Interactions.

I don't want to direct those old people and laugh like that.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Let the record indicate it is five oh three PM.

And the Warwick City Council Finance Committee is called to order.

Sorry for the delay.

We will start by getting the finance committee agenda.

Let's see.

Do we have any minutes?

We do not have any minutes.

Okay.

Um, starting with item number one on page one, 2027 zero sixty-one.

Purchase 10 laser platform.

Five year agreement.

Good afternoon, Major.

Uh good afternoon, Councilman.

Uh Robert Hart for the uh police department.

Uh good evening.

The work police department is requesting approval for a new five-year contract with Axon beginning October 1st, 2026 for replacement of our current Taser 7 conducted energy weapons.

Uh the contract will upgrade our officers to the latest Taser 10 platform, which provides uh enhanced performance, improved officer safety, uh expanded lessal lethal capabilities.

It will also expand our virtual reality training program, allowing officers to receive more frequent and realistic scenario-based training in de-escalation, decision making in use of force situations.

The total cost of the contract for five years is 795,004 seven dollars and eighty-eight cents.

And this includes the devices, holsters, charging equipment, licensing fees, uh instructor certifications, uh, etc.

And that'll be funded through budget code 3340 service contracts.

Thank you for that, Major.

And also thank you for reaching out to me over the weekend with a couple of heads ups.

Um, and I did ask you a series of questions yesterday via email, and you provided them timely this morning.

Thank you.

So I'm going to read those into the record as well as your answers.

What was the cost of the previous contract for tasers?

Answer.

The current contract included several add-ons and edits over the span and ultimately ultimately ended up costing approximately 40,000 per year of the contract.

Question two.

Next question.

Are the current tasers still operational in support by Axon?

Am I pronouncing that correctly?

Correct, sir.

Um Taser 7 is still operational, but are at end of product life and out of warranty as of 10-1 2026.

Taser recommends a five-year usable life for their weapon systems.

After five years, they believe that electrical connections in various parts are more prone to failure since these weapons undergo daily wear and tear, exposure to temperature, extremes, humidity, etc.

etc.

Note the cost to retain the taser sevens for another five-year contract would rise to approximately 153,000 per year compared to the Taser 10s at approximately 156,000 per year for a much newer and capable product as indicated below.

Before I go further, can you explain to us why this increase from 40,000 a year to 150,000 a year?

You know, um short answer is no.

And they're a sole source.

Well, they provide uh an outstanding product.

They have the research that backs it up, they have the legal teams to support you.

Uh they have a ton of support.

Their training is top notch.

So they're a very good company, and they charge a premium for their services.

Okay.

Next question, a follow-up to question three.

If so, why is it necessary to upgrade at this time?

Answer the Taser 10 provides significant upgrades.

One greater standoff distance, 45 feet compared to 25 feet.

This allows for more time and distance to de-escalate, provides an area of safety, and affords and avoids immediate hands-on techniques which can reduce injuries.

Two taser tens provide a larger capacity, allowing for more deployments, 10 compared to two.

The new taser program includes an enhanced virtual reality training suite that use VR headsets and tablets for realistic training.

Four the program offers better integration with our body worn cameras, internal event evidence software, and now include an analytics program to track deployments and assist the officers training and use of the device.

Next question.

Follow-up question.

If not, why not?

This is not in the capital budget since the majority of the cost is the licensing forward/slash services and consumerable parts that not the asset itself.

Could these yearly fees come from asset forfeiture monies or other grants?

Answer.

We do not have a grant or guaranteed forfeiture fund to cover this expense as a recurring basis.

Our grants slash forfeiture generally are used for one off-purchase programs where this is an item that is part of the reoccurring operations and yearly training.

So we budget for it each year.

Next question.

If approved, what is the delivery time as well as the warranty?

Items would arrive around early September 2026, and the warranty is for the life of the contract, which is five years.

Most of you know, there will be times when I ask questions before the meeting.

And when that occurs, I will read those questions as well as the answers that I receive or don't receive from various department heads.

So Major, thank you for for producing these answers.

Um I think you've covered what my questions or concerns were.

Are there any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudal.

Thank you, Chairman.

The chairman gave an exhausting, exhaustive, not exhausting.

Exhaustive list of questions.

And just getting warmed up.

I know you are.

Uh, just one follow-up.

It was it had to do with the warranty.

Is the warranty covered uh for the life of the agreement?

Yes, it is, sir.

So that's the hardware, software, all that good stuff.

Yep, it's called their tap program.

Yep.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Major, is there anything that you would like to add to um the questions I've asked, or anything else that you have?

Um, I can just say that um Axon Taser has been uh incredible to deal with, uh, answered all my questions.

They met with us, offered to have additional Zoom meetings and different things, and they've been very responsive.

And short of the obvious, what is the alternative to not providing these tasers?

So if we didn't have these what are called CEWs, conductive electrical weapons, um, we would have to go back to just traditional batons, handcuffs, hands-on, uh, a continued de-escalation, of course.

Um, but the benefit of these weapons is they provide such a distance where you could isolate someone now 45 feet compared to the 25, talk to them, trying to get them to calm down, trying to get them to drop a weapon, etc.

So it keeps people safer, keeps the public safer, keeps the officers safer, keeps the person who's of interest safer because we're taking time.

We're slowing things down a little bit.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the council?

You have any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Are there any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you, Major.

We'll move on to item number 20 on number two on page 13.

It's item number 2027 063, rebuild compressor and replace three pumps for cooling towers at Warburton and Thayer.

Uh good evening, Eric Earl's Public Works.

Uh Public Works is requesting 566 exemption to notice for environmental systems inc.

ESI to engage in services beyond the scope of the HBAC maintenance and repair bid that is in effect for Thayer and War Burton.

Uh, they are the current vendor.

However, this is goes above and beyond.

Um the department received a quote to rebuild the compressors for Thayer in Workburton in the amount of 96, 556.39 cents.

Then in addition to that, there are three pumps for the cooling towers that require replacement, one for each rink, one backup.

And the service for that is 56, 673.

So the total amount is 150, 229.

Director, how long has ESI been servicing our equipment at both of those arenas?

ESI came on board when public works took back maintenance of that facility.

It was maybe late in 2021.

So five years?

Five years, okay.

In the position paper, your position paper, it says this system has served beyond its useful life as it was installed and brought online in 2003.

This facility is used year round.

When you say this facility, which facility are you referring to?

Well, the rink in general.

Both facilities.

Yeah, we'll take down one sheet of ice this time of year.

So right now there's only one sheet of ice over there.

But the facility itself is open year round.

So this um is obviously gonna take some time to do this, and they're gonna have to shut this facility down, right?

Well, like I said, one of the sheets of ice is already out.

So what they typically do is if they have to um if they have to close, they'll do that one, then bring that sheet of ice back online and then take the other one out as necessary.

But our hope is that we have both sheets of ice by the time we get busy in the fall, which is really when we need the two.

Okay, you are you're looking for 150,229, and you're looking to take that out of the capital budget for the current fiscal year, correct?

Yes, I believe so.

And doing these two items that we're talking about, you still will not have exhausted your capital budget account in that line item.

Is that accurate?

Uh I'm sorry, I don't have those numbers in front of me.

But let me rephrase the question.

In that capital line item, uh 4949-0451.

Have DPW used any of the um 176,850 that was assigned or approved, I should say, by the council in the capital budget.

I apologize.

I was I was incorrect when I answered before.

This money is for um gonna be coming out of the capital for FY27.

And I know that because Christy's watching and just sent me a tax master's correcting.

Um I quickly and unfortunately I did not uh print it.

Yeah, if waiting.

I don't recall seeing 150,000 in fiscal year 2027 capital budget, capital budget we just approved.

Oh no, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, you you're right.

It's it's the FY27.

I'm sorry.

That's that's my mistake.

