Good evening, everyone.

Let the record indicate that it is 5 03 p.m.

and the finance committee is called to order.

I am going to ask my colleagues on the committee if there's any objections to holding the minutes that we have in front of us.

I, for one, would like to have more time to do my due diligence to go through all these.

So I would um make a motion to hold the minutes until the meet next meeting in August.

Second.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Any does the entity reach individual?

So this would be inclusive of all of the minutes that we have.

Um we have a motion, we have a second.

Any further discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor.

Aye.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chairman.

Sir yes, if there's uh one clarification on the finance agenda too.

If that if there is no objection uh to cleaning up a date reference at the bottom of the page, uh that there's a reference to January 5th, 2026.

It should be July 6th of 2026.

There's no which one is that this was on the other agenda on the okay it should be June.

Uh so if there's no objection from the committee, um you can approve by unanimous consent the correction of that uh date reference.

Okay, uh so the we the um the the request is on PCR 75-26.

It says refer to separate docket consent calendar bids for January 5th, 2026.

It should actually be June 5th, 2026.

Uh any objections to the correction?

None.

Hearing none, we will move on.

Okay, let's do this.

Okay.

Okay, first item bid number one, 2027 zero seven four, found on page one, purchase various police vehicles.

Major hot.

Uh good evening, councilman Robert Hart for the uh police department.

The police department is requesting to use a fifty-six sit 10 MPA to purchase various Ford and Chevrolet police vehicles.

These vehicles will be purchased from three vendors, McGovern MHQ of Marlborough Mass, Colonial Motor Group of Plymouth Mass, and ITS of Warren, Rhode Island.

All pricing is under the Greater Boston Police Consortium Master Price Agreement and Cooperative Bid.

These vehicles will be assigned to various portions of the fleet, including supervisors, admin patrol, traffic and investigations.

The total pricing for 16 vehicles is 1 million 72, 838 dollars and fifty-two cents and this includes upfitting and equipment installation.

If approved, they'll be funded through the city lease purchase funds, budget code four nine nine zero four four nine.

And this is part of the fiscal year twenty-seven police capital budget, which includes one point one million dollars for vehicles.

Thank you, Major, and thank you for addressing the questions that I had asked regarding this bid.

Um so one of the questions I asked you was how many vehicles have been bought since 2022.

And in 2022, we had a total excuse me.

If you could take your conversations out outside, please.

Thank you.

In 2022, the city purchased 14, 2023 it was 16, 2024 was 15, 2025, 18, 2026, 18, and proposed for 2027 is 17 for a total of 98 vehicles in five years.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

On these vehicles that you're proposing to purchase, what else is going to be required in terms of cost or expenses?

And Major, I'm asking this because it seems as though, particularly in the past year, the city council is being presented with things to approve and dollars appropriated.

And then a short time later, we have more additions and other extras and more change orders.

And matter of fact, we have some of that this evening.

So one of the things that I'm going to be asking going forward is what other items in this case, these vehicles are going to be required, such as lettering, tinting windows, or anything else for that matter.

So these vehicles come from the from the upfitter fully equipped, ready to go.

The only thing we have to install is we will reuse different radios that we have.

We'll install our tablets in there, our mounting brackets.

If we did need another mounting bracket or a tablet, we already have bids in place for that for all those items.

So these come ready to go.

Pretty much turnkey.

And do you have uh any idea as to what that number is going to be for 16 vehicles?

Uh, what number, sir?

The additional items that you just mentioned.

Um, but again, it should be almost nothing because we're reusing most things and have most things in stock.

It would just be one offs that maybe one's broken or something doesn't fit right, but it should be minimal at most.

And all the lettering is all done on these vehicles?

Yes, it is.

Just the logos, etc.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And the tinting of the windows as well?

It is.

Okay.

So as I'm sure you remember and expect I do have issues with this.

As you recall from the budget hearings, I uh council microphones not working, sir.

I expressed I expressed my feelings regarding a million dollars worth of vehicles again.

As a matter of fact, I had proposed an amendment to that to reduce it in half, and that didn't get done.

So tell me why.

Why aren't we purchasing 14 vehicles?

And I'm excluding um the last the last two.

The last two vehicles, which are 37,000 apiece.

Why aren't you looking to buy all 14 vehicles at the 57,800 price?

Why is it that we have to have two explorer utilities for traffic for 75,000, and particularly two Chevy Tahoe supervisor vehicles, which are ginormous for 88,000?

Why can't the city just make do with 14 Ford explorers?

Sure, good question.

So these vehicles serve in different roles.

Now, traffic vehicles carry more equipment, they have storage and back for accident reconstruction equipment.

They have more lighting because they're up on the highway more often, they're uh doing large funeral escorts, VIP escorts, whatever.

So there's a different cost for that explorer compared to a patrol explorer.

Now, the Tahoes that we're buying carry even more equipment.

We do have a Tahoe already, and that vehicle has proven to be one of the best vehicles we have in the fleet.

We especially found that out during the last very large snowstorm that we had.

Um, but we're also seeing is we have an effort to make patrol sergeants, the ones driving these vehicles, um, when they get on scene to take control of a situation, and they do that by opening the back tailgate of their vehicle, and a couple people huddle around and they have a whiteboard, they have a laptop, they have whatever.

Uh the explorers are too small.

They they found it that it's too small that you could fit maybe two people under the tailgate of a car while it's snowing or raining out, and then it's no good.

Um, and the amount of equipment that's going in there, whether it be you know, the laptops, the extra radios, um, emergency medical equipment, breaching equipment, um whatever it may be, just isn't fitting in the explorers.

So we want to add a few more of these so we have some more room, and we also have that capability for these sergeants to be incident commanders and run a scene with the appropriate equipment.

And if I well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I I seem to remember when we did a tour of the lot in the vehicles that you maintain a fleet of about 50 vehicles, these type of vehicles.

So for vehicles alone, just for patrol officers, it's about 33 or so.

Uh I think uh nine traffic vehicles or so.

So we have a varying fleet.

About 50.

Sure.

And I also seem to recall that the um long range plan was to rotate vehicles about every five years.

Correct.

Five to six years is what we're seeing.

Um in fact, some of our oldest vehicles have been here about 13 years.

So in six years, we're replacing 98 vehicles.

That seems to be a much faster rotation than every five or six years.

So you're just go ahead.

Is the city taking into consideration that today the um COVID money or opera money, uh, but I I added that up in 23, 24, and 25, it totals 2.6,648,271 dollars of APRA money out of the six million one hundred and thirty thousand one hundred and forty-three that with the vehicles you're looking to purchase now come up to.

So aren't we heavy with vehicles in in terms of replacing vehicles?

It certainly is a much uh larger return or rotation than every five or six years.

And this was the thing that I I had questioned at the budget hearings.

Is it necessary?

Again, my position is there's a big difference between wanting and needing.

And is it necessary that this replacement schedule has to be accelerated to what it is today?

So short answer is um no, it's not exorbitant.

And yes, this is a good uh way that we replace vehicles.

So historically, I went through even further than you had uh requested and looked at our purchases over the years.

Um, and I wasn't able to get dollar figures on all those because some of those purchase orders I just couldn't find.

But since 2010, on average, we purchased 16 vehicles every single year since two for the past 16 years, almost 17 years.

So that has always been the history of the department.

Is our replacement plan is on average 16 years.

Now, some years it's 19, some years it's 12, whatever, but it's it's roughly 16 vehicles per year.

You also have to take into account that yes, we're buying these cars, we're also decommissioning cars, we're selling cars on Gov deals, but we're also losing cars in crashes, we're losing cars through mechanical.

So it's not just like the vehicles just aging out.

We we do have to replace things okay.

Um I still haven't changed my position on the accelerated replacement or the um the need now to purchase another million dollars of vehicles, particularly where um we're looking at over the last uh six years, you've purchased almost a hundred vehicles.

I remember um one year, I believe it was seven that was purchased.

And that's not to say that um that was the best thing, but it was necessary at the time because you can only stretch the checkbook so far, and that's my concern.

I think the checkbook has been stretched to the max, not just with the police department, but with with all the departments, to be quite honest with you.

So uh with that said, um I'm gonna turn it over to questions to my colleagues, but in the meantime, um, I want to assign a PCR number to this, please.

What was that?

76.

7626.

Thank you.

Okay, any questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Muto.

Thank you, Chairman.

Major, uh, as far as the purchase, is this a lease purchase or is this a uh full-out purchase?

This is part of our lease purchase for the capital uh plan.

Okay, the lease purchase.

Does that include uh five-year lease purchase?

Uh I thought it was a six-year, but I could be wrong on that, so don't hold me to the six, but I think it's six.

Is that the so the total cost that you're asking for covers the full time plus the purchase at the end?

I believe so.

That's how it was always explained to me that it is the entire thing is the lease purchase today for about six years.

Yep.

Can we get someone on the record from finance just to clarify that, please?

Hello, hi, Lynn Proger.

So the question, Lynn, is on a lease purchase uh for these cars.

We're assuming it's six years.

Could you confirm if it's six years?

And during that six years, the amount we're authorizing tonight is the total cost for that lease purchase plus the uh final purchase price.

For the lease purchase, we have to go out to bid to do that lease purchase.

At that time, I'll present to you multiple years to repay that.

And at that time, I can give you an estimate for what the interest on it might be.

I I don't know that off the cuff.

So the the interest charge will be above and beyond what we authorized tonight.

Yeah, there will be interest to repay for this.

Yeah, okay.

When do we we receive that information?

The plan is to get all the final numbers for the lease purchase for the year and then go out to bid for it.

Um a number of things haven't come through yet.

So before going out to bid for the debt, I have the attitude that we should probably receive the items first.

And that's how we've been doing it in years past.

So you approve the purchase of this or or not for tonight.

Um that will be added to the lease summary that we I will present.

I will get an RFP for the the financing on it, and then I'll bring it to council with the um repayment options on it.

Um historically, we've been doing about five years.

Sometimes we do six years.

Um we even did 10 years that I recall.

And who knows what the interest rate would be.

So the cost of that interest, where what account does that come out of?

Um, I didn't bring my budget tonight, but it's actually under the debt section.

Um, you'll see there's a debt payment schedule in there that includes lease purchase with the year.

Okay.

Listed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Look forward to seeing that.

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, we will move on to item number two, 2027.

You need to take a vote on that because PCR number okay.

We need a motion on PCR 76.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

All in favor?

No.

Councilman Mutter.

No.

Okay.

So per the rules and a tie vote, the matter will proceed to the floor with no recommendation.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um item number two, 2027 069 purchase 2026 MAC side loaded vehicle found on page 26.

Uh Eric Earl's Public Works.

The Department of Public Works is requesting to purchase one 2026 MAC side loading sanitation vehicle from sanitary equipment.

The request is one of the items in the fiscal year 2027 capital budget that was approved by city council.

Um in the capital budget, we had 450,000 dollars.

This vehicle comes in at uh 429,000 30 dollars, and that represents uh 20,970 less than we had anticipated, and this vehicle will be um will be replacing RS 67, which is a 2014 PETA bill with 170,000 miles on it.

Director, that 20014 vehicle, will you be um will you be keeping that vehicle to use as a backup or that one will probably use as parts?

That one it's um it's down pretty hard right now.

