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.

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

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

Who is paying the personnel from TF Green Airport?

TF Green, yeah.

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

Um item task two field investigation item 2.5.

I'm sorry, um, 2.4.

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

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

TF Green Airport.

TF Green, you're sure about that?

Yes.

So that's not coming out of this 420, potentially 428,000.

No.

We're not paying them.

We're not.

Okay.

It also says in um phase one, it says borings will be taken to a depth of 20 feet.

Has there been any indication that this may need to go deeper than 20 feet?

Because we just got done with a pretty significant change order a while back for some work out in the bay, and the depth wasn't good enough and had to go deeper and cost us a lot of money.

Is there any possibility of that here?

No.

Okay.

We have a phase two optional, and I believe that is what the 79,000 is proposed for, right?

Okay.

And task five final design 5.3.

It says Stan Tech assumes, assumes, which by the way, there's a lot of things in here that says assumes.

Stan Tech assumes Warwick will take two weeks for review and comment.

If the city is unable to complete that review in comment in two weeks, is there any penalties being applied to the city?

No.

This needs to be reviewed by the state also.

It has to go to Rhode Island drinking water quality and be reviewed by their engineers.

Well that that's the state.

So if the state gets hit with a penalty, that's up to the state.

I'm talking about us.

It says Stantech assumes Warwick will take two weeks.

My question is if it takes us three weeks or four weeks, is there any back charge or is there any delay of production or penalties put on the city?

No.

None.

Okay.

It says here rates are based on Stantec 2026 U.S.

rate tables, etc.

etc.

Work that occurs beyond the identified schedule shall be completed at the current rates at the time the work is completed.

I believe our starting date is already passed when it was first spoken to in this.

So is there any changes in the rates?

No.

Will there be any changes in the rates?

No.

Okay.

Now we can say tribal coordination will be handled by the city.

Is the Narragansett tribe charging us any hourly rates or premiums for the participation that they have to take place in this project?

And if so, is that coming out of this 428,000, or are we going to be getting a change order or an amendment for an invoice submitted by the Narragansett tribe for their efforts in this project?

I'm not aware of any of that.

Is Christy aware of any anything of that?

No.

So to the city's knowledge, we should not be expecting any increases from or any invoices from the Narragansett tribe for whatever um participation they have to have in this project.

Is that accurate?

That's accurate.

Okay.

Thank you.

Chair, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

It also says this scope presumes.

This is what I was speaking to earlier.

Assumes, presumes, uh will not occur within freshwater wetlands, buffer zones, and/or setbacks that would require a variance request with Rhode Island DEM.

Are there any um assumptions that this will occur?

Is there any the slightest a bit of knowledge that these areas may come into play?

No, none.

Okay.

Fees for permits are not included in the cost of this proposal.

Filing fees should be paid by the city of Warwick.

What are those fees?

I'm assuming that it's the construction fees that you have to pay to Rhode Island um DOT because on most of their on all their projects, they have to have an inspector there.

Um but but that's part of the bid, that's part of the actual project phase.

This is just designing.

So whatever fees, filing fees that need to be paid by the city of Warp, that's part of this 428,000 as well, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Even though we don't know what those fees are yet, correct.

So there's an assumed line item or budget into this 428 for those.

I I don't think these fees are going to come up during this.

That it's for the construction phase that the fees in the permits that you're referring to are going to come up.

This is just the design.

Okay.

Yeah, Eric Earl's public works.

It's it's like Jerry said, those that language is in there in anticipation of the construction phase where we're actually maybe working.

Um for this purpose, uh, it's unlikely that there would be any DEM fees because it's mostly this design.

Any fees might be related to the exploratory borings that we may have to do, but even that um the work that we'll be performing will be you know within the roadway.

So it's not like we're gonna be out encroaching into wetland areas.

We're gonna be working areas that are previously disturbed.

So DEM is doesn't work.

They usually work with us on that type of project.

So I think it's fair to say that there will be some permits or some fees that are going to be required in this project.

And my question is that whatever they are is part of this 428,000.

No, it wouldn't be.

It would be part of the construction phase, most likely.

Okay, but not part of this phase.

Okay.

And I think um the director already answered this, which is my comments to the starting date.

And over here it says construction start um May 7th.

Obviously, we're we're past that.

So um I guess your answer before was that's not changing this price, even though we're late getting started.

Correct.

Okay.

And are you on target to start July 3rd, 2026?

Is this project still on start for that time?

The design is the design part, yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, any questions from members of the committee?

Yes, Councilman Napa.

I'll defer to Councilman Meadow, yeah.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

We have to get lights on this table too.

No, we uh director.

Uh, more of a clarification for me because the the packet um did not photocopy very well, but reading the description.

We're looking at the phase of pretty much all of Airport Road from Warwick Av to Post Road, that stretch.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I'm just looking at the budget section of that proposal.

It does show that the permitting fees are estimated in their original 349, 349,000 at 22,500.

So it seems as though their permitting fees were inclusive in it.

349, is that correct?

Yeah, that's um the last pay, yeah.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, Councilman.

Okay.

Um, any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, we will move on to item number two, 2027-24, micro surfacing and random crack ceiling found on page 14.

Good evening, Christy Moretti.

Public works.

Uh Public Works as requesting to award the bid for the um crack ceiling and microsurfacing to seal coating ink dbA indice and the amount of 120,000 dollars one year from data award.

Our intention um with that amount of funding is to start this fiscal year and use uh funds from NAS next fiscal year as well.

Um so it's one year from data awards, so it'll cover the two fiscal years, and that will put us in shape.

Um fiscal year 28 so Christy um this micro research surf surfacing.

Is that like what was done?

I think it was on either church avenue or Sandy Lane to kind of like scrape off the top surface and then pour down some pretend asphalt.

Yeah, I'm not sure if that's um something that we'll actually do where we're more focused on the crack ceiling aspect at this point um to get that done.

So we may not do the microsurfacing um portion, but it's in there in case there are areas that it needs to be uh needs to be addressed.

So are there any roads that have been tentatively identified for microsurfacing?

Not to my knowledge, no.

And how about the random crack ceiling?

So the crack ceiling um engineering will develop or probably already has developed a list of roadways that um that they'll um put this vendor out on and have them take care of that.

As far as which ones, I don't know at the moment.

Um I'm not privy to that list right now, so but there is there is a list you just said.

Uh uh engineering would develop the list.

Um we have a field construction inspector that would go out and look at the roadways and see which ones need to be done.

So um he he would develop that list.

All right, so there is no list developed right now.

No, uh Eric Earl's public works.

Like Christy was saying, uh the way this typically works is once once it's awarded and we know the dollar amount that we're working with based on the award and the budget.

We'll work with the vendor and find roads that are applicable for this type of application.

So our construction inspector will go out, walk the roads with the vendor, and that's how we determine to make sure we have good candidates for this specific application.

So there are some in the back of our mind that we're thinking about, but we don't want to say specifically what they are, and then have hey, you said you're gonna do that, and you didn't, but you know, we work closely with the vendors because the vendors really know um, like with the microsurfacing, they're the ones that helped us select the roads we did because they want their product to look as good as possible.

If we put it on a road, it's not a good candidate, then they look bad, right?

So we work with them closely on this type of thing.

So the reason I was asking those questions was to um try to get a grip on how you came up with the budget of 120,000.

So how did you come up with that number?

Microsurfacing is the kind of application where um most municipalities, including Warwick should be doing a lot more of it.

The 140,000, uh 120,000, excuse me, is based on what has been approved by council in that line item last year and what we anticipate for next year.

That's all.

And if it were more, we could do more.

If it's what work?

If the budget line item had more money in it, we would do more crack sealing.

There's there's really not a shortage of roads in the city that could use this application for sure.

Um, so uh director either you or oh Christy, so the bid was sent in for 538,480.

And uh obviously you've reduced this down to 120,000.

Yeah, so the the numbers that we put out on the bid are are just ballparks so we can get um so we can get the unit prices.

What the only reason that we might lose some kind of volume discount is if we were asking them to do half days for this kind of money, it's not gonna matter whether whether we're doing the 500,000 or 120,000, they're gonna hold those unit prices because they're gonna be coming out for full days and doing the work.

And so they're gonna they're gonna honor those prices, even though the volumes aren't what they bid on.

Did you read my notes?

Sorry?

Did you read my notes?

No, I I I anticipated the question, yes.

Um, yes, and that was the question.

Um, because their bid was reduced by 75%.

Are they going to be um playing around with the square yards or whatever it is?

No, so those numbers are those numbers.

Correct.

They will hold those unit prices at our volume.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Anything from Councilman Meadow.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

So you're not done yet.

Sorry.

I'm not sure if this would work.

If this work hello?

Oh, there it goes.

All right.

Uh so one thing I'm reacting to right here is we all know that there's a lot of roads and infrastructure that needs to get repaired.

I I can't I can't speak for the rest of the council, but I do know there's entire neighborhoods that probably haven't been paved in many, many decades.

Uh more than happy to share with you those roads.

My question to you is it seems a little backward to say, let me let me see what kind of money we have, and then let's go find out what the problem areas are in our city.

And this goes beyond roads.

Would it be more prudent to say, okay, this is the infrastructure that needs to uh be upgraded?

Here's a priority list, and and let's be a little more realistic as to how we're fixing our infrastructure in the city.

Just just an observation.

Your thoughts on that?

I um in this scenario, are you writing me a blank check to do whatever I want?

Because I can make that work.

No, what uh what I'm proposing is you come to us, you know, with your partnership of your of your planners and saying, hey, and I'm making this up.

Here are the 50 roads that are here.

Here's here's the cumulative cost, and then within a budget, just like we do with trucks and everything else, we say, okay, in five years we can get through 80 percent of whatever it's just more of a uh uh a proactive uh capital plan versus a reactive that I'm hearing.

I understand what you're saying, and I and I appreciate that.

And if all if all variables were static, then I could do that.

But we see it with Rhode Island and Rhode Island Energy, they've had the same neighborhood on their we're gonna do it this year list for four years now, right?

And so we keep saying, oh, we'll pave it next year when they're done, and then they skip it.

So to try and to try and give a list like that, it really is trying to hit a moving target.

And that being said, we could come close and we could make a lot of assumptions.

Um but but part of the concern is putting a list out there and having people expect and then not have it come to fruition, right?

You expect your road to be paved because of a number of variables that doesn't happen, then we all kind of look bad, like we don't know what we're doing, right?

And I but I I do understand what you're saying, and I appreciate that.

And if I could absolutely, that would be a better way to do it.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm just throwing it out there just because it's to you know, you have that list, even if Rhode Island Energy says, hey, we're gonna get to this, this, and this, and they don't, at least it's a reasonable explanation.

Just put yourself in our point of view.

It's like we're handing you a blank check for 120 20,000.

I have constituents screaming at me.

Uh is any of that gonna come in my ward?

I understand.

So it's just more of a proactive approach versus a reactive, and like you said, yeah, we have a lot more demand than we need to do, but then we need to look at priorities, a play uh more of a rolling plan, things of that nature versus a 120,000 dollar bite at the apple each time.

It just seems very inefficient, uh, for my point of view.

But that's what thank you.

Thank you for your point of view.

Councilman Kapple.

Thank you, Chairman.

Director, just for perspective of repair like this.

What is the kind of the life expectancy of if they do this type of repair?

How long does that patchwork last?

Yeah, so so crack ceiling, when you crack seal the road, you're typically hoping to get next to three to five years out of it before you have to do something else.

With the the micro surfacing, that's more in the seven and nine range.

But the reason we're a little hesitant is in the industry that technique is starting to be criticized for not getting to you to that range.

So that's why we're a little hesitant to go back to that one.

But crack sealing, uh, that is the gold standard for roadway preservation.

Like we should be crack sealing our roads.

You you pave them and then you start crack sealing that 10 years and then 15 years and then 18.

And that's how you get the best value out of your pavement management plan.

Thank you, Director.

Sure.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Um moving on to item number three, purchase winter sand.

And Christy, I believe that you um need a PCR on this.

Um, yes, I need to make an amendment to um the vendor on this.

Go ahead, Christy.

So um I made a mistake when I was reviewing the um the bid tabulations.

And um we're going to keep the Kim Kimball Sam sand company and um replace vinagro with Holliston sand.

So I'm gonna make sure I heard you correct.

You are you staying with Venagro and Kimball Sand?

No, we are going with Holliston sand and Kimball sand.

Okay.

Um let me get a PCR in this.

Madam Clerk, PCR, please.

PCR5.

Thank you.

Um Christy, I saw the the email come in um the request.

And of looking at it from a little bit different.

I'm confused as to why Venegro is even on here when they're one of the highest bidders.

Um that's one question.

The other question is, well, let's take that question first.

So why is the department not rep recommending Hallaston, who is at 2986, 29.86 cents, and Kimball that is at 1875, instead of having vinagro in here at 32.

That's what I just amended.

I'm sorry?

That's what I just amended.

I thought you said that Venagro was still oh, Vinagro's out.

Yes.

Okay, I misunderstood.

All right.

So you're gonna be going with Kimball and Holliston.

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

Um I know you're looking at my notes.

Um, thank you for that, Christy.

Christy, the other question I have, and maybe I'm just looking into it too deep.

Um, vinagro says material description, winter sand.

Kimball says winter sand, wash sand.

Holliston says winter traction sand delivered.

Is the pricing from all of these vendors first of all, is it delivered?

Yes, they deliver to us.

Okay, so Holliston and Kimball will be delivering.

Correct.

Okay.

And is there a difference between winter sand and winter sand, wash sand and winter traction sand?

I don't know.

I'm asking you a serious question.

Is there a difference?

Um, not really.

No, it's it's basically sand that's not washed.

Um G lopes did put in wash concrete sand, which I'm not sure why we would we would never use that.

Um that's something completely different.

But um winter sand and traction sand are are the same, uh sand really.

There's nothing uh fancy about it.

So it's not that somebody can come back and say, oh, wait a minute here.

I priced you with uh wash sand, and that's why mine's more expensive than winter sand.

Right.

I mean there are different types of sand, like um this had just has a little bit of a heavier aggregate in it um rather than something like bedding sand, which is what you find on a beach.

So okay.

Christy, I assume that with the winter that we had your inventory on sand is is pretty well deleted.

Um in terms of from being at best at 100% to where you are today.

Where would you put what you have now?

Uh we're probably 35%.

Left.

Yeah.

And what what was the budget for last year for this?

For sand?

Uh well, it was a two-year bid last time, so it was also $80,000.

It's $40,000 a year.

Um, that's all the questions I have on this.

Any questions from members of the committee, Councilman Napa?

Christy, just I was looking at the budget, going through it.

It looks like next year we're only budgeted for $36.

Are you just anticipating we'll kind of offset and trying to conserve costs or did you actually need 40?

So when I wrote this um when I wrote the letter, this was uh prior to the budget being um made public.

So um, you know, we anticipate staying within our means as far as spending.

However, if we have another winter like we had this past year, then that would probably be um impossible.

So we'll we'll kind of play it by ear and see what happens, you know what Mother Nature throws at us.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, also councilman.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Okay, that completes our items.

Um that's correct.

Okay, on PCR 55-26.

I need a motion, please.

Favorable action.

We have motion for favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That's on the amendment.

Ms.

Mr.

Chairman.

The yes, just a clarification.

Um in the numbering, it's PCR 5726.

Okay.

Thank you.

57 26.

Okay, and the amendment is to delete Venagro.

Delete Venegro and add in Holliston.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And that is the motion I made.

Okay.

And seconded by Councilman Mudo.

Any further discussion?

All in favor of the amendment.

I now move PCR 5726 with favorable action.

We have a second.

Second by Councilman Mudo.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

So PCR 5726 has been moved favorable as amended.

Now I'm going to call up uh item number four, 2026 415.

Excuse me, I will, but this is a revenue item.

Okay.

So we have a rescind, we have a revenue.

Um, and now I will call up the list from any of the members of the committee.

I'm also okay.

Councilman Nappa.

Which one, sir?

Number 2026 476.

Okay.

All right.

Seasonal equipment.

Councilman Napper has called up um purchase and purchase seasonal equipment.

Anything else, Councilman?

No.

Councilman Mutal.

Anything any members of the council have any items that you want held out?

Okay.

Any items from members of the public.

Are there any items from members of the public that you want held out?

I am going to pull out item number 10, 2027 030, minor roof repairs to city-owned buildings.

And item number 11, 2025 347.

That's phone on page 59.

That is purchase commercial and industrial equipment.

All right.

First item we have is item number four, 2026-415, rollerskate rental services for Greenwood Credit Union Plaza.

Good evening, Director.

Good evening, Council.

Tom Roar, Greenwood Credit Union City Hall Plaza.

We're requesting to rescind the above bid uh to the current awarded vendor legacy hospitality entertainment.

Uh the vendor has become unresponsive to multiple calls and emails from myself as as well as the purchasing agent.

And based on their lack of response, you would like to rescind that offer and move on to our second bid.

So director, um what were those calls pertaining to that you didn't get any responses?

