important that we hold this.

I've heard these things um, and I'm not directing this to the chief of staff or the current administration.

I've heard these things many years over the over the course of time that says we'll look at it, we can talk about it, we can revisit it.

And after it passes, um things don't quite work out the same way.

So with that said, um, I would vote in support of holiness, um, but I will not vote in supporting it in its current form.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Gebart.

I I think the most important thing that I heard tonight is that and and the last several times we've heard this, is that the current ordinance we have on the books is in conflict with state and federal law.

Every day we continue to leave this ordinance, which we've now multiple times in a public forum acknowledged is inconsistent with state and federal law, continues to expose us to whatever you know chat trouble we could find ourselves in.

So I think time is of the essence to bring this into compliance with state and federal law.

Beyond that, I think we've heard these parcels have been around for a long time.

Tremendous work done by the land trust uh to put us in a position where we can analyze what's out there um and package together some of these parcels.

I mean, I think something's gonna be docketed this evening.

I'm not sure what it is, but um you know, I think that we should move with urgency uh to um put some of these parcels together uh that have conservation value um and you know are are stamped that way by by DEM and other organizations.

Um but I think for the reason that they are uh that they they have met the threshold of being the uh parcels of interest or parcels, you know, for for conservation, you know, speaks to that you know they are inherently not developable and as they are in you know flood-prone, low-lying wetland uh type conditions.

So I I think the answer here can be yes and you know, let's move forward and get our uh update our our ordinance to uh be compliant with state and federal law, and let's also work on uh helping to uh pull together the great work that's done by the land trust and turn it into actual action in the city.

you know for for conservation you know speaks to that you know they are inherently not developable and as they are in you know flood prone low-lying wetland uh type conditions so i i think the answer here can be yes and you know let's move forward and get our uh update our our ordinance to uh be compliant with state and federal law and let's also work on uh helping to to uh pull together the great work that's done by the land trust and turn it into actual action in the city uh so with that uh if recognized i would make a motion thank you if i could be call on at one point i'd appreciate it again i'd like to speak when i when this a moment wants to talk council president wants to talk council president allow it what a sweetheart uh so things one uh after meeting when councilman knapp and i met with jam so i have a docketing memo for the tax title stuff here with me that i already had planned to dock it anyway because the my goal was similar to what councilman gibhart just kind of pointed out we have something that's just straight up not allowed right now on the books can't do it it's unlawful the way it's written and I have had multiple people email asking had this passed yet because they're waiting to utilize it to transfer tax titles so I can't speak for everyone else whether or not you've been hearing from from people I have they've been emailing the city as well because I I they copied me I do not want to be in a position where someone decides to see court intervention about this considering this is a this is a right or or property interest that they have they own and we just straight up don't have a process where they can utilize their right that would not I I would not want to be the attorney representing the city in that regard that sounds like a losing battle and I don't want to be forced into fixing this by a court when we've been waiting to fix this for some time now there I see no reason why we can't at least tonight adopt a lawful approach and then if you want use what I'm docketing now to change it to add another layer do what you will or dock it your own to do the same we need to have something that's lawful on the books it's a travesty that we don't we have the option to fix it.

We have discussed this topic ad nauseum from multiple meetings I I get it there's a lot you can work with it.

I mean Jane has explained it to me at length and it's a councilman at length it is a complicated issue and there's a lot going on I don't think anyone can deny any of that but what's not complicated is the fact that our ordinance is illegal.

What's not complicated is that there are people waiting who have property interests property rights and could seek potentially to compel us to let them enforce their rights which I don't blame them if they did do that because it it's at least one of these people has been trying for years to do this.

So this is not a good situation it's one that's easily resolved and there's no reason to continue to expose the city to liability just because we want this to be in what in some people's idea is a perfect situation from there from their perspective especially when we can immediately change it or again add another layer add another perspective whatever please keep that in mind don't be don't don't take the opinion that if it's not perfect I won't support it especially when we can so readily change it because this isn't the charter this is an ordinance to be clear I vehemently oppose holding it because of that Mr Chairman I've got a motion we hear from councilman foley's a new light council I'm sorry chair did you recognize me?

Yes yes thank you through the chair to Ms Austin just for point of clarification for me I haven't been able to hear you well enough are you in favor of this or are you opposed to it we are we do not feel this we would like to I'm sorry one sec I I can't speak in the mic and have my go ahead please this the land trust would like to see a comprehensive strategic approach to managing the properties and has argued that that should be part of the change um made to to the ordinance because there are elements from the ordinance um that are being lost in terms of transparency and notice and um uh things like the council role um the city has been in some ways a benign and passive holder of these titles we don't know if we change the situation if we get a more opportunistic predatory uh you know set of uh set of participants in the in the uh in in the mix um I understand that uh there's an interest in making sure that our ordinance is consistent with the state law

Um the city has been in some ways a benign and passive holder of these titles.

We don't know if we change the situation if we get a more opportunistic predatory uh you know set of uh set of participants in the in the uh in in the mix.

Um I understand that uh there's an interest in making sure that our ordinance is consistent with the state law.

I think we'd argue if we're not assigning in an illegal way, potentially, um, and you're not violating state law, you're not creating an immediate danger for yourself.

But the uh and the benefit of having a list uh and an inventory um as to the transparency, it certainly makes it workable.

Uh the ordinance as it's written now talks about a case-by-case basis, but it's unclear what would happen if someone came forward and said, please give me the information about 50 parcels and calculate the redemption price for me.

Does that then become public information or not?

So those are general questions that the land trust has raised and as in the process of looking at it.

Our bigger our role really is looking though at what the characteristics of these parcels are, what the value is to the city of holding them uh the and put thinking and thinking strategically before it relinquishes whatever interest it has in these properties.

So we are looking for a more comprehensive solution at this point.

Councilman Napa, uh Council President Snappy, others have uh have indicated interest in working with the land trust and actually with other entities in the city that would help to identify that whether the city has an interest in holding on to these properties.

Can we be sure that if a you know the statement is made that we can work relatively expeditiously to determine what a comprehensive inventory would look like and set up some protections?

That may be the best we can have Councilman Foley, you're all set.

Does that address all your questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Council Lasser.

So now after hearing uh more comments, I'm even more confused because what I'm hearing now is something funny.

Okay.

Um because the comments I'm hearing is that the reason this needs to get done now is because it violates state law.

We need to bring this current with state law.

Right.

