OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Warwick City Council Finance/Ordinance/Public Safety/Public Properties Committees and Full Council Meeting Summary - May 11, 2026

City Council MeetingsMonday, May 11, 2026
BodyWarwick, Rhode Island
SessionCity Council Meetings
DateMonday, May 11, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 5:29:32

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Three test one two three test one two three good afternoon everyone we have um fixed the technical difficulties and let the record indicate it is five oh five p.m and the warwork city council finance committee is called to order okay first item PCR fifty three-26 minutes no minutes first item is twenty twenty-six four seventy-five that is airport road phase one found on page one good evening Jerry Willette Water Department Good evening Director Floor is yours division is requesting to engage stand director could you speak into the mic please get close to it division is requesting to engage with Stantec to complete the design and betting services for replacement of the 20-inch main under airport road stretch of the pipeline particularly in the area of six sixty-seven airport road has been problematic over the last several years division has responded to multiple water main breaks on the age infrastructure Stantec is heavily familiar with the water worwick water infrastructure needs and is familiar with this pending project the department is requesting to move this forward it is expected for this portion of the project to be completed in approximately one year from the official award.

2:51

There was an optional phase two for geotechnical program of seventy-nine thousand dollars.

2:58

This request includes that amount should be necessary for the work performed.

3:02

If it is not needed, then the dollar amount will not be paid to Stan Tech.

3:11

Thank you for that, Director.

3:13

So this um seventy-nine thousand right now that's just speculative, right?

3:21

Uh correctly.

3:23

So why are you requesting approval to add seventy-nine thousand into this bid as opposed to let's wait and see if we need it, and then you can come back to us for um a change order.

3:40

Well, that was a thought to try to eliminate the need for a change order.

3:46

So if we approve this with the extra seventy-nine thousand, that's giving you spending authority for four hundred and twenty-eight thousand, right?

3:59

Correct.

4:01

And if we approve it, if we approve this with the seventy-nine thousand, and it's not necessary, that stays into your budget.

4:24

The money's returned, yes.

4:26

Returned, what do you mean returned?

4:28

It's it doesn't get spent.

4:32

So is that seventy-nine thousand?

4:36

Does that remain as part of the water department spending authority?

4:42

Or does it just go away?

4:48

This is a one short deal.

4:50

It's we're looking at four hundred and twenty-eight thousand, and the reason that's in there is that mid-project, we don't want to delay it having to do a change order.

5:00

Um, if if the money's not spent, if it's not required, if they don't have to do the additional borings, no, it doesn't get spent, it reverts back to the project.

5:09

The overall project, which is in other words, it's spending authority up to 428,000.

5:16

Yes, okay.

5:18

Christy, did you have anything to add?

5:21

No, I just came to make sure we I was just making sure that um we were uh passing along the right information.

5:29

Okay.

5:32

Um further on design plans were initially completed by United International Corporation in March of 2007, but the work did not proceed at that time.

5:45

Um, I know this predates you, but do you know what the cost of this project was back then?

5:52

No, you don't does Christine know what the cost was back then?

5:56

Nobody knows what the cost was back then.

6:04

This is a project that could have been done with COVID money, couldn't it?

6:11

You're asking me.

6:12

Yeah.

6:13

COVID money, I wasn't here for COVID.

6:15

I'm sorry?

6:16

I wasn't here for COVID.

6:17

Okay, let me redirect the question to Christy then or Eric or whoever wants to answer.

6:23

Could this project which was going it actually goes back to the early 2000s, but known the necessity known back in 2007, when COVID monies came about, this project could have been done with COVID monies?

6:41

I I suppose it could have at the time, but this obviously somewhere between 2007 and now was not presented as uh a project in the council, so no, I understand that, but um COVID came in like 2020, and I think we get the money in 2021.

7:00

So I mean, I spoke like I said, I suppose it could have, but I'm not I'm not sure.

7:06

And um this says also due to the age of the UIC plans, uh nearly 20 years, maintaining an appropriate standard of care for the industry.

7:19

We will only use um resource documents for design.