Um so it'll probably end up functioning as as more of a parts vehicle than as a backup.

Okay.

Um, I'm thinking of it too.

I want to um thank all of the department heads actually, at least in this binder, for um reminding us that these items such as yours were appropriated in the capital budget, which was approved by the city council, as you probably voted no on that budget, too.

So some of the questions I have is this quote that was provided to the department, the quote from the vendor is actually dated January 28, 2025, and that pretty much is consistent with all of their breakdowns.

The quote that was sent to the city is dated on June 2nd, 2026, which is I think somewhere around a week and a half after the budget was approved, maybe two weeks after the budget was approved.

So did the department get this price for this vehicle prior to the budget, or is it just a coincidence that this number of um 429,030 dollars was provided to the department after we approved the budget?

Uh we got this number after the budget was approved.

So about two weeks after the budget was approved.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um that explanation is is accepted.

Um, but here again is you've heard me say, I say you I'm generalizing many times over the years.

It's not always it doesn't really blow me away all the time when uh someone says, well, we came in, you know, X dollars and cents under budget, because when I look at the big picture and the entire budget, that also suggests to me that the taxpayers were overtaxed.

I'm not disputing that this vehicle is necessary.

I support the purchase of this vehicle.

I mean, I think we all agree that um the sanitation vehicles are uh absolutely um a necessity, but those were the things that I needed to get clear in my mind was the quote date, the published date, and the date that the department was no how how was this this is the only notice that the department received was the date quote on June June 2nd.

That was the only price notice that you got uh no, I don't believe so.

I believe that we heard that these vehicles may be available.

And then once we were aware of the budget situation, then we asked them to solidify that number.

Okay.

So yeah, so the department did know ahead of time that this vehicle was going to come in at about 20,000 less than what was in the budget or what was put in the budget.

I don't know about that timing because obviously we submit the budget and that estimate.

Well, you know, we're sending those numbers to them to the mayor in what April.

So but I'm going by when it comes to us for a vote.

That's when everything is kind of like finalized on the administration's end, and it ends up coming into our lap.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh any questions from members of the committee?

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, we will move on to item number three, 2025-237.

Pre-engineered metal buildings found on page 52.

Go ahead, Major.

Uh Councilman Robert Hart for the uh police department.

Uh the department is seeking a requesting to uh use a 612 alteration to bid to increase the spending authority for bid 2025 237 to tower construction for the WPD warehouse project.

Uh the department is not seeking any funds for this request.

We're seeking to correct the initial spending authority to request um to include the contingency amount of 197,000 uh that was uh budgeted for but emitted from the original request.

Um this would continue to be funded through our ARPA budget um code 51005030.

Major, who was responsible for the design of this building in total inclusive of everything.

Who was responsible for that?

It would be I believe Castle Booth was the architect in conjunction with the construction company Tower of Construction, um, as the primary people involved in this.

Coverage.

Uh I am not aware of that.

You're not aware of it.

I'm not I'm not aware, I have no knowledge of that.

I I can't answer that question.

This is one of those bids that just really concerned me.

We have 14 change orders, and I know uh via email we uh communicated about the the numbers not lining up and not matching in your report.

It says the police department is requesting a 612 alteration to bid to finalize the funding.

Why is it worded that way to finalize the funding?

The project is complete, and we need to take care of the last uh bills that are due for the uh project.

So these things that these change orders, they've already been approved, they've already been completed, and now the administration is coming to the city council to approve those expenditures.

That uh that would be correct.

Is that how things normally work?

Uh as you can tell, no.

We try to make sure that things are on time and timely and that you have the correct information.

Um, part of our funding was grant contingent, and we had to make sure that money was in the grant and accounted for, or else we would lose it.

Uh, and I think honestly, this got lost in the shuffle.

And this may be a question for um the chief of staff, or it could be for finance, or perhaps you you may know major.

Is it accurate to say that the opera monies had to be spent by December 31st, 2024?

Or appropriated?

Uh encumbered, propriated.

Okay.

And this 197,000 couldn't have been appropriated as of December 31st, 2024.

So this opera funds that the the major is talking about is a grant that the city received the million dollar grant.

It's a pass-through opera funds.

It's not the opera funds the city of Warwick received.

So these are a pass through opera funds that the City of Warwick Police Department received from another source.

Those funds, I believe, are under the same restriction.

I mean, maybe Lynn Project can answer that, but I don't know.

But these are not our funds that were under the December 24 commitment date expenditure of December 2026.

Those are the city opera funds.

These are the grant opera funds, completely different funds.

Okay, so those grant opera funds.

If they weren't used to pay off these change orders, they can't be used for anything else.

They could not be used for anything else.

No, it's a million dollar grant for this project.

When the the major in the police department came for spending authority, they inadvertently left off the 1970s I believe that's the number of contingency that should have been included in the spending authority request.

So we're we're still using the grant.

That's the amount of money that's left in the grant.

So if we don't take this grant money, approve it, then that 197,000 goes away.

Chief, that's only part of it.

What is so frustrating is that these 14 change orders were not included in the original estimate or the original proposal for this building that we have a designer and we have engineers that put this together, and one of the things is paving.

How could you miss paving for $98,000 to repave the parking lot?

How could that be missed?

Cameras added um to put into this building.

That that's why I asked about errors and omissions.

How is it that these people who are designing buildings don't know about a duck heater?

How about how that?

How do they not know about a stainless steel fashioners for roof curbs?

How is it they don't know that?

But then it's so easy to come back to the city and say, um, oh guys, uh, hey, listen, sorry, um, we need to do this change order because um we didn't include stainless steel fasteners, uh and this list just goes on and on.

This is like absolutely bizarre to me.

A grind of power, a grind-pump power.

Your microphones not working.

What's that?

You we couldn't hear you.

Oh, since your microphone um how could they not know it?

Door sweeps, really?

Door sweeps, um, a bump out, really?

Surge protectors.

This is like bizarre that we're paying these people, whoever they are, serious monies to design these buildings, to engineer these buildings, we approve it.

The city council, we approve it with a comfort level that is going to be completed with what is expected or what is supposed to have.

Thank you.

And then we turn around and we get whacked with 197,000 of changes.

So it's not just about well, this is a grant money, and you know, this is what you got to use it for.

This is about how did this happen in the first place?

How is it these professionals don't know about a sewer manhole?

I don't know, you got me, grinder pump, you don't know that.

Okay.

Um we got a credit for $2,000 for lawn maintenance.

I don't know what that's all about.

$23,000, $24,000 for camera pots.

How is it that these items were not included in the original proposal to us?

Things that are very obvious, but yet now they come to us as change orders that were already not only approved, but were completed.

So what happens if we say, wait a minute, this is ridiculous.

This these things should be should have been included in the first place.

We're not going to approve this.

Now what happens?

I'm not an attorney.

I could just imagine as a contractor yourself.

Sure.

Yeah, you would probably sue the city.

And we're put in this position because of these things that are done after the fact.

So we have put the city's putting in a position, and now we're put in a position that okay, if you don't approve it, um, we're probably gonna get sued.

Okay.

So again, what when this originally approved as a contractor, you there are sometimes, and I've done it in projects, you have a contingency amount, a contingency fund to cover unforeseen or unknown or things like that, change orders.

This 197,000, there was no contingency included in the spending authority request.

So that's part of the problem is when the original request was it was for the original bid amount without any kind of contingency.

There's always a change order or a unforeseen.

I can't speak to all of those.

Some of those items were additional ads that you know to spend down the grant.

You know, they weren't true change orders that we requested in the bid.

They would just spend down the grant.

So and as I understand it, those type of things were not part of these change orders.

Oh, I yeah, I'm not sure about that because the paving was not included in the original um award again.

I understand your frustration, Councilman.

I it's like it's it's just bizarre that it would it would be like okay, um, come put a roof on my house.

Okay, great.

It's gonna cost you 10 grand to put the roof on the house.

And we get there when you say, um, geez, sorry, Mr.

Facente.

Um, I forgot to include uh the ice and water, I forgot to include the nails, and we just forgot about the dumpster.

So we're gonna we're gonna catch you for another five grand.

These type of things that to me are very obvious, and I'm not I'm not uh into building metal buildings.

I'm not trying to put portray that I am, but I do know that some of these items that you're talking about, anyone who is designing these buildings, an engineer, the contractor is whoever participated in providing this to the city.

How could you not know these items?

A duck heater, grinder pumps, etc.

Just like bizarre.

So don't worry about it.

We're just gonna put in the change orders, they're gonna pay for it because they have to, and if they don't, we're gonna assume.

Um maybe you know, Chief, were there any errors and omissions in from these two contractors?

I don't believe any of those items rose to the level of negligence or errors and omissions charge the insurance.

Architects and engineers are required by law to carry engineer um errors and omissions insurance, and I don't believe any of those items were error or an omission.

You can go through that, you can go through that bid.

I I um I don't know what rose to the level of an error's an omission.

You know, so I don't believe any of those items were.

Some of them were ad alternates, some of them were add-ons afterwards when we found out the the amount of the money we were getting.

Um, you know, so just you can say mentions things off the top of your head or off the sheet.

I can't say whether they're covered by errors and omissions or not.

Did anyone bother to check on that?

I don't believe so because there's no there's no reason to doubt that the items were necessary and needed.

Um, and and you brought up the example of a roof.

What happens when you go to a roof and you take off the the shingles and the underlayment on the underside of the shingles is all delaminated?

Ah, great question.

Right.

And the answer to that question is it's included in the contract.

And right in the contract, it says when we remove shingles, if the underlayment is rotted, or if there's space decking, we're gonna have to install X sheets of plywood at X amount of dollars and cents.

That you know up front, these are not things.

But who pays for that?

The the customer.

Chief, though those that is something that is known up front.

This is not known up front.

But the customer pays that cost.

It's what, please?

If you put in the per square or per sheet of plywood as needed at $50 or $75 a sheet for roof sheathing, the customer pays that cost if you need to replace 10 sheets of plywood.

That's a change order.

If you didn't see it from underneath, I know what a change order is, and whether it's by the square foot or whether it's in number in totality, the point is the homeowner knows up front that there is a possibility.

Did any one of these things or any one of these things presented to the city and said, Oh, you may need a sewer manhole?

And if you do, it's gonna be this.

Oh, by the way, um, we we got these stainless steel, we're gonna put stainless steel fasteners on the roof curves because we thought we could do with galvanized or plastic or whatever they were gonna use.

Big difference.

Big difference in what you're saying and what I'm saying.

There's a big difference there.

Councilman, you have two minutes.

What I'm saying is these things just become more and more frustrating to me all the time because it's taxpayer dollars that have to complete or pay for this.

One way or another, it's either city taxpayers or federal taxpayers.

You know, we're we all we all pay income tax too, right?

So this money isn't freebies, but that's my frustration level with it.

Um, I I don't think that um that these this type of thing should be condoned, and I don't think it's something that should continue in the future.

I think these contractors that are dealing with the city warw, their feet need to be held to the fire, they need to be held accountable, and they need to be held responsible for the pricing that they're telling us.

Now, if there's some unforeseen thing that turns up, um, then fine, we understand, but not things that already should be there.

So I'm gonna ask for PCR on this as well.

PCR 7726.

Thank you.

It's PCR 7726.

Thank you.

Any comments, questions from members of the committee?

Councilman Mudo.