Set up uh for them when they could start moving their their items in, just general setup, try to get to a grand open date, um, so we know when we could open up the uh the roller skating.

And they've gone completely unresponsive, they haven't responded to us at all since the award.

So um I did a little digging in on this item, and what I found interesting is that two of the two different companies have the same address.

And when I researched into that, what I was told is this is kind of like a pretend address where you only get mail.

It's not like a fiscal location.

Um Chairman.

Just as a point of order, I believe what you're looking at is the registered agent address.

That's registration for service for an LLC or a corporation.

That's not the actual what you want to see is the principal address is the address for the company.

Okay, so legacy has um a registered agent.

I'm aware of that.

The address is 50 industrial circle number 105.

Okay.

And my further investigation shows um a registered agent for NMX ventures, also at 50 industrial circle number five.

So that's extremely common.

These those type of companies offers registered agent service for LLCs and corporations.

Um, me particularly in my business.

Okay.

I'm a registered agent for two dozen businesses that I represent in my professional life, so that's okay extremely common.

So that is correct then when um this person told me it's strictly like a mailing address.

Correct, mailing address for legal legal service, and if a constable needs to serve them process, that's who they go through.

Okay.

So with the roller skate rental services, are they going to require space to store their roller skates?

Yes.

And are we going to have to build a new structure to accommodate the roller skates?

No.

Will they be going in the building that exists now?

Correct.

And is that in the space that I believe the bumper cars were supposed to go in?

No, the the roller skates are going to go into the same same section where the ice skates go.

Okay.

There's a removable guide that you can just unbolt it and those slide off.

So the roller skates will fit right on those.

And is the roller skate folks are they in there for free, like the ice skate folks?

In other words, they're not paying rent.

They're not paying rent, correct?

They're paying us revenue per skate rental.

Right.

And like with the ice skates, so um I know I've had um constituents tell me that you know they're able to bring their own ice skates and they don't have to pay for whatever the rental is and stuff.

Is that also going to apply to the roller skates?

Correct.

You can bring your own roller skates.

So okay.

And the legacy, they were going to be reimbursing.

I'll use the word reimburse us for 10%.

I'm sorry, 12% of the rentals.

Correct.

And is their rental was was their rental fee the same as what um Galactic is per skates?

No, legacy came in at 12% for a six dollar rental.

For a six dollar rental?

Correct.

Okay, and Galactic is in there at 10% for what?

Eight dollars.

Eight dollar rental.

Okay.

That works.

You've been reading my notes too.

Just come prepared, sir.

Okay.

Um just so you know, I have, and I may not have the correct numbers, but I have two phone numbers for legacy.

And I called both of those numbers twice.

And I just got a voicemail and didn't get a return call.

So just putting that out there.

Um in support of your position.

So I don't know why these people do this stuff, I don't do it, but um I do make the phone calls.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Foley.

Based on what you said, hold on.

There you go.

Based on what you said, we're close to opening the rink for rollerblading and bumper cars.

Correct.

Do you have a I don't want to spoil the surprise, but do you have a date in mind?

Uh for the roller skiing with if we get favorable action tonight to go with Galactic.

She's prepared to open this Sunday.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Councilman Mudo.

Hi direct.

Doesn't matter.

I just uh just wanted to thank you for uh in your due diligence with these companies, the vendors uh that are out there, not just in your department, but the other vendors that the city does business with need to be held account and know that there's more more business out there, and I just want to thank you, just keep it on top of it and keeping things rolling.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anything from Councilman Napa?

No.

Members of the council.

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none.

Um next item up is item number six, 2026 for 76 purchase seasonal equipment.

Councilman Napra.

That's on page 30.

Sorry.

Councilman Nappa.

Director, thank you.

Um so I just I wanted to commend you and your department for kind of being proactive and getting these mowers purchased and hopping on to get it done, uh, for what I'm hearing from people that are out there doing the work because we have some mowers that are phasing out, parts are starting to get phased out before we're in a position where we're fighting from behind and we're without equipment to actually maintain the fields, especially with the uh the extra usage that we're getting in the city maintained fields.

This is nice to see that we're getting equipment out to the folks in the unions that need them.

So just wanted to take the opportunity to recognize that and say thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Oh, sorry, councilman, thank you.

Um any other questions from members of the committee.

Christy, um, I know you're you're doing the um the state bid thing.

Has anyone shopped this around from local vendors?

Yes.

Um, well, not well, I say local, other vendors.

Let's put it that way.

Um, the purchasing agent actually did, and um the one company that she found that can provide the mowers that we're looking for, um, they don't deliver.

And they're not like they can't ship them to us.

So um it makes sense.

This vendor's right here in Rhode Island, right in Greenville.

We can go pick them up uh if we need to.

So and um the warranties, they're similar with the other vendors that you checked out.

Yes, okay.

Okay.

Uh any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, um, let's move down to item number 10, 2027 030, minor roof repairs to city owned buildings found on page 52.

Chrissy, I'll just get right to the point.

Um, of this 30,000, does that include um taking care of the roof repairs at station four?

No.

And how back up?

Why not?

Because station that it's not a minor roof repair at station four.

That that needs a whole new roof, which we're actively working on um preparing a bid.

Uh this doesn't have anything to this is like you know, we have uh uh a leak here in City Hall, and we need someone to come and patch it type of thing.

It's not a full um, but that's what's been going on at station four for well over a year is leaks in various areas of a flat rubber roof, and to my knowledge, as of quite recently, there have been no repairs to stop the leaks at least temporarily.

Um, like I said, we're actively putting together a bid for that building right now.

Um just trying to get the the scope of work nailed down so it's it suits the needs of that building um with the flat roofs.

It's it's both sides, living quarters and the apparatus bay.

So um, you know, this bid does not meet the meet the needs for that building.

stop the leaks at least temporarily um like i said we're actively putting together a bid for that building right now um just trying to get the the scope of work nailed down so it's it suits the needs of that building um with the flat roofs it's it's both sides living quarters and the apparatus bay so um you know this bid does not meet the meet the needs for that building so there is no plan for at least making an attempt to stop the leaks at station four one of the leaks which is right on the kitchen countertop right next to the sink on the stove rather um other leaks in um the living quarters in the hallway there is no plan in place yet to address those no why because we're actively pursuing a bid to replace the roof so we're gonna spend money a few thousand dollars to make temporary repairs to only rip them off and replace the roof like we're we're trying to get this bid together and get it before the council before the end of this fiscal year so I understand that mayor council we've applied for a congressional earmark grant to replace um multiple uh fire station roofs um we're gonna know if we're successful moving forward very soon that's why we're hesitant to do any work on it now because the grant process takes a long time getting the money but we can do it and we'll get the money reimbursed to us so that's why we haven't done we don't want to do any expensive work right at the moment so mayor with all due respect as you know these leaks at least in station four I can't speak to the other stations but station four is in my ward and those leaks have been going on for well over a year so when we talk about repairs um and bids it's two different things this roof has been leaking for well over a year I have been asking to get some repairs done on it which to me makes a whole lot more sense than just letting this thing continue to drip into the kitchen and into the wall and into the soffit I don't disagree with you.

You what I don't disagree with you but we don't want to do any extensive work if we're gonna be replacing it.

Get it I'm not asking that the the roof be replaced I'm asking that these half a dozen areas um get repaired and it's not you know you've done them it's not a big deal to get up there and replace some screw pops or cuts or whatever temporarily noted you're correct I didn't read your notes sorry I didn't read your notes I'm sorry everyone at that table got it but you I didn't read your notes that's okay so I guess so my takeaway on this is that um we'll we'll tell us in a bid process takes time we're looking at probably another couple of months before or more by the time you can get a roofer in line to do that I know some of these commercial roofers are already booking next year out because I've reached out to them so can I um feel uh confident that some roof repairs to at least stop those immediate leaks will take place in the immediate future yes I give you my word I'll talk I'll talk to the building director tomorrow he's not here tonight okay great okay thank you and thank you for not reading my notes mayor you can rest assured they're well researched okay um any other questions or any questions from members of the committee members of the council members of the public any questions from members of the public okay hearing none we'll move on to item number 11 2025 347 purchase of commercial and industrial supplies found on page 59 christy i i get the you know the request for the extension um time time period seems to align itself with your original what what are these um commercial and industrial equipment and supplies that you're contemplating needing another 30 000 for so it could be anything um we've bought motors for um you know hvac units that have burnt out that our electric electrician can replace we um get gloves for um sanitation they're they're cheap um not cheap like two gloves cheap cost wise um i mean it there's just uh they literally have everything from soup to nuts so it's really anything that um that we need that you know and we do shop it around there's a couple other vendors that we can utilize as well but um that's what we use this bid for okay so it's gonna be the you know uh the what ifs because essentially you're down to just about two thousand left in that account right so you're just asking for spending authority up to 30,000 yes it because it doesn't expire until December 31st.

There's a couple other vendors that we can utilize as well, but um that's what we use this bid for okay.

So it's gonna be the you know uh the what ifs because essentially you're down to just about two thousand left in that account, right?

So you're just asking for spending authority up to 30,000.

Yes, it because it doesn't expire until December 31st.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions?

Councilman Mudal, go ahead.

Hi Chris Christie, just clarification.

Uh it's two thousand the account.

There's multiple accounts.

Is that 30,000 going across those accounts?

Yeah, so it gets spread out um, you know, based on what department needs what?

Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks.

Okay, any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, I believe that takes care of that.

Uh need a motion on PCR 53-26.

Move favorable.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, we'll move on to abatements.

PCR 54-26.

Councilman Muto.

Uh Chair, I need to recuse myself on one item.

It's a family member.

Here we go.

So go ahead.

Reference number one seven three four two four.

Well, it's back and forth.

So the item number is one seven three four two four.

I uh also will be recusing on reference number one seven three four zero nine.

Anyone else on any recusals?

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Director, you're up there, so let's let's hear from you.

I don't want you to feel you know not wanted.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Neil DePwee, director of assessing.

This month we have abatements in the amount of 50,491 dollars and ninety-nine cents.

Um, this is the end of the appeal period, and most of these were uh changes made by the board of assessment review.

Uh a couple of minor ones that I had changed for data changes to the properties.

Um but as we progress through the appeal process, they typically don't have appraisals and the things we need to get them the adjustments they need, but by the time they reach the board, they finally do have that, and and that's the result here.

But I'll answer any questions that you might have.

Okay, thank you.

Um once again, any questions?

Okay.

We have to we have to amend holding up.

Yeah, but hold on.

I want to see if the members of the public any questions from members of the public.

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Okay, hearing none.

Um, we will need a PCR on this.

We have two abstentions.

Don't have to do the amendment.

Like the dollar.

Okay, that's true.

Okay, the first one is 17349, and the amount is 1245.

That is gonna be a recusal.

And the second item is 1734, and the amount of 2717.

No, we'll do a quick math here because I have not added them up yet.

I come up with 1,517 and 25 cents.

Is that correct?

Somebody want to just do a double check on that.

We have $124547.

$124547 plus 27178 for a total of $1,517 and 25 cents.

Okay.

We on that.

Now we're gonna deduct that off of 50,000 four ninety-one ninety-nine.

Just a point of clarification.

I think we already pulled one out.

So I'm sorry?

I think you already pulled one out, so I think that would change because of the uh conflict of interest with councilman Mutal.

I added two of them.

Yeah, we have two.

I added two, one for me and one from Councilman Mute.

Okay, I thought you had two.

Yeah, my apologies.

Okay.

Um okay, what's the new total forty-eight nine seventy-four thirty-four?

Okay.

So we're gonna do the move the um accusables first.

Yes.

Okay.

So um on the PCR, what was that number, please?

Sorry?

No, I needed a PCR.

On the recusals, any amount of fifteen hundred and seventeen dollars and twenty-five cents.

That'll be PCR 5826.

Um PCR 156 is next.

Thank you.

We should be in ID assignment the recu recusals, recusals.

We're gonna we're gonna do them separately, councilman.

I'm sorry.

Uh chairman.

Uh if we could do them separately because each one of you don't have to recuse from the other ones.

So if we could start with uh councilman mudo's recusal, this is number one seven three four two four gene mutual uh Kyle uh in the manner of two seventy-one seventy-eight.

So we're gonna have separate PCR numbers on both of them.

Okay, yes.

All right, PCR 58-26.

Um the amount is two seventy-one seventy-eight.

And then the abatement number one seven three four oh nine regarding caniglia and the amount of one thousand two hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty-seven cents would become PCR 5926.

Okay, and that would mean that the remainder of PCR 5326 would be updated to reflect a total abatements of 48,974 and 34 cents.

Okay, so do we need to do a separate motion on each PCR?

Sorry, that was that was PCR 5426, not 53.

Uh so first up, if the committee would make a recommendation on the um PCR 5826, the MUTO abatement 271 dollars and 78 cents.

Okay, I need a motion on PCR 58-26.

Move favorable action.

We have a motion, we have a second by councilman knapper.

We have one abstention.

All in favor, aye.

So we have three yes, one abstention.

Next item up is PCR 59-26 in the amount of twelve hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty-seven cents.

I need a motion on that.

Move favorable action.

Second motion, we have a second.

I abstain.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, so we have three yes and one abstention.

Now we have a motion on the amended abatements of 48,974.

Point of order.

Did we make a motion to amend?

Have we actually amended that?

Yeah, you do not need to because the other two items were removed from it, so the the total will be updated uh on on the vote.

Okay.

All right, thank you for that.

Um is that a motion motion favorable action okay?

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

So that stands passed as amended.

And we will now go back.

All right, on item PCO six-26 and ordinance amending section sixty-five hundred of the code of ordinances to provide flexibility in the city OPEB contributions that would exceed those matching employee contributions for the period until the state reimbursement on school construction debt services begins.

As I did in the first passage, I am going to make a motion to move this to the floor without a recommendation.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion that we have a second to move to the floor.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

Aye aye.

Just make sure you have public comment so we don't have to have it later.

Sure.

Oh, thank you for that, Mr.

President.

Also, um Mr.

President, are you suggesting public comment now?

And when it's at the floor, no, I now rather than at the floor, because normally we don't have it while on the floor.

Um, well, being that we're we've moved it to the floor for discussion.

I would prefer to allow for um public comment on the floor, should other folks that may not be here want to be here.

Yep, it's your prerogative as chair of the committee.

Okay.

Um move to the floor for discussion with public comment allowed.

Okay, we're done.

Make a motion to well, what do we have?

Oh, yes, sir.

Okay.

I was just making sure you're paying attention.

I know that's hey, hey.

Okay, um, item PCR 50-26 2027, fire apparatus.

Okay, um Christie, go ahead.

Uh this was held from the last council meeting.

Uh uh DPW is still requesting the uh the same cap it it runs concurrent with the uh first the A portion of this bid for a hundred thousand dollars, adding the vendors as requested in the letter.

Um expires June 7, 2027, and the um hourly rate prices were provided via email and are included in the package.

Okay, um thank you for doing that, Christy.

That was um my concern where the vendors that were being requested to add on who had not bid originally, we did not have any hourly rates uh for them.

You reached out to them, you did get hourly rates, and um the five vendors that will be added on to this or included in this would be New England Fire and Equipment, allegiance fire and rescue, coastal international trucks, power products, tasker, and CNS, which means Greenwood emergency vehicles has been removed as a vendor.

Um Greenwood is actually on the A portion.

They're on the what Greenwood's on the original, the the A portion of this bid, which is not or they're on the original, yes.

Weren't they added weren't they in to the um added vendors too?

Yeah, that was uh typo.

Yes.

Okay, all right.

So you already have the hourly rate for the Greenwood folks.

Yes, got it.

Okay.

Um I'm good with that.

I need a motion.

Motion favorable action.

We have a motion of favorable action.

We have a second.

All those I'm sorry.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Any questions from members of the public?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none.

No, I need a motion, please.

Motion move favorable action.

Second, we have a motion for favorable action.

We have a second.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.

It is now 614 and the finance committee is adjourned.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, the time is now six fifteen, and the ordinance committee is now in session.

We only have one order of business on our calendar tonight.

That is PCO eight-26 and ordinance establishing a real estate non-utilization tax document by Council President Sinape.

My understanding is that this is there's a request to hold this until the first meeting in July.

Which is July 6th, made by the council president.

There are some further amendments that he would like to make.

Seeing none.

So move to hold.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All right, held till July sixth.

The time is now six sixteen.

We are adjourned.

Would the public safety committee please convene?

Where is that?

Yep.

Excuse me.

The uh public safety committee uh is in session at six eighteen.

We only have one item on the agenda, and this is a PCR forty-seven twenty-six resolution relative to claims for uh is Mr.

or Mrs.

Cutrayas here.

No.

Okay.

So from the last meeting, uh we wanted to hold it to give the uh give the constituent a chance to um justify the claim.

Uh the constituent is not here.

Is there any um any comments by the committee?

In discussion.

Councilman Rex.

Thank you, Chairman.