FY26.

27.

So it's for the upcoming.

Right.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Okay, sorry.

When I when I looked at the capital budget, um, I don't recall seeing a number in there for um Thayer for fiscal year 2027 in fiscal year 2026.

I saw the number of 176,850.

I believe there was 160,000 in the capital budget for FY27 for this type of repair.

Okay.

Um, between now and the end of this meeting, I can just double check on that.

Hey, Chair, if I may, I see a cooling tower DPW there in the capital budget for 1765 for the 27.

This is the capital budget we just approved, I believe.

Let me just double check.

Yes.

That's for the cooling tower.

Yes, cooling tower there.

It says replacement.

Okay.

Tell me that again the fiscal year 2027.

Yeah, the 2026, 2027 enterprise and capital funds budget.

Excuse me, Council President.

There's also um the line item for compressor repair that is 160,000.

How much is that?

160,000.

160.

Okay.

Absolutely correct.

Right below the cooling tower one.

What's the budget code item on that, please?

For the 160, it's in the capital budget, right?

Is that what you're saying?

Capital.

Okay.

Thank you.

There's no code on the document I'm looking at.

So I can't help you in that regard.

All right.

I can send you a screenshot of it though.

Okay, we'll we'll just hang that in abeyance right now.

Um we just installed a new cooling tower, right?

For 250,000.

Correct.

170.

170, but I think you were asking for 250 initially.

All right, so you got it done for 170.

Um, so what is it going?

What's going on now with we need three pumps if we just have a new cooling tower put in?

Do we put a new cooling tower in and use old pumps?

Yeah, these pipes, these pumps have not been replaced.

They're what, please?

They have not been replaced.

These are these are older pumps, they weren't part of the cooling tower project.

So we installed 167,000 or whatever it was, cooling tower and installed or reinstalled an old pump.

The pumps are in the compressor, so they weren't part of the cooling tower.

It wasn't part of the cooling tower.

Correct.

Okay.

On this item.

Um, ESI has intimate knowledge of the system.

They've been working with us for like I said, five years.

Um they when we took it over, there was a vendor there that clearly did not know what they were doing, and ESI had to come in and clean up a lot of that.

So essentially they know what they're doing, and so if we went out to bid, even if someone came in lower, we don't know if they would be able to diagnose it the same way if they would come at it with the same approach.

Um, and this is a facility that you know everyone knows if it goes down for a week, people are up in arms about.

So with a with a vendor like this that we trust and has been kind of nursing it back to health the last four years, you know, we trust them to do this work.

So with the the statements that there is a significant amount of work to be performed to ensure the proper operations of this facility.

Um with ESI being at the helm for five years.

How is it that these things are just coming up for repair now?

Why wasn't that something that was brought up?

Well, we've been when we first started checking this stuff out.

We've been up in front of council with all kinds of repairs to the rink over the last five years, you know, compressors and the tower, and you know, it's an old system.

A lot of these components are original to that, you know, 2003.

Um, so it's just they're at the end of their life.

Had ESI made any recommendations to the department to either rebuild these compressors or replace these three pumps in the past.

So this is just something that came to their attention now.

Well, it's part of, yeah, I mean they they're the they do our maintenance.

So we have quotes in here with two different dates.

One of them is for the 96,556 dated May 28th.

The other is for the option to replace all three pumps for 53,673, and that is dated February 12th, 2026.

Why didn't the department come to us back then instead of waiting till now?

And even more important, I guess the question is because of some of the comments that I've heard in the seriousness of the condition of these things.

Why wasn't this dealt with back then?

Well, we wanted to put it in the capital budget for this upcoming year.

That's why.

Like I said, we've been in communication with EASI, they let us know about it, and we talked to them about whether or not these things can hold off until July, and they indicated they could.

So that's why we put it into the capital budget for FY27.

Then that's why we're here tonight.

So that when that budget becomes available, we can turn them loose and they can hit the ground running.

What's left in your capital budget for fiscal year 2026?

Oh, I don't I don't have that information.

Maybe Christy has it.

Maybe she's she's watching, right?

I don't know.

Yeah, I don't have that ready.

All right, so two things I'll need to follow up on.

The balance in 2026 capital budget.

That's like that.

And the other okay.

Um that's the questions I have for right now.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you, Chairman.

Hi, Director.

Hello.

Uh this is more of a um clarification.

Uh I heard one number, but I'm seeing another.

So I just want to clarification.

There's two numbers on the bid, 96,556 39.

And you mentioned there's a 56, 6735?

53.

But it's supposed it's supposed to be 53?

53.

Okay.

That's why I just wanted to clarification, make sure that is the 53 is the actual number.

53673 through 35?

Okay, that's the right number.

Sorry.

Nope, no problem.

I the math wasn't math thing, so just wanted to double check.

And um as far as the rebuild goes, we these are past the uh you know the useful life.

What else will be needed after this rebuild uh to to get the towers in the rinks up to shape?

The um well, we replaced that cooling tower last year.

There are two cooling towers there, they're the same age.

So that second one, um, as council president indicated, is part of our capital for this fiscal year as well.

Okay, so there's plans for that going forward.

Okay, great.

That's all the questions I have.

Do we have any questions from 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, thank you, Director.

We will move on to item number three, which is 2027 044 found on page 18.

It is asphalt concrete and hot mix.

Uh this is uh DPW reviewed six bids submitted submitted for asphalt concrete hot mixes and cold patch recommend award to all six bidders.

Uh new contract period will be September 15th to September 15th of 26th to September 14th of 27, uh requesting a cap of 90,000 for the one-year period.

Eric, I probably should know the answer to this, but I don't.

Why is cold patch so much more expensive than regular hot asphalt?

Uh sometimes the cold patch they'll put an additive in so it can set up in the cold weather, whereas the hot mix or that it can that it'll stay pliable longer.

That's typically what it is that there's an additive in it.

Okay.

Yeah, hot box.

Are we using that piece of equipment?

Yeah, yeah.

This this time of year we don't need it because the asphalt stays, but yeah, when the temperatures drop, we'll we'll put the mix into that, and that'll buy us some more time to use it.

Absolutely.

And have we been using it this past winter?

I assume that we did, but I don't know for sure.

Like I don't remember seeing it go out, but I know that it's available, so I don't understand why we wouldn't, so I would assume so.

Yeah, I'm not um I'm not aware of it because there's been times when I've requested pothole fills, and uh the answer is you know we have to deal with cold patch, and we know what the results are of that.

Um so I know you won't have the answer on that tonight, but I'd like to know when the last time that machine was used, because I'm hearing something a bit different.

Okay.

And is that machine?

Does that do you do you keep track of the use of that machine by hours?

Is there an hour meter on that machine?

No.

So there's really is that attached to another vehicle?

Yeah, so it's towed along, right?

Okay.

Okay, I don't have any other questions on that.

Any other questions from members of the committee?

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Any questions from members of the council?

No questions from members of the council.

Any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, um, thank you on that director.

We'll move on to item number four, 2027 zero five nine.

The uh the water division is excuse me.

Bear with me one minute, please.

You said that um I'm just gonna well, I'm gonna have to circle back on it.

We've already gone past that, but um I'm gonna go through the capital budget for this year a little little more detail.

So if I need to, I can come back with this on the floor.

Um found on page 26.

That's post-type fire hydrants.

Go ahead, Eric.

I'm sorry.

The water division received four bids for post-type fire hydrants and a recommending um award to all four vendors.

Um the price shall remain in place from August 19th, 2026 through August 18th, 2027.

Funding for these items will be sixty-five thousand dollars, budget code 84364.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from 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, thank you for that, Director.

Now we come to the items that are under 50,000.

And I'll start off by asking members of the committee if you have anything you want held up.

Okay.

Councilman Mutal, you all set?

Go around, I mean come back to me.

Anyone on the council, any members of the council?