So here is a question for anyone that would like to answer it on the city council, including our council solicitor.

How does this particular paragraph violate state law?

This is the exclusion.

It's found on page four.

It's the strikeout of from line two down to line five.

And the strikeout says the concurring vote of four members shall constitute approval of plans before it is before it for review or for the adoption of any resolution, motion, or other action of the commission.

The can the concurring vote of four members shall be necessary for disapproval.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, councilman district commission.

I think you're on the wrong item.

I am on the wrong item.

Uh I'm on PCO 10-26.

Okay.

So I would draw my motion.

Oh, my question.

Okay.

I still don't I was very confused when you started reading that.

Thank you.

Are you all set, Councilman?

I am.

Okay, Councilman Mutal.

We've had a lot of laughs this evening, haven't we?

Uh just uh point of clarification here.

So am I hearing that we're not open to any amendments to this ordinance, such as amendments that uh the council president possibly has or other amendments that um we might may reintroduce from the original uh you know the sub A, the proposed sub A, or are we just looking to focus just on what's on the table?

I don't know that we can classify anything as a we uh I would be in favor personally of passing this as just the mechanism of how to transfer, because that's what this particular ordinance deals with.

How do we transfer when we get to the point of saying I want to transfer this to this guy?

That's what this deals with.

What my intention, and uh believe council president Snappy is gonna docket it on both of our behalfs as co-sponsors is to docket an item to then address what properties working with the land trust and the planning department and the administration, what properties have the desire of all parties involved to be protected more or less and to sort of preserve in a way that a we're not taking on liability by ownership to or taking on the financial burden of maintenance, so we can passively sort of protect those, and I think the development of that list would be more and codification of that list, I guess, for lack of better terms, would be more appropriate for kind of a precursor ordinance to these items via this ordinance are not eligible for transfer via that ordinance, if that makes my position more.

No, it does.

So look, can I just speak it backwards?

So we have this ordinance, which is the mechanism, and then we have the can't hear anyways, and then we have the proposed resolution or an ordinance that something someone's gonna put together which addresses the property.

Okay, do we know if that language is agreeable to the land trust, or is this something we need to wait till it's posted?

This is something that we're developing.

We just said let's get it on the docket and let there's a lot of minds involved, and we obviously can't have those discussions in private.

So we're gonna work ASAP to get something out there so that we can all make it malleable and acceptable.

Yeah, so I'm struggling with if we if we have a separate solution here, and we're just trying to get confirmation and some comfort that this will we could solve two things with two different votes.

Why we can't just hold this ordinance for till the next meeting, as well as have the discussion that way at the same time, we're solving two conditions that are concerned because I'm against going with this ordinance without knowing what the remnant the other remedy is.

But if I knew what the other remedy was, I don't care.

I would I would be for both.

So that's what I'm struggling with right now.

So uh without knowing you know the remedy that's being uh provided, and it's only gonna cost us two more weeks.

I I don't know what the rush is.

So I think that's a fair point, councilman.

My other thought that's gonna room rolling around in my head is that I believe because we have the chief, maybe you can illuminate me on this or enlighten me.

We have the um auction coming up soon.

May 22nd.

May 22nd.

May 22nd.

So without having this ordinance in place, that would put a potential burden on actually being able to transfer those properties.

So this the city, I don't believe, and you I don't have the exact date in front of me.

I believe it's been since 2014 that we've taken a tax title property because this ordinance is contrary to state law and federal law.

So when properties don't sell at tax sale, they just sit and linger in the person's name.

We don't even take them anymore under tax title.

So there are no new properties going on the tax sale list because of this.

Um, you know, so I'm not sure I don't know what else to say, but the administration's working with the land trust.

We've met three times, two or three times.

So I'm not sure where this is coming from that there's this distrust of whether we're going to do it or not.

You know, we're we're trying to identify the properties.

This is a list that's been languishing for some properties to Councilman DeLuise.

You know, maybe even 80 years, properties have been on this list.

Oh so I I so I mean it's I didn't want to interrupt, I'm sorry, I thought you were done.

No, I'm I'm done.

So I can speak to Council Mido's point as well, if permitted.

Go ahead, Council President.

So there's a couple things.

Um, one, if we didn't pass this tonight, so let's pretend we go to the May 11th meeting.

The soonest the other part could be passed and go live would be June 1st.

And then if we change this one at all, it would bump it accordingly by because we need first and second passage.

As far as the status of the other part, so there's an out there's a current request of the solicitor as far as what we're trying to do, because there's a legal quandary as part of it.

We're trying to figure out how we can do it in a legal way.

We don't know the answer as far as what's allowed, what's not I don't want to cause a similar or adjacent problem that we'll trying to address now by rushing the other part, because this one's been debated at length or months, as opposed to the other one where it's like, okay, now we need to be ready in two weeks.

I'm I don't want that.

I don't want to kind of squander all the hard work that Jane and the land trust have done just so we can say, but we have what it's going to look like at least.

I can tell you the general idea as far as as it stands now, there's nothing as far as because it does pertain to this.

That right now, the general idea is to figure out a way if there's a formal lawful way for us to I say us as in the city, or even it could be the city council, wherever way we end up doing it, assuming it's allowed, a formal way to designate certain properties that are in this bucket as hey, these properties we don't want to transfer.

If even if someone's like, hey, I want to buy it, we're like, no, we don't want to transfer these ones because of either a conservation issue or an access issue, like something, some some basis.

And then like the other bucket would be like these are the ones we don't mind.

Feel free, do what you wish with those.

Uh that would be the goal is to be able to formalize those two buckets so that they could actually exist so that there's a process for accessing one or both, and so that there's a clear guidelines as to how it would work.

And then if we're not allowed to formalize it, whether or not we can have a more informal one.

And I think we've already established and I haven't even related to you yet because I learned today, Jane, uh, we've already established it seems likely that we can at least do an informal one, which is great.

Um, but I'm hoping fingers crossed that we can do it in a formal way, because I would prefer to have something be at least ironclad so that way we have some assurances.

We again as in the city and the land trust can know that the property's taken care of because we're trying to avoid simply taking over the property as a city, because then we take over the upkeep and the liability.

And if you did that for all these parts, you're all it takes is one person falling and getting hurt or something terrible happening on that tiny tract of land, which all happens to be wetlands, which in my mind increases a risk of someone traversing and getting hurt in them.