Just wanted to uh take a quick look around the room and uh make sure here that uh the I'm actually pardon me not certain the address uh twenty-six Altia Road, which ward that's inside, but double check with all of the members of the council, so to speak, to make sure that uh that member of the council nor anyone else has heard anything from Mr.

Contreras before we take further action on this.

I'm not seeing anything, so I would uh defer to the chair.

Okay, any other comments?

Comments by the committee.

Any other comments by the council?

Any comments by the public?

Any comments by the public?

Councilman Foley.

This gentleman is your constituent, I believe.

I just wanted to make sure that you had final say oh, is that one?

It's what seven.

Okay.

So what seven has the constituent reached out to you, Councilman?

Not at all.

Okay.

So I'm going to make a motion for unfavorable action.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

It's four zero.

Motion fails.

Uh public safety adjourns at six twenty.

Chairman, if we could frame the recommendation as favorable action to deny.

So it's an authoritative denial because it's actually on an appeal of the denial, but for clarity's sake, if if that's the motion favorable to deny.

Second on the motion to deny.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion.

Passes options.

Hold on.

Public safety is concluded at six twenty-one.

Would the public properties committee please convene?

Busy.

The City Council Committee on Public Properties, Land Use and Community Affairs comes to order at six twenty-three.

We have no minutes up on the agenda for approval.

Therefore, we'll go straight into our two items.

First up, we have PCO fifteen-twenty six, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Warwick, Colby Enterprises LLC applicant.

This is two six five and two five five Centerville Road, Assessor's Plat two four six, lots two six zero and two six one.

Council President Snappy, I take it that uh you would request for this matter to be moved to the floor without recommendation for public hearing.

Thank you.

Council President affirms.

Do we have a motion to that effect?

So moved.

So moved.

Second.

Councilman Kirby, thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Four zero.

Second and last on our agenda is PCO nine dash twenty-six.

This is Councilman Gabhart.

An ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the City of Warwick.

Four three three.

Excuse me.

Four three three two post-road LLC.

Applicant is four three three two post road.

Assessors plat.

Two two one lot two six.

Councilman Gebhardt, I take it that you would request a motion to uh have this matter moved to the floor for a public hearing without recommendation.

You got it.

Thank you.

So affirmed.

Do we have a motion to that effect?

So uh yes, and the council solicitor uh corrects me that this would also be a matter of uh continuing uh to the public hearing in front of the council as a whole.

We have a motion to that effect.

So moved.

Do we have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Four zero.

And there being no further items before this committee, we adjourn at six twenty-six PM.

We will be at ease for a few minutes uh for the start of the council meeting at six thirty.

Nice to meet you, Brian.

Hi.

By the way, Tyler Baum isn't here by chance.

We have a Tyler.

No.

I'm ahead on point.

Yeah, but I'm retired.

And we brought them to meet with boots of brief cases.

We brought um one of the community leaders on this four war police, they came with Officer Grant, who's a veteran, too, and we had that discussion of what the different means are when you respond to governments in crisis versus traditional civilian trying to offer support and coordination if they have they know what's a better house.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh yeah, I think so.

I haven't set up a meeting with everybody.

One thing we were talking about is trying to, and I think it was going to mention is try to get everybody together with some eight to talk about this with Warwick's Health and Human Services people out of the mental health crisis in the city.

Some collaborations, uh boards of facilities to see what cost there is.

Not very many people know about people.

So I think this was not like

Yeah.

Anybody else needed material?

Yeah.

Right.

I just wondered.

Just asking for a friend.

Council will convene at six thirty seven PM and the clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sunavi.

Mr.

Delouise.

Mr.

Foley.

Mr.

Carvey.

Mr.

Ladissa.

Here.

Mr.

Muno.

Mr.

Riggs.

Nine present.

All right.

If Council and Middle please lead us in the salute of the flag.

Underg.

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

Does anyone have anything for this?

Councilman Napa?

Thank you, Councilman.

Just uh an announcement and a congratulatory announcement, I suppose.

Um just wanted to recognize uh 988, the suicide and crisis hotline.

Um they are a public outreach um point of contact that has been working sort of uh loosely with the work police, who has been their uh very strong supporter, and I wanted to recognize and congratulate the police department for kind of pushing forward on that.

I believe someone is here from 988 to speak a public comment tonight, and I just wanted to bring that to the public's attention that our our WPD is doing an excellent job with their outreach and congratulate them and commend them for their efforts, and that's an important aspect of life to be involved in and taking care of people's mental health and their own mental health too.

Thank you, Councilman Napa.

Councilman Gebhardt, uh thank you, Council President.

I want to give a shout out um both to Warwick Powell and to the city.

Um last weekend, Warwick Powell kicked off its first ever season of flag football.

Um we uh had incredible interest.

The program is completely full.

Um the games are being played on Sundays uh at Belmont Street, uh, which is a beautiful uh field complex over off Elmwood Ave and Councilman Rix's ward.

Um the the fields are in incredible condition.

Uh the lines were were all done, everything is well appointed and well set up, and we're very appreciative of that as an organization.

And most importantly of all, the kids are having a tremendous amount of fun.

So uh kudos to the Ward PAL uh organization and to the city for uh making that happen.

Thank you.

All right.

Next up is executive communications.

We have none moving on to acceptance of minutes from the council meeting.

It does not look like there's anything lined up for that one.

Next up is 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 wark 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 affecting city government.

City council members will not respond to questions during the public comment period, and the public comment period session will terminate at the expiration of the earlier of all speakers, concluding their allotted time or 30 minutes.

Waiver of this provision requires unanimous vote with council.

And I know we did this after the hearings last time, but because they were multiple speakers who weren't able to speak because we did that.

So first up, we have Darlene Netco.

Hello.

Um, I will also be speaking during the intergovernmental committee meeting.

Um I'm speaking about the proposal, uh proposed resolution to change the makeup of the school committee to have nine members, um, three from each district.

Right now we have five members, one from each district, and two members at large.

And as I said last time, um the two are at large positions are difficult positions for people to run for because in effect they are actually running like a mayoral campaign because it's citywide.

So that is a very difficult campaign to run.

Um, and perhaps the makeup on the school committee could change in that regard, but I think having nine is too many.

And I think rushing into anything right now is uh ill-advised.

I think uh last time the mayor proposed having a study commission to take a look at maybe what other districts around the state or the country do regarding their school committees and find a better way than having nine, three from each district.

Um it's difficult sometimes to find one from a district to run or two from a district.

You want to have some kind of competition in a campaign to make sure all of the applicants for the position are putting their best foot forward and not just sneaking in unopposed.

Also, I just want to point out that the city council last year created a budget commission.

That budget commission spent a whole basically a whole year scrutinizing the school department's uh budget and budgetary practices.

They approved every expenditure except for one platform called Edpuzzle worth 27,000.

They made one recommendation that the city pay for the student assistance counselor through opioid funding.

And other than that, they approved every other expenditure.

So after all of that rigmarole, they basically showed the school committee was spending what it should be spending.

Furthermore, regarding the fiscal year 26 budget, the budget commission found that the schools actually were underfunded by 2.1 million dollars.

So if there is a problem, you think with the uh school committee and its current makeup, I think more study is warranted.

I think the schools already had a year's worth of scrutiny.

And at this point, the city maybe should focus on the city side and put the uh finagling with the schools off for a later date.

Thank you.

All right, next up, and I apologize, I definitely can't pronounce your last name properly.

Uh Rosie.

I'll be just make sure you state your full name for us, please, once you start.

We'll do.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

My name is Rosie Frimer.

I am with Horizon Healthcare Partners.

I am also a combat veteran, two times to Iraq, one um time to Afghanistan.

So thank you for letting me share some information regarding 988, which is a suicide crisis hotline.

It was made known to us that there have been over 50 attempts in this city alone, which is very high.

And what we want to do as a community is help raise awareness, whether that be through creating videos with horizon healthcare partners of the first responders within the community showing their support of 988 and the community members.

We do have a strong relationship with Warwick PD.

They do have CIT officers, which is crisis intervention training officers, which means that they receive 40-hour training on mental and behavioral health calls.

So if someone is having a crisis and a police officer responds and they are CIT certified, they have that extra training and they know to take extra precautions, care and comfort when responding to the person so that they come at a different angle versus coming head on as a police officer.

They take that hat off for a moment.

They're a human, so it's human to human contact.

It's nationwide, it's free, it's anonymous, it's all ages.

My son has utilized that number.

He has called when he had a school bully.

I know many veterans, including myself that have called 988 as well to help when we have that random PTSD moment at like three in the morning where you just don't know what else to do.

And so what we try to tell people is 988 is not just for people who are suicidal or in a crisis, it's for anyone who has food insecurity.

They are sad, they're lonely, they're of aging population and they don't have any family around.

They can call 988 and talk to someone so they're never alone.

Um what we're trying to also do down the line is develop a memorandum of understanding between the call center and the local dispatch center so that we can strengthen and streamline communications to get people the proper resources that they need to ensure that they get to a better self.

Thank you.

And Joelle Tillinghast Hello.

Gosh, I'm Joelle Tillinghast.

Um, I am the 988 community network coordinator.

So I'm here with Rosie.

I do community outreach for 988.

So we do a lot of presentations, tabling, things of that sort.

Um, prior to outreach, I answered the the suicide lifeline for about four years before I started doing outreach.

So we do like to let everyone know that it is 24-7.

Um, there's always um a clinical supervisor on staff.

Um, the crisis counselors, the call center has come a long way.

So the crisis counselors have an extensive onboarding and training process that they go through.

So they're well equipped to answer all the calls that come in.

And there's been more and more staff joining the call center as well.

If anyone is interested in taking a tour of the call center, which is right next door to BH Link, if you're familiar as the Crisis Center, you can reach out to myself or Rosie as well.

We can get that set up for you guys to have a tour of the call center just to see how it works and the process that everyone goes through when they call.

And the call center also has a 98 or 99 call answer rate.

99% answer rate in the country.

So that's all I have.

Is that even number one?

Yeah, I think we're number one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And lastly, Miles Braun.

Do you want me to hand it to you?

Yes.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Miles Braun Husband, and I've spoken about this numerous times at the State House.

I would just like to say that this 998 is very near and dear to me as I have family and myself that deal with mental health issues.

For I mean, for people that have, like I said, mental mental problems that can't get help, that think they're alone, that have drug or alcohol problems, that have suicide issues, and they're alone.

They need to be heard by this phone.

So please, please, I urge you to look at this and to pass this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And because we already have the stenographer here, unless there's any objection, we're gonna jump to the two matters we have.

Let's see.

First up is PCO 15-26, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick, Cobia Enterprises LLC, applicant 265 and 255 Centerville Road, Assessors Plat 246, lots 260 and 261.

So Councilman Ricks, this is public properties.

Recommend move to the floor for public hearing.

So for action, Councilman Ricks.

Move to open public hearing.

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

So public hearing stands.

Open petitioner, if you want to lead off.

Good evening, Mr.

President.

Honorable members of the Warwick City Council for the Record Attorney K.

Joe Sushaggi representing the applicant this evening with my co-counsel Danielle Dufault from Adler Polk and Sheen, who will be doing the presentation tonight.

This project has extensive meetings with the planning department.

And we received a unanimous approval from the planning board, and we have a positive recommendation for a recommendation for zone change.

I will turn it over to Danielle who continue the presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joe.

Council President, City Council members.

Thank you for this evening.

As Joe said, attorney Danielle Dufelt from Alder Polak and Sheen on behalf of the applicant, Colvia Enterprises LLC.

As you noted, the address that this is applicable to is 255-265 and 281 Centerville Road.

Note that the zone changes specific to only 255 and 265, those those underlying lots.

The subsequent six lots adjacent to the east on Sennibal Road are currently zoned general business.

Also, the it is consistent with the comprehensive plan as the comprehensive plan and future land use map, designate this quarter of Centerville Road as commercial uses subject to applicable zoning ordinances.

And note that this is also a much less intense use than would be allowed under the current zoning designation.

With that, I I can answer any questions you may have.

We have our experts and can go into more specifics if if necessary, and I'll field any questions you might have.

So I do have questions, but I want to make sure we can have the public speak if there's anyone who wishes to.

So is there anyone here who wishes to speak against the project?

Pardon.

Just make sure you state your name, please.

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

I live close to the areas that are being discussed.

And I'd like you to just take a minute and imagine what is possible for that land.

Just imagine what could be possible, something that would complement Warwick, something that would enhance our state.

So when somebody for the first time they've never been to Rhode Island, they've never been to Warwick, maybe they exit off of 95, and this is what they see.

So let's all imagine what is possible.

What can be possible for that piece of land?

I've lived in Rhode Island for 23 years, and maybe many of you have lived here all your life.

I've lived in five states all together.

And I just suggest that all Rhode Island residents never take this state for granted.

Also very close to this land is the Apenog region.

We're right now in a very charming historic building.

And people have put a lot of thought into the Apenog area, a lot of work, a lot of love.

It has like a historic charm to it.

Buildings that you could see anywhere in the United States.

Also, in addition to this, uh I feel a strong need to be concerned about a potential future brownfield.

They're everywhere.

And no, once a gas station, not necessarily always a gas station, but it takes a lot of work.

Once a gas station has been established in a piece of land, it takes a lot of work to undo it.

There are many success stories, but it takes a lot of work and a lot of community cooperation once the land is damaged by a petroleum brown field.

And I meant to make a flash car, but just B for Brownfield, it's something to think about.

It's something to think about that once you do build a gas station.

Also, also if you go north, south, west, or east of the area, you'll find a gas station.

Also, if you go north, south, west, or east of the area, you'll find a gas station.

It seems we're living in a culture where a need for something, a purpose for something, is not nearly as important as just, and I don't mean to be uh impolite, but just a need to make some money.

Is there a purpose?

Is there a need for the citizens?

I feel that that's very important.

And I am uh deeply concerned about this structure being built.

I I love the state of Rhode Island.

It's it's just uh it's done so much for me personally, and I I feel that we should hold on to the essence of what makes Rhode Island such a special beautiful state.

Thank you very much for listening to my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this project?

My name is Paul Blakesley.

Um I live on Centerville Road.

Uh this is the zoning change for Centerville Road.

I've lived on Centerville Road my whole life, and I've seen the changes come in little bits of spot zoning where somebody sells a house to a developer who wants to make it into an office, and so the zoning board would make a little spot zone for that office, and that progressed for a number of years until finally one administration got it right and did a zoning change on Centerville Road for offices, and that seemed to work.

There are a number of offices built along Centerville Road, and the development was logical and under control.

And then recently, I don't know if it was all of these members of the board that heard the last zoning change on Senneville Road, which was to change it from office to general business, and this was done for one specific development that wanted to do a car wash.

And a car wash isn't really allowed in a general business zone, but it needed a special permit, which all seemed to be part of the deal.

And today you're being asked to make another zone change, not contiguous with Apenog in its general business zone, or the new extension of that for the car wash.

This is separate all together.

Two lots.

This is spot zoning again, which I was brought up to believe is against the law, but here we are.

Two lots that a developer wants to turn into a gas station.

And people zooming through the state of Rhode Island can stop and do their job right here in Warwick and hop back on the highway and go.

What you're gonna end up with here is if you continue to make these kinds of zoning decisions, you're gonna end up with something that's like Route Three on Kwisit Avenue.

You're well on the way, and this one will lock it in.

It's ridiculous, and every one of you know it's ridiculous.

There's no reason for this kind of development on Centerville Road.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak against this project?

Is there anyone who wants us to speak in favor of this project?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this project?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of this project?

Is there anyone in general who wishes to speak on this?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this in general?

Is there anyone in general who wishes to speak on this?

All right, seeing none.

Um councilman Ricks move to close public hearing.

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor.

Oh, pardon me, that was premature.

All right.

Everyone in favor you gotta say it, guys.

We got a stenographer here and everything.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions?

All right.

So the public hearing is now closed.

Uh I certainly have questions.

This is in my ward.

Uh can so the the traffic situation is complicated to put it mildly.

Because I know from what I saw, there is a requirement to go to the DOT to get a PAP.

So can someone either from the applicant side or from the city explain what that is for everyone?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Yes, a PAP is a physical alteration permit.

It was one of the requirements that was placed on the approval uh from the planning uh board and planning department as well.

So this project would before it would ever be issued a certificate of occupancy, would have to go uh make a traffic study, uh submit it to the department of transportation for review and ultimately approval to make sure that it is traffic um worthy and safe.

Uh to that end, we have proposed working with the planning department some mitigating factors right in, right out, working with the traffic signal there as well.

So it is a an approval that we would uh continue to seek if we are successful here this evening tonight.

And would you would this project be coming back before the council at any point?

Well, I believe you have second passage.

Uh after that, if we meet the conditions, typically we will go back to the planning uh department, and the planning department will uh get issue the final approval.

But we have a this is first passage following month from now or two, we'd have a second passage whenever the council so desired.

All right, and after the planning board approval, assuming it goes first and second passage.

That would be it, that would be the completion.

All right, because the reason I asked is because the traffic situation is my main concern, because uh as the planning board noted that particular portion of the Sunova Road is already not great.