Jeremy, Councilman Ricks.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I would ask for PCR 85-24 to be assigned a PCR number.

Wait a minute.

You just lost me.

We're on the bid package.

Oh, yes.

Uh okay.

Pardon the confusion.

We're on the items under 50,000, councilman.

Yeah.

Uh pardon me.

I thought that at the bottom of the bid package was an item relating to workers' compensation, self-insured third-party administrator or fully insured carrier.

Yeah, there is.

Okay.

It's the very last item.

It's item number 16, 2022 067.

Yes.

Would just like that uh pulled from the uh uh from the consent as I need to file a recusal on that one.

Okay, um, madam clerk, we need a PCR.

Yeah, there's another one.

There's another one.

We need one.

Oh, okay, sure.

Sure.

All right, we'll start off with um.

Well, first of all, does anyone have anything else that they need pulled?

See okay.

So before I go to members of the public, item number 11, 2027 064 firewall maintenance support at the request of the director.

Um that is gonna be assigned PCR, madam clerk.

PCR 7226.

72 26.

Well, thank you very much for that.

Um, we have another item we don't need a PCR on, but just for the record, it's item number 15, 2026-065 vehicle body repair and painting.

Um, just a change in the account number, and that number will change to 76-358.

Okay, the the members of the public have any items that you wish to have withheld any items that the members of the public would like to have withheld.

Hearing none, then German.

Um, I'll just go right down the list.

Um I'm going to pull out item number five, 2026 510.

Item number 12 2025035, it's automotive wet batteries found on page 69.

Item number 15, 2026 065, vehicle body repair and painting, it's on page 92.

And the last item number 16, 2022 067, workers' compensation self-insured third party at the request of councilman Ricks.

We will be assigning a PCR to that.

Madam Clerk.

Did you assign the PCR to that other one?

No, it's it's not on resolution of the RICS.

It's just in the page.

Did you assign the PCR number 15?

No.

Number 16.

No, number 15, we do not.

Right.

PCR 73-26.

Okay.

73-26.

Thank you.

Okay, item number five, 2026-510 engineering services found on page 40.

The World War Water Division is requesting to engage engineering services with Stan Tech Consulting for inspection of the Warwick Water Division's water storage tank.

These inspections are required every five years with the last inspection completed in 2021.

Um the proposal is submitted on a time materials basis with a not-to-exceed cost of 40,000 dollars, 40,630.

So, director, um, I assume you're gonna be answering the questions.

It states here that the Rhode Island Department of Health drinking water quality program is scheduled to conduct a system-wide sanitary survey on June 2nd, 2026.

So, why is this so late coming to us?

Um we didn't have a lot of uh notice with the sanitary survey.

It was uh a month at best.

They requested that um it be scheduled for June 2nd, and and I complied.

I met their request.

We had no time for this.

So does the um does the department have anyone who tracks these type of things that are going to expire?

Um what what happened?

What would happen if um if the Rhode Island Department of Health all of a sudden said to the city, um, hey, it's June 5th, and we're coming in to do some uh citywide sanitary surveys.

We're how are you gonna handle it?

Well, if I can comply, I'll comply.

If I can't comply, I can't comply.

In other words, if I'm sick, I'm from the hospital.

I'm gonna say, no, that it doesn't work.

But if we're available, we've got nothing to hide.

They can they can come tomorrow if they like.

So are there any penalties or fines in place for not having these things completed prior to June 2nd?

No, the way it works is you you you would get a deficiency, they'll give you um you know, time to come up with a plan to fix it.

And in this case, um, the fact that I had a plan, um, I I don't even think it's a concern on the uh where they're I don't even think it's a concern of the state right now until until they see the actual reports, and we're only halfway through 20 uh 26, so we've got the rest of the year to get these tank inspections done, and it was on my radar.

Um I just didn't plan on doing it prior to June 2nd.

Um, but you know, here we are.

And do you have these scheduled ins are these schedule these required inspections scheduled as of now?

Every five years.

But you need to do inspections right now, right?

Well, we're we're due the last inspections.

It says it in the letter, it's it's explained that the last inspections were in 2021.

Yes, I understand that.

So, yes, we're absolutely planning on doing it this year.

Um I understand it's just sooner than later this year.

This says they're going to conduct the survey on June 2nd.

My question to you is do you have the dates established for these inspections to occur?

Are we talking about the tank inspections or the sanitary surveys?

I'm talking about any inspections that you got.

Sanitary surveys are every three years.

The state contacts you and with a date, and you either say yeah, yes or no.

Um do you have any inspections that are required to take place this year?

Because you're over the five years now, right?

The five years is over.

It was five if it was five years um in June, right?

We're here.

So you're at the end of the the five years.

Do you have any inspections scheduled to take place for the current time?

You keep saying we don't have to do them for five years.

The five years is coming gone.

That ship is sailed.

It has to be done in 26.

It doesn't, it doesn't necessarily have to be done prior to June in 26.

Let me repeat the question.

Do you have any inspections scheduled currently?

No, that's okay.

Well, I am here.

So the paragraph you're reading from is the department of health um is scheduled to conduct a system-wide sanitary survey on June 2nd.

So the water department has informed around drinking water quality that Warwick Water Division is currently planning with Stan Tech, and that's the plan that director chief um Willette mentioned in the contract with Stantech, the last section of it says the schedule.

Stan Tech is prepared to begin work immediately upon notice to proceed, assuming a notice to proceed no later than July 1st, 2026.

All work shall be completed within five months, November 30th, 2026.

So what the director chief is saying is that they don't have it scheduled because they have a plan that we're in compliance with Rhode Island Water drinking water quality.

We have to have it done within 2026.

What he's saying was the Department of Health is asking or said we need to have it done.

We were notified on June 2nd.

We told them we have a plan to do it in 2026.

So the June 2nd, there's nothing scheduled until we have this contract awarded.

And you just said something about it has to be done in five months.

Is that what you just said?

No, the it'll be done within five months of the within five months.

Of notice to proceed.

As soon as we award this contract, if we award the contract, okay.

Stantec is ready to do it within five months of the notice to proceed.

Okay.

It also says in here that the war neck tank is believed to be due for rehabilitation because of its proximity to the ocean and associated environmental exposures.

What does that supposed to mean?

The warkneck tank is believed.

I mean, is it or isn't it due for rehabilitation?

This says it's believed.

That's that's like ambiguous.

That's like pie in the sky.

Is this tank due for rehabilitation?

That's what the engineer indicated.

That's for who?

That's what the engineers have indicated that with a steel tank in proximity to the ocean.

I believe it's every 20 or every 20 years that it needs a rehab.

Um, and that's what they need to inspect it to determine whether or not it does at this point.

So this inspection that's going to be done in 2026 is going to include the warp neck tank.

Yes.

Okay.

All tanks.

RIDWQ has also indicated that post-repair reinspections may have been warranted following the 2022 repairs.

I cannot I cannot find any records of any post construction inspections after they were repaired.

So the Department of Health is indicating here that post repair reinspections may have been warranted during following the 2022 repairs.

What repairs were done in 22 2022 that would have prompted them to state that?

It also says I expect to discuss this further during the upcoming sanitation surveys.

Also indicated that post-repair reinspections may have been warranted following the 2022 repairs.

We're four years down the road.

And does anyone know why?

I do not.

Does anyone, I think you already kind of answered it, but I'm gonna come back on it.

Um, does anyone in the water department or the department of DPW know what they're talking about when they say has also indicated that post-repair reinspections may have been warranted following the 2022 repairs?

Eric, do you know what repairs they're talking about in 2022 that may have required um follow-up inspections?

Right.

Yeah, yeah, we made some significant repairs to the tanks.

Um, I can't remember the details off the top of my head, but I think this is just saying that after a procedure like that, typically they would be inspected to confirm that the work was done in accordance with you know, whatever.