Thank you, Chairman.

Major, uh I'll have to agree with a lot of what the chairman said.

It is extremely frustrating.

And over the last year and a half, we have been put into many situations of a bad decision or a worse decision.

This is one of those times because we frankly have no choice.

That's a terrible thing to place to be in.

As far as total expenditures, we're at a million dollars from the grant.

We knew what we were getting.

So the question by the chief saying we didn't know what we were getting is false.

We knew we were getting a million dollars.

A change order of nearly 20%.

Chief, you I know you're shaking your head no, but we were we were clear that this is a million dollar grant.

Am I correct?

We did get grant.

The grant, I believe, came after the initial allocation of ARPA money for this, very close proximity, but after.

So uh both Century, Councilman.

So we did not know we were gonna get the full million dollars.

That is what I said.

We weren't sure what we were getting.

So we put in and ahead of the warded just in case we didn't get it or we did get it.

We were lucky we got a hundred we got the million dollars.

That's why we're asking to fulfill and spend the full million dollars.

So the so let me just make this uh get a clear understanding.

So when you came to the council, what was the original spending authority?

The original spending authority was granted at $2,676,000.

Okay, all right.

So either way, so how long how long the another question how long have we known about these change orders?

Uh I'm not sure the dates on the change orders.

Well, I'm not sure when the change orders became reached the level where it would exceed the spending cap.

So let me just pick one item out here and it'll it'll fill in this question.

So number eight bump out, it's a 50 about 54,000 expenditure.

When did that bump out get designed and uh constructed?

I'm sorry, said number eight.

Yep.

Uh that change order is showing 1218 25.

Yeah.

So we knew we had a change order of 55,000.

Here we are in July of 2026, asking to spend something that you've already spent.

Correct.

So these are the frustrations as a council.

You know, we we hear it all the time.

You know, how can we have trust in our in our government if we're just going out spending and cleaning up the paperwork afterwards?

So again, this is it, you know, it's just a symptom of a much larger cancer within the city as far as process procedures and doing the right thing, being transparent.

And this is truly not a transparent effort.

And again, we as a council are stuck with making a decision that's bad to worse, and you leave it again.

The city and the city administration leaves us with frankly no choice.

And you know, that impacts the credibility of this council.

It also uh erodes the trust that we have in our uh our residents within the city.

So uh that's all I have to say right now.

But uh councilman, just to uh clarify there was no intent by anyone to not be transparent.

I believe this was an oversight.

No one's trying to hide anything from you.

Uh uh transparency has many different meanings.

It's you know back in back in December, we knew we had to spend 55,000.

That's no small change.

We just increased our spending authority for small purchase from 25 to 5,000, and it literally took an act of the residents to vote on that, and here we are as a city just spending 55,000 without even a blink of an eye.

It's the actions.

So we need to take a step back as a city as department saying, Look, we have to follow rules, and the rules are if it's over five thousand dollars, we need to go to the council for it.

Okay, so it's not just you.

There are many examples throughout the city, which will be coming out in the next few weeks.

However, we uh we really want more transparency, more proactive transparency, and not wait six, seven months out of one out of one major decision.

That's what I mean by transparency coming through saying, hey, it was a mess up, you know, the bump out.

What was the reason for the bump out?

Uh fitting equipment in the design where vehicles are parking, uh, the firewall had to be moved a little bit and the bump out had to be created.

Um, and to your point, uh I believe that this $55,000 was not the catalyst, was just at some point along the line, something triggered.

Hey, oops, we're over the spending authority.

I don't know if it was this item or not.

It could have been a smaller $2,000 or $1,800 item that uh oh, we're over the spending authority.

And when when we're trusted with tax dollars, uh-ohs don't go, you know, doesn't build a lot of confidence.

So we really want to eliminate those uh-oh's and again, mistakes happen, overruns happen.

Let's have the communication, let's keep the communication going.

Let's not wait six months from something so obvious.

That's why we're here tonight in front of you.

Six months later.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

I just want to follow up on something else.

Um, thank you.

Um, if I if I run to the minute, we'll ask for an extension.

Um, it says um no corrected on page 60.

It says PR number 04, repaving of existing parking lot as per tower construction corporations change proposal number three.

I don't know what those two differences are, but what I do want to know is why this wasn't signed by the contractor, all the other change orders are signed by the contractor, and this one was not.

So that's question one.

And I know I'm running on time.

The oversight as I see it was in the contingency of 197,000 not being appropriated.

That was an oversight.

These change orders are not oversight, especially when they started to occur in July of 2025, a year ago.

So we racked up all of these change orders um for the past year, and it's just coming to us now for approval.

So let me go back.

Why was it that extension?

Request an extra three minutes.

Second.

We have a motion move second, all in favor.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, councilman.

Um so what's the difference between a PR number zero four and a change proposal number three?

So, as we had talked about in the uh I'm done in the email, um, a proposed resolution, proposed whatever is the city, the contractor talking about an idea, a change order is executing an idea.

So I don't know what their internal numbering is.

I don't know why they do number four, number 10, number whatever, but the change order is the actual action that's happened.

And major, let me be clear.

Um, this conversation that I'm having with you isn't directed to you because this occurred prior to you arriving.

This is this is a culture, and it's a culture that um has just like out of control with just oh, we're gonna change order, um, no problem, we're gonna pay it.

So it's not directed to you, so don't misunderstand me.

So why wasn't this document um signed by the contractor number two?

And thirdly, um, what what is this paving this parking lot?

Was this just like an afterthought?

And oh, we got some extra extra money here, so let's repave the parking lot.

Um I don't know why it was not signed by the contractor.

As you indicated, the other ones were.

Um, I don't know if this is the wrong thing.

Understood.

Um, I don't know why it wasn't signed.

This is the packet that I was handed in.

I'm not sure why it's not signed.

Um, as for paving, I don't know what the initial plan was, whether the paving um wasn't initially part of this, if only a portion of it was, but I do know the entire lot around that building has been uh repaved, uh which it needed.

Um so that's what this this money did cover.

So this would probably be a question, I guess, for the legal department, but because this was not signed by the contractor.

Does that mean that this document this this change order was not accepted by the contractor?

That's as you said, a question for the legal department.

And again, I don't know if this is the correct copy.

Maybe there's a copy that has all three.

This is just the one that's in the packet.

Chief.

Let me present that question to you.

So on um change proposal number three.

This was not signed by the contractor.

Why wasn't it signed by the contractor?

And does that mean that this is not um a binding agreement?

Because obviously the contractor didn't sign it.

Just as a point of order, in addition to your concerns, change order number one also wasn't signed by the contractor, nor was it signed by the it's what that one wasn't changed signed by the contractor, nor was it signed by the chief.

So the city doesn't have a counter signature on number one either.

And which one are you talking about?

Found on page 60.

Change order number one.

You change order number one?

So there's a couple of signature issues on several of these documents.

Yeah, I see the same.

Okay, so um again, I'm not an attorney, but we've accepted the this change order.

So it's been accepted at that price, and the contractor is obligated to hold that price.

Um, I'm not an attorney whether that would be a violation or a contract.

Um wouldn't be valid in court since we accepted it, even though he may not have signed it.

Um no one no one questions it either, right?

Oh yeah, councilman.

I wasn't the clerk of the works on this project, so um, I can't answer that.

But I know the change orders are based on the AI AIA pay recs and those assigned and certified by the contractor or the architect and engineer, those are how they get paid.

So this instrument does not generate a check.

It's a change order that's attached to a payment rec and AIA form.

That's how they get paid.

So nothing is paid based on this document.

It's based on a an A actual AIA payment requisition.

An AIA document carries a lot of weight in the courtroom.

You're right, it does.

Okay, but it's but this is a change order that's supplemental to a payment requisition that's that's itemized.

Correct, but the payment requisition is the primary that the change order is included into.

It's the backup to the payment requisition.

So you have the AIA payment recent and notarized by the contractor and the architect and engineer, and then you have the change orders that are supplemental to it.

So these are done usually prior to a payment requisition.

Payment requisitions are once the work has been done.

Which is a great point.

And that's why we're here, because it's after the work is done.

This 197,000.

You have one minute left.

Thank you.

Um that's on that building that was built after we approved the mobile command center.

Is that the building for this mobile command?

When the mobile command center was approved and when maybe the major does.

Again, uh I don't know what day you're the work council meeting, you approved that, but that does house that vehicle.

So okay.

So this building houses the mobile command center.

Yes.

When that mobile command center was completed originally, was that mobile command center vehicle able to back into the building?

Uh I believe so.

I believe the issue came with are you referring to like the bump out and the um was to do with the fire code?

So there needed to be a fireproof wall uh as opposed to sprinklers.

So we went with the fireproof wall because it was less expensive than sprinklers.

I think that's what you're getting at there and why that needed to fit and why that bump out had to happen.

That bump out that change order.

Is that part of having to enlarge that opening so that that vehicle could back into the building?

The height, my understanding was was fine.

That change order, the bump out, whatever is being called, was that to enlarge the opening to allow the vehicle to back into it?

No.

Uh the opening is fine.

It was to partition the inside of the building for fire code.

Okay.

Okay.

I still have 48 47 seconds left, but I'll pass.

Uh I'll defer them.

Eight seconds, you're right.

I didn't see the five.

Okay.

Um, almost questions, Councilman Nappa.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, and Major, this is more so just to correct the record or put something on the record more or less than to ask you any questions.

I do share the chairman's concern relative to both the architect and the contractor for not foreseeing some of these large expenditures, and I know this is not on the police department.

Police department does police department work.

We expect the architect and the contractor to foresee things like a massive paving project that should have been included.

Now, what I would like to correct, and I'm not sure if you're willing to speak to this fact, but it seems as though some of the rhetoric here was that the colonel and commander Sullivan were signing these change orders knowingly exceeding the spending authority.

My understanding from your position paper, your presentation, and what you've testified to is that they were unaware that they were exceeding spending authority when they were signing these documents and knowing them personally both.

I held them in regard to know that they would not just exceed spending authority to thumb their nose at this council and at this body.

Is that a correct understanding?

That is uh 100% correct.

Uh we were made aware of this exceeding the spending authority by purchasing.

Uh so that they did not know.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Major.

Any questions from members of the council?

We have any questions from members of the public.

Are there any questions from members of please?

Just identify yourself for the record, please.

The mic's not on the hi, I'm Robin Cardinus.

We still have these situations happening over and over again with every project, it seems.

Can there be or should there be consequences for the contractors and architects involved?

Or should the department overseeing the projects have to come to you when it goes over budget?

I there has to be some more guide rails on all these projects that are happening.

It's just over taxing people, people having to leave the city, losing their homes.

I think something needs to be done.

And I hope you can do it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from members of the public.

Um councilman Napra, I think you you hit on um something very important, and that is accountability.

And when someone is signing for change orders and increasing tax spending dollars, someone needs to be in touch with the numbers and notifying or monitoring and letting someone know in this case, the chief or the deputy chief.

That um uh sorry, guys, but you've reached your spending authority, you cannot go any further without council approval.

So that's part of the breakdown in how we got here.

That's part of the culture that I'm speaking to is these overviews of processes get us to these points where we're at this point of no return, and people feel guilty um saying no, um, or are afraid of a lawsuit.

Um, well, then you know what?