So we don't want to conserve a tiny strip of land with all these good intent just to financially hurt the city severely.

It's the opposite of the long-term goal, obviously.

But if we can formally have this bucket of property that just sits there that we're not responsible for, that kind of solves all the problems all at once, which would be great.

Again, though, is it lawful?

He's gonna look into it and let us know.

Uh we we may have to inquire with attorney or sillo as well, given that the city is obviously a part of this conversation, obviously for the very apparent reasons.

But that's where we're we're currently at is looking at those bucks that we're also we talked at length with Jane about how we can help make it maybe we even have a third bucket as far as property the city actually wants to acquire, and the reasons why that would be that then that all this is to say in part two, why I'm rushing and I'm worried about the prospect of because I mentioned before, and as hopefully is apparent by what I've said thus far, it's complicated.

There's legal issues all over the place potentially, and we don't want good intent to end up producing bad results.

So I hope that helps illustrate where we're at.

If I can address any of the questions, I'll try.

I just I'm not sure, depending on what you're looking for, if we even have the answers yet.

Thank you, Council President.

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilman Letter, sir.

Now that I'm on the right page.

Thank you.

Um the thought process was right.

I was just on the wrong highlights.

So to go back to my comments about um the concern here seems to be more with getting the city in line with state law and not being in violation of state law, etc.

What I have not heard is what language in this legislation which is being deleted that violates state law, or is being being included to bring us into compliance with state law.

And one in particular is um line line 42.

It says the treasurer shall also send a notice with a request for a recommendation as to whether the city should relinquish its rights to the subject parcel, to the director of the planning department, the city conservation commission, the city clerk, uh sorry, the clerk of the zoning board, the tax assessor, the city engineer, the land trust, and the finance director.

These recommendations must be returned to the treasurer within 30 days, and it goes on for several other lines.

I'm not going to read them all into the record.

How does that language violate state law?

Can I do a question?

That may help.

Go ahead, council person.

Technically, I can't because I'm not on a committee, so it's more like I'm just asking the ability to speak, so I apologize.

Uh so the first meeting we had this item before us months ago now.

That so attorney Arcillo did go through the the parts that were problematic from state law and why we were changing what we were changing.

The problem is it was so darn long ago that even I can't tell look at the thing and say this is the part that's a problem, this is the part that's not.

I I wouldn't be able to accurately identify it, and that's kind of goes back to my concern.

We've been discussing this for so many meetings and so many months that the information is getting so spread out that we can't even keep track of it all.

And that's not that's not a dig on you because I'm in the same boat.

I I don't remember the specific parts.

So, Mr.

President, that's my point is this legislation.

Is it only about getting in compliance with state law, or is it also about taking away um other aspects in here which have been deleted, which have nothing to do with being in violation of state law?

I can only attest to what I recall as far as the intent stated was to bring it up to speed with state law.

Correct.

Um, and that's my point.

So if the intent is to bring this up to compliance with state law, um, are we throwing out the you know the baby with the bath water here to get these things excluded or included when it has nothing to do with violation of state law?

That's my concern, and that's why I will not be voting in favor of doing this without further consideration and getting an opinion as to what is necessary to comply with state law that we have in front of us right now.

Anything else has nothing to do with compliance with state law.

I don't know what it has to do with, but it won't, it doesn't have anything to do with compliance.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other questions or comments from members of the public?

Councilman Rix, I thought you were stretching your legs.

Well, to be clear, I want to make sure for legal reasons that I am very clear that I am here speaking, not in my capacity as a member of the council, but in my capacity as a member of the public.

So can I can I just pause you for one second?

I don't need to interrupt just to get Mr.

Solicitor.

Is this a fresh 10 minutes just so I can keep it on my end?

Uh it would circumvent the rules.

Um, every person doesn't have an opportunity for a double dip of multiple bites at that apple.

Um, so the time that committee members as well as member of the public is set at that 10 minute standard, so it would be inappropriate to allow a second bite here.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'll try to keep it brief.

Famous last words.

So my point here in speaking as a member of the public.

Hi.

I'll keep it to five.

Thank you.

Yeah.

My point here in speaking as a member of the public is that any member of the public, myself included, should this ordinance pass be signed by the mayor into law, can go ahead, go down to city hall and uh request that grant total that would be due for the amount to be written out in that check, present that check, and then that really leaves the city with two choices.

And then that really leaves the city with two choices.

They can either uh go ahead, go through the process of uh perhaps preserving the land, working with the land trust, that sort of thing.

Otherwise, or otherwise keep that land off the sales market, or their one remaining choice is to go take that offer of the first person who presents that check.

So it puts any single member of the public in that position of effectively okay, the land will either stay as it is, vacant, held up with the tax title issue, or one person exclusively has that ability to move forward should the city wish to offload that property.

So what's to stop a member of the public such as myself, and I say that because I'm actually do plan to do this if this goes through, from going straight to city hall, requesting the grand totals, and then being ready the instant that that grand total comes back, having that check in hand to be able to present, because based on my knowledge and based on some additional vetting, I would as a member of the public certainly be putting in uh those offers where I'm seeing the potential for these properties to be turned around at a massive profit.

A lot of those properties are ones that I would wish to be preserved, and so therefore I might just go ahead do that and then uh preserve those properties.

But on the other hand, any member of the public, myself included, you know what?

When you see six figures of potential profit right there, that is awfully tempting.

And so the my thinking is maybe the city should be a little bit cautious before giving anybody that kind of power, especially when we are talking about properties that have been sitting there for quite some time and aren't going anywhere.

That also raises a point too as to the point that the council president made earlier about uh time effectively now being of the essence, and that because of the lack of compliance with state law, that raises some legal issues of members of the public trying to compel the process to move forward.

Well, seems like some people are banging at the door.

And then if you have multiple people making that request, and one person gets a response with that grand total any period of time before any other person, well, that's really creating an issue for the city right there in terms of did everyone really have equal opportunity to be presenting that check.

Who even if let's say multiple people were making that request for that total of okay, I have the the blank check ready, tell me the number to write.

So I really think that we should have the process all in order, because otherwise we're opening up the city to liability there too.

That's all for my public comment.

I'll return to the city.

Thank you, Councilman.

Do we have a motion?

Move favorable.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

All in favor?

Aye, a three-one motion to move favorable.

We are moving along.

Can you go to number three?

Sure.

If there's no objection, uh like to move to number three.

Any objection to skipping an item and going back?