Um that whole discussion kind of becomes moot now that we're having this entity go out and do the official inspections and kind of get us a more up-to-date snapshot of where we are.

Well, director, I uh I respectfully disagree with that comment that it's moot, it's a moot point.

To me, it's not a moo point if inspections were required of repairs that were done, and they either were not done, or we don't have a record of those inspections taking place to approve the repairs that were supposed to be done.

I don't think that's a moot point.

So not having that information is certainly a concern.

And what we're saying is the the chief of the water department said to his knowledge, um there were no repairs, we don't have any reports.

So I don't think that's moot point.

So let me clarify that.

So I'm unclear as to whether or not those reinspections were required.

The during the sanitary survey, um they were unclear as to whether or not they were required.

Um so it's not that we didn't do anything we were supposed to do, or vice versa.

It's the inquiry was made.

So this in essence will settle that conversation.

Okay, so you bring up a valid point where you're going to circle back to what they say re-inspections may have been warranted.

Did the city get anything from this company stating that those inspections were not necessary?

No, so it's just it's left up in the air.

So you know, maybe it's necessary, maybe it's not, but nobody followed up on it.

So here we are, four years later with water tanks that had repairs to them at some point that we don't know what the repairs were, and we don't know whether or not they were inspected.

Apparently, whatever the repairs were, thank God that they worked, because I'm not aware of any tanks leaking or crashing down or anything of that nature.

It also says further, Stan Tech has worked closely with a specialized with the specialized inspection firms to evaluate and document the conditions of the facilities and make recommendations for short and long-term improvements.

When did they do that?

Two-fold question.

When did they do that?

And where is the report?

I don't have the report with me, but that was done prior to 2020.

Uh 2021.

Do you have do you have the report?

Yes.

And you don't remember when it was done.

Was it done since you've been here?

It was done just prior to 2021.

So the tank repairs were done as a result of the report that Stantec generated.

Um but it says they they made the in make recommendations for short and long-term improvements.

You just stated you have the report, but yet you also stated that this was done in 2021.

So I'm gonna ask you to send me a copy of that report that talks about the specialized inspection firms to evaluate and document the condition of the facilities and make recommendations for short and long-term improvements.

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And um I'm gonna make note on that to make sure that I follow up on that.

Chairman, you have one minute.

So on page 46 for the completion dates, page 46, that's in our document right here in our binder.

Um we have dates of commencement date, July 1st, 2026.

Estimated completion date, July 1st of 2027.

Okay, but on page 44, we have a schedule that is signed by two of the principals of this company, and it says Stantech is prepared to begin work immediately upon notice to proceed, assuming a notice to proceed no later than July 1st, 2026, and work shall be completed by November 30th, 2026.

So, what is our contract with them gonna say?

Is it going to say the completion date is November 30th, 2026, or is it going to say July 1st, 2027?

The November date.

It's a one-year contract, that's why it's one year on here, but it's gonna be the November date, obviously, because we have to get these tanks inspected in 2026.

Director, there's a difference between a one-year contract.

I know what a one-year contract is, and there's a difference between a one-year contract and a completion date.

And there on their letter head, Stantec professional service agreement attachment A, which is part of a document that's going to become part of a contract, it says the estimated completion date is July 1st, 2027.

So there's a difference.

So the document that's signed by them is the commitment that I'm looking for.

Is that this work is going to be completed by November 30th, 2026?

There's a big difference between November 30th and July 1st.

Particularly when we don't know what inspections were done or what reinspections may have taken place or what repairs were done or not done.

So yeah, I think seven month time frame is important.

And I want to be certain that the contract is going to be done.

Say completion is completed by November 30th, 2026.

So Councilman uh Bill Foscendi again.

So it is a one-year contract.

So one if you let me just let me finish.

It's a one-year contract.

Go ahead.

So we award the contract for a year.

They have said in their report that I read, and you just read it.

Upon getting a notice to proceed, which they don't have yet, they will complete the work within five months.

If it's awarded and they have a notice proceed by July 1st, it'll be November 30th.

If this is held and continue to be held, and they don't get a notice to proceed until August, it'll be December 2026.

So it's it's a moving target, but it's a one-year contract.

So that's that's the explanation.

As soon as we get an order to proceed, they will start assuming July 1st, since it is June 15th.

Assuming this council approves this bid, is there any reason that Stantec would not be receive a notice to proceed by July 1st?

Well, so they have as you know the bid once it's awarded by council, then the purchasing agent gives them a conditional award.

They have to provide a certificates of insurance, which they probably have, and a certificate of good standing, which does take some time.

They probably already have that within this year because they have other contracts with the city.

So I I can't tell you exactly the day it's going to be, but if it's awarded tonight, they will have an order to proceed from us by July 1st.

Chief, I can assure you that in all the years that I've had to provide certificate of insurance and documents from the Secretary of State.

It's um a matter of seconds.

It depends on the business.

Right.

Depends on the business.

It's very simple.

You go on the computer, it's all online.

Um go go look up whatever company you want.

It'll show Secretary of State's listing right there.

The insurance company from Stantec, they should be able to provide you with the um insurance certificate within minutes.

We have their insurance already filed.

All right, so then there's really no reason why this shouldn't proceed.

The point is the contract should not say that this completion date is as of July 1st, 2027.

There is a huge window between today and then for failure to occur in these tanks because of information and things of repairs that we're not certain of.

Okay.

Any other questions on that item from members of the council?

Members of the public.

Any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you, Director.

The next item is item number 11, 2027 064.

Bon on page 65, and it has now become PCR 72-26.

Director, you have the floor.

Phil Carlucci, IT director.

This request is for our standard annual maintenance on the city's two firewalls.

Very recently, a potential option was brought to our attention that could have some long-term savings.

Um we have not had a chance to vet that as an option, but I would like that to be available to us if it turns out to be something that would be beneficial technically and cost-wise to the city.

So my request uh, if approved would be to add one company, that would be Ocean Inc, OSHEAN Incorporated as a potential vendor for this uh firewall maintenance.

Okay, um makes sense to me.

Um 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?

Ocean Inc, OSH E A N Incorporated as a potential vendor for this uh firewall maintenance okay um makes sense to me um 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 I would entertain a motion on PCR 72-26 second we have a motion for favorable we have a second all in favor aye aye thank you thank you excuse me to conclusion okay got it got it yeah thank you for that um so I need a motion to amend to add ocean inc as an additional vendor so moved we have a motion we have a second all in favor aye now I'll move favorable as amended second second great all in favor aye thank you very much thank you Joanne appreciate the backup and the guidance okay next item item number 15 2026 065 found on page 92 vehicle body repair and painting what item on page ninety-two um thank you major major um just two quick questions on this that just kind of come to light this afternoon um what repairs are necessary it says this this increase is necessary to accommodate additional vehicle repair and painting expenses associated with repairs to an animal control vehicle I'm assuming that this is accident related yes sir okay um so the two questions what repairs and why isn't the insurance company either ours or the other party if there is a party paying for it so um second question first uh normally the insurance company the practice that we're we're moving towards and prefer is the insurance company just pays the vendor directly in this case somehow they didn't so they sent the city the check instead say that again they sent the city the check instead okay so that's why we're going through the R process to pay the vendor has the city received the check yet uh I would believe so I have to double check on that but I'm pretty sure they did if we did the work already this is an insurance check major so could you check on that for me sure and uh this was uh the result of um of a crash the um it should be in your packet the list of the items that were either removed or replaced or fixed is all listed at there and itemized you said it's in the packet it should be yes sir okay I can list off a few items if you like but it's all sure go ahead okay I want to see if it matches mine sure um obviously the the basic stuff like uh you know the paint finish sand buff uh different additives for the corrosion resistance there's a uh cowl grill there's a fender there's a testing of the seatbelt system after the fact that's good yeah thank you thank you you're welcome that's in line with what I what I thought um okay that's that's all I have on that item next item is sorry oh that's right that's right um so we do have a change in this oh we already talked about that and we need to change the account number from two number seventy six three fifty eight and we do not need um a um resolution on that okay that's just uh scribers okay stay stay with me okay I thank you carry on yeah the administrative person gb says I can carry on okay item number sixteen workers compensation we do have a PCR number on that um I believe councilman ricks is to recuse um that is 2022 zero six seven now identified as PCR 73-26 94 councilman ricks needs to review queues do we have any further questions from members of the committee members of the council members of the public any questions from members of the public hearing none i need a motion on pcr 73-26 favorable action we have a motion we have a second all in favor aye thank you all very much finance committee is adjourned at 605 oh

Do we have any further questions from members of the committee, members of the council, members of the public?