Somebody needs to be held be held accountable.

Someone needs to be held responsible.

I am not going to be the one to hold the taxpayers accountable or responsible.

I'm not doing it.

So we have a PCR 77-26.

Uh, I would um strongly advise again that there is a process put in place for verifying spending of different things.

Um, I need a motion on PCR 77-26.

Move favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion favorable.

We have a second.

All in favor?

No.

And I'm voting no, not on the building, not on what needs to be done.

I'm voting no on this because I object to the process and I object to how we got here, and I object to um it's well, if we don't pay it, we're gonna we're gonna get sued.

Well, that should have been thought of before we got here.

So that's why I'm voting no.

Thank you, Major.

Sorry, you had to be the one in the hot seat.

Okay, next item: purchase roll-out carts, lids, and wheels.

Item number four, found on page 70.

Eric Earl's Public Works, uh, Sanitation Department is requiring the purchase of rollout carts used for refuse and recycling that are provided to our residential household.

This request also includes replacement wheels and replacement lids for barrel sizes, 95 gallon gray cart, 65 gallon green, and blue carts.

Price has been secured from Rarig Pacific Company as the city carts have been obtained through this company.

It is not in the best interest of the city to bid this item since we would have to stock new items, parts for other style carts.

There's no fee for the city seal.

Lead time for this order, if approved, is eight to ten weeks.

The cost is sixty-four thousand one hundred and five dollars.

Thank you, Director.

So the quote to us is dated on April 30th, 2026.

And on May 12th, the proposal was issued with a 30-day requirement.

Is this quote still good?

Yes.

And you have confirmed that?

Yes.

Okay.

Why didn't this come to us in June?

Because there wasn't money available.

What please?

This we're paying for this out of this fiscal year.

Money wasn't available in the last fiscal year budget for this purchase.

So you had none of the line items in your budget were under budget.

Not this item.

But those over the monies that were left in your line items could have been moved over just before the budget for this year, right?

I don't know if I don't know.

Okay.

Um, and to support your request of 64,105.

How many of these new buildings, new homes are being built that are going to require or are approved for these bins?

Uh, I don't have that information.

Was that information determined prior to coming to us for 64,000?

No.

So how did we arrive at this number of 64,000 dollars?

This is what if we could purchase more, then we would.

This is what was allotted in the budget, so this is what we're purchasing.

We go through these.

The thing is, our program rolled out, I don't even know.

15, 20 years ago.

The bins that are out there at the end of their useful life, we are constantly getting repairs or damages, replacements.

One of the things that is kind of saving us is that when we initially rolled out the program, people received the two bins, right?

And now people only need to use well, right?

But the recycling, I'm sorry, and now they only need to use one of those.

So we have collected a lot of those that people no longer use and don't want to just keep in their backyard.

So we've been recycling those, but we really are at a point where whenever we get bins, they're coming in and going out the door pretty much at the same rate.

And the repairs are the same thing.

We have a dedicated person going out and just making repairs to bins at people's houses.

Off to the back, um, it looks like I don't know, hundreds of bins back there of numerous colors.

What are those bins?

Are those new?

Are they bins that have been um you know repurposed for pots or what?

What is the story?

A lot of the bins that are stacked that are stacked back there that you see um are the smaller ones, the 35 gallon.

Um, and they've been there for so long that they first of all, there aren't a lot of people.

Well, some people do request them, like elderly people, for example, that don't want to pull a big bin down, and so we have them, but not a lot of people want the 35s just because they have more trash than that.

Um that's a lot of what's back there.

Uh and everything else that you see is is kind of like Frankenstein.

We are taking stuff in, taking parts off, and and kind of using it that way.

So those bins that are there, the larger ones, are they there?

Um because they're just unusable, they get holes punched in them, or are they there because they have uh a missing lid or a broken wheel?

All of that, yeah.

But most of them, most of them, if they're back there, it's more than just a lid or a wheel, it's damaged to the body itself.

Because, like I said, we'll put new wheels on, we'll put a new lid on, but if the body is damaged or something is eaten through the top of it or the side of it, those kinds of things, obviously, they're taken out.

Um, they still use we use them in the yard for our refuse within public works because you know that aesthetics don't matter, but um, but they're not the kind of thing that we would ever hand out to a resident.

So there shouldn't be any bins back there now that we could just put a new cover on or a new wheel and move them out instead of buying brand new ones.

No, okay.

How was the number for freight determined?

That's another pet peeve that I have.

Um, I have it because we approve a freight number, and then lo and behold, at some point it comes back, and well, um, you know, the number was was wrong, and we need X amount of dollars and cents more for freight to cover it because we already paid for it.

How did that number of five thousand five hundred and fifty dollars for freight?

How was that determined?

It's it's based on uh a full trailer load.

It's based on what a full trailer load.

So that's that's how they determine their freight costs.

So whether we whether we ordered half as many bins, we were still gonna pay that same freight because they're charging us for a full trailer load.

So we buy as much as we can fit on that trailer to get the most out of that freight cost.

Is that something that someone in your department has tried to negotiate with them?

If we only have a truckload, we're gonna get whacked $5,500.

There's there's not gonna be any additional freight charges.

This is this is the cost.

You mean there's not gonna be any initial freight charges?

Well, you had indicated that you're worried about some kind of change.

Yeah, it says estimated freight rate, five thousand five hundred and fifty dollars.

Yeah, this that yeah, that's what it is.

Period.

Period.

Not coming back to us in two months from now saying uh hit us another 400 bucks.

No, okay.

Okay, um, I do not have any other questions on that item.

Any questions from the members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

We have any questions from members of the council.

Councilman D Louise, please.

Yeah, and I don't have any questions, but um, I just like to thank the Department of Sanitation uh for going out on July 3rd, which was Friday, who we made a call to, and um I happen to be it's a funny story.

Happened to be at my friend's house, and the garbage truck had gone by and just dumped his trash, and the lid was broken off.

Try to fix it many times.

So that was one of I've had two other ones that they also replaced lids and repaired the bin.

So credit to our sanitation division supervisor, Jay Bastine who's here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any other questions from members of the council?

Any questions, comments from members of the public?

Do we have any questions or comments from members of the public?

Hearing none, thank you, Director.

Moving on to item number five, twenty twenty-seven zero seven five, found on page seventy-three, land evidence software.

Any questions from members of the committee?

Any questions from members of the council?

Do we have any questions from members of the public?

Sorry?

Okay, true.

True.

Um, so is there anyone present?

It's me.

Okay, city madam clerk.

You're so quiet back there.

Thank you.

I'm like you know it's go to it.

It's the land evidence software.

Okay.

Talk to us.

What do you want to know?

Whatever you need us to know.

It's late coming to you, of course.

And it's for all the land recordings.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Um, with that said, are there 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, the last three items are under the fifty thousand dollars.

Do we have anyone on the committee would like anything held up?

None.

Any members of the council want an item held out?

None.

Anything from members of the public.

Any members of the public would like to have any of these three items held out.

None.

Okay.

So let's see.

What else do we have?

Okay.

So with that said, I need a motion um on those items that we didn't hold up.

Move favorable action.

Second.

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

I aye.

Thank you.

That concludes the City Council Finance Committee at six sixteen.

Thank you, everyone.

Hey, all good.

Good to see you guys.

We have one extra, and I'm sorry that I went uh read too quickly.

Where is mine?

There we are.

I'm good.

Okay.

We'll get going.

The City Council Committee on Public Properties, Land Use, and Community Affairs comes to order at six nineteen PM.

First up, we have acceptance of the minutes.

Let's uh unless there is any objection.

I'll just have a single vote on the time.

I don't talk about the question.

Is someone talking?

Okay.

Yeah, we just have to uh be quiet here while the meeting is ongoing because the acoustics in this room are terrible.

Okay.

So if there's no objection, that is if everyone uh here on this committee was present for each of these four meetings.

I know I was then uh we can hold the vote for each of these four meetings, acceptance of the minutes in one vote.

Was anyone absent on any of those?

Hearing none.

Do we have a motion to accept minutes for those four meetings?

So moved.

All right.

Uh Councilman Foley makes the motion.

Councilman Kirby seconds.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, then we have two items on the agenda.

Now, before I get started, just a housekeeping note here.

What we'll do with the public hearings, as we always do as a committee, or at least have done for quite a while as a committee, is uh pass these for consideration of the city council as a whole, more efficient for discussion purposes and save some time and trouble for the stenographer as well.

First up, we have PCO twenty-three-twenty twenty-six, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the City of Warwick.

City of Warwick is the applicant.

This is seven seven one post road, assessors plat two eight eight lot.

This is also the uh petition that relates to the property commonly known as Aldridge Junior High in Ward Two.

Council President, shall we uh move to have this held by the folk city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion for this item to be moved to the floor without recommendation of this committee for purpose of public hearing.

Second all in favor?

Second, we have PCO twenty-four dash twenty-six, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the City of Warwick.

MJ V Enterprises LLC is the applicant.

Address 2281 and 2279 West Shore Road Assessors Plat 350.

Lots 84 and 661.

This is Councilman Muto.

I take it you would want this similarly moved to the floor for public hearing.

That's the recommendation by the sponsor whose ward this is in.

Do we have a motion?

So moved.

Moved by Councilman Foley.

Second.

Seconded by Councilman Day Louise.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That concludes the business of this committee at 623 p.m.

With the intergovernmental committee, please convene.

Okay.

So Councilman Gebhardt, unfortunately, could not be with us tonight.

It is 624, and the intergovernmental committee is now in session.

First order of business is acceptance of committee minutes held on March 9th, 2026, April 27, 2026, May 11, 2026, June 1, 2026, June 15, 2026, and that's it.

Um I was absent due to family illness on June 15th.

So relative to approval of minutes on March 9th, April 27th, May 11th, and June 1st of 2026.

Do we have a motion to approve those minutes?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion and second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

3-0.

Uh if Councilman Muto, if you can take over on the June 15th, I have to recuse.

May I have a motion for approval of the minutes for June 15th, 2026?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Recuse.

Okay, moving past that.

We have one appointment today.

Uh Attorney Gerstenblatt has been waiting patiently, so I appreciate that.

It is for Attorney Joel Gerstenblatt.

Uh reappointment to the Board of Canvers.

Um Councilman Gebhart is not here today.

Um, and I would just like to say that uh having worked with Attorney Gerston Blatt on a personal and professional level.

Um he is extremely diligent, uh, very well qualified for this position, has been doing it for some time.

Uh and I know that he brings the same diligence and dedication to the board of camisters as he does in his professional life.

So attorney Gerson Blood, if you have anything you'd like to say, I would just like to thank the committee and the council for their consideration.

Excuse me.

I have been a resident of Warwick since age 12, seventh grade.

I just mentioned my alma mater or Aldridge High School mentioned.

I um graduated Pilgrim High School.

I graduated the University of Rhode Island.

I graduated at Hofstra University School of Law.

I've been an attorney for almost 48 years.

I've had my office in Jefferson Boulevard from 2006 to 2021, previously being in downtown Providence.

Um I'm registered unaffiliate an affiliated.

Um I am semi-retired, mostly for my litigation practice, which was my concentration.

I serve as an arbitrator and a mediator for the superior court, guiding a lightum for the superior court, and some general practice probate practice as well.