In fact, I mean it's it's already a fact that Seneva Road in general is not great, but we're working with what we got, and as already noted, uh this is less intensive use than what it could be without a zone change.

So we got that going for us.

And I and also point out as the gentleman said earlier, we are right at the you know, at the footprint here of the exit on and off ramp.

So there'll be very little traffic.

Uh the 95 traffic would stop, get off, and then hopefully get back on.

The rest of the traffic would be convenience traffic serviced by people who already live in Warwick who are already driving back and forth uh on Senaval Road.

And is there is there any limitation to what the state could end up issuing for the the PAP?

Like could they require the median be extended?

There's a lot, yes, there's a lot of uh avenues open to the state.

Uh it is review.

We have a traffic expert here who'd be happy to answer any questions, but uh we don't know until we actually submit.

We'll do whatever DOT requires us to do.

If we don't do it, we don't get approval, we don't build a gas station.

So we'll work with the professionals uh that the DOT this is a state road, and as everyone knows it's 117, it's under the care, custody, and control of the Department of Transportation, and we will follow those rules and regulations.

All right, so if we're not compliant, this project will never be built.

Understood.

And I'll hold off on further questions for now because I know Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

One of the members of the public brought up a concern that I suppose I have it in the back of my mind, but wanted to make sure to articulate it.

When it comes to uh a gas station being constructed with underground tanks, I take it are the standards different for those underground tanks being installed today from uh some of these sites that have been uh problematic where tanks were installed many years ago.

Councilman Ricks, thank you very much for that question.

That's a very valid question.

The answer is yes.

Uh, they are dramatically different.

They are built with state-of-the-art alarm systems, they are uh double walled, and they're typically fiberglass, so they don't rust as well.

There are warning systems and mechanisms that happen, uh, and they are monitored regularly by DEM.

So the gas station built today in 2017 is vastly different than gas stations that were built even 10 or 15 years ago.

So we're put using best practices, state-of-the-art um uh equipment and monitoring systems as well.

Not to mention that these underground tanks have to be regulated and approved by EPA, that's the federal agency, and DOT or DEM, the state agency as well.

So there's a double jurisdictional uh requirement, and we will use the best practices available.

I will point out that my client has operated, I don't even want to know the number, but I'll venture to say well over a dozen gas stations in the state of Rhode Island.

And to the best of my knowledge, there's never ever been one leak or problem, and there's not been any of their properties that they have caused to become a brownfield.

And uh between the state and federal jurisdiction, I take it that there would be pretty severe consequences if there was some sort of a brownfield league type situation.

It would be uh catastrophic, it would be we uh obviously cavern insurance for that, but it would be uh very dramatic.

It would be something we'd have to comply with.

There'll be penalties, there would be mitigation, there would be restrictions placed on it, and there would be a monitored cleanup if that were ever the case, God forbid.

Thank you.

And then a question on the uh let's see, I suppose on the location itself.

So I know that there was an allegation with spot zoning, and uh respectfully that that's not a determination that we make, and it's really not a determination that this honorable council makes.

That's a determination that the planning department makes and the planning board.

They are the guardians of the the city of Warwick's comprehensive use plan and the future use plan.

I can tell you, I don't want to speak for the planning department or the planning board, but I can tell you that this was been exhaustively reviewed.

If they felt it was uh spot zoning, they would not have recommended approval to the planning board.

The planning board would not have uh approved it, and it would not be before you with a positive recommendation.

So those are the people, I mean, I could have hired a bunch of experts to say it's not spot zoning, but the reality is when you when these cases are under review and they're looked at in the court system, it is the local community that is the one that give is given the most amount of weight to determine what spot zoning in their community.

Hence, we're looking at this project, we're looking at it in Warwick on 117 and looking at these set of facts.

Our map is different in the city of Cranston or the city of West Warwick, and that may be a whole different analysis and a whole different conclusion, but that is made by the respective jurisdiction of the community where the applicant is making the request.

Here it's the City of Warwick's planning department and the city of Warwick's planning board.

And it's not easy to get a unanimous approval for anything, but we got a unanimous approval by the planning board of Warwick, and we have had two positive recommendations from planning, one to the planning board and one to the city council as well.

So we feel very confident, respectfully from the experts, the people who are charged with this, the people who do this for a living every day, the people who have the degrees, that this is not spot zoning.

Thank you.

And when I take a look at the particular location myself, it being an area that I'm uh familiar with.

In fact, my very first job when I was 14 was over at the summit office complex directly across the street.

And for the last seven or so years, my office, my own office has been just down to the street, also on Centerville Road.

So it's an area that I'm quite familiar with.

And thinking about it in that context, as well as the context of here in Warwick, there are often gas stations along roads such as this and uh gas stations that are often not far from even residential areas.

And I think we're all familiar with gas stations in general.

This does not strike me as anything that is particularly out of the ordinary to have a gas station in a location such as this.

So that's my I'll try to keep it brief comment.

Thank you.

Councilman Nepa.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh the presence of the speaker.

If um, has there been any thought or consideration to what vendors or services that will be housed inside the season's market once that is done, or you're not at that point yet?

Uh um, it's not yet to be the chairman, but typically it might be a coffee shop, typically.

Uh it something it might just be a convenience store.

Okay, I don't know the exact answers.

It's really to be determined at this point, but it's nothing unusual that you wouldn't find or see in any of the gas station in Rhode Island or any of the convenience store in Rhode Island.

Thank you.

And uh through the president, if we if I could uh just ask a question to the planning department, Director Kravitz, if you could just speak on how this proposal fits into the comprehensive plan and how the planning department um sees this fitting in and to make their favorable recommendation that you did.

Uh Tom Crabit, City Planning Director.

This part of Centerville Road and its location to the highway has a number of commercial uses and office uses.

There is GB zoning one parcel over in between these two, and then it's a strip of general business.

So the planning board just felt as though it wasn't egregiously inconsistent with what you would expect to find in a high traffic area off a highway to have a gas station.

Charlie.

Councilman Gebhardt.

Thank you, Council President.

Um I think Council President uh touched on the things that we are likely to hear.

Um obviously we we have light attendance here tonight from the public to speak about this, but as is often the case, and as was the case with the last approved development, we sort of hear about it after the fact, right?

So um well, I just want to I appreciate that and I respect that, but every one of the hearings have been advertised, every one of them has been noticed, and and all the uh stuff has been in a local newspaper.

So we've also send notices to everybody in accordance with the law.

So I I understand like after the project gets built, people come forward and they say, How did this happen?

Like it's some kind of a uh secret, but these people are here, and there were people at the at the planning board as well.

And now we have online uh forums, whether it's Facebook or neighborhood or next door, or the people are very much aware, respectfully of what happens to the city council.

Well, I mean, I'm an old man, I've been doing this for a long time.

I remember used to come here and there was no one here, and no one knew what was going on.

Now you have advocates, and I think it's a good thing.

Public access advocates whom are well aware of what happens at city government, and that's a good thing.

I I would I would tend to agree.

So were you were you present at the at the planning board hearings along the way?

Did you get some some resident feedback throughout the process?

Just like yeah, one or two.

That was it.

Just one or two.

Okay.

Um well, I'm hoping that uh through uh uh you know, subsequent to this hearing before, if you know, if approved before we get to a second hearing, that uh hopefully the word does um get out so we can address any concerns that may exist in the community.

Um I know that that there was there was certainly some, and I've really this to folks on your team that um you know, once the the car wash project hit its approval and we started to see you know changes to the traffic pattern there and new lights and new signals and new timing um that we certainly heard about it.

Um so um certainly want to be cognizant of that um and make sure the community is prepared for you know for a change.

Um in terms of traffic, could could we hear from your expert just in terms of the general overview of uh the traffic plan?

Good evening, Mr.

President, members of the council for the record.

My name is John Chevlin, employed by Park Corporation and Lake Rhode Island.

Um, as far as the traffic goes, we did a pretty extensive study.

Uh we got a lot of data collection along the corridor at a lot of the intersections.

Um, you know, we looked at safety issues and capacity issues.

This type of development's not a big trip generator.

Uh gas stations, um, uh coffee shops.

A lot of that traffic is already in the traffic stream.

A lot of people don't go out of their way in order to go to a destination like this.

Usually they're driving to work or driving home, they stop by.

So it's not gonna add a lot of traffic that's gonna impact uh any of the traffic capacity at any intersections.

And I don't think there's gonna impact the traffic safety.

We do have some recommendations for uh improving the traffic there.

We are looking to go ahead and put in a uh no U-turn sign at the end of the island that's just west of where our Eastern Driveway is going to be.

Um that probably should have been put in place after they put the roundabouts in so people do not make that U-turn they use the roundabout.

We're also gonna put in signs in there for no left turns into the site.

Uh so it's gonna be as mentioned before, right turn in, right turn out from the site.

So you won't have any left turn traffic going in there.

We're also gonna extend the the island, the physical islands out there with some striping in order to go ahead and make sure people know they can't take the left turn.

And then obviously we'll have signage for people coming in and out of the site as well.

Um, so capacity issues as far as going ahead in the intersection we analyze.

There's been minor uh delays.

I think the awards increase was like a uh second and a half as far as the amount of delays that you have at single eyes intersections.

And then the other component that we looked at was the safety, and in the corridor that we did, which was almost three quarters of a mile over three years, it was approximately 102 crashes.

Uh, in this area, there was uh three that that occurred there, but there are there were uh live accidents that were occurring were rear end accidents.

I think 54, 55% of the crash were rear end, which is usually what occurs at single ice intersections of people stopping and not paying attention as far as the current run.

So we didn't see any major patterns in any one area that had uh that had a history of crashes.

So we don't see the safety being uh you know occurring, having any additional concerns here because of the right turn in and right turn out, and we're not gonna have a lot of traffic stream that's gonna be crossing over uh the uh double lanes uh to get into the traffic stream or get into the site.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Um couple questions on the on the plan.

So it looks like there is a egress, maybe ingress to Orchard and it in addition to Centerville.

No, right now there's the only two driveways we're gonna have is gonna be coming out to Centerville.

That's another study that is that's been eliminated.

Got it.

Noted.

So just for the record, um, Councilor Gephardt was pointing out the cross driveway that had connected um to law uh 255, 265, and 281 Centerville Road.

There was a connecting driveway that's since been eliminated.

Um what Mr.

Chevlin was addressing and explaining in in um response to Councilor Gephardt's questions were these are these are measures that the applicant has taken since the feed getting the feedback and approval from the planning board at the master plan level.

We were tasked by the planning board to make it very clear that no left turns into the station were allowed.

And that was after already agreeing during meetings with the planning department that this is an a write in right out only, that there's no left turns allowed into the station, and there's no turn left turns turns out of the station.

So since the approval from master plan and the planning board, and part of our DOT comments where we'll be vetted, is what Mr.

Chevlin was addressing.

We are proposing to add uh no U-turn sign in the island, a no left-hand turn sign in the island.

We're also proposing to expand the existing um island with striping versus an actual island to protect the um uh neighbor across the street, their ability, summits ability to take left-hand turns um out of their building, but preserving their right and trying to make it safer.

So, this is all all the actions that we've taken since receiving planning board approval at the master plan level.

So I just wanted to point that out.

We still have like um attorney Shikarchi pointed out.

We have a lot of vetting through the DEM process.

So this is, and we have to receive all of those state approvals.

This is a condition of the master plan approval by the planning board in order to even submit for our preliminary plan, we have to have received our state approvals.

So this will be thoroughly vetted by state departments that have jurisdiction over this project, and again by the planning board.

Thank you for that.

Um the the we don't have to get too far into this because I'm sure in your state planning uh process you're gonna go through this, but it is visible um from an overhead view um that there's some some amount of wetland or pond, maybe um to the north of the property.

Um I don't know if you could speak basically to any mitigating circumstances there.

Sure.

So there this property is subject to there is wetlands um uh further north on the property, all of that and anything, any limit of disturbance, anything that can be done um to existing vegetation and future visit vegetation is under the jurisdiction of the DEM.

We've met with DEM several times, planning to submit an application for them uh to them, and so that will all be uh vetted through a wetlands permit.

Thank you for that.

And then um I do see that there is some amount of relief in this petition, potentially signage.

Is it is it just signage and the special use permit?

Yeah, so there was um four, I believe, requested relief.

One was for the location and the height of the freestanding ID sign.

The location is due to it needed to be moved out of this project.

This property has many um uh constraints.

Um, and we needed to move the ID side.

There is subject to a hundred foot Rhode Island Energy easement that spans across mostly um the 265 Central Road parcel, but it also encumbers part of the 255.

So we needed to move that out of the easement.

Um that's been moved, and that was part of the discussion during the planning board master plan approval.

Um that's been moved out of the um over into the middle, the center island.

Um we also received a variance for the height of the sign, and um as we explained to the planning board, and it uh it was approved that that specific type of sign, the height is the height it is, because the pylons that hold the sign need to be high enough to preserve the site line for people for for vehicles exiting the site.

So to be able to see the traffic coming west on Sennibal Road, and you're pulling into the driveway, pulling out of the driveway, you need to be able to see.

That's why the sign is lifted higher up.

Um, and we received a variance on that.

And there was two other variances that were um noted in the petition um uh that were granted conditional approval under UDR by the planning board as well.

Uh last question would be Is the petitioner planning to sell gasoline for less than four dollars and forty cents a gallon.

That would benefit me too.

Um I I understand, and a very relevant question and no comments.

That's all I have.

Thank you for answering.

Counselor Gephardt, if I could just you follow up on a question that you asked um as part of your original questions about people that came out during the planning board meeting.

Um we did have a couple of of interested parties, not necessarily a butters.

I will say there was one gentleman that received notice as a butter.

We met with that gentleman after the the planning board, our our portion of the planning board was concluded and discussed with him.

I think his issue was mostly with the sign.

Um, the IDC, we explained to him why um both attorney Shikarchi and myself gave him our contact information.

I don't necessarily see him here tonight, but we haven't received any additional communication um from him.

So we've addressed as many of the comments or or feedback as we can as they've been given to us uh during this process.

Thank you so much.

Sure.

Councilman Ladison.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

This question is actually for you.

So I recall um when the car wash was before us and the concerns that um people had regarding traffic, additional traffic problems, congestion, etc.

So I recall when the car wash was before us and the concerns that people had regarding traffic, additional traffic, problems, congestion, et cetera.

Have you received any calls or complaints regarding the traffic situation there since the car wash has been in place?

No.

I have some other thoughts about the traffic though that I'll I'll wait on because I don't want to derail you.

But no, I have not received anything about the car wash.

Okay.

Neither do I for that matter.

Thank you.

Councilman Dave Louise.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I don't have any questions.

I just like to make a general comment.

Um over the years, um, when I was on the zoning board, we've approved uh projects such as this, and the developers that are involved, they um they build very um streamlined clean looking facilities, they're bright, they're well lit up, um 24 hours a day, most of them.

And um they you know um it's just um I think it would be a great benefit as opposed to just a vacant piece of land.

Um I'm sure there might be other uses, but um, like I said, the developers they um they they take care in what they build, they make it uh appealing, you know, to um passer buys and they make it available so that you can get you know service and whether it's gasoline or coffee 24 hours a day, and I think that they just done a great job from the projects that I have approved uh in the past uh while I was on the zoning board.

So that's that's just the comment I like to say.

That's it.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Gepart, is that left over or is that a new one?

I I had one more uh question for the for your uh for you, sir, for the traffic expert.

Um it's been meant it's been mentioned that the we've talked about coffee shop, but um it's my understanding is integral to the building uh a drive-thru window as well.

Correct.

Well when you evaluate these projects for traffic, um what does the addition of the drive-through window add in terms of what you expect to see?

Yeah, so what uh they're proposing here is uh what they call corner market cafe, and that's what they have at a few of the other stores.

And we have done studies at two of the sites, one was in Smithfield and one was up in Situate, just to see what kind of traffic it generates.

And I can tell you the the queuing of traffic at the drive-through, the number of customers is steady, but they never have more of a queue than I think three cars at one time in line.

So it's not a big generator uh that has, you know, when you drive by Dunkin' Donuts, or I don't want to mention any of the names, but some that have cues that are out 15, 20 cars.

They have you know their own brand that they're trying to uh go ahead and sell, and like I said, they do generate some traffic, but it's not a significant amount of traffic that causes uh any issues.

And I think a lot of their customers, if they do come for the corner market store, are similar to the gas station, they're in the traffic stream already.

So it's not adding traffic uh to the the uh traffic flow on the roadways.

Thank you for that.

Um just before we finish, I I've gone through the packet.

Um it looks like all any site image that we have is probably the former site image.

Do you have a do you have a current plan for the site itself?

I do have one copy.

I can end my questioning there, and I'll just I'll take a look at that off to the side.

Councilman Napa.

All right.

So uh I do want to note that the traffic situation right there is somewhat similar to Hardig Road and the intersection of Centerville Road, where it's kind of a free-for-all right now.

There's slightly more guidance than the other one I'm referencing, but not by much.