Any questions from members of the public?

Hearing none, I need a motion on PCR 73-26.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you all very much.

Finance committee is adjourned at 6 05.

Oh see that I was I was just following Council Foley's lead.

He was taking a taking a taking a stretch break.

Okay.

Okay.

So we need um a motion on PCR 71-26.

We have motion favorable.

We have a second.

All anyone in discussion?

Any questions?

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you all.

No, that's on the count.

Correction.

We are adjourned at 6 06.

Would the public safety committee please convene?

Thank you.

Thank you.

What's the next slide?

Public safety.

Is that me?

You're right.

Oh, that's right.

Yeah.

Can you sit in the audience and socialize and mess with them, right?

But can't pay attention over here.

Who we miss them?

It's um Jeremy.

Jeremy.

Councilman Rick.

Listen to Joanne.

Good evening.

The public safety committee is in session at 6.07 PM.

We have one item on the agenda.

It is PCR 6226 resolution relative to claim for Whedon.

This was carried over from the last meeting.

Is uh Mr.

Whedon here.

Is Mr.

Whedon here?

Okay.

Uh will um uh chief, was Mr.

Whedon notified for this for this record for this meeting.

Uh through the clerk, uh yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so uh just a refresher.

This was a claim uh for damage conducted during a fire rescue uh uh and the um resident uh denied or refused city's uh workman work to fix the can I just clarify that?

Yeah, you go right the resident didn't want to wait until we got to do the work.

Okay.

We responded that we didn't have a date, we were still making the plow repairs.

He decided through the claims person that I'm not waiting, I can't turn my sprinklers on, I can't cut my grass.

I'm submitting a claim.

Once the claim process starts, everything else stops.

The claim was denied by fire.

Okay.

Thanks for that clarification.

Um so again, the um the claim was for the repair of the uh the lawn and uh the area of the road.

There was some pat patching work on the road.

Uh we hold held it over uh one session to let Mr.

Whedon uh talk about the claim.

Uh so I will actually open it up to discussion.

Councilman Ladiser.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um I don't have any any questions.

I just want to um confirm that the chief of staff did answer the questions that I had asked at the previous meeting.

I do have those answers in writing, and it's exactly what he just stated that the individual, Mr.

Whedon, was not willing to wait for the city to get there and do the repairs, and consequently um he did his own or move to have his own repairs done.

So the opportunity was extended to him for the city to do it.

Um I also want to put on the record that uh uh um I understand the situation, the narrow road, the fire department having to respond to uh an emergency, um, had no alternatives but to drive across the lawn, etc.

My personal feelings is um city's responsible.

That's my feelings.

But we had that discussion.

Um, but I want that to be noted that when there is something that occurs like that, um, whether it's um well, let me back up.

Um I'm certain it's never intentional, so it's accidental.

Either way, somebody's gonna be responsible when that type of thing occurs.

But uh thank you for following up on that, Chief.

I appreciate it.

And um, okay, I'll hold it thank you.

So what really strikes me about this is that really it comes back to poor planning.

This isn't the fault of anybody here today.

It's really a matter of okay, when they laid out this particular road in a particularly narrow way, I don't think that they were exactly planning for these kinds of vehicles to be moving through.

But it's been quite a while since we've had large fire apparatus, large rescue apparatus.

It's the it's a 21st century, we should probably be doing something about this.

So where my analysis on this is that normally, if it's necessary on the rare occasion for a uh rescue or fire apparatus to drive on a lawn, unavoidable in order to uh uh get to the destination, uh save life, protect people, then yeah, the calculation has to be there that uh okay, the lawn's gonna get torn up.

That happens.

But where it's designed effectively, because of the narrow road, that in situations like this, it's perfectly predictable that the lawn is going to get run over and torn up.

Well, at a certain point, I think that the city has to take some level of responsibility there.

It's a little bit of a tricky case.

I wish that Mr.

Wheaton was here on this 950 claim.

I have a feeling that similar situations like this are going to come up again.

So I want to make sure that my opinion is clear and on the record here that if the city is setting itself up to continue to be in this position in the situations like this with a narrow road, then I do think that the city uh should ultimately bear responsibility because the city is ultimately making its own cost-benefit determination on whether to expand to widen the road enough so that its own fire apparatus can effectively get down the city road.

So otherwise I view it more through the constitutional lens of if the city is going to constantly or from time to time anticipate drive out and go over this person's lawn.

Seems a bit like a taking to me.

And so then the person deserves uh fair compensation for that taking.

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable.

Uh and I should preface that by saying that when a definitive repair date could not be offered, I would like to hear a little bit more about the context of all of that.

We're able to come out there next week, but we can't give you a date certain, or is it uh maybe we can get out there in a month, maybe two months, we don't know.

Because there is a bit of a difference there as well.

But I don't have that information, so I don't know.

Anyways, at a certain point in time, I think that it does become reasonable where the claimant, the homeowner, is not being given a date certain from the city as to when the city would repair his yard for the homeowner to go out and hire a suitable vendor to go out and do that work for them.

Uh we often see bids from this particular uh vendor for this general type of work.

Uh I don't know the precise scope of work and all of that.

Again, I'd like to get more information on those details.

But if it's a reasonable amount for the scope of work here, then I would actually be inclined to go ahead and award that amount as long as all of the other information is also being provided.

Because this is the type of situation that really better planning would have prevented it in the first place, even though there might not have been negligence in that very moment.

So those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilman.

Any comments from the council?

Yes.

I do.

Oh, Mr.

President.

So from my perspective, there are layers to the problems here for this particular claim.

Uh one, the claimant went along with the repair on their own, despite the offer for the city to do it.

Two, we only have not even an estimate, they just simply got it from a vendor.

We don't have any explanation as to why time was an issue, considering it was just damage to the lawn.

Granted, damage is damage, I'm sure it was unsightly to a degree.

And perhaps more importantly, the claimant at no point has unless I've missed something, responded to any of the correspondence regarding these meetings or the potential denial of their claim.

Other than to initially request an appeal.

So I'm not sure why we should carry the water for them, especially when using the same analogy, they didn't carry the water in the way that we've set out it's supposed to be done, really any aspect of it other than going through with the appeal.

It's not it does not set a good precedent for how we handle claims.

I understand that it setting all that aside, the actual substantive part.

Yes, I understand the analysis.

That's it for me.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh Councilman DeLuise.

Okay.

Well, first of all, if I was choking or dying, or my cat was being threatened by flames, I don't care if you tear up my lawn, my neighbor's lawn, doesn't matter.

What upsets me more than that is if the claimant, okay.

We have to take our time to be here.

Okay.

I believe we've already wasted too much time on a 950 claim, and he was notified to be here at two meetings.

Okay.

So I'm inclined to deny this claim.

Okay.

I know we approve hundreds and millions of dollars, but this just upsets me that the person that's fighting the city for 950 couldn't take time to show up here tonight.

So my vote is to deny this claim.

Thank you, councilman.

Any other comments from the council?

Yes.

Councilman Kirby.

Yes, Chief.