7:25

So what has changed from the asphalt down to these pipes we have to change in all those years that requires a whole new redesign to be done?

7:42

My understanding is that those plans were drawn up back in 2007 with the Department of Transportation, they were doing some work to the airport, and we just found a set of plans.

7:57

There was no additional documentation with it.

7:58

It was it was strictly a uh a set of plans.

8:02

Um so we forward that over to Stantec just for reference.

8:08

Um, as far as anything changing, I do not I'm not aware of anything other than the fact that um we've had numerous issues with that with that stretch.

8:23

So I guess the reasoning to spend um I don't know some 380,000 dollars is because the plans that were done in 2007 uh no longer good or accessible or accurate, correct?

8:53

I'm looking through these different items here.

8:56

Um you can pause that too when I'm hesitating, by the way.

9:01

Um Stantec will prepare for and attend one site visit to coordinate the work with personnel from TF Green Airport.

9:12

Who is paying the personnel from TF Green Airport?

9:21

TF Green, yeah.

9:23

That's what it says here in the documents that I have dated October, I'm sorry, April 21st, 2026.

9:32

Um item task two field investigation item 2.5.

9:37

I'm sorry, um, 2.4.

9:40

It says um Stantech will prepare for and attend one site visit to coordinate the work with personnel from TF Green Airport.

9:50

My question is who is paying the personnel from TF Green Airport?

9:55

TF Green Airport.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Procedural██████████████████████22%
Land Use Planning███████████████15%
Engineering And Infrastructure████████8%
School Funding███████7%
Water And Wastewater Management██████6%
Revenue Management█████5%
Fiscal Sustainability█████5%
Budget Equity Analysis████4%
Public Engagement████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Warwick City Council Finance/Ordinance/Public Safety/Public Properties Committees and Full Council Meeting Summary - May 11, 2026

The Warwick City Council convened multiple committees and a full council session on May 11, 2026, beginning at 5:05 PM. The meeting covered a wide range of financial, zoning, and charter amendment items. Key actions included approvals for water main design, micro-surfacing, sand purchases, roller skate rentals, seasonal equipment, roof repairs, and commercial supplies. The council also passed first passage of two zoning changes (gas station and condo development), adopted the OPEB ordinance on second passage, and advanced charter amendment resolutions on financial presentations and mayoral appointments. A charter change to expand the school committee was held for further study.

Finance Committee

  • Airport Road Water Main Design (PCR 53-26): The Water Department requested approval to engage Stantec for design and bidding services for replacing a 20-inch main under Airport Road at a cost of up to $428,000, including an optional $79,000 geotechnical program. Council members questioned the optional amount, the need for redesign due to plans from 2007, potential costs with TF Green Airport and the Narragansett Tribe, and permitting fees. The committee moved the item favorably.
  • Micro-Surfacing and Crack Sealing (PCR 57-26): Public Works requested awarding a $120,000 bid for crack sealing and micro-surfacing to Sealcoating Inc. dba Indice, covering two fiscal years. Discussion included the lack of a specific road list, the budget derivation, and the life expectancy of repairs (3-5 years for crack sealing, 7-9 for micro-surfacing). The committee moved favorably.
  • Winter Sand Purchase (PCR 57-26 amended): The committee amended the bid to replace vendor Vinagro with Holliston Sand, keeping Kimball Sand. The total budget is $40,000 per year. The committee moved favorably.
  • Roller Skate Rental Services (PCR 2026-415): The committee voted to rescind the award to Legacy Hospitality Entertainment due to unresponsiveness and award to Galactic (10% of $8 rental fee vs. Legacy's 12% of $6). The roller skating rink is expected to open soon. Moved favorably.
  • Purchase Seasonal Equipment (PCR 2026-476): The committee approved the purchase of mowers via state bid, with local vendor options considered. Moved favorably.
  • Minor Roof Repairs (PCR 2027-030): Public Works requested $30,000 for minor roof repairs. Councilman Nappa raised concerns about unrepaired leaks at Station 4 in his ward. The mayor promised immediate temporary repairs while a full roof replacement bid is prepared. Moved favorably.
  • Commercial/Industrial Supplies (PCR 2025-347): The committee approved an additional $30,000 in spending authority for a bid that expires December 31, 2026, for various supplies. Moved favorably.
  • Abatements (PCR 54-26): The committee approved abatements totaling $48,974.34 after recusals for two items involving Councilman Muto. Moved favorably.
  • OPEB Ordinance (PCO 6-26): The committee moved the ordinance to the floor without recommendation, allowing public comment.
  • Fire Apparatus (PCR 50-26): The committee approved adding vendors to the fire apparatus repair bid, with hourly rates provided. Moved favorably.