Seeing none.

Item number three on the list, PCO 11-26 and ordinance amending the code of ordinances to eliminate the personnel hearing board and provide appeals to the city personnel director.

This was docketed by council president on behalf of Mayor Picoszi.

Um council president, your pleasure.

So I'm gonna defer the administration, but uh at one point they will I do have an amendment that I want to introduce before the full council for this that I've already discussed with the administration on amendment on this one.

Uh unless I'm thinking of the wrong one.

Yeah.

Okay, so there's a request to go move this to the floor without recommendation for purposes of amendment.

Do I have a motion?

Uh move to uh move this to the floor without recommendation.

Motion is to move the floor without recommendation to have a second.

Second.

Second by councilman Geloese, all in favor.

I councilman Rix.

Aye.

Four motion passes.

Going back up one to item number two, PCO five dash twenty-six, an ordinance amending section sixty-four dash five of the code of ordinances relative to compensation of other officials docketed by Councilman Gephardt for first passage.

Councilman Gebhardt.

Um this one we moved be behind the second one because the outcome of this of the one we just heard will impact this one.

So why don't we move this to the floor without recommendation as well?

Okay, motion over the floor without recommendation.

Any second on that councilman Delouise, second, second and all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Four oh motion passes or moving to the floor without recommendation.

Time is ten thirty-eight.

Ordinance is now adjourned.

Okay, just go.

Would the finance committee please reconvene?

Fair enough.

Let the record indicate it is now eleven forty.

I'm sorry, ten forty.

And the finance committee is back in session.

Our item for consideration is PCO six dash twenty-six.

And giving given the time and what's left for discussion this evening, I would entertain motion to move to the floor without a recommendation.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Thank you.

Finance committee is adjourned at ten forty-one.

And this is public comment I would want to speak.

Personal directory.

Not on my doctor should have heard the ordinance.

It's on the it's on the agenda.

Yeah, it's on the point.

Oh, that's all the weeks.

We just talked about it.

Okay.

So I might not be able to come actually case where the personal directly showed.

So what's the thing for the thing?

Someone needs to be a lot of fun.

So it's full of different trades.

So you get like some part of the state.

Why would you want to work?

All right, we can get back into it.

So the full council reconvenes at 1052 p.m.

We're a take up where we left off.

So first up is general communications.

We have announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Does anyone have anything for general communications?

All right.

I just have the one, the vows spring fling happening on May 16th, 6 p.m.

You also hear about this from me at the next meeting too.

But you'll find it online if you want, either on their Facebook or elsewhere.

So next up is executive communications.

First up.

Acceptance of the minute.

Okay, this is track.

Acceptance of minutes from council meeting held on March 9th, 2026.

Is there any objection to approving those minutes as presented?

Seeing none so approved.

Next is the minutes from March 23rd, 2026.

Same question.

Is there any objection to approving those as presented?

See none, so approved.

Next up are the minutes from April 6th, 2026.

Is there any objection to approving those as presented?

Seeing none, so approved.

Next is the consent calendar, PCR forty-nine dash twenty-six resolution relative to bids.

We'll go to the finance chair, Councilman Lattisser.

Committee recommends favorable action on PCR forty-nine dash twenty-six.

For action, Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR forty-nine dash twenty-six.

Seconded by Councilman Muto.

Are there any questions or concerns regarding PCR forty-nine-26 that wasn't already heard in committee?

All right, seeing none, there are two items that were removed.

Uh councilman, you want to do the first one?

Yes.

Um the first item is twenty twenty-seven zero zero one B.

Um PCR fifty dash twenty-one.

Uh this was sent to the floor without a recommendation.

Do you want to move action on it or okay?

Um the next item is item number six, twenty twenty-six three oh nine of the uh bituminous concrete and roadway and sidewalk.

Um that was a number requested by Department of Public Works to amend the amount, and that is now PCR 51-26.

The amendment was to increase the spending authority from fifty-seven thousand two hundred to seventy-five thousand one hundred and sixty-five.

All right.

So first up, can we get a vote on the consent calendar?

Which there's right now, there's already a motion for favorable action.

So give me that there was well, let's make sure.

Is there any further discussion on this?

All right, so you know, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapping, yes, Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephardt, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, Mr.

View now, yes.

Yes.

Nine yes, all right.

Next is bid 2027-001B, which is now PCR fifty dash twenty-six.

Uh councilman Latticer, because it was a while ago.

Well, first we need a motion.

Is there a motion regarding this item?

Um, it was just it was sent to the floor without a recommendation.

So is it is it all right if you summarize this, even though there's not a motion.

You need a motion favorable or unfavorable.

I apologize.

I didn't hear.

I say, do you need a motion favorable or unfavorable?

It appears so, yes, before we can get to the summary part.

Okay.

Um I make a motion for unfavorable action on PCR fifty-26.

All right.

And so is there a second?

All right.

And now we can do discussion.

Councilman Lannister, can you summarize?

Because it was so long ago what this is and what you the issue is with it.

Okay, summarize it.

Quickly, um, this is uh a bid that is in correlation with 2027 zero zero one A.

And um the issue that I have with this is once again the department is coming to the council for approval on a whole series of vendors that for whatever reason didn't bid in the first place.

So they choose not to bid.

This seems to be um you know a common occurrence um lately where vendors are not bidding because they're saying, eh, what the heck?

We're gonna we're gonna get assigned stuff anyways because they need it.

So the other issue with this is the fact that the vendors who did bid had to put up an hourly rate in other numbers.

These vendors didn't submit anything, so we have no idea what they're going to charge for hourly rates.

The response was, well, we know what the other bidders are, um, what their rates are.

These folks have, you know, did work for us in the past.

Um, that's that's not how it works.

How it works is you get a commitment on what at least at the bare minimum, what the hourly rate is going to be charged by these folks.

It's wrong to just continue to give vendors a free pass, let them waltz into the city of Warwick, get the bids, get the work without having to go through the bid process like other vendors do.

Um, and under the pretense that, uh, well, we don't have any choice, we got to give it to them.

Fine.

If you have to give it to them, then at least at the very least, they need to have their feet held to the fire with a commitment to an hourly rate that they're going to charge the city of Warwick for the repair services that they're going to provide.

And that's my objection to awarding this.

I had um made a motion to um hold it until such time as the um department could ascertain those commitments from those vendors, what their hourly rates were, and then once we know what they are, okay.

Then I don't have a problem with it.