Uh in our mind, is it says that that was an estimate from Yard works for 950.

Not an invoice.

Do we know who really did this work yet?

If he didn't do it himself.

I have no idea.

We didn't do it.

So we don't know.

He hasn't communicated other than the last communication that I had heard through an email from the claims person.

She spoke to him, he wanted a firm date, didn't get the firm date, filed a claim.

Without without three bids, only one bid, and it's only an estimate.

How can we even uh go along any further with this?

Uh it's not required for three on a property damage claim.

That's only for I believe uh a tire pothole claim.

Yeah.

Um, but I I that's it's uh it's in your court now.

It's not anything I can do.

I don't I don't think we have the answers to really put an honest vote on this.

And uh we don't even know if Yard Works did the work, and we're gonna pay 950 to someone that possibly didn't do the work.

I I have no idea.

It was it was um like I said, uh tire rut in the driveway, and it was filled in with when I went by it and saw it, it was filled in with loom.

I did.

I rode by the next one.

It didn't seem like anything the city of Warwick uh DPW couldn't have done for free.

Yeah, in all due respect, uh I I think as far as fixing the lawn could have been done for like 300 or so.

I I think the 950 is excessive for just the lawn pot.

I I have no knowledge of what was done and what it would have cost.

I don't know who repaired the road and if that was included in the 950, but uh I don't know if we were I don't think the road has been repaired.

Oh crack the yeah, well crack filling, but we would have done that.

Yeah, I don't think I don't think Yachtworks has any authority to crack fill out the road.

So we don't know who did the work and uh I I can't see how we go any further.

I I'm not disagreeing with anything you say.

It's it's your decision, not anything else I can add.

Right.

Thank you, councilman.

Any comments from the public?

Any comments from the public?

Um looking for a motion.

Make a motion or deny second.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Uh that is the last piece of business on the public safety.

We are adjourned at 62.

Thank you.

Would the intergovernmental committee please convene?

Uh no not.

Okay, good evening.

Time is now 623.

And the intergovernmental committee comes uh to order.

There are no minutes for approval.

So we'll move right to our first item of business.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I'll be recusing on this matter.

I'm sorry.

I'll be recusing on this first matter.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

First item of business, uh, an appointment to the land trust commission from Ward 2, Earl Simpson.

Uh Mr.

Simpson is here present.

Um, and uh this appointment, you know, carries a certain um significance as this is the uh or uh Mr.

Sims will be stepping in uh to fill the big shoes of Mr.

Mike Zaram.

Um who sadly passed away earlier this year.

Um okay, so uh appointment to the land trust commission, uh Mr.

Earl Simpson.

Uh Mr.

Simpson, would you like to take the mic?

Dr.

Simpson.

It's not Doctor, it's Earl.

Um I'm I'm pleased to appear before uh the council tonight.

I'm usually at home watching you folks on YouTube um and griping about the uh microphones that don't work, and I can't hear what you're saying, whatever, but um uh I'm pleased to be here tonight.

I am a 45-year resident uh of the city of of Walwick, uh having spent 42 years at Rhode Island College, retiring three years ago.

Um in uh the recent past, uh I become uh actively involved with the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, uh, and become active in there uh trying to save uh landscapes, uh forests, uh wetlands, places where animals live, birds, things like that.

Um a few years ago, time goes by fast when you're having fun, uh the city ran into a um concern over solar farms, and I got actively involved with uh a group of people, Mike Zarum being one of them, uh Jane Austen, chair of the commission being one of them, um AJ Ponde, who's who's here being one of them, and we actively worked with the council um to work on changing zoning regulations for where solar farms could go, um, and became much more actively concerned about um city government, which is why I listen to YouTube uh all the time.

Um and so upon the untimely uh death of Mike Sarum, um I thought about it for a while and then uh contacted uh councilman Ricks and uh volunteered to um join the land trust and work to save open space for the city, wetlands, uh forests, um, and just make the city a better place to live.

Um hopefully.

So that's why I I volunteered for that.

I don't know if you guys have any questions.

Thank you so much.

Uh and I do think it would be appropriate time for questions.

Do any of the uh committee members have any questions?

Councilman Muto.

Thank you.

Actually, no questions, just to thank you for stepping up and bringing your experience and your passion to the position.

Uh Jane Austen's uh running a great committee, and uh I I share my enthusiasm that you will make the city of Warwick.

So thank you again.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Uh members of the council, Councilman Ricks, Chairman.

Thank you.

First, thank you, Earl, for stepping up.

It's uh it's a lot to ask for volunteers to be uh giving their time and knowledge, expertise on the uh commission like this.

Uh I'm signing up for a term of five years, so I hope you're ready for it.

So uh time goes by fast when you're having fun, so uh well uh all kidding aside, uh it really is something where uh volunteers like yourself are really something that uh makes Warwick a great place to live.

I know that uh and I have full confidence in your ability to hit ground running in this position, having uh uh uh since you had worked with Mr.

Zaram on some related issues in the past, as well as uh knowing and working with other members of the land trust in the past on some of these uh different topics, the way that you follow the city council on YouTube and often coming here in person.

It's wonderful to see public participation like this, and it's uh it's largely uh thankless uh type of position.

Volunteer takes a lot of hours.

Uh, but uh it's what makes Warwick tick.

And so just want to make sure, since it is a thankless position, that we are at least giving you some thanks here this evening.

Uh thank you in advance for what I hope is many years of productive work on the land trust.

And uh always looking forward to staying in touch and working with the land trust, seeing how we can uh protect Warwick open spaces and other priorities that the land trust has.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Anyone else?

Uh Councilman Ladderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Simpson, one of the the first things that they told me when I was heading to boot camp was never volunteer that I remember.

Uh seriously, um thank you, not for only volunteering to serve on this commission, but for the constant attention that you have given to the city, your attendance at countless amounts of uh city council meetings and your input and your direction uh and your opinions are just so valuable to us, and I look forward to uh having you serve on the land trust commission and carrying on those um those same things that you do here.

So congratulations and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

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

Just uh please step up to the microphone.

Uh just state your name for the Liz Colt.

A member of the Warwick Land Trust.

And although it's apparent to me that it's absolutely unnecessary for me to um discuss um Earl's qualifications and enduring interest in the city of Warwick and particularly how we manage our natural resources and other resources.

Um I did want to get up here and say that I, along with my fellow trustees.

Sounds fancy.

Um feel very lucky that Councilman Ricks um nominated Earl, and by all indications that he will be joining us shortly as an official member of the Warwick Land Trust.

Uh, because so far and for the past several months, he's been an unofficial member and a pleasure and um again a great contributor to the conversation.

So thank you.

Thank you so much for your kind words.

Any other members of the public have anything to add, Mr.

Pendez?

Good evening, everybody.

Um AJ Panda.

I'm also on the land trust.

I'm a member at large.

Um, I'd like to begin by thanking Councilman Ricks for putting Earl Simpson's name forward uh for appointment to the land trust.

I believe Earl will be an outstanding addition to the Warwick Land Trust.

He's been an active member of our community for many years, as many of you already stated.

Um his academic and professional background clearly demonstrates the executive skills and leadership experience that will benefit that the commission will benefit from.

Earl's long involvement with the Audubon Society, which is the state's largest holder of conservation land, brings a valuable perspective on land stewardship and conservation that will only strengthen the work of the Warwick Land Trust.

He's also been attending our meetings for the last several months, which means he's really eager to start.

So, which is a good thing, and we always want that.

Um, we welcome Earl's enthusiasm and willingness to serve, and I respectfully urge the council to approve his nomination.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any other members of the public have anything to add?

Seeing none.

Uh do we have a motion?

A motion to approve.

Second.

A motion and second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Welcome to the land trust, Earl.

Uh okay.

Next up, uh, we have PCR 6626 resolution to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation requesting paving and engineering review of Greenwich Avenue.