So if I could just strongly encourage slash suggest for the for the applicant, if and when they go to the state that they come up with a plan that actually provides guidance to motorists because right now, what uh what I see most often as I pass there currently is people just don't know what to do.

I'm glad there's not many accidents, but I'm guessing it's simply because people just freeze up and wait until there's a clear shot.

But it definitely needs something, even if this doesn't go forward.

But if it does, I I would even suggest it even more needs something than at that point.

Just something to address the traffic.

I'm I'm not a huge fan of being reliant on the state for this, but it's it doesn't really matter because it's a state road, so I don't have much of a choice.

Uh the good hopeful news is that if this does go forward, it'll get them to address the things that they've been delaying on for Sun of a Road Bay being the state, because there's a number of traffic improvements that they have told us they're going to do and haven't done them yet.

So it would be nice if this ended up being a domino that knocked the rest of them down.

Um we'll say too that this is not an entirely dissimilar project than where I've seen elsewhere on my ward.

I have it on a few spots where a gas station is appended nearby residential.

I'm glad in this particular case it's proposed where there's not really much.

It's more businesses around it for the most part.

And again, while I would prefer a different use here, uh I can't deny the fact that this is still less intense than the other options, and the less intense the better given the traffic situation.

So as far as I'm sorry, it's the lesser of two evils.

Councilman Gebhard, I just saw that come up.

Just my my last question looking at the updated plan, which has so there's there's there's two main entrance exits, each are bi-directional.

So you have ingress and egress of the two locations.

Was there any consideration into just one only being in and one only being out just to prevent the bi-directional we didn't we didn't we did think about that and look at that and consider it, but we think that you know you really should have two entrances in and out in case you miss one or whatever, but at the same time, we do feel that cars are heading westbound.

You know, we assume that 90% of the traffic's probably gonna take a right turn of the first one, you know.

So it is gonna be heavily the same thing on the way out.

We think it's gonna be on the other side.

But for traffic flow for truck traffic and everything else, we felt that two driveways need to be need to be incorporated.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

A brief comment similar to other comments I've made where it's a matter of uh proposed development.

So there are a lot of hoops that developers are required and should be required to jump through when it comes to any sort of development of this nature.

And so there is a significant process here between the planning board, zoning board, city council, the state, and in this case, even the the federal government and requirements.

And so sometimes when looking at the big picture there, sometimes it seems uh to folks that there should really be something of uh centralized decision making when it comes to things like this, because sometimes it almost feels like there already is with all of these various requirements.

But times like that, I have to remind myself go back to the United States constitution, guarantees life, liberty, property, property, especially real estate.

We're not a company town here where a company is deciding exactly what goes where and makes an ultimate decision here in Warwick, like pretty much every other city and town incorporated across the entire country.

People have ownership of real estate, and generally speaking, a wide degree of freedom as to what they do and don't want when it comes to uh building on it.

If you were to ask a hundred different people, what would be your vision for what would be the absolute most ideal use of that location?

You might get a hundred different responses, but it's really not a matter of uh us all getting this getting together and deciding, you know what?

I would rather there be an office building at that location, or I would rather that location be preserved exactly the way it is, or turned into a public park, or any of the other ideas that may be out there, many of which might be more popular because people own the real estate, and if they comply with all of these different requirements, well, that's what the law is, and that's why people have freedom in this country to use the real estate and build on it the way that they want to build within all of these different regulations and all of these different constraints that we have as a city, state, and country.

So while a gas station might not be my favorite thing in the world, I'm not going to object to a gas station just because it's a gas station.

People need to buy gas, people need to go to convenience stores.

So that's my comment on this matter after hearing from public comments.

It's not something where we are making the decision as to what goes on this property.

It's us evaluating has the applicant uh gone through and made sure to satisfy those different requirements that are being put on them at the city level.

I think the answer to that is pretty clear at this point.

Thank you.

Councilman Gebhardt any further questions.

All right, seeing none.

Do we have a motion?

Move favorable action.

Second.

Any further discussion on the motion?

See non clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Latisa, yes, yes, Mr.

Riggs.

Yes.

Nine yes first passage.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Next up is PCO 9-26 and ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick Ford 332 Post Road.

LLC applicant for 332 post road assessors plat 221 lot 26.

This is public properties, councilman Rix.

Committee recommends open public hearing.

So for action, Councilman Gebhardt.

Move move favorable, a move to open the public hearing.

Seconded by Councilman Latticer.

Any discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

So the public hearing stands open.

Uh if the applicant would like to start us off, please.

Mr.

President, uh members of the Warwick City Council, my name is Samford J.

Resnick, and I represent the applicant in this matter.

Um property is uh located at 432 Post Road.

Uh the property appeared before the um planning board.

And we received three votes at that time.

Um one vote was for some minor uh setbacks, which was the zoning approval, another one was the master plan approval, and the last one was the recommendation to the city council for approval of this matter.

This property is zoned office, and the use that we're looking for is a permitted use being a residential use.

Uh the request is for seven units in three buildings.

Uh this required quite a bit of work between our engineer to breed engineering and um in Mr.

Kravitz, and also with the fire module to come up with the plan uh that worked for everybody.

Um again is zoned.

Um office it is not in the historic district.

Uh we have a letter from the uh Rhode Island Historical A letter which again, I'm sorry, it's from the uh historical preservation heritage commission that the property um is not written on the registry.

Um it doesn't require any historical surveys.

Um this is about putting some residences on a piece of property.

The amount of available um homes in Warwick, I I actually looked at the number under a million dollars now.

Under a hundred houses available.

So this is unlike what's been going on on Post Road, where there's a hundred hundreds of rentals, um Jackson Boulevard, another large amount of rentals.

This is for home ownership.

Um we need home homeownership in this area.

Um we received unanimous decision uh from the planning board on this.

Um we have to go through some of the same things that the last applicant did.

Um, because we have ingress and egress on post road, we have to get a physical alteration permit.

Uh, we're gonna have to deal with DEM.

Um actually traffic itself never came up as an issue.

Um, but if we have to submit something um to the state around Department of Transportation, we will it's just the number of units is so negligible with the number of trips um based upon the number of trips as compared to the traffic law in that area is just a negligible number.

Um, so the issue actually never came up.

Um at the hearing, I don't believe there was anybody at the hearing that actually objected to this.

Um I may be wrong, but I don't recall.

Um I have Dina Nesbitt, who is the engineer with the pre here.

I know you have a copy of the plans.

If anybody wants to see uh uh more detail set, um we can show you if you have any questions of um Dina, we'll be glad.

Dana, we'd be glad to share those with you.

Otherwise, we'll just open it up to questions and comments.

So is anyone here to speak in favor of the project?

Is anyone here to speak in favor of the project?

Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the project?

Is there anyone here to speak against the project?

Go on up, miss please state your name when you get going.

Hi, my name is Karen Bernard.

I live across the street at 4343 Post Road, and I am not opposed to the project.

I just think that there's too many units.

I'm worried about the traffic, and I am worried about the drainage and the construction and how that's going to um uh um affect post road already right now with the drainage.

We have problems with flooding right in front of our house.

None of the drainages is working when you're adding seven more units and and digging up.

Um just concerned about all of that.

Um, but I'm not I'm not opposed to the development.

I mean, that's fine.

I just think seven units is too many.

That's just my my own.

I think the size of the lot and the density.

We have condos next door to that, that there's not enough parking, and they park up on Cedar Street, and it's always congested over there.

And so I'm just just concerned about about the effects of all of that.

Um I know that um if you do approve the zone change, um, I just want to be able to make sure that they do get the the permits for RIDOT and DEM.

Um because of the the way the the land is um traffic per uh traffic uh traffic study, I think is very important.

Um we have many accidents at the post road cedar um corner there.

The people go right through the stop sign already.

Um there's a lot of speeding going down the hill, and they hit the stone wall in front of where the condos are being um proposed.

And um I'm just concerned about people coming in and out of post road, not only from Cedar, but also from where the proposed condos are for because there's one in, one out, one in, one out.

No, I know they I was just told that they are only making the one exit out, but people are still gonna go in and out.

They're not I mean it's unless you put little metal things to stop them from going in, they're gonna go in and out.

That just how it works with the parking lot.

Um let's see parking exit.

Um I guess you know that that's that's really it.

So I mean, if it is all approved today, I just really want to make sure that the permits are in order for RIDOT and DEM.

I think that's that's real, and then the one other thing.

Yes, it's not on the Historic Society, but it is a historic house.

The house is built in 1850, the house across the street is built in 1875.

The other house across the street is built in 18 something.

So there are a lot of historic houses around that area.

Yes, it's not on the registry.

My house isn't on the registry.

My neighbor's house isn't on the registry, but it is a historic house, and um, it's a shame that it would be destroyed to put the condos in.

That's it.

Miss a question.

Did you say the drainage currently in in that area is not working?

Or they say you're concerned going forward?

Horrible.

Um I've at some points at the bottom of my hill have had two to three feet of water.

Um when we had that big flood, it was four feet, maybe five.

It was all the way past my bushes up to my front yard.

So um the drains are never cleaned.

There's always uh it's oh whenever it rains, it floods, no matter what.

And there is one drain at the bottom of my hill, there's another drain to the left where the fire, the fire is, and there's no drains on the other side on the side where the condo is um where the proposed condos are being um proposed to be built.

So it's only on the the drainage is on the north side of post road, and um they're all clogged.

So I just get concerned about that with because they'll have to cut the cut the sidewalk, and now so when it rains, that water is gonna go down that hill into post road.

So it's gonna be an excess more of water coming down onto Post Road because this that side of the post road is higher built, so the water's got to go somewhere, and once you make a hill to go down because it's low on one end and high on the other, and once you make that thing to go down, then that water has to go somewhere.

So then the drainage would have to be taken care of there, or it ends up all coming down on our side of the road.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yep, and again, I'm not against it being built.

I just think there's too many units to accommodate the traffic around there.

Understood.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this project?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this project?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak against this project?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this project in general?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this project in general?

Is there anyone who wishes to speak on this project in general?

All right, seeing none, do we have a motion?

Councilman Gebhard move to close the public hearing.

Second, second of our councilman Ricks.

Is there any discussion?

Is that yes for discussion, Councilman Lattice, or or for the this motion or for all right?

So all in favor of closing the public hearing?

Aye.

All against any abstentions?

All right, so seeing all in favor and not against the hearings closed.

All right, so councilman Lattis, I saw your light go on.

Thank you.

Um a question for the applicant.

The lady that just um testified, she mentioned about three historical homes on that site in that area.

Are there any um permissions that are required from either the historical district commission or the National Historical Society or any other historical agency in order to demolish those buildings?

They're under no jurisdiction.

Um they can do whatever they want with the building.

It's not an historic district, it's not um a registered building, it's privately owned.

So they can do whatever they want.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Gebhardt.

Thank you.

Evening, Mr.

Resnick.

Umbe we start.

You said you had someone your your engineer here.

Yeah.

We'll definitely address drainage.

Um that's a question.

I I have a I have a few questions.

We need you to speak in the mic when you respond for the sake of the stenographer and those who are watching online.

Good evening.

Hi.

Good evening.

Would you mind just stating your name for the record?

Yes, Dana Nisbet, uh professional engineer with depreet engineering.

Hi, Dana.

Um, I uh so I I obviously I'm familiar with this property being in my ward.

Um the site plan itself, this site is set up uh higher off the road.

Um is that grade changing at all?

Uh or is it gonna remain at the same grade that it is, and then the driveway comes down through?

Yes, the idea would keep the grades as close to existing as possible.

So these buildings will sit higher up, uh, similar to what's there today.

And to preserve that stone wall that's along post road as much as possible, obviously, with with the exception of the driveway that will need to come out that will slope down to the road okay, and I think this question was actually asked answered by the speaker just prior to you, but the it the uh intent is for the the um the curb cut that happens on post-road that that would only be um an egress out of the of the property, and the the main ingress would be off of algorithm that will be an exit only onto post road, and that was coordinated with the fire marshal uh to allow the fire apparatus to get out of the site safely.

Got it.

Yeah, they don't they don't like to have those tight turnarounds in the back of the property, so that that does make sense.

Um in the in the back left portion of the drawing, is that dumpster?

Yes, it's a placeholder dumpster area shown with some screening and tucked back from the road and out of sight.

Yeah, I mean the the fortunate part of this particular site is that um to the uh west, you have um uh a general business zone, I believe, right?

It's the it's a doctor's office, uh and then uh uh on the on the back side of the property, I guess the north um is the railroad tracks, yeah.

Yes.

Do you need any sort of approval or or permissions from Amtrak or or no for construction?

Um we're well beyond the setbacks from that property line.

Um we've met all the landscape requirements too on on all property sides.

Okay, great.

And and maybe this is a question for Mr.

Resnick.

Um I think you mentioned this.

What what other relief is being requested in the petition?

I'm I'm sorry.

Well, what what other relief is being uh are there any other variances or any other dimensional relief?

Because the property is a corner, uh, and you know the setbacks uh the front setback.

So we we asked for um relief somewhere between four, three, four, and five feet in the rear and the sides, just so we can fit everything in.

Um is parking within that site setback also in the distance between the buildings again.

It was just a foot or two.

Very very minor.

Great, thank you.

Parking for the units.

Is that integral to the units?

Yes.

So can you speak into the mic for this for this then?

Thank you.

My voice is so loud that you can be.

I can be heard anyway.

Um there actually are 21 spaces, there's 14 surface parking spaces, and there's seven garages, one garage with each unit, which is an excess of the requirement of the uh town city.

Thank you.

And then uh Dana Um on stormwater is that is there any handling of stormwater?

You have to put in any kind of system here, are you able to handle the stormwater through landscaping and and the rest of the of the plan?

So, as Mr.

Resnick uh already spoke to, we will have to uh apply to DEM uh as well as DOT.

They'll both review the stormwater for the site.

We will have to design based on those regulations, which requires that you either meet or reduce the amount of runoff from the site.

Uh we're anticipating there'll be an underground infiltration system that would handle this stormwater.

Like a dry well or or a series of dry wells or something.

Okay.

Have fun digging over there.

Uh okay, I think that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant?

Or for the city for that matter.

Councilman Napa.

Just one quick question to either Mr.

Resnick or whomever can answer.

Um this is a private driveway to be maintained by the condo association, not to be maintained by the city as far as snow removal.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

This is a private driveway that's going to be maintained for snow removal and by the by the condo association.

That's the association's responsibility to take care of the roadway.

Thanks, sir.

Councilman Gephardt.

I knew I knew I had one, I forgot.

Um, would the applicant be opposed to putting any stipulations on the condo agreement in regards to the timing related to traffic pickup?

Something we encounter often with these where dumpsters are getting picked up at three or four o'clock in the morning, and then we end up with problems with the neighbors.

Often it can be really what give me an example of what uh I mean we can put restrictions, obviously not condos, but in regards to you delivery.

The dumpster pickup.

I I mean I'm sure we could do that.

Yeah, for an example.

So in my ward, there's a you tell me a time that you not before seven o'clock in the morning.

Absolutely.

Perfect.

Yeah, that's that's ideal because I had an issue in my ward where there was a dumpster company picking up at 5 a.m.

and waking up people across the road, as you can imagine.

So that's appreciated.

Could you do something about the kids speeding on low lane now?

We did it again last night.

It's really bad.

All right, talk about that.

So solicitors asking me to have you clarify what the hours would be when it comes to this uh issue that was just brought up.

I walked down not before seven o'clock in the morning.

I mean, I don't think anybody's picking up garbage at night, but it has to be between seven in the morning and nine at night.

Please speak into the mic for the record since the stenographer is here.

My notes are that the garbage cannot be picked up before seven o'clock in the morning.

If you want to have a night time, then we could do it.

It must be picked up between seven and eight at night.

That will defer to council McGeth or that that works for me.

All right.

Uh does the planning department have anything they want to add regarding the project in general?

Uh Tom Cravitt City Planning Director.

I'll just add that there is a 10 and A15 zoning surrounding the property.

The initial application came in at nine units, and we thought that was too much.

So to reduce it by two units on a site like this helps dramatically.

And uh it allowed the fire marshal to work with them to have a proper uh egress driveway on the northern side that you see out onto post.

So other than that, uh, we're supportive of the project.

Does anyone else wish to comment on this or have any questions?

All right.

Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Oh, wait, hold on one moment.

Sorry.

I just need one second on uh putting together an amendment rec uh suggestion for Councilman Gephardt's language.

So Councilman Gephardt moves an amendment to add a stipulation number five, which would be a prohibition on the collection of trash between the hours of eight PM and seven AM, except for emergency situations.

Is there a second on the proposed amendment?

Seconded by Councilman Muto.

Any discussion regarding the proposed amendment?

All right.

See none, we will the right to vote on the proposed amendment.

All right.

So clerk will please call the roll on the proposed amendment.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuise.

Mr.

Foley, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

And yes to amend.

All right.

This now stands before us as amended.

Do we have a motion or well first?

Yeah.

I was right the first time.

Do we have a motion?

I'll I'll move favorable action as amended.