But to just give it to them because we we need them and not know what the costs are associated to the taxpayers is wrong.

So I apologize.

I have a question based on what you said.

Uh, why are we doing a motion for unfavorable if you want to hold it?

Because it was a tie vote.

My motion to hold it came in a tie vote, two yes, two no.

Right.

So that wasn't committed.

You your motion before us now could be a motion to hold instead of a motion for unfavorable action.

Okay, correct.

Yes.

So it is it permissible for him to simply withdraw and redo.

Yeah, I'll withdraw and I'll renew.

Um, my motion is to hold PCR 50-21 to May 11th, which will give the department um two weeks to come up with those labor rates.

All right, and is there a second?

So there's a second.

All right, so Christy, did you want to speak on this?

I think I saw you walking up to it.

Yes, I do.

Um, just to clarify a couple of things.

It is not a bid um what we're requesting.

It is actually a 56-6, which, as everyone knows, is an exception to notice.

Um, the reason we're asking for these vendors is because they are very specific to certain fire apparatus that would need repair.

Um, I just want to clarify again that the majority of the fire apparatus repairs are done in our automotive garages.

This bid is for anything that cannot be done by our in-house mechanics.

Um, and just for example, I know I've used it before.

Um, allegiance fire and rescue is proprietary to the Pierce Fire England, Coastal International is proprietary to the international rescues and so forth and so on.

So it's not that they councilman Lattice is correct, they did not submit a bid on the uh 2027-2001A portion, but we need to have our fire apparatus fixed in a timely fashion if it's not something that we can do in-house.

This request allows us to do that, and the only reason it is assigned the same bid number is because we are attaching the 566 vendors to the bid that was opened, they share the same principle as well as the same spending authority.

So, may I respond?

Yeah, I also have a question, but go ahead.

So um Christie's right, it's stand corrected.

But it is a 566, which is um as opposed to doing a bid.

You can color this any way you want.

And we can come back to the same thing that we got to have it, we got to have it, we gotta have it.

You don't have to have anything if you don't know what it's costing you.

Now, before this item came to us, it could have been very easily reached out to these vendors who again chose not to bid on 2027 001A.

They chose not to go through the exercise and fill out the paperwork and do whatever they gotta do to get the bids in so they can be um in line with everybody else who is bidding, and now we're asking or the department is asking us to approve these vendors who didn't bid and did not provide any hourly rate.

So if they used for something, they can charge whatever hourly rate they want, and to leave it up to the department to ascertain rates after we approve it, that doesn't make any sense to me.

This is something that the city council needs to say we need to exercise financial responsibility, and we need to know how much those vendors are going to charge us per hour.

We want it in writing so it can be documented.

So I had a question regarding hold on, I gotta write down as time, so I don't forget.

All right.

So I had a question, or I guess it's three questions.

One, is there any objection to holding this?

Or I guess a better way to word it, is there any urgency that this would need to be approved today?

The current bid expires on June 7th.

Yeah, plenty of time.

And if it was in fact held till May 11th, does that give enough time to address what councilman Latticer has brought up?

I have I I mean, there's no guarantee that all right, and the other part of my question was I is the 001A bid for different fire apparatus as compared to the 001B 566.

So there's certain, yes, there's certain apparatus.

Um there's separate groups of apparatus.

Yes.

And there's um there's components that so it so let's take for example on scene.

There's components that they can work on that are not proprietary to the vehicle, like pump work, they're certified to do pump work, but the pump work is not the pump is the pump.

Um, it's not proprietary.

Every fire engine has a pump.

Um, but when it comes to different other aspects of fire apparatus, there are certain things that are proprietary.

If and if our mechanics are not certified to work on, or if the workload is, you know, too, like we obviously have a lot of other vehicles that we're responsible to fix.

We we basically have one or two mechanics that all they work on is fire.

That's it.

Um, and then the rest of the mechanics work on whatever comes through the door, um, primarily sanitation for the most part.

It's it will hinder our ability to make sure that this apparatus is fixed in a timely manner, and we have a duty and responsibility to the residents of Warwick to make sure that our fire department can respond to their emergency.

And um, just to point out one other thing, when our fire department doesn't have enough apparatus to respond to calls, they borrow from other communities.

And when the other community's apparatus fails while we have it, we have to fix it.

So now we're also fixing Cranston's Rescue or their engine or whatever happens to be borrowed at the time.

So there's a lot of different components that go into what we do in public works, and um, you know, I I you have to have faith in our department that we know what we're doing and we know what we're asking for.

All right, so just so just so I'm clear to so the point about these need to get fixed, and without the without the 566, they won't get fixed.

And I feel like it's belaboring the paper.

I want to make sure I'm understanding the 001A bid if the 001B 566 doesn't go forward.

The 001A can't pick up the slack because that's not to a fixed these apparatus in question by 001B.

Correct.

The the vendors that we request on the B portion are proprietary to certain manufacturers.

All right, and then but uh as you pointed out, and as the position paper points out, this doesn't expire till June.

So I'll hold till May 11th, July 1st.

So I'm looking at I'm looking at 001A.

I apologize.

Let me scroll.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, June 8th.

Uh all right.

Yeah, new contract paper would be June 8th, uh, June 7th, 26th.

So current bid expires June 7th, 2026.

So I don't see the harm in holding till May 11th, unless I'm missing something, and I admit I may be.

I and I'm this is largely based on the time right now because we got a lot to cover still.

And I'm I'm not sure we should be sitting on this particular item with when it's something that can wait again, unless I'm missing something.

Um, but I know there's two other lights, and I see the right.

Nobody's disputing the work that has to be done.

Nobody's disputing that um this is proprietary, uh, nobody's disputing that there's some of these things that our staff um cannot do for whatever reason.

There's no dispute with that.

No, I think I think your point's clear, councilman.

And to your question, um, can you get that the answer to those questions by May 11th?

Should be able to get the answers tomorrow.

It's pick up the phone.

How much is your labor rate?

Send us off an email saying what your labor rate is.

Right, council, but it's like ridiculous.

Her point is that she can't force them to respond in within that time.

So then what does that mean?

That means you pay them whatever they send in.

I'm not I'm not trying to second uh back seat drive or anything.

I'm just saying like that not being able to guarantee that makes sense, at least from where I'm sitting in and the field I meant.

Director?

Yeah, uh Eric Girls Public Works Director.

I just want to point out that this is not unique to Warwick, right?