Believe this is council Council President Snappy.

Yep.

So this is before us because the the short version is the state DOT keeps giving myself and Representative Bennett the runaround.

This has been going on for some time where there's a portion of Greenwich that's within a neighborhood that is in dire need of paving.

And the residents have been asking for such because it's a state road.

The current mechanism is that we have to go to the state for them to fix it.

Uh we've complied with every way that they said it needed to be done, and they keep changing the manner in which they say the request has to come in after we comply.

And so this hopefully can't be any clearer now.

Where if it passes, it'll be a resolution from the council signed by the mayor.

Uh, I'd like to think we will stop getting the runaround and they will actually acknowledge and agree that this is in the queue to be paved.

So that's why it's here.

There's also another add on here for the I guess there's a sinkhole in front of Crown Plaza of a reoccurring one.

So I figured while they're looking at things, like if they could look at that as well.

Thank you, Council President.

Any members of the committee have any questions on this?

Members of the council.

Any members of the public?

Resolution 6626.

Paving on Greenwich Avenue.

Seeing none, uh, do we have a motion?

More favorable action.

Second.

Uh, all in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

And finally, PCR seventy-26 resolution to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation State Traffic Commission requesting a traffic study of Greenwich Avenue where it intersects with Lancaster Avenue and Brianna Lane.

And I believe this is uh something related to a uh crosswalk.

Yep, this is a request for either a cross crosswalk or at least for something to be done because at this intersection, the distance between a crosswalk currently, if you wanted to use one is all the way at Crown or at Apenog, it's quite the quite a distance.

It's not really viable.

And this wasn't as much of an issue before, but ever since the road diet was implemented, apparently it's become far more difficult if you'd like to actually cross the road as a pedestrian.

So rather than forcing people to play frogger, I like for them to look into this and take action.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Any members of the committee have any questions?

Members of the council.

Seeing none, do we have a motion?

Motion for favorable action.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

And with that, at six thirty-six, intergovernmental is adjourned.

Thank you.

Full title.

This is it.

That's it.

The City Council Committee on public properties, land use, and community affairs comes to order at six thirty-seven.

We have one item on the agenda.

PCR six nine two six, a resolution in observance of Pride Month.

So I'll just start out.

We typically do have a resolution in observance of Pride Month every year.

June is Pride Mont.

And I'm glad that Warwick will continue to dock it and hear this resolution, even if the federal government chooses not to.

So any questions, comments, members of the committee?

Questions, comments?

Members of the council?

Questions, comments?

Members of the public.

We have a motion for favorable action.

Do we have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Four zero.

That concludes our committees.

Would the full council please convene?

The full council will convene at six forty one PM.

Uh clerk will please call the roll.

Here.

Mr.

DeLuys, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Carby, Mr.

Lattice.

Oh, wait, really?

Yeah.

My apologies, I should have looked left before.

That's my fault.

Please hold.

Mr.

Lattice.

Here.

Mr.

Nirdo.

Here.

Mr.

Rex.

Here.

Eight presentations.

Councilman Kirby, can you lead us, please, in a salute to the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and true republic for which it stands.

One nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Next is public comment.

Rule forty-one.

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 thirty minutes during which citizens may comment about Warwick 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 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.

The public comment session will terminate at the expiration of the earlier of all speakers, concluding their allotted time or 30 minutes.

Waiver of this provision requires unanimous vote of the council.

First up, we have Rob Cody Rob Cody Ward Seven.

I just wanted to bring everybody up to date on my first amendment lawsuit with the city, which was initiated due to the actions of the former councilwoman, convicted criminal Travis.

I recently received discovery from both convicted criminal Travis and Council President Snappy, where they both attempted to discredit me when I make fiscal issues public through emails that affect the taxpayer.

Convicted criminal Travis attempts to go back to 2012 to discredit me because of the work that I spearheaded to end the automobile taxes.

She seems to be upset that during my research on the matter, I discovered that her car taxes and her property taxes had been delinquent for years.

Although she voted to increase property taxes and decrease the auto exemption, which increased automobile taxes.

She didn't pay her bills in the way that every other resident is obligated to do so.

She attaches numerous letters sent to her by a neighbor that she's had a long-standing feud with.

How that has anything to do with this case is bewildering.

To be truthful, I really can't wait until her deposition.

Can you imagine the questions?

Can you imagine how rapidly her cra her character will be impeached?

Yet the city continues to spend taxpayer money to defend a convicted criminal.

It's so it's amazing.

Then in reviewing Mr.

Snappy's responses, he also attempts to put forth documents and emails that I have circulated pertaining to the waste theft and abuse, and use these things to attempt to discredit me.

All relative matters directly affecting taxpayers and city government.

The responses that he put forth from reven residents who have witnessed him exert Rule 19 to shut me down as well as to shut down a seated councilman are incredible.

Here are some of the quotes from residents describing him that he's attached in his discovery.

Petulant child, full of his own ego, disrespectful to residents, rude and smug, ring master of the circus, unacceptable lack of respect, outright disdain for the public.

These are the documents that he has put forward himself.

Interestingly enough, I discovered the online online, the Rhino Supreme Court decision of December 17th about Mr.

Snappy, which is a publicly available document to anybody, and it states the following points.

The applicant had no legal basis for withholding certain information and documents on the bar application.

The applicant was reticent in responding to subsequent requests for information that he failed to provide to the bar application.

The applicant indicated the only ultimate reason that he turned over the documents that he initially failed to provide was because he thought that he would not get his license to practice law.

The applicant displayed disdain and hostility towards the character and fitness process on how he chose to respond to requests for information that is sought from every applicant.

The applicant appears to operate from the perspective that his own perceptions of fairness should trump any rules or requirements to which he is subject to.

The applicant has displayed a persistent pattern of resisting authority and being unwilling to comply with requirements that he deems to be unfair to him unless and until compliance is forced upon him.

And finally, the applicant, both directly and through his attorney, displayed a significant lack of respect for the character and fitness process, as well as significant lack of awareness or interest in how his behavior is perceived by others.

Do any of these characteristics seem to be familiar?

Behavior in this body.

I will be sure to keep you all posted as things progress in this case, which again was initiated by the former councilwoman convicted criminal Travis.

Thank you.

And I apologize in advance because I can't quite read this, but I think it's David.

And the last name begins with the D.

DeRosa.

DeRozier, my apologies.

Okay, this is the first time I've done something like this.

Hi, I'm David DeRoger.

I live at 48 Draper Avenue.

I'm here to address the council about the Rhode Island Alternative Academy that's located in the old Green Elementary at 51 Draper, right across the street from my house.

We've been in Warwick for about eight years.

We've seen the Green Elementary School first as temp offices for the city officers, which was very convenient to walk across the street and pay my taxes and utility bills.

Then as a distribution of school I apologize, but can you speak into the mic?

The acoustics in here are awful, so it's hard to hear.

So we've seen the elementary school since we've been here.

First, as a temporary office for the city of Warwick that housed um tax office and various other offices.

Very convenient.

Walk across the street, pay my bills.

Then it was used as the distribution center for education products such as laptops during COVID.

And then the Rhode Island Alternative Academy moved in.

So, and also during this time, the Gorton Junior High building housed two different elementary schools in the course of three years while their schools were renovated.

So we were accustomed to school-age children, such as recessed food trucks and graduations.

Never had any issues.

Without notice to our community, Rhode Island alternative education opened up approximately three years ago, and that's when the problem started.

First, we like to mention that the concept of school for students who need extra resources in more support is a guaranteed.

With having a nephew who has autism, who went to a charter school and thrived, we understand.

What we are here for to make you aware what we have experienced, multiple disturbing incidences that have occurred, not in the building, but outside the building on the street on the sidewalk in our neighborhood.

The age group appears to be middle school age to high school age.