Um I'm um was also chief judge or judge of the municipal court from 1994 to 2018, almost 24-25 years.

And um, it would be my pleasure to serve the city once again.

Thank you.

I would urge my colleagues to uh vote in support of this once we get to the point of a motion, but any questions or comments from the members of the committee.

Councilman Muto.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh more of a comment again.

Thank you for all your service.

Uh many decades worth, and uh look forward for your continued service on the board of elections.

Thank you.

Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

I wanted to similarly thank you for your many years of service to the city, and thank you in advance for hopefully many more with the board of canvassers.

Thank you.

Councilman Lanniser.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good evening, Your Honor.

Good evening, Councilman.

Nice to see you again.

To me, you'll it always be your honor.

So I had the pleasure of meeting Judge Gerstenblatt when I first got elected in 2012, when he was the municipal court judge.

And that meeting was precipitated because of various problems that I was having in the ward with minimum housing violations, enforcements, um, etc.

etc.

And one of the major issues was a property located at one thousand and seven Warwick Neck Avenue.

Um sure your honor remembers that was a property that was um in despicable condition, a danger, a hazard, uh negative impact on tax revenue around the remaining properties that had been sitting there for in excess of ten years, and no actions were being done or taken.

Now this goes back to 2013, I think, when we first started addressing this.

Um helping us with some of these issues.

So I certainly congratulate you on your appointment to the Board of Canvases, and um look forward to working with you in a different capacity.

But um thank you for everything that you did to help me and the citizens of work throughout your tenure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Any questions or comments from members of the public?

Questions or comments, members of the public?

Mr.

Langseth, uh Richard Langseth, Bud Long Farm.

I would like to remind the committee that um you should approve the minutes for this appointment next meeting.

Uh I've noticed that all the committees have been not approving their minutes, and if the minutes are not approved at the next meeting, then it could a challenge could come up.

I mean, it's vitally important that the committees all approve the minutes at the next meeting.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Langsteth.

Any further question or comment from members of the public?

Seeing none, do you have a motion?

Motion favorable action.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you, Turner Chris.

Thank you.

Time is now eight thirty-one, and we stand adjourned with no further business.

That's strike that six thirty-one.

With the ordinance committee, please convene.

Yeah, yes.

Okay, the time is now six thirty-three.

We have minutes to approve.

Uh first order of business is approval of minutes from March 9th, March 23rd, April 6, April 27th, May 11, and June 1 of 2026.

Move to approve.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Three oh.

Approved across the board.

Second order of business is PCO twenty-two-twenty-five, an ordinance prohibiting camping on public properties.

Uh that was documented by me.

I would like to request to hold this until the meeting on November twenty third to allow for some amendments and further conversations to take place.

There is quite a bit of work left to do on this uh proposed ordinance.

Move to hold November twenty-three.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Three oh.

So held and second order of business, PCO eight dash twenty-six and ordinance establishing real estate non-utilization taxed by Council President Sinape.

I believe the intention here is to also request a hold for some updates to the proposed ordinance, and the request would be to hold until August seventeenth.

Is that correct?

Yes, please, in order to allow it to be adapted to commercial only.

Okay, until we have a motion.

Move to hold August seventeenth.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Three oh.

Motion passes.

No business standing before us any further.

We are adjourned at six thirty-four.

Chairman Latticer, that's how you run committee.

Quick and efficient.

I'm sorry.

I didn't hear what you said, but I heard ouch from Councilman Mudo.

Uh would the city council please prepare to convene?

Thank you.

Yes.

The full city council will convene at six thirty-five p.m.

Right?

Yep.

So first up is roll call.

Madam Clerk, whenever you have a moment.

Mr.

Snappy.

Mr.

Delues, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Gephott, Mr.

Kirby, Mr.

Lattice.

Here.

Councilman Lattisser, please lead us in the salute to the flag.

And the number seven.

Oh, it's bankable.

And no more.

So, first up is general communications, announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events.

Councilman Lattice.

Yes, uh, thank you, Mr.

President.

I'm going to request a moment of silence for our fellow colleague, former councilman, Council President Stephen Morola's mom, who passed away recently at 95 years old.

She's just a wonderful, wonderful lady.

For those of you who do not know her, um, I certainly had the pleasure of uh knowing her.

So I would request a moment of silence, please.

Please all have a moment of silence.

Does anyone have anything else for congratulations, condolences, or community events?

All right, seeing none.

Next is executive communications, specifically acceptance of minutes from the council meeting held on May 11th.

Is there any opposition to approving said minutes as presented?

Seeing none, so approved.

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 Warwick City government issues subject to the following stipulations.

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 or comments shall be issues directly affecting city government.

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

At least I think it is Richard Langseth, Bud Long Farm.

Um didn't have a chance to sign up, so when Miles is finished, could you let Emo speak for five minutes?

He's right over here.

Okay.

Appeared before the council and urged that the body take over the highway leading from Budlong's corner to the Buttonwood station, which was also the post office in Buttonwoods.

He said that the taxpayers of Buttonwoods, mostly summer residents, paid taxes on property valued at 210,000 dollars.

This was in 1915, and then all they received from the town was a few street lights.

So there's been all these discussions over the years that the Buttonwood Beach Association has been a private entity and it has never reached the town council for um approval of the roads or for um work on the roads.

That that is just simply not true.

This is an article that appeared in the Providence Journal in 1915 on April 15th.

The CRMC has recently agreed that the Buttonwood Beach Association has dedicated the roads of Warwick to the public.

And at that hearing, the CRMC will state that the Buttonwood Beach Association dedicated the roads of Buttonwoods to the public.

And then the comment period will be about use.

Did the public use the roads?

And I can assure you that the public has been using the roads of Buttonwoods for many, many years.

In the 1880s, the federal government put a post office into Buttonwoods.

There was a bridge from Buttonwoods to Oakland Beach where the people walked across the bridge and went to the post office at Buttonwoods to check to see if they had mail.

People may not realize this, but when I was a kid growing up in Western Connecticut, um, I had to go to the post office.

There was no delivery to the farm.

I had to go every day.

I had to go to the post office and find out if I had any mail.

That was also true at Buttonwoods and much of Warwick, all of Warwick before 1860, and until 1947, much of Warwick was serviced by post offices.

People went to the post office to get their mail.

They went to the post office at Buttonwoods to get their mail.

It's federal property.

When they went to the post office to get the mail, they walked down the streets.

When they walked down the streets, they were public users.

Public users accept dedications of contractors or developers, such as the Buttonwood Beach Association.

The Buttonwood Beach Association said we dedicate the roads to the public because that's the way we can sell lots.

If there are no streets, you can't sell lots.

Okay, they did that.

Now 120 years later, the CRMC has found that yes, they did dedicate these roads to the public.

So all I need to do amongst the people in Warwick is find out if anybody has ever walked down that road.

And if you've walked down that road, I suggest you come to the hearing and you tell the CRMC and you tell the City of Warwick and the state of Rhode Island and the Buttonwood Beach Association, yes, I walked down that road that you dedicated to the public.

I accept that dedication.

This is very important, and this is going to happen.

And more and more and more is going to happen.

I just can't believe that the mayor went on social media.

The mayor went on social media and he said that Buttonwoods is private.

He received over 200 comments on the Facebook page, saving Rhode Island Coastal Access, saying, What are you doing?

Why would the mayor of Warwick say that the roads are private?

What does it mean?

Does he does he have a vested interest in this or something?

We really need to straighten out a lot of things in Warwick, okay, including the minutes of the meetings.

You need to you need to approve the minutes the next meeting.

You don't wait four months.

But this one is really important, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

And then Miles, you're gonna be after this guy here.

He's gonna come up with it.

All right, next up.

Rob Cody Ward Seven.

Next week will be three years since my first amendment rights were violated in this body by the former councilwoman convicted criminal Travis.

So I felt I would bring the latest update to your attention.

Evidently, since I've been speaking about my lawsuit and talking about certain documents and information, which by the way, is all public information that has either been sent to a vast email list or put on social media for comment.

Certain members of the council are upset and have made a request to have a gag order issued against me.

On Friday, I received the motion that has been put forth for the gag order.

And I do find it interesting that the city lawyers, in the effort to defend a case of a First Amendment violation, would put forth a motion asking that my first amendment be suppressed so that I cannot speak about my lawsuit.

One has to wonder how these people get out of law school with no comprehension of the constitution.

Contained within this motion, the city alleges that I spoke of text messages by city council members and two other employees, and that these are personal and protected communications.

What they don't comprehend is that the court has consistently upheld the premise that any time a municipal employee uses their personal cell phone while in the performance of their job duties, for example, by text messages or video recordings, those cell phone records now fall under the FOIA act and are considered public information under the APRA laws.

So for example, when a seated council person during a council meeting sends a disparaging text message about a resident, that phone record is now a public document that can be obtained by APRA and spoken about by anyone at any time.

If I send out an email to 187 people on my email list pertaining to the non-stop waste in the city and people reply all, and their reply goes to Mr.

Snappy, for example, when he submits that email as part of discovery, it has no protection whatsoever because it was done in the public domain.

I know he was upset at the last council meeting when I read excerpts from the character and fitness review board that he failed, but that is an online publicly available document information that anyone can access.

You would have thought that he understood that, but then again, well, I won't go there.

This gag order motion also tries to infer that when I use the terminology convicted criminal Travis, that it is harassment.

The fact of the matter is that numerous official court documents indicate that that individual is a convicted criminal, and I am within my rights to use that terminology.

But here's what the residents need to be concerned about.

Mr.

Senapi in his capacity as a council member in the past put forth and was in favor of legislation to change council rules and limit the public.

He also maintained that same premise relative to council members.

Recently, he attempted to remove Councilman Ladislaw from his position as finance chair.

And the reasons that he gave in his speech was that Mr.

Ladisau was asking too many questions in public and wanted him to ask them in private.

Again, Mr.

Snappy, through his attempted coup, sought to limit speech, which the public would have the opportunity to engage in.

His actions on that date, along with other council members, show a direct attempt to suppress public discourse and use his position as a bully pulpit and attempt to limit free speech.

Imagine if he was successful in removing a councilman because the councilman actually performed the duties that he was elected to do so.

Imagine the chilling effect on free speech if this gag order is successful.

The general public should be highly concerned about the actions of these council people and their attorneys.

As the number one goal is to suppress free speech and trample on the constitution.

And one last note to Mr.

Snappy.

Pertaining to the document excerpts that I read from the last meeting, I am sure that you realize that there are official stenographer notes from the character fitness review.

When you email that document to several people, it is no longer a confidential document because you have chosen to put it into the public domain.

And at that point, all of that data is now fair information to speak about.

Thank you.

Next up is Miles.

Also in 2028.

So I would like to say with the camping ordinance that I would make in my mission, you know, as an advocate, I'm in order for these homeless individuals to get a respite of some kind in Warwick.

Thank you very much.

And then next up is email.

I apologize if I'm butchering that.

When you get up, just please state your full name for the clerk.

My name is Emil Joseph Vermette III.

I reside at 22 Breadman Place in Warwick, and I'm here to talk about what's going on with Aldridge.

Um I've been living in my house since 1970.

I was four years old.

My dad bought it.

He worked two jobs to get us out of the city.

Um, what I see going on in Warwick, I find kind of horrifying the way our taxes are going up.