Seconded by Councilman Muto, Councilman Latticer.

Is there any discussion on this as amended?

I'll just say this is a good project and uh happy to have more housing uh in the neighborhood.

Um this obviously has some more process to go through, but generally uh fits within the character of this stretch of post road and provides more housing opportunities.

So we're in favor.

Thank you.

All right.

So no lights on.

Uh clerk will please call the role on the motion for favorable action on this as amended.

Mr.

Sinapping, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Bowling, yes.

Yes, Mr.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Nine yes vote passes.

All right.

And I believe now at this point we're gonna hop back to committees specifically intergovernmental.

And Tyler, are you here by chance?

Tyler.

Maybe.

No?

Okay.

Worth a shot.

There we go.

Listen, this week left foot.

Time is now 810.

Intergovernmental comes to order.

We have no minutes.

Okay.

First up, we have two appointments to the historic district commission.

Mr.

Tyler Baum, are you in the building?

Okay.

This being a new appointment, we do require the uh the applicant to be present.

Um so I'm looking for a motion to hold this appointment uh to what the next reasonable meeting be five June first per leclerk to June 1st.

Motion to hold this till June 1st.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Uh similarly uh with Miss Greeley, I think we were aware that she was not going to be available tonight.

So looking for a motion to hold till June first.

Motion to hold to June first.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

PCR 1926, a resolution of the General Assembly providing 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.

However, it is back on our docket.

Any new commentary that we didn't have last time around from members of the committee.

No?

Okay.

Do you have any do you want to add anything else?

Do you want to add anything?

No.

We sent it to the floor last time about any any members of the council wish to add anything on this one?

No.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I'm uh I'm actually not entirely sure.

Councilman Ricks, uh, just check your microphone for us.

Let's see.

Okay, here we go.

Thank you.

Okay.

So yeah, I believe that uh this committee previously moved this to the floor without a recommendation that it was heard by the full council.

So I was actually not entirely certain why this one was still on the uh committee agenda, but given the support that it had before the full council last time, I would respectfully request uh recommendation uh with uh uh favorable action.

Okay, thank you, Councilman.

Any other comments?

Any members of the public have anything to add um on this uh resolution which uh would ask the General Assembly to add to the ballot uh an item that would require uh whether that would make a charter change requiring the city present uh annual financial statements with experts, public commentary as well as a five-year forecast.

Mayor I was just confused why I was in committee again, too.

Um the only comment I I'm not I don't object to the um to the proposed language at all.

I just don't know why it it's necessary to make a charter change instead of an ordinance.

We do the same thing.

I think it's a fair point, and I think that summarizes the discussion we had last time around.

Um I think we have it before us as a charter change.

Um we we did discuss um you know that in terms of uh signaling to the public that matters of you know the city finances are important to us, uh that you know all of them who vote seeing it on the ballot may indicate uh that um however uh I I don't know that we had strong feelings one way or another, uh, which I think um is why it went to the floor without recommendation.

So that's my recollection from our our past discussion.

uh signaling to the public that matters of you know the city finances are important to us uh that you know all of them who vote seeing it on the ballot may indicate uh that um however uh i i don't know that we had strong feelings one way or another uh which i think um is why it went to the floor without recommendation so that's my recollection from our our past discussion okay so come back in five minutes one more time come back in five minutes before the full council say the same thing uh well we'll see uh does anyone uh have a motion on this item can I make a just a quick note please you may so the the mayor stole my questionslash comment about uh this this being a charter change rather than an ordinance I'm similarly confused by that and I am worried in the long term from the perspective of it being a charter change just because the the charter is meant to be for things that are immutable things that aren't going to change like general bases rights etc and as we all know by the mere fact that three of these items are on our docket today uh our current charter has a lot of things that are probably aren't suited to be in it and it's causing us problems and as we we even had a special election where we had a few items that we changed because similarly causing us problems because there were things in there that probably shouldn't have been the best example being service on councilman where we were had to spend money each time we did a special meeting even though there was no real good purpose to do so.

It was just a waste of money but we had to because of the way the charter was written back then until we got it changed.

So I'm worried from the perspective of yes like this stuff is good what we're trying to do but doing it in the charter I have no idea for instance if 20, 30, 40 years from now if a five year forecast is actually going to be relevant.

I have no idea what's gonna happen in regards to these sort of financial analysis going forward.

I know that seems like something silly but there's plenty of things that are going on now in society that no one could have even fathomed decades ago the best example being cell phones being a thing.

Nobody even contemplated that possibility back then and now they are very much a thing.

Or even the charter change we did about service nobody contemplated email being an option.

So of course you had to tell somebody in person.

So there's I'm just not a huge fan of changing it in the charter that being said what it seeks to do if we take away the fact that it's a charter change is not a bad thing.

So just my two cents thank you council president do we have a motion from the committee councilman latter.

Councilman Latticer I'll come to I'll come to you thank you Mr.

Chairman um so on its face I um concur with councilman riks I think it's um absolutely necessary to have a requirement that the financial status and audit results are formally uh presented to the city council in a public hearing which allows for public question and comments as to where the city stands as a whole I'm not totally sure that um it would require a charter change um perhaps um an ordinance would do what the sponsor as well as myself as a co-sponsor is um proposing and what our intent is so I would tend to lean that way but either way I think that this city council needs to take action so that that those reports and those people are here to um let all of taxpayers know where we stand let them know or I should say have the opportunity to ask the questions.

Thank you.

Thank you uh councilman uh councilman Napa I was just gonna say that um we over the last couple of years we sent a number of things up to the state house and it's easy to forget how busy they are doing the types of work that they're doing and then when they get certain things from us we tend to get a lot of questions of like why why is this coming to us this seems like something you could have handled um in the city you know with an ordinance um and and then of course they may get inquiries and commentary uh when they are hearing this item that if we are not there to answer may not carry this the context of the deliberations and discussions that we've had here um so I think that's just another uh thing to consider um you know if the sponsor it sounds like at least one third of the sponsors are open to uh converting this uh to an ordinance and and putting it uh on the books um and I I haven't heard any uh from the administration through the council um anyone who is in opposition to annually this type of financial house housekeeping so um I would urge the sponsors to consider uh an alternative tact on this um because it sounds like we

Um, you know, if the sponsor, it sounds like at least one third of the sponsors are open to uh converting this uh to an ordinance and and putting it uh on the books.

Um, and I I haven't heard any uh from the administration through the council, um, anyone who is in opposition to annually this type of financial house housekeeping.

So um I would urge the sponsors to consider uh an alternative tact on this, um, because it sounds like we we probably have a win there.

Um councilman Napa.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Just to caveat off of what you said.

Um, if the sponsors would also consider if this is vested in an ordinance rather than a charter change, it would give us a greater opportunity to sort of tailor this with language such as timing of these presentations, how we like to represent it if we get presentation number one and we decide at presentation number two, it would have been really nice to have X, Y, and Z, and maybe we can further change and amend ordinance at that point to kind of hone this in as the process goes along over the next several years.

So um, I would also echo your your thoughts about if the if the sponsors would consider amending this to an ordinance, we could probably make it more functional for the city at our city level rather than bolly it up to the state.

Thank you, councilman.

Uh councilman Ricks, what say you.

Thank you.

So uh, if I may, through the chair.

Uh reason for structuring this.

Well, I'll back up a moment, uh, to address the concerns of Councilman Latiser and Napa as this uh as this item was drafted, it was very much intentionally drafted to be a very uh vanilla version without great specificity as to exactly what would satisfy the uh five-year forecast and presentation.

So there's nothing in there that limits us from adding some toppings or uh uh additional flavors, if you will, on top of that uh vanilla baseline.

But uh to address some concerns that were also raised by the council president as well.

I think that we can all agree that at least as of the present moment, it is important for us to have this uh type of five-year forecast and the like.

And for the foreseeable future, I think that that's important for us to continue to have.

I agree that it's impossible to completely predict the future.

I doubt that at the time it was originally elected, we would have imagined that we'd go to remote council meetings for what was it, a year over a year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We didn't see that one coming.

But I would certainly think that for decades into the future, it's going to continue to be necessary for us to have this type of five-year forecast presented to us a month before the budget hearings, so long as we continue to have budget hearings as a city council.

And I can't imagine the city council continuing as it is under the city charter without us having budget hearings.

So some things change, some things don't.

I would also say, too, in response to the uh particular item about service being by constable in hand traditional service, uh, that being part of the city council charter, or the city charter, rather, for many years.

That at the time that was in there for a very good purpose because at that time there really was no good alternative, and it was a very good protection for us as a city council members to make sure that we were getting that actual notice of council meetings.

So it is possible.

Times do change.

It's not going to be very often that we need to have a change to the city charter due to the times changing.

I don't think that this particular change would be something that we'd need to revisit because of future technology, because we should all continue to be trying to look a few years ahead of time in advance of uh budget hearing.

But let's see.

Uh pardon me, I had one more thought there.

Yes.

Yeah, I think that where the real benefit of this as a change to the charter comes, as opposed to simply an ordinance, is that it gives accountability back to the voters, back to the people of Warwick, that precisely because an ordinance is something that is relatively easy to change.

A future city council could get elected, change the ordinance, first and second passage, all before the required budget presentation.

Uh so for that reason, I think that as a matter of making sure that uh the people of Warwick, the voters know that this is a hard requirement there in the city charter.

Give them the that accountability.

I think it's uh fair and reasonable for us to put this on the ballot for their consideration.

And if they were to say that uh, hey, we don't need to have this additional verbiage in the city charter.

Uh we should uh we we don't want uh these kinds of things showing up on the ballot, then they can always vote it down.

But I think that it would probably pass because it's the sort of thing that uh people want to make sure that uh this kind of presentation isn't there just for us, nine members of the council, but also there is a public hearing where they get to hear the and see the presentation, and they get to weigh in with public comment, or otherwise make sure that there is that opportunity for them to call up, email whatever future form of communication there is to their uh city council members in the future.

So uh that's why I think that this is one of those rare occasions where something that could be an ordinance could be a charter change.

Rare instance where I'd say a charter change is warranted.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Uh, I'm gonna go to the public now.

Uh any members of the public wish to offer comment.

Jeremy Langel, Ward 5.

Sounds like I missed a riveting meeting of the lesson this was discussed.

I think moving this to an ordinance makes perfect sense.

I would be I just the charter needs to be the kind of the big ideas, protect the essential things.

Um, but I think an ordinance makes sense.

Uh I mean, conversely, um, I can appreciate the role of direct democracy.

Um, but we also elect you all to represent us to make decisions and pass ordinances and those kinds of things.

So I think it cuts both ways in terms of how we how you all utilize the power and the authority that we have given you to make these kinds of decisions.

So um, given the complicated path that this would likely take at the State House, an ordinance is something that you all can do quickly and get it done.

And I have no doubt that people will be here to hold you all accountable.

Thanks.

Thank you, sir.

Uh I that that last thought um that you know the the people elected us to uh to shepherd some of these decisions through, I think uh is salient.

So thank you for for making it.

Um, you know, uh seems like this is trending towards um an ordinance.

So I'd be looking for uh an unfavorable recommendation uh if there was uh one to be had so we can move this back into an ordinance uh where it likely belongs.

And is there any motion among the committee?

Mr.

Chair, just for clarification, would we have to vote this as unfavorable to reseed it in another committee?

Or would we can we offer an amendment here through the committee?

I don't know if this is because this was entered as a as a resolution.

Um it would uh it would need to be withdrawn or struck down and then reset redocketed as an ordinance.

Okay, just for clarity, uh I will make the motion for unfavorable.

However, I am fully supportive of the premise of this whole agreement.

This you know, five-year forecast public hearing, get it in front of the public, make sure that they have an opportunity to speak.

All of that sounds great.

I I feel strongly as though this is more appropriate for an ordinance that we govern here at the city level and not volley it up.

So I would make a motion for unfavorable action based only on that circumstance.

Got it.

Yeah, so the the content solid, the mechanism, uh maybe could use some work.

Um do we have a second second all in favor?

Aye.

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Next up, PCR 20-26.

A resolution to the General Assembly requesting amendment of the Warwick City Charter to provide for council advice and consent for Charter Article 8 or appointments.

We did have uh extensive discussion uh last time around.

Um I believe the intent of uh did we did we actually move this last time, solicitor?

Uh no.

No.

Okay.

These are please uh take any uh testimony of the committee and um proceed.

Okay.

Uh the my summary of my recollections from last time was that um there were considerable challenges in uh uh requiring advice and consent on every uh mayoral uh appointment slash hire uh to the administration.

Um, but there was general consensus uh across the group um through our discussion that um uh requiring advice and consent on on all uh committees uh boards, etc.

Um, was something that was favorable both for the administration as well as for the council.

Um, and I believe that at some point tonight uh there may be an amendment uh to that effect.

Um but uh open to uh if any of the members of the committee have anything to say along those lines.

Councilman Mito.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh I agree with uh your summary is that I think we had some good legs last time, and uh I thought I I believe uh as a discussion it was leaning that way for boards and commissions, uh, but not with uh mayoral hires.

So great, thank you.

With um something I didn't think about the last time, Chairman.

If I may you may okay, um, should I identify myself?

I never know.

Um, the Board of Public Safety.

This is a unique board.

It's unlike all the other ones, the other one's like a branch of government, planning, zoning, all of that.

The Board of Public Safety can actually set policy for the police and fire department.

Those are departments that I run.

I don't know why we have a board of public safety.

I don't know why it's set up the the same way, but um, I I would like to make that one exclusive for the rest of the boards because I have to work with them, it's very important.

I put the kind of people there that we can work together.

I mean, currently I have a retired fireman, retired policeman, and a businessman.

So it covers all of their um all of their uh work, you know, everything they deal with licenses, businesses, they do um disability pensions for the fire department.

So this is a very unique board.

So um, you know, I would rather keep that separate than the other ones.

Chairman, if I may.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh Council President.

So the solicitor uh I asked if you could prepare a potential amendment based on the last meeting, and he was able to do so.

Although that being said, it sounds like we want to put an exception to it for at least one board in there, but but he was able to do so in a way that will allow us flexibility too.

So similar with my comments on the last item, so that we're not locked into something and then we have to change it years later because something else changed.

But solicitor, uh, I don't know the if you're allowed to read it now or if we have to wait till the full floor.

Uh if the if the committee would indulge my um sense is that we shouldn't handle any varying amendments that may be offered by the members of the council at the full council level.

So if they would have interest in uh just taking any other public testimony at the time and put perhaps uh sending the matter to the floor with no recommendation.

It could advance us along this evening and get to the actual amendments rather than duplicating the effort um amongst the nine of you.

Good.

Uh okay, um I'm open to that.

So uh I will um go to members of the public.

Do any members of the public have anything to add uh in terms of this PCR 20-26?

Members of the public.

Seeing none.

Any members of the committee have anything to add that we haven't already heard um or that wouldn't be more appropriate for uh on the floor.

Members of the council, uh something specific here, knowing that we're gonna hear an amendment in a little bit.

Certainly.

So uh specifically, I had briefly talked with the mayor and chief of staff earlier this evening.

We are not completely in agreement, but there are some things that we do agree on.

I would be fine with striking the board of public safety from this and keeping that process exactly as it is.

Uh really I think the area where uh we're working towards a compromise is to uh certain department head positions that are not currently in existence, but maybe created in the future by future mayors, and other persons who receive a salary in excess of the mayor's salary, who are appointed by the mayor, of which there are currently none.

However, this is really a prophylactic measure to make sure that uh those types of abuses uh cannot happen by future mayors, because under the current city charter, if a future mayor were to uh decide to budget for a salary and pay a salary that's in excess of their own salary, the city council couldn't actually do anything about it.

And I think that that's uh type of an issue that the city council should have control over.

That's not happening right now, but it is a concern fine.

That's my comments for now.

Thank you, Councilman.

It's worth noting that just about every department director makes more than the mayor.

Um yeah, rub that in.

Certainly, certainly not advocating for a for a pay raise.

Um uh, but uh but but a lot would fall into that category.

Just a comment.

Um councilman, we read his proposed amendments.

I'm not saying there was any kind of uh um discussion.

I said we would read them.

It's we weren't compromising anything because I saw it very quickly, it's very long, and a lot of it I didn't like because it was still the same thing.

People would have to come here to be hired.

And the mayors have the flexibility to create um a position.

I don't know if it's been done in the past, but um uh the the plaza is uh a good example of that.

Those positions had to be created.

Um, so I would have to absorb everything he sent us.

It was pretty lengthy.

But I I'm not saying that I would agree to it, probably wouldn't.

But I I would I did say I would look at it, not dismiss it out of hand.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Uh at this point, um, would we uh I've gone to the public already, public anyone else from the public have anything to add?

Um I why don't we move this to the floor without recommendation and we can discuss amendments or any other changes afterwards?

Uh do I have a motion?

A motion to move to the floor without a recommendation.

Second six three.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye, aye.

Okay.

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

Uh we did have brief discussion on this one last time.

Yeah, very brief.

Very brief.

