Warwick City Council Budget Meeting - May 21, 2026
Warwick City Council Budget Meeting - May 21, 2026
The Warwick City Council met on May 21, 2026, at 6:40 PM to consider the Fiscal Year 2027 budget, including transfers, supplemental appropriations, and final adoption. The meeting included extensive public comment and debate on multiple amendment proposals, with a final vote approving the budget as amended by the administration.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Rob Cody (Ward 7) expressed strong concerns about escalating budget expenses, particularly salary and benefit increases, and criticized the fire chief's statements on overtime savings. He called for pay freezes, increased employee health care contributions, and reduced benefits, and questioned the lack of GPS tracking for city vehicles. He also warned of liability issues at Conimicut Point.
- Ann Sheridan commended the school department's presentations and urged changes to employee benefits, reducing recycling collection to every other week, and opposed tax freezes for apartments. She also requested funding for AP courses.
- Michelle Landry (Science Department Chair, Tollgate High School) opposed cuts to Warwick Teachers Union (WTU) positions that would eliminate AP classes, arguing that requiring at least 12 students for AP courses is an injustice to high-achieving students.
- Mary Townsend (Special Education TA, 45 years) expressed hope for moving forward and supporting the school district.
- Don Fife asked for an increase in senior citizen and veteran property tax discounts, noting no increase in over 10 years.
- Darlene Netco (WTU President) argued the city historically underfunded schools (citing $6 million cut in FY2012), noted the budget commission's finding of a $2.1 million underfunding last year, and requested additional funding for AP classes and the Warwick Early Learning Center.
Discussion Items
-
PCR 55-26: Transfers, Supplemental and Emergency Appropriations – Passed unanimously without discussion.
-
PCR 56-26: FY27 Budget Adoption – Administration proposed amendments adjusting several line items (legislative professional services +$80,000; finance professional services -$20,000; MIS telephone -$79,000; public works administration telephone +$9,000; public works highway general services +$90,000; fund balance drawdown +$80,000). The council approved these amendments unanimously.
Councilman Lattiser's First Amendment – Proposed $698,438 in reductions across 21 accounts (including natural gas, electricity, gasoline, overtime, salaries, and service contracts) to reduce the tax levy. After discussion, the amendment was modified to reduce the tax levy rather than fund balance. Council debate highlighted concerns about underfunding utilities and overtime, with the mayor warning that cuts could lead to deficits. The amendment failed 1-8, with only Lattiser voting yes.
Councilman Lattiser's Capital Budget Amendment – Proposed reductions of $1,568,605 to capital purchases (police vehicle fleet, fire pumper truck, DPW dump trucks) to lower taxes. Administration argued the cuts would harm fleet replacement and maintenance, and noted that capital budget changes do not affect the current year's tax levy. The amendment failed 1-8.
Final debate included comments from council members emphasizing the difficulty of the budget year, the need to support schools, and the importance of maintaining city services. The budget as amended by the administration was adopted 7-2, with Lattiser and Ricks opposed.
Key Outcomes
- PCR 55-26 passed unanimously.
- Administration's amendments to PCR 56-26 passed unanimously.
- Councilman Lattiser's operating budget amendment failed (1-8).
- Councilman Lattiser's capital budget amendment failed (1-8).
- Final adoption of FY27 budget (PCR 56-26 as amended) passed 7-2.
- Unanimous consent agenda approved.
- Several resolutions were docketed for future meetings: relative to workers' compensation/TDI, state mandates, school department supplemental funding, DOT paving of Greenwich Avenue, and a zoning amendment for the former Russell Aldridge school property.
Meeting Transcript
All right, City Council will get started, albeit belatedly, at six forty PM. The clerk will please call the role. Mr. Sinapy, Mr. Delouise, Mr. Foley, Mr. Gebhard. Here, Mr. Kirby, here, Saladissa, here, Mr. Mudo, Napa, Mr. Rice. Here. All right, where are we at? Uh let's see. Councilman Gephardt, please do the salute to the flag. Announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events. Does anyone have anything for general communications? Councilman Gibbard. Thank you, Council President, and to my colleagues, thank you for uh carrying the load while I was uh missing here. Um I'm gonna ask for a moment of silence for a dear friend of uh my wife and I, uh Leah Carlomosto Clifton, uh who passed much much too young. All right, moving on to executive communications. There are none. Next is public comment. Rule 41 after general communications and prior to consent calendar at the last regularly scheduled meeting with the city council each month. There shall be a period of time not to exceed 30 minutes during which citizens may comment about work, city government issues, subject to the following stipulation. The total period of time for public comment shall not exceed 30 minutes. Comments need to be briefed 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 the 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. The public comment session will terminate at the expiration of the earlier of all speakers, concluding their allowed time or 30 minutes. Waiver of this provision requires a unanimous vote of the council. All right, first up is Rob Cody. Uh Rob Cody Ward Seven. I am concerned and upset because it is evident that no one has the skill set to extrapolate the continued escalating budget expenses, mostly attributable to salary increases and benefits, and to understand the long-term consequences on the city's residents, especially the elderly and those on fixed incomes. I've been speaking about waste theft and abuse of the taxpayers' dollars here in Warwick for years, and there has been no action taken to enhance efficiency in the city in any of the departments. Reckless spending seems to have no boundaries in the city. I've listened to the fire chief and his assistant continue to make false statements, whether pertaining to sick time, overtime, unnecessary apparatus runs and personnel requirements. As examples, Chief McMichael stated in public during discussions of the Boston schedule that moving to that schedule would save $650,000 a year in overtime. The facts in four years, not including this past fiscal year, his department used in excess of $8.8 million of overtime over and abudge over and above his budgeted allotment for overtime with no consequences and no council and no questions from this council except from Councilman Lattisar and Councilman Ricks. I'm just guessing, but maybe that's because seven of the nine council members have taken large contributions from the fire union packs. Just my thoughts. The schemes just don't end. From 1,700 sick days to 3,000 changes of shift, the driving around wasting fuel, wear and tear. It's evident that this chief and his department are not concerned at all about the cost of the taxpayers, and they certainly lack the skill set to run the department in a fiscally sound manner. With regards to DPW, I don't know how many videos I have to make pertaining to workers driving around, not working, hiding out, wasting fuel and time, all on taxpayers dying. For the last eight years, stated within the DPW contract is a stipulation that states there shall be an employee proficiency and productivity committee to ensure operational productivity. Yet to this date, it doesn't exist, although it's a contract requirement. What is the council done about it?
openpublica.com