The web page for this school shows elementary school kids, which is the only photos they have.

To be honest, I have never seen elementary age children there.

Some examples we have experienced are students standing outside the building, yelling, swearing at residents, delivery drivers, mailman, and just random cars passing by.

Other behaviors included banging on the door multiple times, which had lead to breaking the door, um, throwing rocks at windows, whacking the windows with big sticks, and verbally threatening neighbors and members of the staff at the school.

On two different occasions for two consecutive school years.

You have one minute, sir.

Okay.

Um went over and talked to the superintendent, and he was condescending and unprofessional.

So I've reached out to Ed several times, and he's followed up with me.

Um we want to see is we want these kids to have an education.

We want we want to plan.

There's no plan.

The school basically, if they misbehave, they put them outside, they lock the door, and we have to pay for it.

Um we need we need somebody to follow up.

Um I know the school year is ended.

I hope changes before the next school year starts.

How can we make changes for everyone involved?

We would like to be updated before the next school year.

And that's my time.

Okay, thank you.

So next we move on to appointments requiring confirmation.

First, we have the land trust trust commission.

Earl Simpson, this is intergovernmental, so councilman Gephardt.

Mr.

President, I'll be recusing.

Yes, Mr.

President, the uh committee recommended unanimously uh favorable action uh for action, councilman riks move favorable action any discussion regarding the motion for favorable action, councilman Gebhardt?

All right, just second, got it.

All right, any discussion?

All right, seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

DeLouise, yeah, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, yes, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Riggs, yes, eight yes appointment passes.

All right, next is the consent calendar, PCR 71-26 resolution roll with the bids.

This is finance, councilman Latticer Finance Committee recommends favorable action for action, councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 71-26.

Second.

All right, and there were two bits separated out.

Is there any further discussion regarding the consent calendar?

Besides the two bids that were separated out, which obviously is no longer on the calendar.

All right, seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Sinapi, yes, Mr.

DeLouise, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gap Hot, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, yes, yes, consent passes.

All right, and now regarding the two items that were separated out, Councilman Lattice.

The first item is PCR 72-26, formally 2027 064, and um the committee recommended favorable action.

There is an amendment.

All right, for action, councilman Lattice.

Move favorable action on the amendment, which would be to add a vendor, ocean Inc.

to PCR 72-26.

Second.

All right, and discussion.

What was the name of that vendor again, please?

Ocean Inc.

That was the um vendor.

Yes.

All right.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll on the amendment.

Sorry.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice.

Yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Rix, yes.

Eight yes to amend.

All right, PCR 72-26 now stands before us as amended uh for action, Councilman Lattisser.

Move favorable action on PCR 72-26 as amended.

Second.

Are you saying 72 or 73?

72.

Okay, all right.

Sorry.

That's my fault.

I'm asserting.

All right, and it was seconded by Councilman Mudo.

Is there any further discussion?

As amended.

All right, seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Boley, Mr.

Gephardt, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattissa, yes, Mr.

Murdo, yes, Mr.

Rex.

Yes.

As amended.

All right, and the next item that was separated out, Councilman Latticer.

Uh that would be item number 2022 067.

Now PCR 73-26, workers' compensation self self-insured.

And um it was at the request of Councilman Ricks for a recusal.

All right.

For action, Councilman Latticer.

Move favorable action on PCR 73-26.

Second.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All right.

See non clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Mr.

Get Pot.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Riggs.

Recuse.

Seven.

Yes.

One recusal.

All right.

Next is unfinished business.

PCR 62-26 resolution relative to claim for Whedon.

This is public safety.

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

The uh the committee uh recommended denial.

All right.

For action, Councilman Muto.

Uh we committee recommended denial.

Motion favorable action for the dial denial.

Second.

All right.

Any further discussion on this?

Councilman DeLuise.

So would that be unfavorable action?

So it's favorable action on the denial.

Yeah.

So if you vote yes, you're sustaining the or affirming rather the denial of the claim.

Got it.

Any further discussion on this?

All right.

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapping, yes.

Mr.

DeLoise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Mr.

Gephardt.

Yes.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Lattice.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Riggs.

Yes.

Yes to deny.

All right.

And we're on to new business.

PCR 66-26.

A resolution to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation requesting paving and engineering review of Greenwich Avenue.

This is intergovernmental.

Councilman Gebhard.

Yes, Mr.

President.

Committee recommended favorable action.

For action, Councilman Gebhard.

Move favorable action.

Is there a second?

Second.

Oh, thank you.

Any further discussion?

See, that was Councilman Latticer.

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Mr.

Gephott.

Yes.

Kirby.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Rights.

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right.

Next is PCR 69-26.

A resolution in observance of Pride Month.

This is public properties.

Councilman Ricks.

Recommend favorable action.

For action, Councilman Ricks.

Move.

Favorable action.

Second.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Mr.

Gephardt.

Yes.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes.

Mr.

Mudo.

Yes.

Mr.

Rights.

Yes.

Eight yes motion passes.

Next is PCR 70-26.

A resolution to the Rhode Island Department of Transportation and the State Traffic Commission requesting a traffic study of Greenwich Avenue where it intersects Lancaster Avenue and Brianna Lane.

This is intergovernmental.

Councilman Gephardt.

Yes, Mr.

President.

Committee recommended favorable action.

For action, Councilman Gephardt.

Move favorable.

Second.

Second by Councilman Latticer.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy.

Yes.

Mr.

Delouise.

Yes.

Mr.

Boley.

Yes.

Mr.

Gephardt.

Mr.

Kirby.

Yes.

Mr.

Ladissa.

Yes.

Mr.

Muno.

Yes.

Mr.

Rights.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right.

We're on to unanimous consent.

Does anyone have anything for unanimous consent?

Seeing none.

Since there's no further business before this honorable body, I move to a docketing session.

Excuse me for once.

Could I just interject?

I don't know if we overlooked it or if I missed it.

Could we just have a moment of silence?

I don't know if you had mentioned it earlier, but for the young boy that drowned um in my ward in Konimicate.

Um on Friday.

And I'm sorry to say that I don't know his name, but um that's I've been living there most of my life, and I've seen these tragedies over and over and over again, and hopefully we can implement something to prevent them.

But um, I just like to have a moment of silence for the seven-year-old uh boy that drum on I believe Friday.

Is there any objection to that?

All right, seems like a safe bet.

I please have a moment of silence for the recently passed individual and thank you, Councilman D.

Louise, for not letting us miss that.

And councilman Foley, back to yours, you had said requested to move to the docket session.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Councilman Latticer.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor?

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

Ward one.

Ward two.

Passed.

Ward three.

Is that ward four?

I actually have um two.

I don't know if it would how to go about this, but I'd like to research.

I have a lot of complaints I've been getting about e-bikes.

And I'd like to docket something to the effect that maybe we could research e-bikes and maybe possibly get rid of them.

They're they're becoming a hazard to um you know uh drivers, and I've gotten more than one email from people in my uh area.

So you're looking for an ordinance regarding e-bikes?

An ordinance regarding e-bikes, yes.

The ordinance ordinance.

All right.

And and then one other one, what I was um discussing about as far as the um safety at Conimicate Point.

I know there's signage and it's in Spanish and they have an alarm and all that stuff, but I think people really I mean I grew up basically on the waterfront my whole life, and I have uh deep respect for the water.

Um I just think people we need to make them more aware of the currents when the the two waters meet from the south and the north at Conemicate, uh, especially at the sandbar.

They need to be more aware of the dangers.

So if we could let's docket a resolution regarding Conimicate Beach Safety, and we'll assign it to the public properties land use community affairs committee.

Yes.

Anything else?

No, thank you.

Ward five, passed, ward six, ward seven, ward nine.

And I don't believe I have anything either.

Let me just double check.

All right, so we stand adjourned at 7.07 p.m.