Um as we have other items that we've moved to the floor.

Uh, we could of course move this one uh as well.

Um councilman, would you have any objection to holding your comments to the floor?

Uh yes, thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, no, yes, you would have no objections.

Uh correct.

I would have no objection.

In fact, thank you.

I think that it would be appropriate on the floor for it to be held.

Okay.

Uh to June 1st.

But okay.

It can be moved to the floor first.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh well this we just said he wants it held first.

Oh, you would like this held.

Sorry, I you buried the lead there on me.

Uh to be clear, I think that it would be simplest uh for at the committee stage for this to be moved to the floor, just so that it's accompanying the other two.

But uh I think that once it does get to the floor, once we're in front of the full city council meeting, I just want to broadcast here that uh I would intend to request for it to be held until June 1st as discussions are ongoing.

Okay.

Hearing that the sponsor wants to hold it, June for us.

I make the motion to hold it.

Mr.

Chairman, second.

All in favor.

Oh, sorry.

Councilman.

Thank you.

Um just for a point of interest to through the chair to councilman riks.

I would have a problem holding this until June 1st, because by June 1st, the General Assembly is ready to go home.

So we need to get their permission before you can get anything on the ballot.

So I just wanted to remind you of that.

Um, whatever your privilege is, you're the prime sponsor, but um just a reminder.

I I thank you, Councilman.

I think that's a it is a valid point.

Um, however, I think in our brief discussion that we had at our last meeting, there is an and from personally what I've heard from the public is that you know this is a very large change that's being proposed um with sort of wide reaching potential impacts.

Um and it sounds like we're uh at least from you know the councilman's willingness to hold um that we could take our time uh with this one um and make sure that when we do go to the general assembly, be it this session or a subsequent session, um, that this is fully vetted.

Um chair, if I may uh question it to the city council solicitor without holding you liable for this.

Uh generally speaking, I would imagine that it might be better to send it to the General Assembly within the month of May.

But what what would you be your sense of whether we have until the June 1st meeting or not if we were to act on this?

Thank you, Councilman.

If I knew the end of the assemblies uh C Nedai uh for the session, I'd be a wiser man than I am.

Um it's hard to project when the General Assembly is going to end historically.

Uh, they have been most recently concluding but not formally adjourning the business uh around the third week of June.

Um that said, uh a new item sent to them on the June 1st is theoretically possible, but somewhat challenging.

Um you would have to clear hearings.

Uh but legislation from municipalities are not prohibited in the same manner of other late introductions under their rules.

So it's a theory uh that is a difficult road.

Um, but it's hard to say when the legislature actually adjourts.

We've had date years where and in the within the last decade where it's adjourned and come back for special actions later in the year.

Um however unlikely that may be, it's very hard to predict councilman.

Uh thank you.

Uh perhaps moving it to the floor for discussion, seeing if we get anywhere.

Uh I won't keep you any longer in the committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Lattiser.

Mr.

Chairman, I can't wait until it comes to the floor.

Thank you, Councilman.

Okay, with that, do we have a motion?

Motion to move to the floor for discussion.

Uh we have a motion to hold on the table.

Do we have a second on that motion?

Oh, I'll withdraw that motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Um, so then if the motion to hold is not on the table, then I will go to the public.

Any members of the public have anything to add uh Chairman Andrew, Ward 5.

Uh sorry I'm sent written testimony in uh also on behalf of the work neck elementary PTA, uh, also in Ward 5.

Um, we're opposed to this uh charter.

Um, but we're not opposed to um having a study commission, which is actually what we think would be the appropriate next step for this body.

Uh as you know, I think going to uh the state house with something that's been well thought out, well researched, uh, where we have looked at how other city councils organize their school committees and so forth.

I think that that's a prudent strategy.

I will say, as written, I think there are problems dividing um currently wards four, five, and six are in are in one um seat for lack of a better word.

Uh, but the wording on this would essentially allow uh three people from that cohort, but you could have three people from ward six, or you could have three people from ward four, which would not be equitable distribution if you live in ward five.

Um my reading of it, you could have a married couple.

From I I think that that would be problematic as well.

Uh so I I would have some questions about, you know, would these be competitive seats?

Right?

I mean, are we gonna have good candidates?

So I think that there are a lot of questions.

Again, in principle, I think actually we do need to have a study commission on this.

I think that that's your path forward.

I would mark this unfavorable and then move into you know doing something else.

So uh I have other thoughts on that.

It's been a long evening, uh, but I just wanted to make sure um that you understood that in principle that we don't have necessarily uh an issue with this idea of exploring a uh a more robust uh school committee, and that needs to be done in coordination, I think, with a lot of community members, including parents and including PTA and PTO leaders.

There are 13 PTOs and PTAs at our elementary schools, uh, Winman, Vets, uh, Tollgate and Pill Group.

So there are a lot of people who care about this, and I think this is a it's too rash now to try and get up to the state house.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Any other members of the public.

Good evening.

Hi, Darling Netco Ward 7.

In addition to the comments that I made in the public comment for the whole city council meeting, I just want to add, based on the conversation that you all just had, that it is way too late in the General Assembly's process to introduce something new to them.

Um the budget commission last year you introduced in January, and it was approved in April.

That's a couple of months time to go before committees to hear to take public comment and testimony in front of committees.

They're wrapping things up now.

The proper time to introduce legislation into the General Assembly is in January or February.

It's too rushed now.

There's no need to rush this.

If there is to be any change, it needs to be well thought out and not rushed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Necho.

Okay.

Uh we've heard from members of the public.

Any other members of the public have anything to add?

Okay, we've heard from members of the public, we've heard from the committee.

Um, do we have a motion?

Motion to move to the floor without recommendation.

We'll move with no recommendation.

Uh four, six.

All in favor?

Aye.

No.

No.

Three one.

Motion passes.

Um it's now eight forty-seven and intergovernmental is adjourned.

Ms.

President, request a five-minute recess.

Yes, please.

What is the city going to do with the with this potential increase in revenue?

Which is that five million?

What will the final cross be to the taxpayers if we continue to use Bond Premium?

Councilman, sir.

I'm not trying to nothing's wrong with what you're saying, but there's a problem with the audio.

And I know you specifically stated you want it to be on record.

I do.

So what is the long-term plan?

Is there one?

Or do we intend to fly by the seat of our pants?

Do we continue to rob Peter to pay Paul and hope that everything fixes itself?

Or are we willing to take on the tough flights?

Make the unpopular decisions and stop the financial hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars.

The school department has recognized they have one.

Now it's the city's turn.

The problem as I see it is out of control spending, not revenue.

The five million we're talking about can be found by cutting approximately 1.3 million dollars from our three hundred current 380 million dollar budget.

And here are my suggestions.

And I put emphasis on suggestions.

One, start by reorganizing OPEB to something that has an attainable and a sustainable funding source.

Let's not lock into a five million dollar per year idea for four years without knowing how and if we're going to pay for it.

Two, buy only equipment we need as opposed to what we want.

Three, this is a shared sacrifice.

The key word is shared.

So let's open up all contracts for concessions and shared sacrifices.

The financial burden cannot and should not be only on the taxpayers.

You can't say you oppose tax increases but refuse to share the pain.

Only to end up closing them.

I presented a plan to build one state-of-the-art high school at least eight years ago when it was shot down.

Building two schools was never a necessity based upon student population.

Reducing staffing, reduce staffing as it applies to these additional school closures.

Six reduce the city, reduce the 90 sick days teachers currently have to 10 and pay their temporary disability insurance.

Let's eliminate excuses and do what financially makes sense.

The school department needs to stop using this as a slush fund.

Seven, eliminate the 5% increased cap that is in place for a fire department health care premiums.

Healthcare is projected to increase this year by approximately 18% from what I've been told.

Currently, and using round numbers, the annual cost of a family plan is approximately $26,000.

An 18% increase would be $4,680 per family.

The most we can increase this is 5%, which is $260.

So that means the remaining will have to be borne by all the taxpayers, including seniors, veterans, and other retirees who have to pay the remainder of that amount.

The most unsustainable cost to the taxpayers is our health care and legacy costs.

This is what is bringing the city to the point of no return, even if some people refuse to recognize this.

Suggestions from the past to current day.

A we need to increase the employee health care co-pay for all employees from 20% to a minimum of 25%.

Increase the cap on prescription drugs, which is a huge portion of our expenses from a yearly employees' contribution.

Increase that to $2,000 cap on prescription drugs for single plan and $4,000 on a family plan.

C eliminate free lifetime health care for new hires.

I stress new hires, and add a minimum copay of 10% on current retirees with a pension over 50,000 per year, or at a minimum a 20% copay on all new hires when they retire.

When I first proposed this back in 2018 or so, this would have saved the taxpayers over $4 million per year.

Think about that.

That's um to date about $32 million.

This isn't a short-term problem that is going to be eliminated with a band-aid approach or robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It's going to take people who are ready and willing to stop postponing the inevitable.

Stop waiting for the next person to stop the bleeding and make the tough decisions now.

I have been ready and remain ready to make that decision.

And for those reasons, Mr.

President, I will be voting no on this OPEB plan.

Thank you for your indulgence.

All right.

Does anyone else have anything they wish to say that?

I know we, as Councilman DeLouise correctly pointed out, we spent hours discussing this topic previously.

It was just that Council Matasha got left out somewhat last time because of timing.

So this was his opportunity to state his peace.

Does anyone else have anything?

All right.

So seeing that Mayor, do you want to just a couple of comments?

We're not stealing from Peter Paul Molaria Curly.

This is money that was budgeted and has been all along to go into the um municipal pension.

We've reached the point where we'd no longer need to put it in there.

The proper analogy is you just paid off your car payment.

You were gonna put it into a 401k, but you need a new roof.

So you're not gonna you're gonna use the money for the next four years to do that.

I have a lot of other comments, but I'm gonna hold them.

I we're just talking about this one particular thing.

Um this is the most prudent course.

I want to commend again.

I I told him personally, Councilman Muto, because my biggest concern was replenishing the fund balance at the end of four years.

And he made that amendment addresses both problems or concerns.

So I this is just the way to go.

We don't want to deplet uh depletion the um fund balance over the next four years when we need it.

We need to rely on it.

All right, seeing no lights.

Uh clerk will please call the roll on the motion for favorable action.

Wait, did we have?

Oh, I apologize.

I'm conflating it with the other one.

In that case, we need a motion for us to be able to continue.

Move favorable action.

Second.

All right, motion made by Councilman Gephardt, seconded by Councilman Napa.

Any further discussion?

All right, seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Boley, yes, yep.

Yes, Herbie, Mr.

Laddester, no, Mr.

Mudo, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rex.

No.

Seven two second passage.

All right, next is PCO 8-26, an ordinance establishing a real estate non-utilization tax.

So this is the request.

Well, well, I'm the sponsor.

I requested to be held till July 6th, so the solicitor has time to make this specific to commercial, as was the intent.

Any objection to holding till July 6th?

Seeing none, so held.

Next is PCR 19-26 uh resolution to 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.

This is Councilman Gebhard intergovernmental.

Uh yes, this went down, uh came to the floor with uh unfavorable recommendation.

Uh, not on the content, uh however, just on the mechanism of using a charter change.

The recommendation from the committee was that this be redocketed as an ordinance uh and include everything, if not more than what was in the original uh uh resolution.

So for action, councilman Gebhardt.

Move move on favorable.

Okay, second.

Somebody second, I didn't see all right, Councilman Napa.

All right, so discussion.

Ideally, that wasn't had in committee already.

Councilman Latticer.

Um, yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

I will be voting um yes on this item because I am not willing to sit here and speculate or assume that an ordinance um will be coming down the road.

So to do nothing and just sit and wait is not where I'm going.

Um I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to go, but that's what's on the table, and that's what's before me now.

So I'll be voting no on.

I'm sorry, I'll be voting yes on this um resolution.

If and when a ordinance comes before us to reflect these same items, I'll vote yes on that too.

Thank you.

So just so we're clear, yeah.

You mean you're gonna vote no on the unfavorable action because you want to vote yes on the underlying resolution, right?

Say again, right now before us is unfavorable action.

So if you vote yes, you're you're voting to shoot it down.

Oh, thanks for that correction.

So I will be voting no.

All right.

Council president, a point of order.

Yep.

Even though we have this before us tonight as a resolution.

Is there anything stopping anyone from this honorable body for docketing an ordinance tonight?

No, nothing.

That is that is that has the same language as the resolution, or do we have to get rid of the resolution and then dock an amendment?

I mean dock it an ordinance.

So just order of operations, you we can't dock anything until the docket session.

But as far as so the short answer is no, we can't docket it during this discussion.

We can later tonight, though.

So to protect against an ordinance maybe never coming, we could just dock it tonight.

Correct.

Good.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

So we don't run into any OMA issues.

I'm not asking anyone to comment on the ordinance.

I'm just going to state that I've written up a docketing memo for an ordinance to the same effect.

But we're not talking about an ordinance, because that could get us into an open meetings act violation, even if the substance is exactly the same as the item that is in front of us here this evening, because we all love the nuances of the open meetings act.

So on this particular point, for the very for those reasons that I discussed in committee, I truly do think that and uh the very reason why I introduced this as a change to the charter when first docking this that was not on a whim.

I think it is very important for us to have this baked into the city charter, give the people of Warwick an opportunity to vote on this yay or no, and basically allow the people of Warwick to have this permanently, or at least as permanently as can be, as a right that they have to receive this particular information at a public hearing, open it to public comment, and otherwise uh broadcast in any way that we may hold or broadcast meetings in the future.

I can certainly understand the uh the concerns about uh willy-nilly bringing all sorts of things into the charter that could just as easily be in the uh the code of ordinances, but I think that this is one of those rare items where a charter change is very much warranted.

So I had my my more detailed comments in committee and at the previous meeting.

I'll leave it at that and hope that at least five agree.

Thank you.

All right.

So in addition to my previous comments, uh I have no reason to repeat them.

I I will note that unlike the well, you know what?

There's no more lights.

I'll just let my prior comments stand with what they are.

Clerk will please call the roll on the motion for unfavorable action.

Mr.

Sinabin?

Yes, Mr.

DeLouis, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Getboss.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Mr.

Navarro, yes.

No.

All right.

Next we have PCO 20-26, a resolution on the General Assembly requesting amendment of the Warwick City Charter to provide for council advice typo advice and consent for charter article eight mayoral appointments intergovernmentals, councilman Gebhardt.

Uh yes, the committee sent this with no recommendation to the floor.

Right.

Yeah.

Could you repeat that, please?

I think solicitor, can we can we do can we introduce the proposed amendment at this time?

Uh Council President Sinapi is looking for someone to make a motion to amend the item before you in a manner that would delete all of the proposed changes and make the corresponding adjustments to the whereas clauses, but to make one item be sent to the voters, and this would be adding a new 8 23, which would be about council advice and consent to boards and commissions.

And this would be adding a new 8-23, which would be about council advice and consent to boards and commissions.

And the new language being inserted would say.

Notwithstanding any provisions of this charter to the contrary, except for the board of public safety, the city council may enact ordinances that subject mayoral appointments to the city boards and commissions.

To the advice and consent of the city council.

So the changes would be that it uh and and send a corresponding uh question to the voters that says I'm sorry, we had to make this amendment from the discussion.

Shall the city council be authorized to enact ordinances that subject uh mayoral appointments to city boards and commissions except for the board of public safety to the advice and consent of the city council.

So before we can talk about that, someone actually has to move it and then it has to be seconded.

Is that a is that a move finger?

So council moves it.

Do we have a second second by council and me do uh so discussion?

Uh bear in mind it's worded that way to try to avoid the problem we're currently having, where we we note it for some of the other potential charter changes where if we just said, yeah, council gets advice and consent on everything but board of public safety, but then years down the line, we're like, oh wow, that was this was actually a this is a problem.

We've made an issue out of something that wasn't an issue.

This gives us the flexibility of making those specifics via ordinance so we can change them as the need arises down the line, however, it may or may not.

Uh and my request for this was to draft this was based on the last meeting where it seem it seemed based on what I was hearing, and that the body was comfortable with that approach to this particular item.

Uh granted you all may do with it what you wish.

Uh and my understanding is that the administration was comfortable with that approach as well.

But again, feel free to have backseats.

We're not familiar with that ordinance.

I mean that amendment.

So this was at the last meeting where you stated you were comfortable with having advice and consent on appointments for the council.

This just codifies that the only change we did on the spot was to the exception for the board of public safety, so that that didn't get taken away.

So you'll keep that one and the rest will be advice and consent.

So for everyone's edification, the concept is focusing on much of what we've been doing on prior updates to the charter to provide the council appropriate flexibility to step into this role rather than always having to go back and revisit the charter change.

So what this would enable is if if the language is adopted, it would allow for the council with the exception of Board of Public Safety.

We would if approved by the assembly and by the voters, the council would have discretion to take up ordinance changes that established for specific matters, which boards and commissions you would apply that to.

The only exception from tonight's discussion was to separate the board of public safety from that uh charter request.