Uh I was just talking to Jerry Jeremy Ricks yesterday.

I said, you know, for the last two or three years now, I used to be able to pay my taxes, my house, and my car insurance all at once.

Now I'm paying the insurance every month and the taxes quarterly.

I just can't afford to come up with 11,000.

I'm also looking, you know, I've never had great jobs until recently.

Uh I'll be lucky when I retire if I have a pension that might be about a thousand dollars a month, which is only 225 a week, except on a five-week month.

And right now, if I was to have that pension, all that does is pay taxes and insurance and nothing else.

I look at all these uh hotels going up.

Um you went on, and I'm looking like, all right, the city's making money.

Where's my tax break?

And in Aldridge, I do not want to see any housing units go in there as far as multi multi-housing units, single families.

I'd be fine with.

I don't want to see a strip mall go in there.

Um, it just would create a lot more traffic in an already crowded area.

Uh and you know, the neighborhood is is very nice, and they call it the suburbs, and it's well, we're starting not to turn into the suburbs anymore.

And uh it's a concern to me.

And um, you know, I'd hate to leave a house I've been in since uh 1970.

So thank you for listening in me.

Have a good day.

All right, that concludes public comment.

Uh first up, we have appointments requiring confirmation, board of canvassers.

This is for Judge Christian Blatt.

Uh intergovernmental.

Thank you, Council President.

Committee recommended favorable action for action.

I'll normally be asking Councilman Gabart.

So can councilman Napa?

Motion to move favorable action on appointment.

Second.

Second it, any further discussion?

Councilman Muto and Councilman Lattice.

Uh, any further discussion?

All right.

Seeing none clerk will call the roll.

Yes.

Mr.

DLOise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Laddisa, yes, Mr.

Mudo, yes, Napa.

Yes.

Mr.

Riggs.

Yes.

Yes.

Appointment passes.

All right.

Given that we have the stenographer here.

Is there any objection to jumping to PCO 23-2026 for the public hearing?

All right.

Seeing none, we'll leapfrog there.

So PCO 23-2026 and ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick.

See it work applicant 771 post road assessors plat 288 lot 59.

This was doctored on behalf of the administration.

So, first up, do we have a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Seconded by Councilman Foley.

Any discussion.

All right.

Clerk, please call the roll on the motion.

Yes.

Mr.

Dillon.

Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

So first up is the applicant.

So City of Warwick.

Good evening, Tom Kravitz, City Planning Director.

I'm here to present to you and answer questions about the positive advisory opinion.

The planning board is forwarded to the council about the productive reuse of this property.

Just to bring everyone up to speed because some time has gone by, of course, since the city bid this project out several years ago now.

We selected wind development.

They were the high bidder.

Their intention was to construct affordable housing and reuse the building.

Several years have gone by, two of which resulted in unsuccessful obtainment of low-income housing tax credits to help subsidize their pro forma to build out that building.

This most recent year of application of Island Housing, we learned that no application was submitted.

So we met with them and we ultimately uh cut ties with them because they did not fulfill their obligation under the agreement.

So we're left with the property still looking the way it does.

So the silver lining with this process is you learn things in our effort there with win.

They engaged uh engineering survey firm.

We now know what would be an adequate subdivision for the property to kind of cut the building and uh land off from the larger lot because the city has also learned we need to retain the field and the two tennis courts, albeit the very tired tennis courts.

They will likely be improved at some point throughout this process.

But those two pieces of recreation were obtained with land and water conservation funding from the late 70s.

So it's important that the city subdivide that off, retain that property.

That is why part of this exercise is going to be subdivide the property, and when we re-bid the school, it will be rebid with its own separate uh property.

The other thing we wanted to do to try to maximize the bids this time around was to consider what the planning board did to consider a PDR zone change to an effect, consider a max build out of the property.

Now we know that Wynn wanted to construct 63 units in that building.

The building has got wide hallways, it's got these interior courtyards.

The architecture of it is expensive because you can't yield a number of units.

63 units seems like a lot, but um, based on the cost to rehab the structure, it's gonna be tough for anyone to uh to do that.

So we elected just by way of providing options before we bid this again.

Where before you, we, the planning board asking if you'll consider a PDR overlay zone.

You'll hear a different one uh after this application tonight.

There's a different agenda item.

You've seen these going up throughout the city.

We're improving some of the tired underperforming plazas and whatnot with newer residential growth.

So to treat Aldrich the same way, might allow the city to maximize again potential bids when we rebid it.

So we looked at potential parking at two and a half spaces per unit based on the number of parking spaces you see in the drawing in your package.

We could fit potentially nine a 93 unit uh building.

That would have to be a new structure, of course, uh to do that.

One last thing I'll bring up.

Uh uh Councilman Rix is aware of it.

With the planning board uh addressing this project, it's getting legs, it's getting out there.

I've received a phone call uh too, albeit the second one indirectly.

Would the city consider a commercial component consistent with what's across the street at McDonald's and Walmart, just along the frontage of Post Road?

Um I contemplated uh bringing this up to see how we would address that.

Again, this is to provide flexibility in the bids.

Um and I I was thinking about asking you guys to entertain a zone change to GB along what would be the frontage of the new lot we'd be creating and talking with the administration.

However, another way to address this, which I think is a great idea, is to simply make that an option in the bid when we bid it.

If someone were to bid a commercial component, we could see what it is and not have to throw the bid out.

So I'm thinking here, uh, maybe we just go with this as is, I'd be fine with that.

And we could simply address the commercial component as part of the bid when we bid it, and then if and when the high bidder is chosen, they have to engineer and design and permit whatever it is they have to do anyway.

The planning board will see it, and the council could address maybe uh detailed zone change in the future.

Um, so I figured I'd provide that clarity too.

So, with that being said, I'll try to answer any questions you have.

So, is there anyone here to speak for or in favor of the pro the proposed change?

Is anyone here to speak in favor of the proposed change?

Is anyone here to speak in favor of the proposed change?

Is anyone here to speak against the proposed change?

Is anyone here to speak against the proposed change?

Just go on up to the mic and just state your full name and then you have at it.

I think it's on the hi, Destiny Davila.

Um, I'm not sure uh where to go from here.

This is my first time coming to one of these, but um, I do live in Warwick, and I have noticed there has been more of a commercial influence since I've moved in.

Um, I also work in lending, and I understand that things can change very quickly in investor appetite.

I think it'll be very difficult for us when it's time to sell our homes if we continue going down this path.

So um, that is I'm definitely not in favor of uh this, especially with it being in front of uh Walmart and uh McDonald's.

I think that's plenty enough.

We have auto shops maybe a mile down the road.

It doesn't feel very residential when it gets that way.

So that's what I have to say.

Thank you.

Next up, just make sure you state your full name.

Hi, I'm Scott Costa.

I live uh Parkview have right next to Aldrich.

Um it's uh it's a nice neighborhood, as as has been stated.

No one wants to see a three-story 93 unit tenement house in their neighborhood.

This doesn't fit in with the neighborhood.

The City Planner said he was gonna tell us the benefits of this, but he really he hadn't he hasn't mentioned any benefits to this uh project, except moving forward with getting rid of a piece of property.

If you want to you can ask him if there are any benefits that he's aware of, you can you can outright ask.

My response would simply be we're trying to maximize tax revenue while also looking at what's existing on the property and a new three-story building, frankly, fits nearly within the footprint of what's there again.

It doesn't fit in with the neighborhood, and there's no benefit.

Uh city councilman told us yesterday that residential properties actually lose money for the for the city, they don't make money, so 93 units you're losing money, uh driving property values down, losing money from the other properties around it.

It seems like a lose lose here.

Thank you.

My name is James McMenaman.

I live on 23 Palm Boulevard.

Make a meneman.

Um this sounds like a horrible idea for my neighborhood.

I don't know why you would want to add more commercial uh property down there with more traffic and impact on the neighborhood.

I think there's already plenty with the super Walmart across the street with McDonald's.

Nobody in the neighborhood wants this at all.

I think I speak for at least all my neighbors who live directly next to it.

Um just so the record's good.

When you're saying nobody wants this, do you mean the proposal or do you mean the idea that's not part of the proposal or commercial?

Commercial uh use of that property.

That building is beautiful, it should have been rehabbed already, but the city dropped the ball on it a few times.

Um, it should have been a charter school, but that didn't happen.

That's what the neighborhood wants.

We don't want to see a beautiful old building torn down for an ugly new strip mall or some kind of storage facility place or you haul or something like that.

It sounds awful, it will look awful, it'll decrease our property value.

Um, it's bad enough to see where it is because that school should be beautiful.

You could make it into a beautiful condo unit.

63 sounds like plenty to me.

Um, if the city loses money, well, you guys are good at doing that anyway.

So it's nothing new, doesn't really impact me any.

My taxes will go up regardless, as they always have and will continue to go up forever.

Um this is not like some way of trying to cash out all of the issues the city has is just a bad idea for our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Um, my name's Tom McDonald.

Um, I hear language maximizing tax revenue and and a few other things, and I understand where you're going with all this.

I live on top of the school.

And you did use language like years, and this didn't work, and then years went by, and this didn't work, and years went by.

That piece of property is infested with rats now because it's a distressed piece of property.

There's homeless people living in and around it.

It's the biggest birdhouse I know of in Rhode Island.

I could be wrong.

And when the pigeons aren't flying in and out, the hawks and everything else are flying in and out.

It's gonna be one horror show to clean that up.

It's got unique things.

I'm not an engineer.

But to try to maximize the sale of this, I think is insane.

If I have a car and the only person willing to buy this car will pay me $100.

My idea is the car is worth $100.

Now, if you sit back for more years and try to maximize what you can get out of this piece of property, it's a horror show.

I walk by it every day.

My kids, my grandkids drive by it every day.

It's a distressed piece of property.

That's all it is.

We have a lot of memories.

I didn't grow up in this town.

I have lived here for a long time.

But I say give the darn thing away.

If you got somebody willing to come in here and clean that mess up and bring tax revenue, but to wait for a high price or something, I what's happened so far?

We got a goose egg sitting over there.

I don't know how many people you you don't body over here.

I recognize I walk that neighborhood for hours every day with my dog.

I know most of the neighbors.

Is I don't want you to maximize and wait seven more years.

Really, it's ugly.

You get off a plane, you drive down there.

Well, let's see what Rhode Island looks like.

Does anybody seen the um what was that HBO series?

The wire.

That's all it ever remembers.

The Sopranos was most important, and then there was the wire.

And what was that shown?

That building had full of bodies, dead bodies with lime all over it.

And that's the only thing I see.

I thank you for the last couple of years.

Somebody has decided to start cutting the grass again, and the bags from Walmart aren't sticking on all the trees and branches anymore.

This is my neighborhood.

This is what I've grown up with.

This is where my children have grown.

To watch this.

Last night I came back from wherever I went with my wife.

We're driving down the street.

Soon as I pull over near the fire station, rat running right across the street.

Happy Fourth of July.

This is what that piece of property has created.

And because it is distress, the local juveniles.

I was a juvenile, I'll admit it.

They go in there, they try to break the doors open, this and that, and everything else.

Everything's smashed.

It's it's but we live in a world, most of us out of sight, out of mind.

I don't live over there.

Put that halfway house over there, not my neighborhood.

Give the darn thing away.