These vendors, they don't bid because they don't have to, they have plenty of work, right?

It was the same issue when I was public works director in Pawtucket.

We needed these vendors to fix the to fix our apparatus, and they work on pieces that are proprietary.

They can charge certain amounts because they are the only game in town, but their prices are fair, because if they weren't, the manufacturer would lean on them to be fair because otherwise it would make it difficult for that manufacturer to continue to have product that people would want.

So there is a check and balance here, and it's the manufacturer that is checking on their local vendors to be reasonable with their prices.

That being said, if we come back here and say that the price is X amount per hour, how is anyone on this council gonna know whether or not that's a good price?

What is your expertise versus what our expertise is?

I don't mean myself, I just mean my staff, right?

Because we have been doing this.

If we are here to tell you that these vendors are giving us a good price, now I come back to you and say this is the price.

How are you gonna know?

Because we do, right?

That's my point.

And we've gone through this before.

There is a time when council needs to trust that we have the staff and the expertise to make these decisions.

That's all.

Councilman Napo.

Thank you, Councilm.

Thank you, Director Eles and Christie.

Um Councilman Ladiser, I agree with your points that I wish these vendors would fill out bid items and bid.

But I'm also hearing from the directors that they don't bid because they don't have to, because they are the only game in town.

So I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I would just, if I could, through the president to councilman Latticer.

If they come back in two weeks, what is the what do we do then if the vendor says I'll quote you in real time what my price will be for this whatever job you present, or they just don't respond.

What then?

I just just for just so I understand what your intentions would be if they are not successful in getting the information that you want in the two-week time that we're proposing.

Yep.

So then why don't we just say don't bother coming to us at all?

Do whatever you want, pay whatever you want, buy whatever you want.

We don't have any accountability to the taxpayers.

I am not disputing or saying that if they come to us with an hourly rate, um, that we're qualified to make the decision whether that's fair or equitable.

I mean, if it's completely out of the stratosphere, it doesn't take a genius to know you're not going to spend crazy numbers.

I'm not here to dispute it.

What I'm here to say is that we need to know how much we're spending per how much they're charging us per hour.

There isn't one person in this chamber would go anywhere and buy anything unless you had an idea or a price of what you're gonna pay.

Why don't you have somebody come over and um remodel your kitchen and say, um, oh, don't worry about it, you know.

This is all proprietary cabinets, we'll send you the bill when we're done.

You would chairman.

I I respectfully you haven't answered my question that I asked.

You did not answer the question that I actually asked you.

My question again was if they come back, if we come back in two weeks, and the company refuses to give the department heads the answers that you're looking for, which I completely agree that we need, mind you.

I'm not being disputed of that point.

If they don't provide it for the department heads, what is the intention at that point?

Well, then perhaps the next time something comes to us with a PDA built or a Ford or something that requires a specific vendor because our folks can't do it, then guess what?

We don't have to buy that particular vehicle.

We can buy another vehicle.

If they're the if the vendor is gonna be that obstinate and that cocky councilman, I'm just I'm just focused on what's gonna happen at the next meeting if they don't have that answer.

That's all I'm asking from you.

And I just answered your question.

So if they say, we don't care what you say, we're not gonna tell you what the price is until um we we make we do the work.

Fine.

Then when that company or that vehicle comes back to us again for a bid, keep that in mind that you're dealing with a vendor who is that arrogant to say we're not gonna tell you what the labor rate is.

I didn't say to tell me what the total is, I said what the labor rate is.

Okay, yeah, so future conduct basically.

I got it.

Yep, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Are you good?

Councilman DeLuis.

Uh yes.

Oh, I don't know who's up there.

Um, Christy.

So you said that this bid ask was for the proprietary companies when you're when your mechanics cannot fix a vehicle or a problem that you have.

Correct.

Then it goes out to these other experts that are in that certain particular um piece of equipment.

Correct.

Correct.

All right.

So do you base that what if you have like a spectacular year and everything that breaks down can be fixed by your people.

So how do you, and you don't need to have any expenditures by these expert technicians.

Do you base that on your prior year's spending?

Like, like, what did you spend for these proprietary mechanics like a year ago?

So, as a whole, um, and and with the two combined, we spent 83,000 with the amount of apparatus that the fire department requires us to maintain.

That's that's nothing.

Which means we're doing the majority of the work in-house.

We're probably doing 95% of the work in-house.

So the ask for this is minimal for the amount of work that the fire trucks or ambulance get because they are in our garages every day.

Okay, so you spent 85,000, you said last year.

83,000, and that money was paid to which mechanics?

The city's mechanics.

That's that is strictly for any outside vendors we use out of that.

All right, so your budget eighty three, so that's another 17,000.

That's not above in, you know, it's not as you know, astronomical figure.

That's that's like a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, it's all right.

Like I said, the amount of time that the apparatus spends in our garages.

Yeah, I just needed a reference point.

I you know, okay, thank you.

Uh thank you.

Sometimes I just have to take a quick step back on these things.

We're talking about repairs to fire trucks.

Fire trucks are typically in the hands of government bodies.

You don't see many private individuals going around buying fire trucks and repairing fire trucks and the like.

So we're not exactly talking about the world's most competitive industry here.

We're talking no bid contracts dealing with apparatus that's used by government.

Where have we seen problems with this before?

I mean, turn on the news.

It's you know you you see these issues with the federal government all the time.

Uh from Halliburton on forward, at least thinking from you know my time when I started watching the news.

So it's not exactly reassuring to me when I'm hearing from the department head that don't worry about it to city council.

You don't have the expertise to even look at this and know what you're know what you're looking at.

Uh pardon me, I'm paraphrasing a little bit.

That's just what I'm hearing.

This is my impression of what I'm hearing.

And effectively being told that the check here to make sure that these vendors are behaving reasonably, is that the manufacturers put pressure on them.

In the context of a governmental no-bid contract, I do not want to be told that what's keeping all of this reasonable for us is the generosity and good grace of big business in a highly specialized non-competitive area.

Oh, yeah, big business.

They're surely looking out for us, making sure that the government contracts are all incredibly reasonable.

So let's stop and think about that for just a moment.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah, I think that councilman Latticer is being incredibly reasonable here in saying that we need the numbers.

We need to follow the process.

These particular businesses don't get a free pass here.

We have a process in place to try to protect the taxpayers.

If we're not insisting on that, what are we even doing here reviewing these things?