But it would allow for this body and you know, in the future to be able to decide other than the board of public safety which city boards and commissions it would be appropriate to subject mayoral appointments to the advice and consent of the council.

And I should be clear, I apologize if I I wasn't trying to imply that administration or anyone else actually looked at the language of this, considering I only saw the language when I walked in today.

So no one, it wasn't possible that for someone to be comfortable with the language.

This is all based on just statements made at the last meeting.

I'm saying people seem to agree in concept based on the public meeting, but again, time has passed since then, so I fully understand if people have changed their mind, or if now after hearing the specifics, they're no longer fond of the concept.

So dealers choice.

Yeah, I I don't remember the specifics it was talked about because there are a few that we'd have to talk about, like personnel hearing board.

There's one exception.

Go ahead.

Personnel hearing board doesn't exist.

Correct.

So he's he's trying to read he's trying to interpret my my handwriting.

Um I'm not exactly sure what sections of the ordinance you've removed because there's a lot, there's a lot of whereas.

Um also 8 19 additional boards talks about um any created by executive order.

Um boards and commissions or executive order groups ad hoc need to meet quickly and to have those subjected to advice and consent of the council is contrary to their intent.

Um, except then 8-20 additional departments.

I'm not sure if 8-23 is still in.

I don't know what you changed.

The thank you, Chief.

The amendment cleans out a lot of the whereas to essentially only state a couple of facts, it removes references to departments and employ employees and focuses in um the you know, the first couple are just the general authorities of how the process works, and then it would go into um whereas some article eight mayoral appointments to the city boards and commissions require the advice and consent of the city council, including the board of canvaser members, zoning board of review members, and board of assessment review members, and whereas some of the article eight mayoral appointments to city boards and commissions do not require the advice and consent of the city council, including and we would um limit that down to the planning board and additional boards members.

Um those would be the types of references that would be cleaned up in the whereas clauses, all the other proposed changes to the specific items that are in the draft in front of you.

Uh all those items would be removed from making any changes.

The only thing that would be inserted would be adding this language saying council advice and consent to boards and commissions, notwithstanding any provisions of this charter, the contrary, except for the board of public safety, the city council may enact ordinances that subject may all appointments to this city boards and commissions to the advice and consent of the city council.

So we would only be adding one sentence altogether.

So would that be advisory committees established by the mayor?

It would apply to boards and commissions.

So established boards and commissions, not executive order advisory committees.

The mayor wants to establish a blue ribbon task force to look at something.

Um I think the intent is to capture the boards and commissions codified in the uh title eight of the orticle eight of the charter, uh, with additional those codified in the code of ordinances.

I think we could certainly entertain language that further clarified that to only being those boards and commissions that are either established or um codified in the charter or the code of ordinances.

So that would separate out any advisory things that are not subject to being formally codified in the code of ordinances.

Some of these are already in the charter.

There are others that are created in the code of ordinances.

That would be one potential way to clarify.

Right.

But the the advisory committees can be established by the mayor by executive order, and he's protected by the charter, creating the advisory committees by executive order at some future time, not this council, not the next council, but could change it by ordinance, requiring that any advisory committee, any executive order committee um requires advice and consent by ordinance.

Uh if it's not and if it's not codified in the code, I don't think it would be applicable.

So that wouldn't that power wouldn't extend that far unless it was formally put in to the code of ordinances.

So I think there is a separation of powers buffer here.

Doesn't the amendment create or allow for the council to create additional requirements for advice and consent through ordinance, other than board of public safety.

The intent is to only capture city boards and commissions.

Um as proposed, as we could certainly qualify that further with boards and commissions codified in either the charter or the code of ordinances that would not extend to any um executive powers that exist independent of the council formally amending the code of ordinances, but that would require some language tweak as just discussed.

Um this has suddenly gotten very complicated, and um as it stands, I'd have to oppose this until I talk to my solicitor and see what the ramifications is would be.

I mean, we I thought we were talking last meeting about established boards like planning department, anyone any of the ones um that you don't have advice and consent on, but this goes far beyond that.

I mean, we do boards all the time.

We have a recreation board to do uh events, things like that.

It's just very confusing right now.

That's not that wouldn't fall under this, though, right?

Because that's okay, we're just gonna do it for an ordinance, they can change it.

So basically we would need to make it clear that it doesn't apply to the ones enacted by executive action.

We we can certainly update the amendment such that it is being more specific or limited only to those boards and commissions codified in the code of ordin uh in the charter or in the code of ordinances, and we could also put other clarifying language that this shall not apply to executive advisory boards, committees, etc.

Yeah, and I apologize that none of us have the language for us, even I don't, in fact.

So it makes this somewhat more complicated, and it's just the nature of these proposed charter changes, the timing somewhat constrains our normal process.

I mean, I I have I certainly don't have an objection to making it clear that it's not supposed to apply to the to the ad hoc ones.

Uh because it wasn't the the point was not to capture those.

But uh all right, so we got lights, councilman Latticer.

I saw yours before, and then we'll do councilman rich's so what we have I don't know, it's a little over 200 line items in this particular PCR.

And I can tell you for sure, I'm not clear as to what line items were eliminating, what's being included.

What I do know is as you heard me say at the last meeting, um, never never afraid to say that people present things in a different spin and change my mind.

And Mayor Picosy did that at the last meeting when he started to speak about um the city council having advice and consent or control uh over his staff.

I don't think that would be um a good move.

I think that whether it's this mayor or mayors in the future, I think they should have that authority to select and choose their own uh department heads, their own chief of staff, etc.

So I'm not sure if everything that is being eliminated out of this takes that out, and all we have is just these boards and commissions excluding the um board of public safety.

That's correct, Councilman Lassie.

So it it take takes all the spin that I happen to agree with in this case would be out.

Correct.

So it only does the boards and commissions, it leaves out of the PCA.

It would it's proposed to remove from PCR 20-26 all the parts about the employees over a hundred thousand dollars and department heads that would all come out.

So the advice and consent would come from or come to us regarding boards and commissions uh excluding board of public safety.

Correct.

And what is the reason for excluding the board of public safety?

So that that only arose tonight.

Uh the mayor had pointed out why the board of public safety being included would be a problem.

So I I defer to his explanation.

I don't I don't want to wrongly paraphrase it.

Mayor, could you repeat that, please?

I think that's that.

The Board of Public Safety is different.

Uh the planning board, the zoning board, they're like the different branch of government.

The the uh Board of Public Safety can actually make policies for the fire department and the police department.

The departments that I run.

Well, I you know, they under me.

So it's a different kind of relationship there.

The planning department can't do anything about the way the city operates, the way personnel operates, the board of public safety can.

That's why I'd like them to be exclusive of the rest of the boards.

I don't even really know why we have a board of public safety.

They I think they were put in place of a police commit and police and fire commission, public safety commissioner back in the day.

But it it's a really weird situation and balance.

It's something the mayor has to work very closely with them on, as well as the fire and police chief.

I understand the mayor's reasoning for you have any further questions?

No, that's no rix.

Yeah, so I have no objections to this as a baseline.

Uh I mean, actually, it might all make all of our jobs more difficult because for instance, then we're creating our for ourselves the same set of uh conflicts and OMA issues that would that we currently have for the zoning board, also with the planning board, but I do think that there should be legislative oversight as to planning board appointees, as well as the other commit uh boards and commissions, and uh yeah, carving out the board of public safety for the reasons that the mayor said.

Uh yeah, that's that's fine by me.

Um there are certainly more complicated ways to solve this, but I know that we don't have an appetite for complicated methods.

My more complicated method, by the way, would involve creating this city council as an upper chamber and creating a lower city council chamber such that we could appoint members of the lower chamber who could then exercise legislative authority over boards and commission appointees, thereby allowing there to be legislative oversight without creating a whole mess of conflicts of interest for ourselves, but that's complicated, so let's not think about that.

Yep.

I'll save the complicated stuff that we can actually consider for later.

So I think it's fine for us to get this amendment on uh uh get a vote on that so that we can make any other additional amendments to that base, but actually have that base in front of us.

Thank you.

So I don't want to rush the solicitor, but at the same time.

Uh per the discussion if the if councilman Gephardt and Rix would like this updated amendment um put in front of you without objection, the language would be to add 8-23.

So delete the prior code changes, and it would be establishing a new section of the charter 8-23, council advice and consent to boards and commissions.

Which would read notwithstanding any provisions of this charter to the contrary, except for the board of public safety, the city council may enact ordinances that subject mayoral appointments to city boards and commissions specifically codified in the charter or the code of ordinances to the advice and consent of the city council.

Be it further resolved that a question appearing on the 2026 general election ballot shall read as follows.

Shall the city council be authorized to enact ordinances that subject mayoral appointments to city boards and commissions specifically codified in the charter or the code of ordinances, except for the board of public safety to the advice and consent of the city council, approve or disapprove.

And then we would address the whereas clauses to only be pertinent to the question being presented.

Removing references to the department directors and all the things that were previously in place and uh and adjusting the title of the resolution as well.

Can I just ask one question?

You you mentioned that that was a new section 8-23.

What happened to the 8-20, 8-19?

Those stay the same, or we would not be touching those, so they disappear from the from the resolution itself.

There would be no proposed change to those items, so it wouldn't appear.

All it is is saying should we add this new section to the to the charter?

I think it's coming your way.

I got um really concerned about the upper and the lower council comment.

So the only item that would appear in the now before resolved clause would be the addition of new language 8-23 that reads council advice consent to the boards and commissions, notwithstanding any provisions of this charter to the contrary, except for the board of public safety, the city council may enact ordinances that subject mayoral appointments to city boards and commissions specifically codified in the charter or the code of ordinances to the advice and consent of the city council.

Unless it is unless it is present in the charter today or specifically enacted as a board in the code of ordinances, it would not cover any other advisory uh board or any other board that is not codified as a board within the the charter, a board that is subsequently enacted under ordinance authority, but that is not put into the formalized structure would not be applied applicable that's simplified it.

I'm still thinking about the lower council too.

I just keep picturing a tiered room in council and lattice agreeing with me.

I'm just concerned about the notwithstanding language, because uh if then we don't make any change to the end of that first sentence of eight-12 planning board, that could create some ambiguity as to the planning board in particular.

So I think maybe the neatest cleanest way to do it is add the proposed section eight-23, but also add that one clause to the end of the first sentence of eight-12, so that that one sentence under that first sentence under 8-12 reads there shall be a planning board composed of nine members of the public who shall be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council because otherwise the two may contradict at that point you'd have to change all of them though, yeah, as opposed to just relying on the catch-all one that says notwithstanding.

That's not notwithstanding, it's not ambiguous because it's a standard insertion into contracts.

The the use of the notwithstanding clause is specifically to make clear that where the board is comprised a certain way, we don't have to go back and then um change every single board under this charter or if other boards under the ordinances.

This gives the clear authority that says well, it may have been omitted in some other place uh or limited because it wasn't specifically empowered to do something.

This specific notwithstanding makes clear that this trumps any other competing provision of the charter or the code of ordinances.

So it's intended to make clear that this authority is being specifically granted in places that it is either omitted or not um currently provided or otherwise if it's prohibited, but I don't believe that's the case in this instance if that's the canon statutory interpretation, that's fine by me.

Thank you.

So first we need to amend the amendment or no objection, that's the matter.

All right, so is there any objection for the amendment pending before us to be as stated by the solicitor?

All right, so seeing none that's the amendment before us so any further discussion on the proposed amendment motion to move favorable action as amended.

Oh, on the amendment, yeah.

So we already have a motion for favorable action.

All right, so yeah, no more lights on.

So clerk will please call the roll on the proposed amendment.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Yes.

Herby.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladisa.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Rix.

Yes.

And yes to amend.

All right.

Now it stands before us as amended.

Do we have a motion?

Councilman Ricks.

Yeah, so I would like to see if well, for discussion, since try to do this properly under the procedure.

Uh for discussion.

Uh I would offer an amendment that any person appointed by the mayor who is an unclassified employee with a salary at least double that of the mayor, is subject to advice and consent of the council.

Unclassified meaning not a union member.

So is there a second regarding the proposed amendment?

Second it by Councilman Latticer.

All right.

So and double the mayor's salary.

So right now that means it would be 200,000, but then obviously if it changed the salary change, so too with the limit.

That's your intent.

Uh yes.

And uh for that matter, uh, I'd also want to make it clear that the proposed amendment would not affect any department heads named in the uh the charter, nor would it affect the mayor's chief of staff.

This is simply a matter of trying to come up with a rational number here that practically should never affect anyone, should not affect any future mayor appointing anyone to anything, but avoids the nightmare scenario that I occasionally uh have of uh something similar to what happened back in 2017 when I was here, where we had a mayor who was setting salaries of employees at uh double digit races despite specific amendments by this city council to cap raises at single-digit raises.

And so then the thought occurred to me way back when it has occurred to me over time.

There's literally nothing in the charter preventing a future mayor.

Um I know that our current mayor, he would never do this, of course.

This is why it's in the charter.

It's to prevent an issue from possibly happening in the future.

The notion of uh the city council having zero oversight over an individual getting appointed unilaterally and having a salary set at an astronomical rate, and this is the city council having no ability whatsoever to do a single thing about it.

But I think that double the mayor's salary is pretty substantial.

Nobody falls under that currently, so certainly no mayoral management appointments, and to be clear, the amendment would also carve out any uh uh department heads uh that are referred to under the charter.

So even then, that shouldn't be an issue with any hiring scenario.

That's all mayor.

I don't know, this one's kind of coming from out of left field.

Um I don't know what the intent is.

It's the same argument.

If people have to come for a public hearing, they're not gonna come seeking the job.

I can't think of any job that would be double my salary, maybe in five years.

Um, unless we really needed to hire a specialty person if we ever wanted to um make a solicitor in-house, something like that.

Uh but same argument as the other ones, the hires have to be done by the mayor, by the administration.

No one's gonna come if they know they don't have the job till they come here because they're tipping off their current employer.

I mean, I know if if I knew of a department director looking for another job, I would get rid of that director.

Because I wouldn't want it to, you know, I won't want it to uh pro harbor me.

In fact, I've done it once.

So I think what would be passed was the right thing to do, and I don't think this is necessary.

Councilman Napa.

I'll defer to Councilman Rick so he can respond.

You defer to what I'm sorry.

I'll withdraw that proposed amendment to the sub A, and I'll uh continue to work on refining this idea to try to give some protection and some level of oversight while also uh addressing the points of concern that the mayor's raised.

So I'll withdraw.

Thank you.

Alrighty.

So we're back on the item as amended.

So councilman Lattice, that's what you want to speak on.

Um actually I was just gonna make a point on Councilman Rix's amendment.

But seeing easy with uh councilman Gephardt.

Uh I'd like to move favorable action on the amendment.

So favorable as amended, uh motion made by Councilman Gebhardt.

Is there any second for the motion?

Seconded by Councilman Napa.

Is there any further discussion on the amended PCR 20-26?

All right.

Seeing none clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouis, Mr.

Foley, yes, get hot, yes, Mr.

Carby, yes, Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Napa, Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

Nine yes.

April, that's amended.

All right, next is PCR 21-26, 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 war school committee.

Uh intergovernmental, so councilman Gebhart.

Uh that there was discussion of holding this.

Um, but it ended up we ended up uh putting it to the floor uh with no recommendation.

All right, so first we need a motion in any direction, or or I guess hold.

So I guess it's not a direction, but we need a motion.

So if we're gonna discuss move to hold, is it move to hold to June 1st?

All right.

Do we have a second on the second second of my councilman that any discussion on the motion to hold?

Councilman Latticer.

President.

Um so initially I was with this item.

Um after considering a lot of discussion and comments from members of the public and uh other ones, and even revisiting some of the suggestions, perhaps three, three, and three might work.

Um things I brought before the council years ago.

Um three elected, two appointed by the mayor, two appointed by the city council, and fast forward to where we are now with nine.

Um to be honest with you, I'm not sure which one of all these suggestions is the best.

But I do know, or what I believe, is that what we currently have, which is five members, is not the best.

And in my opinion, it definitely needs to get changed.

So I would um I would have to go with uh supporting a hold on this.

I know it kicks the can down the road in another two years.

Uh it's frustrating because this is something I started talking about, I think probably my first term.

So yeah, it is frustrating.

But to do something because it might be the right thing or might not.

I'm not I'm not gonna be um be able to do that.

So I think given what we have that probably the best uh avenue is to hold, form a study commission, and um well, if you really want to do this, maybe with the upper chamber and lower chamber, we can call for special election and not have to wait two years.

But at this point in time, I would um support that hold.

Thank you.

Yeah, for what it's worth, just in my own efforts asking around various members of the public or other officials outside the council.

The the general consensus appeared to be that five is too low.

However, then after that, any subsequent questions to consent was there was no consensus, it was all over the map.

Um I know my own thoughts.

I wanted to my my desire was to make it so that there's probably two appointed people, either both from the mayor or one from council, one from the mayor, because I'm tired of the whole well, the school committee said that, and they're on that side, and we're on this side.