If somebody's willing to fix it and take a black eye out of this town, then God bless them.

Let them go for it.

It's gonna be a mess to clean that thing up.

Then I get rid of the rats.

The ground over there is all chewed up.

Fire trucks go through there.

It's gotta hurt their suspension.

It goes on and on and on.

I don't know what to say.

Get rid of the darn mess.

It's been sitting there for I don't know.

You know better than I do.

I got tired.

It's gotta go.

One way or another, it's gotta go.

If nobody will buy it, then give it to somebody who will.

It's gonna take a lot of money to invest in that.

We know that.

So if you gotta pay top dollar for a piece of property and then invest in it, but if you give it at a low ball price, if I can only sell my car for a hundred bucks, that's what my car is worth.

If you're gonna sit around here and wait till that thing becomes a top dollar and somebody's willing to come in on it, then I'll die before that mess is cleaned up.

I prefer not to sit on top of a mess.

This was a nice neighborhood at one time.

We came here for the school systems.

If you'll notice the schools are disappearing in my neighborhood, property values go down when schools go away.

We used to be proud of that place over there.

Now it's an eyesore.

Not in my neighborhood, I'm not too worried about it.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Andrew Clark.

I live on 821 Post Road, directly touching uh Aldrich.

Uh, I have a couple things to state about it.

Um, number one, I am strongly opposed to 93 apartment units that are directly behind my house and my basically my backyard.

I don't own a property, but it's basically my backyard.

Um, I disagree that it fits into the the neighborhood.

There is a three-story building there, so I'm not arguing that.

However, it is a large brick, beautiful school building.

Old, yes, my house is the exact same age, it was built at the exact same time.

Um so I think there's a vast difference between a three-story, either mixed commercial residential or fully uh apartment residential building going in there.

Um I I strongly doubt that it will be a large, uh charming three-story brick building that would cost 100 million dollars to build.

Um so it will not fit into the neighborhood, regardless of kind of what anyone thinks.

It's not like currently, it's an old beautiful school building.

Um, that is unfortunately falling apart and decrepit.

Um also had a couple things to say about the the sketch.

Um, it looks nice and it looks as aesthetic based on like the overhead view.

Um, but I had some concerns in terms of like the entire neighborhood um behind Post Road and off of Ralph Street.

Um, the main exit and entrance for the building is on Ralph Street, not on Post Road.

I have a couple, I have safety issues with that.

I have problems with with my own house.

Um, my one-year-old that's gonna be playing in the backyard and have a main road on my side road that my driveway is on.

Um, the entire back neighborhood that is calm, peaceful, and beautiful right now is going to be a throwaway of traffic to over to Elmwood Ave because it's a shortcut.

Um my side road that is the only way I can get out of my property, is going to be an absolute disaster because there's no light at post road and Ralph Street.

And so people turning left, I'm gonna be leaving for work in the morning, and there's gonna be a hundred other people leaving for work at the same exact time, and I'll be stuck turning right when everyone else is turning left.

It's gonna be a disaster.

Um, I have issues with that.

The commercial uh aspect I don't really have feelings about yet.

I just learned about this recently.

Um I think there can be upsides.

Uh, but I don't know.

There's already Walmart, uh, there's a bank, there's uh McDonald's, the fire station is already loud.

Like we're just gonna add a ton more noise.

Um 200 plus people probably in a 93 unit apartment building.

Uh if there's a strip mall or any type of commercial property there, there's gonna be people in and out constantly.

It's as if like post road is not busy enough.

I get it's like a business district, but um, we're basically turning the the one part of post road that's that's residential into more commercial.

It's gonna destroy my property, it will wreck my property value.

I will be underwater in my property guaranteed.

And I think all the other people on Ralph Street guaranteed will be probably the people behind Aldrichville as well.

Um that's pretty much all I have to say.

I just I think this is um this is not gonna work out well for the people that live around there.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Heather Vivaris Murphy.

I live at 83 Putnam Street.

I live in the neighborhood.

I have raised four children in this neighborhood, and in the process, watch the decline and the closings of our schools.

My children were in the schools when they were getting closed, and then ultimately shipped off to vets across the town, across the city.

Um, I do walk my dogs, as the other gentleman mentioned several days a week.

Um, I do walk through the Aldridge property.

And I also want to concur with the last speaker, everything that he just said.

Um, the traffic will be absolutely horrific, um, especially if the entrance is on Ralph Street.

Um if I had my way, having gone through, I was on the roads committee uh with Bruce Place years ago.

Um, if I had my way, I wouldn't build anything.

Um I would if you have to knock down the building because it's infested, knock it down.

If we're looking to build an apartment building, what is the revenue?

Because with that also comes, are we building 55 plus or are we building for family units?

And if we're building family units, you need to look at the big picture.

Are we sending more children now into these schools where we've already consolidated and we're gonna increase the numbers in the schools?

If you're looking at Aldridge, on the left-hand side, when we got divided, it went to five different schools because we had a sub-separate classroom.

So that classroom went to Holden and everybody else went to Norwood, Holliman, J uh John Brown Francis, and Wyman.

So we were all divided, our little neighborhood.

So when you're looking at Aldridge and you have an apartment complex, on the left-hand side is Norwood.

On the right hand side is Holoman.

Where are these children going if we're building families?

And if we're bringing families in, something to consider, especially if it is low-income housing.

I work in a school district in Massachusetts.

And when you do build apartments, you do bring families.

And with that, you ultimately bring in some increased costs to the school districts because you're looking at families coming in with IEPs.

So these are things to consider when you're looking at the money, and are we gonna make money?

And I definitely do not want more commercial.

We have enough traffic.

And if I had my way, like I said, I wouldn't build anything.

Because when you're looking at the pros and cons and the cost of everything, ultimately will it end up costing Warwick more money as it relates to the schools, and then bringing down our property values.

You want to keep your people happy.

Um, I have chosen to stay in Warwick.

I love Warwick.

I loved raising my children here.

They are wonderful human beings, and you know, the teachers and the staff and the administrators have always been wonderful.

And I I just really think that we want to keep our communities a community.

Um we do feel like we're little towns within a big city.

So again, that's my recommendation.

Having gone through what we're going through, we're seeing the houses being built at roads.

Um now.

So we'll see the increase with those 29 houses, and they are big family homes.

So we're already looking at more students coming in.

So things to consider.

Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is Aidan Clark.

I also live on 821 Post Road, which is directly abutted to Aldrich.

Uh, I had some concerns uh whether we go with the commercial or residential, whatever is voted in.

Uh, I think even if we do end up going with the residential commercial unit, uh, where there'd be apartment buildings in there, I think uh what's gonna end up probably happening, which was going to happen before was low income being like section eight.

Uh if you bring in like low income into a middle class neighborhood, it's gonna bring the property value down for all of the surrounding housing, which would then decrease like everybody's like investment that they've made.

That's a it's a huge problem that would affect everybody in the area.

So I think that either way with the commercial or residential.

If you go with commercial, you're gonna have the property decrease with both, but you're gonna have the traffic issue, you're gonna have the housing market going down.

It's just it doesn't benefit anyone.

So yeah, that's that's what I have to say.

Thank you for your time.

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

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

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

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

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

Um generally it's uh my name is Stuart Wilson.

I live in 67 North Country Club Drive, and I I know Aldrich only by driving by it, but it's really sad to see the state of it.

And I want to point out that these are the costs that unfortunately we are now looking at when we close schools, and a school does a lot more than just educate kids, right?

When it's open it adds value to the whole neighborhood, and when you take it away, one of the I mean I'm I might think about what you do with an empty school, but not everybody does because it's it's not as easy as we want to make it out to seem.

So you know, I hope that there is something that could be done with this, but I'm I'm not the expert.

I I I get why you want to increase people's you know, desire to do something with this site.

I get it.

Um that's that's my only comment.

I want to keep that in mind.

Good evening.

My name is Bill Krozick.

My wife and I have lived in Warwick for over 40 years, raised our children here.

Uh, we live just on the road from Aldridge on Wendell Eve.

And I wonder if the council is considered within a couple hundred yards, there's three traffic lights there.

Traffic going into the Walmart, the various stores around, it's a nightmare.

And if you add how many cars are 90.

The potential max build out could afford 93 units.

So if there's 90 cars per unit, yeah.

If there's a couple hundred cars coming out of there in the in the height of the day, especially the morning.

It's it's very, very bad.

There's been been a number of very serious accidents here.

Uh not too in the distant future.

In the I mean in the distant past.

So I wondered if you'd considered that.

It's hard for us now.

Um the Walmart, especially, there's all kinds of cars pouring in and out of there all the time.

So just consider the traffic situation, if you would, please.

It would be a great hindrance to all the neighborhoods there.

Is there any wish anyone else who wishes to speak about this project in general?

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

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

All right, seeing none.

Do we have a motion?

Councilman Ricks.

Move to close public comment.

Seconded by Councilman Latticer.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Clerk will please call the world.

Yes.

No.

I'm sorry.

In that case, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

So the public hearing stands closed now.

Questions from council members, Councilman Ricks.

Thank you.

Uh first start with the uh question to the administration.

I also have some comments, but I'm not sure if we have a general idea or general estimate.

And I understand that this is the sort of thing that can certainly be in a range of numbers, but uh if we have a general idea of how much it may cost to demolish the existing building, much as I hate to hear those words coming out of my mouth.

No.

Okay.

Is that something that uh short of putting a bid out there?

Something that uh we might be able to get uh ballpark round number on.

Without putting a bid out, without actually put going through the whole process of putting a bid out there.

Uh like me calling some of the contractors I've come to know and say, hey, what would it cost to take this down?

Uh basically I can do that, yeah.

Oh, thank you.

Uh and so some more, I suppose, general comments.

Uh, first, based on uh the comments that I heard when I had a very informal uh uh meeting session with neighbors yesterday.

I literally put it out there with less than two days' notice, uh inviting neighbors.

Hey, I'll be at Aldridge for an hour on Sunday.

Come on by, want to listen to your comments, and also of course invite neighbors to come on here to the city council meeting to uh give their comments.

Uh there were there were over 25 people who showed up yesterday.

And yeah, this is a very good crowd here tonight from the neighbors, really shows how important this is, exactly as I would expect it to be, something that's going to affect the neighborhood, affect their quality of life for a very long time.

From the discussion yesterday, there were a lot of questions.

There was certainly no consensus.

I think that what's most appropriate for this meeting here tonight would be to hold this and then in the meantime, have some more of those uh really in-depth conversations to make sure that uh we are building a consensus here.

But before I get into further comments on uh that sort of thing, I don't want anyone to uh take this as any sort of criticism of the administration and this uh and its efforts here, especially you, the uh planning director, because this is something, this type of process where uh the city is actively uh putting something out there to uh try to make the property more likely to get bids for something that's suitable and appropriate for the neighborhood.

I think that, especially with this going out for bid for a third time.

I think that that type of approach can be helpful here because when this does go out to bid, we want to make sure that we're getting as many good bids as possible.

Uh so you know, I think that uh there may need to be some tweaks here.

There may need to be some uh uh further in-depth conversations with neighbors, and I think that this coming in front of the city council is really going to help kick off those uh more detailed discussions in earnest and in depth.

So without getting into great detail and repeating myself from what I put out there in an email to the neighbors, which if anybody wants me to forward that, feel free, just contact me.