Ordinance Committee

  • Real Estate Non-Utilization Tax (PCO 8-26): Held until July 6, 2026, pending amendments to focus on commercial properties.

Public Safety Committee

  • Claim for Mr. Contreras (PCR 47-26): The committee voted unfavorable (denial) after the claimant did not appear. The motion was reframed as favorable to deny and passed 4-0-1.

Public Properties Committee

  • Zoning Amendment – Gas Station at Centerville Road (PCO 15-26): Moved to the floor for public hearing without recommendation.
  • Zoning Amendment – Condos at Post Road (PCO 9-26): Moved to the floor for public hearing without recommendation.

Full Council

  • Public Comment: Speakers addressed the 988 Suicide Crisis Hotline, school committee composition, and the proposed charter change for school committee expansion.
  • PCO 15-26 – Gas Station at Centerville Road: Public hearing held with speakers in opposition. Council discussed traffic, spot zoning, environmental concerns, and state approvals. The council voted 9-0 for first passage.
  • PCO 9-26 – Condos at Post Road: Public hearing held. A speaker raised concerns about density, traffic, and drainage. Council added an amendment prohibiting trash collection between 8 PM and 7 AM. The council voted 9-0 for first passage as amended.
  • OPEB Ordinance (PCO 6-26) – Second Passage: Councilman Muto explained his no vote, citing concerns about long-term financial sustainability. The council voted 7-2 for second passage.
  • Real Estate Non-Utilization Tax (PCO 8-26): Held until July 6, 2026.
  • Charter Amendment – Financial Presentations (PCR 19-26): The committee recommended unfavorable. Council debated charter change vs. ordinance. The motion for unfavorable action failed 5-4, and the item was effectively defeated. Councilman Ricks indicated he would docket an ordinance instead.
  • Charter Amendment – Mayoral Appointments (PCR 20-26): The council amended the resolution to focus only on boards and commissions (excluding Board of Public Safety) and allowing council to enact ordinances for advice and consent. The amendment passed 9-0, and the resolution as amended passed 9-0.
  • Charter Amendment – School Committee Membership (PCR 21-26): Moved to hold for an informational hearing on September 14, 2026, to allow further study and public input. Unanimous consent.
  • Claim for Mr. Contreras: The council voted 9-0 to deny the claim.
  • Fire Apparatus Repairs (PCR 50-26): The council voted 9-0 for favorable action.
  • Unanimous Consent: Several items were approved.
  • Docket Session: Council members docketed items for future meetings, including a traffic study, charter amendments, and an ordinance on financial presentations.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved: Airport Road water main design, micro-surfacing/crack sealing bid, winter sand purchase, roller skate rental contract, seasonal equipment purchase, roof repairs, commercial supplies extension, abatements, fire apparatus repairs, and OPEB ordinance (second passage).
  • Zoning Changes – First Passage: Gas station at Centerville Road (unanimous) and condos at Post Road (unanimous with amendment).
  • Charter Amendments: Approved resolution to allow council to enact ordinances for advice and consent on mayoral appointments to boards/commissions (excluding Board of Public Safety).
  • Charter Amendment on Financial Presentations: Defeated as a charter change; sponsor plans to introduce an ordinance.
  • School Committee Study: Held for informational hearing on September 14, 2026.
  • Claim Denied: Mr. Contreras' claim was denied.
  • Next Steps: The two zoning ordinances require second passage; the OPEB ordinance is now in effect; charter amendments will be sent to the General Assembly for ballot placement; the school committee item will be discussed further in September.