Let's just uh you know, just go ahead, give them the blank checks.

So I'm with councilman Latticer on this for all of those reasons.

Thank you.

All right, I see no other lights on, so it mayor?

Just another comment.

Um, we can hold it.

We can try to get the prices.

We may not be able to, and then there is nothing that holds them to those prices during the year.

Nothing.

We have an obligation of taxpayer, but we have the same obligation, uh bigger obligation to keep the public safe.

If a fire trucks breaks down, it has to be fixed.

We I don't like the situation any more than any of you.

I don't like the way we have to buy fire trucks now.

They're almost two-thirds more than when I first became mayor.

There's a problem.

There's a monopoly going on.

We don't like the situation, but we have to keep the public safe.

We're probably not gonna have any more information next month that's gonna satisfy you than you do right now.

I mean, it could be six hundred dollars an hour, it could be eight hundred dollars an hour if there is brakes involved, they're gonna charge us what they're gonna charge us, and we just don't have any choice.

But we absolutely have to fix the fire trucks.

There's no way around it.

That's uh public safety is our is our biggest uh job here to protect the public.

So clerk will please call the role on the motion to hold till May 11th, snapping.

Yes, Mr.

Delouise, yeah, Mr.

Foley.

No, Mr.

Gebbot Yes.

I think that you mr.

Kirby.

Did you say yes?

Mr.

Gebba.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Napa.

Yes, Mr.

Rice.

Yes.

One motion passes.

All right, next bid 2026-309.

Now PCR 51-26.

My understanding is that this is favorable with the amendment.

Councilman Latticer.

Yes.

Um the committee recommended favorable action with an amendment on PCR 51-26.

The amendment at the request of the department is to increase spending authority from 57,200 to 75,165.

And I would move favorable action on the amendment.

All right.

So the amendment's proposed second by Council Mudo.

Is there any questions?

Or okay, no, there's not.

Oh, uh Jeremy, your lights on.

Sorry, Councilman Rick.

So clerk will please call the roll on the proposed amendment.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise, Mr.

Bowling, Mr.

Geth.

Yes.

Mr.

Kerming.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

And now as amended, Councilman Latticer.

I'm sorry.

Can you move it as amended, please?

Yes.

Move.

PCR 51-26 as amended.

Seconded by Councilman Muto.

Any questions or comments?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapping.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

Next, unfinished business.

PCO 13-25 sub A, an ordinance amending procedures relative to transfer of tax title to property.

This is ordinance, Councilman Nepa.

This matter was uh requested favorable action in committee.

All right.

So for action, Councilman Napa.

Motion to move favorable action.

Seconded by anybody, Councilman Mudo.

All right.

Is there any further discussion?

Please keep in mind we discussed this at length.

All right, Councilman Foley.

Move the question, please.

No lights.

All right.

So to which part?

Call the question before we make sure debate is free.

That's why I looked up first.

I'm sorry?

Two-thirds vote.

Let I'll withdraw if everyone makes sure that they don't have look.

I'm happy to make sure there's no further questions.

I'm not trying to rush.

If someone has a question, yes.

Oh, I apologize.

He objected because he was worried that somebody actually had a question, which is fine.

Does anyone have a question or comment they wish to make that they didn't have a chance to make otherwise?

All right, seeing none councilman Lattice.

So I just want to go on the record that I still object to moving forward with this for the reasons that I had stated in committee.

And um I still don't know where all of these deletions and additions um are pertinent.

All right, so returning to the motion to move the previous question.

I guess there's no lights on, so we just go to the normal motion of vote.

So clerk, please call the roll on the motion for favorable action.

Mr.

Snapping, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, to get by Mr.

Kerming, yes, Mr.

Ladissa, no, Mr.

Muno, no, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

No.

All right.

Uh, if unless there's any objection, I want to skip to PCO six-26 because PCO5-26 is contingent on a different item that's much later on the agenda.

So PCO six-26 under new business and ordinance amending section 60-500 of the code of ordinances to provide flex flexibility in city OPEP contributions that would exceed those matching employee contributions for the period until the state reimbursement on school construction debt service begins.

Uh Councilman Lattice says finance, my understanding, it came in to the full council with no recommendation, correct?

That's correct.

All right, and we haven't had public comment on it yet.

And unless someone really wants to go first, I'd like the the public to be able to speak after the administration does that way.

If someone's been sitting here this whole time to speak on it, they can weigh in.

So first administration, please.

Councilman, uh Council President.

Um, if you don't have any objection, we'd be happy to let the um resident speak for us if she wants to leave.

The only reason why I suggested you all is that if any of them were unclear on it, that would give your explanation wouldn't provide clarity.

So I'm not sure how much clarity I'm gonna amend, but uh Bill Fenti chief staff.

So this is an ordinance that allows the city um how it's written right now, any reduction in the pension contributions through the actuaries recommendation.

If there's a reduction, that reduction is then put into the OPEB trust.

What the city is asking is to amend the ordinance to allow the city the flexibility in not making the OPEB contribution based on the actuary's recommendation, but based on the OPEB paid by the employee as a match until such time as the city receives full reimbursement from the school projects that are under construction right now.

Right now we're facing as everyone knows, millions of dollars in debt payments that are coming up in 2027.

I believe it's to the tune of 15.8 million dollars in 2027.

So this money that we can the actuary has been telling us for years that we're going to be facing a reduction in the municipal um pension contribution due to the performance of the plan and the actuary's analysis and our investments.

They're very well funded.

We're estimating approximately five million dollars that we do not have to make into the pension contribution.

So by ordinance, that would then need to go into the OPEP trust.

So we're asking is that we're allowed to not make that deposit into the OPEP trust, but to allow that to help with our 2027 budget to compensate for the increase in the debt service, most of which is from the schools.

So originally when we proposed the ordinance, we couldn't anticipate at the time employee contribution into the OPEP fund.

Um that wasn't under contract yet.

Um we didn't anticipate the school department to have a 10 million dollar deficit.

We didn't anticipate a lot of things.

We just want to defer this payment rather than going into the OPEB trust for now until we start getting the balloon payment and the full reimbursement from the schools.

That will um enable us to not keep dipping into the fund balance to a tune to five million dollars a year.

We don't want to get the fund balance too low, which would jeopardize our um our credit rating, our bond rating, which would cost us more borrowing, and we don't want to run out of the money because um the strategy has been all along to use our fund balance, which is around 31 million dollars to um offset our growing uh debt service with the schools until we get reimbursed for reimbursement.