Meeting Transcript

Three test one two three test one two three good afternoon everyone we have um fixed the technical difficulties and let the record indicate it is five oh five p.m and the warwork city council finance committee is called to order okay first item PCR fifty three-26 minutes no minutes first item is twenty twenty-six four seventy-five that is airport road phase one found on page one good evening Jerry Willette Water Department Good evening Director Floor is yours division is requesting to engage stand director could you speak into the mic please get close to it division is requesting to engage with Stantec to complete the design and betting services for replacement of the 20-inch main under airport road stretch of the pipeline particularly in the area of six sixty-seven airport road has been problematic over the last several years division has responded to multiple water main breaks on the age infrastructure Stantec is heavily familiar with the water worwick water infrastructure needs and is familiar with this pending project the department is requesting to move this forward it is expected for this portion of the project to be completed in approximately one year from the official award. There was an optional phase two for geotechnical program of seventy-nine thousand dollars. This request includes that amount should be necessary for the work performed. If it is not needed, then the dollar amount will not be paid to Stan Tech. Thank you for that, Director. So this um seventy-nine thousand right now that's just speculative, right? Uh correctly. So why are you requesting approval to add seventy-nine thousand into this bid as opposed to let's wait and see if we need it, and then you can come back to us for um a change order. Well, that was a thought to try to eliminate the need for a change order. So if we approve this with the extra seventy-nine thousand, that's giving you spending authority for four hundred and twenty-eight thousand, right? Correct. And if we approve it, if we approve this with the seventy-nine thousand, and it's not necessary, that stays into your budget. The money's returned, yes. Returned, what do you mean returned? It's it doesn't get spent. So is that seventy-nine thousand? Does that remain as part of the water department spending authority? Or does it just go away? This is a one short deal. It's we're looking at four hundred and twenty-eight thousand, and the reason that's in there is that mid-project, we don't want to delay it having to do a change order. Um, if if the money's not spent, if it's not required, if they don't have to do the additional borings, no, it doesn't get spent, it reverts back to the project. The overall project, which is in other words, it's spending authority up to 428,000. Yes, okay. Christy, did you have anything to add? No, I just came to make sure we I was just making sure that um we were uh passing along the right information. Okay. Um further on design plans were initially completed by United International Corporation in March of 2007, but the work did not proceed at that time. Um, I know this predates you, but do you know what the cost of this project was back then? No, you don't does Christine know what the cost was back then? Nobody knows what the cost was back then. This is a project that could have been done with COVID money, couldn't it? You're asking me. Yeah. COVID money, I wasn't here for COVID. I'm sorry? I wasn't here for COVID. Okay, let me redirect the question to Christy then or Eric or whoever wants to answer. Could this project which was going it actually goes back to the early 2000s, but known the necessity known back in 2007, when COVID monies came about, this project could have been done with COVID monies? I I suppose it could have at the time, but this obviously somewhere between 2007 and now was not presented as uh a project in the council, so no, I understand that, but um COVID came in like 2020, and I think we get the money in 2021. So I mean, I spoke like I said, I suppose it could have, but I'm not I'm not sure. And um this says also due to the age of the UIC plans, uh nearly 20 years, maintaining an appropriate standard of care for the industry. We will only use um resource documents for design. So what has changed from the asphalt down to these pipes we have to change in all those years that requires a whole new redesign to be done? My understanding is that those plans were drawn up back in 2007 with the Department of Transportation, they were doing some work to the airport, and we just found a set of plans. There was no additional documentation with it. It was it was strictly a uh a set of plans. Um so we forward that over to Stantec just for reference. Um, as far as anything changing, I do not I'm not aware of anything other than the fact that um we've had numerous issues with that with that stretch. So I guess the reasoning to spend um I don't know some 380,000 dollars is because the plans that were done in 2007 uh no longer good or accessible or accurate, correct? I'm looking through these different items here.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com