Um we're gonna get a balloon payment the first two years is about I think it's about 21 million, which would replenish the uh rainy day fund the fund balance.

And uh they they're gonna start paying us roughly 50 percent of our debt service.

So once with the schools are completed, times are a lot better, but we have to get there.

That's why we're proposing this now.

As I said, we would um you would either have to go over the four percent cap or dip into the fund balance is the only way to get it done right now.

Starting this coming budget year, we have 50 it was that was correct 15.8 million dollars in debt service, not just for the high schools, it's also for the the previous 94 million dollars in bonds.

So, Ms.

Comar, even though I said your name, could you just please introduce yourself?

All right, thank you, Mayor.

Well, I I thank the mayor for uh answering some questions at our short break.

So we have the $50 million bond and another 40 um that went to other schools besides the two new high school construction projects.

So then the two new high schools are 350 million dollar bond.

Um so all these projects, the mayor told me have to be completed before we get ride reimbursement.

So a lot of deadlines here, and we're all looking at um minimizing the taxpayers' liability, and it's all numbers game and financing.

That's what we're all looking at right now.

So the clock has started because the mayor told me that they have paid some debt service back.

So this can take an effect and freeze, we'll take the OPEC contribution money and put it towards this debt for the school construction.

So we could do that now.

How I had this question about are we taking from one pocket to the other, and do we need a physical note?

Because I do recall um the consultant, uh, Mr.

Newton, um, making an adjustment to our liabilities and penciling out a hundred thousand dollars, a hundred million dollars, or a hundred thousand million dollars.

So he reduced our obligation liabilities to the city, the taxpayers.

So we're further behind by taking this five million dollars.

So what's the big picture here?

This is why we need an auditor or somebody at that's looking at the whole thing.

We know the school department has several said several times that they're not looking at the financing, they're passing that on to the city to maintain how the bond is being paid back, they're just worried about school construction costs, the the contract addends for construction coming in, their budget coming into the city.

So uh I don't know how we're making out as from the taxpayer standpoint when we're just taking a pencil across our um obligations for OPEG, which by city ordinance we're supposed to be until I zero, we're supposed to be contributing that every year.

It says right in the ordinance.

Well, we're not doing that, so we're gonna be in violation of our own ordinance, plus that hundred million dollars out of the line item for obligation.

What if somebody and I know investors that are are favorable to buying municipal bonds?

Do uh do they really have a clear picture what works worth?

We just penciled out a lot of obligations in a stroke.

So my whole purpose is to minimize the taxpayers' burden on the schools, the other bonds that get lumped together so we can get reimbursed by RIE or OPPEG obligations.

How does this all come together?

And I can only see by asking a physical note and how this all works, because I haven't had the answers for the big picture yet.

That's what I am asking for tonight.

Thank you.

Do any other members of the public wish to speak on this item?

All right, so it's almost a tie, but Councilman Lattice.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So, in full disclosure, I want to say that at my request last week, the council president and myself met with the chief of staff and mayor Picosy because I wanted to know what's gonna happen with this five point seven million dollars that Joe Newton had uh put out there.

Now arguably the number can float from five million to five point seven today.

Um let me back up at the end of that meeting.

It sounded like a good idea.

Okay, you're not gonna put five million into the OPEB trust fund, which for those of you who are on the council back in the day, you know I objected to it then.

I think that whole thing is a shell game, it's been manipulated, it has been withheld.

Joe Newton said we need to fund it 13 to 15 million dollars a year.

So we continue now with okay.

Now I find out today that this five something million is gonna go to reduce the school bond debt to Ms.

Komar's comments regarding for a minimal contribution to OPEB, the actuaries reduced our obligation or liability by approximately 150 million dollars.

Mr.

Cushman has been telling us this forever, but let's not listen to him.

But it seems as though the numbers come back.

So here we are.

We go from, oh, we got to do this to oh, we can't pay for it because we don't have 13 to 15 million dollars we can put in every year, to now we're not gonna have to put in five million dollars a year because we've reached a certain benchmark, and we're gonna use that elsewhere.

What happens when all of these obligations come to be?

How about the what are we talking 12 million a year when the bond comes due for the two schools?

You get 12 million a year for that.

We've got 13 to 15 million for OPEB.

That is miraculously going to pay for itself in a very short time.

We've heard that the numbers state that you're not going to get a break-even on this for at least 10 years or more.

That's if you're funding it at the full capacity, which we never have, nor are we going to be able to do so?

So now this does not make sense to me any longer.

Where we're gonna take this pension monies to pay down the school bond.

Why don't we come up with a five million dollar reduction in the budget and pay for the school bond that way and use the five million that we have here and now for more taxpayer benefit?

So we don't fund it this year.

Next year we don't particularly necessarily have to fund it either.

So how does that work in the formula?

If you don't put money into the pot this year, does that mean you're gonna have to put more money in next year?

Does the plan continue to perform at 85% funded if you don't put in the money that you're supposed to put in?

That's how it got to 85% funded.

But let's not worry about that.

Let's you know, deal with that at another day.

Let's let another city council deal with that.

This is the problem that I have with government.

It's okay, not gonna happen on my watch.

But it's the reality.

May not happen on my watch or your watch, but these problems are gonna happen on some taxpayers' watch.

But let's just forget about funding it, and let's let the debt continue to increase, and we're not gonna worry about let me rephrase that.

And um we'll we'll deal with it as the day of reckoning comes.

Well, the day of reckoning comes when you can't pay your bills, and when you can't pay your bills, that's when people end up in serious financial trouble.

They don't have the opportunity to just pass it on to the taxpayers.

I think what needs to happen, and I would suggest this, is that this city council demands a complete reorganization of this OPEB plan, complete reorganization.

Because to me, right now, this is nothing more than a shell game.

We have issues going on.

Oh, by the way, we're gonna put in 2% if they put in 2% and somebody else puts in 2%.

It's funny how contracts can be influenced by somebody, but they can't be influenced by someone else.

So I'm gonna yield, Mr.

President, to my colleagues to the administration.

Um, by the way, um, something else, and admittedly, I did not request it at the meeting that we had last week, which was the fiscal note.

Today, at 320 in the afternoon, we received a fiscal note.

I didn't happen to see it till about quarter past four.

So are we expected to digest and analyze this fiscal note?