I can include you on this uh update list that I have.

And over the years, that update list has grown over to over 400 people, including uh I think about three quarters of them are really right there in the neighborhood.

So good way to keep in touch with people uh specifically on the Aldridge issues and the roads issues.

Uh but uh well, I have to put have to express just how incredibly disappointing it is with the two previous bids, both of which it looked like it was something beautiful, something great that would preserve that building, and then frankly, due to the issues with those applicants, councilman Latiser can attest to what happened the first time around and the second time around with win uh corporation wind development.

I think the planning director spelled it out pretty well, and those are the types of facts that I also iterated in that email that I put out there as well.

Just extremely frustrating that it was right there, and it just even after with Wynn, the city council had approved it, and then it didn't quite come together with when taking the appropriate action to uh actually make this happen after they had all the approvals.

So with that, I also just want to express that uh while I don't have nearly the kind of stake in what happens to that property as the neighbors immediately around it, that's something that they're going to be seeing living with for as long as they live there in the neighborhood.

So my number one here, number one concern and numb and uh my approach here is to listen to the neighbors as to what is most compatible for the neighborhood, because in my opinion, one-time tax revenue, rather, one time revenue from sale of a piece of land.

I really don't care what that number is when it comes to the bigger, more important question to me as the representative of that neighborhood, what are the neighbors going to be living next to for the next hundred years?

The neighbors, their children.

That school has been there for nearly a hundred years.

I think that's the question that we all need to be asking ourselves and keeping in mind that as a city council, we've had a long unspoken rule about when it comes to citywide issues, you vote your conscience.

When it comes to land use in a particular ward, you listen to the neighbors, the people who are going to be living there.

So while I don't live right there, I live uh half a mile, mile away or so over the Norwood neighborhood, I can say that I can put myself in the shoes of some of the neighbors.

I haven't mentioned this publicly before, but I actually had a bid accepted on a house very close to that school.

It wound up falling apart due to reasons after the inspection of that house.

I won't say more on that.

Uh not here during the council meeting.

But let's just say that based on that, I would have bought that house at that price based on the proposal that was on the table that I fully thought was gonna go through at the time with win.

And if I had seen and known that that wasn't gonna happen, that that building wasn't going to be preserved, that there might be something very different from that uh bid by wind that was accepted, you know, I would have to uh second guess that kind of price.

So when it comes to neighbors, quality of life, property values.

I might not be living right there, but man, I can definitely put myself in your shoes.

And so I want to make sure that the neighbors really have that opportunity that we really hash out all of these details and make sure that this is done right, because well, it's not ideal to put things off for a month and a half till the next council meeting to uh uh hold things up before going out to bid, but it's a lot better to wait that month and a half, make sure that we're getting this right than to uh go forward and wind up in a position where you know if we had made some tweaks here, if we had approached this a little bit of a different way, we would have at the end of the day perhaps a much better result for the neighbors that the neighbors are going to be living with for many, many, many years.

You have about 45 seconds left.

Thank you.

I'll uh pretty much wrapped up there.

Uh, I'd welcome many of the neighbors to, of course, contact me after the meeting as well.

And I'm sure that uh working with the administration, we'll do our best to come up with a solution that really works for everybody here.

Thank you.

So counts and then DeLouis.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I would be inclined to agree with Councilman Ricks on holding this issue because I'd like to get a little bit more of an education on the whole project.

After hearing the concerns of the of the neighbors, um, you know, I I think that the concerns are very legitimate.

Um, the the project, the that building has been there vacant and it's it is an eyesore, but perhaps over the next few weeks or so we can come up with like a soft landing, and maybe we can repurpose that property um as to something better than a 93-unit um you know affordable housing complex, possibly I know that the the city is always concerned about bringing revenue in.

Um, I don't see a lot of developers coming to the table for this particular piece of property.

Um, it's gonna be a lot of money to do the whole project.

Um I would say you'd have to demolish the building and then start over.

Um I don't know if the people can put their heads together to make a reasonable decision that works for the city as well as for the neighbors in the surrounding area.

Uh perhaps if there are no bidders or no buyers, perhaps um getting or you know, applying for some type of grant where we could turn that into a very nice um playground for children.

And all right, it's not gonna bring in revenue for the city, but perhaps they can figure a way.

I mean, my idea is crazy.

Well, I'm just gonna say it anyway.

Um, you know, beautiful playground, perhaps uh a dog park.

It's a big piece of property.

And uh I don't know, maybe if you have two dogs, we're gonna we're gonna charge you on the size of your dog.

You want to bring in a St.

Pernard, it's gonna be 10 bucks.

A little poodle is gonna be a dollar.

No, but that's a little bit of levity, but we we I would like for my own edification to research it a little further because I do hear the concerns of everyone.

Um I didn't hear too many people coming out in favor of the project.

So that concerns me a little bit.

So I would make a recommendation to also to hold this until we can all get a little bit better educated.

Thank you.

Chief Bill Fasente, uh Chief Staff to Mayor Purkozi.

So one thing I just want to clear up right from the start.

No one has mentioned this being affordable housing.

So just put that out there.

The city is not against affordable housing.

We support affordable housing and a mixed use, uh mixed uh income development.

The 63 units that was proposed by Wynne was an affordable housing development, age-restricted affordable housing.

So if you know people are against affordable housing, um, it's your parents, your grandparents, it's it's school teachers, it's firefighters, police officers that are just starting out.

Um, I'm not sure what the the stigmatism is on affordable housing, um, but it's it's not this is not allowing affordable housing by right in this proposal.

This proposal is to separate out the fields from the school building from the property, and to put an overlay as a potential for a developer that is interested in bidding on this to have the right to build up to 93 units of housing, whether however it fits on the property within that footprint.

You also have to understand that this is the first of many steps in the approval process for a bidder to get awarded this property.

The city council has to approve the bid.

The city council has the final say in the highest and best use of the awarded bidder, not the administration, the city council.

So this is one step in the many steps ahead for this property.

This property has been sitting vacant since the school closed, and we put it out to bid when was awarded the development, I believe in 2023.

And I can tell you the city cannot afford to knock this building down.

And to Councilman D.

Louise's point, the point of doing this project the way we're doing it is to separate the fields so there can be a neighborhood recreation, because right now it's one lot.

If we don't do that, the developer controls those fields.

Potentially, the neighborhood doesn't have the recreation.

Those field those fields were improved with as uh director Pravitz mentioned, land and water conservation funds.

There'd be a repayment of the city to DEM in some form, either from a swap of land or a cash payment to compensate for those that investment, whatever that investment was, it could have been five dollars.

I don't know.

It was back in the 50s or the the 30s.

This the administration is trying to make this a little bit more um enticing for developers to just even bid.

We got two bids last time, councilman, four bids.

I'm sorry, four.

I wasn't in this position then.

I thought it was two.

Um Wynn proposed the um elderly housing, you know, 63 units, and I believe it was a two million dollar bid.

They were reusing that building.

If you're knocking this building down, the councilman asked for pricing.

That building is built like a bomb shelter.

It's got to be 12-inch thick walls.

It's hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not a million dollars to knock that building down.

So we're giving the developer, the potential developer, whoever that may be, the opportunity to have a project or property that has some approval already.

They still need to go back to the planning board, they still need to come to the city council, they still need building permits, they still need to be awarded the bid.

So to continue to kick this can down the road, I understand there are people a bit against it, but there's already been a development, a residential development proposed there that was low-income housing, 63 units.

In a similar footprint, we used what the other engineer firming did as a as a basis to come up with our subdivision.

So, you know, I I just don't see the point in holding this for additional discussion.

There's going to be additional discussion of the city council when we put this out to bid, whether the city council awards to the highest or the best.

It's about how it fits in.

That's why they went with the um the age-restricted affordable component versus years ago, an assisted living, a charter school, and I can't remember the other one.

There was another another use.

Um, so that's that's what I'm just trying to make everyone understand that we're trying to and make it a little bit more palatable for a developer to come and potentially invest money in a project that has some approvals, but not all of them.

You're at like the 40-yard line, you're not at the one-yard line.

That's all.

Councilman Lattice.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

First of all, I don't particularly appreciate the classification of affordable housing.

This is something that has always rubbed me the wrong way for years.

This is workforce housing we're talking about.

We're talking about young folks who are graduating from college, uh, from Voltex schools.

We're talking about young accountants, attorneys, um, uh nurses, teachers, etc.

that can't purchase the homes because of the pricing that's out there today.

To describe it as affordable housing.

Um, I think that's just a bad term.

But in any event, I do happen to be a pro-housing guy for any of you who know me, I have always been that way.

But I'm also concerned with recently, particularly in the past year or two, with the excessive amounts of applications that are coming before us for zoning changes.

We're gonna squeeze this little house on this tiny posted stamp lot, and we're gonna forget about the wetlands and forget about the setbacks and don't worry about the neighbors.

Uh let's just get it done.

That to me is an issue.

We talk about revenue, and you all hear me hollering about increased revenue, let's increase revenue.

The flip side of increasing revenue is reducing expenses, and if we reduce expenses, then maybe we're not gonna have to be so desperate to make changes that are gonna impact the lives of the folks living around these properties.

A question to the chief, actually, two questions to the chief, and I'll ask him as you're walking to the podium.

One of them is the first one is there any discussions that have taken place or are taking place with any potential developers or buyers for this property director Kravitz mentioned that there is interest, there's no active discussions.

Some developers have seen this publicly advertised, just like the residents here and the councilman sent it out via Facebook or however yells.

They're on these platforms as well.

They've expressed interest in the property, and they they questioned whether there could be a commercial component.

And just so you know, when Wynn was doing the development, their estimated cost for redevelopment of this building, I believe it was 800 and 900,000 per unit to create these units.

So to reuse this building is a very expensive proposition.

Chief, when you say eight or nine hundred dollars, thousands thousand to develop those buildings, to develop redevelop Aldridge, as is as was proposed by Wynn.

Eight to nine.

Director Crabish just mentioned it was 47 million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars investment that Wynn was proposing to make by reusing this building.

Okay, and now what's being asked of us is to approve a change that is going to allow potentially allow potentially allow.

Well, if this gets approved, it could allow.

Okay, potentially I mean the the developer would have to ask for the 93 units.

Okay, potentially allow.

Commercial is not on the table.

31 of these units at 750 square feet apiece.

Does it do you realize what 750 square feet of living facilities is?

Yes, I do.

I live in a thousand square foot house.

Okay.

That's you know exactly what it is.

But in any event, it's still a two-bedroom house.

It's very, it's very small.

And that also drives the price.

So is there any guesstimate with the square foot pricing to build 93 apartments versus single family homes on that same property?

Not that I'm aware of.

So we have no idea how many.

Well, it makes a difference because you know this this is a comparative.

It's a comparison between building apartments with 750 square feet of space and versing versus building single family homes that single family just one.

Perhaps can I finish?

Yeah.

That perhaps could generate the same amount of revenue.

So there's a combination of units on this plan as a proposal.

There are one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom.

Okay.

So if you build single family housing, you're almost definitely guaranteeing there's going to be children in the schools.

You're almost guaranteeing that.

Well, isn't that what the school department's been yelling about?

That we're going to increase the population of the schools.

We're gonna with these two schools, we're gonna increase.

Well, how are you gonna do that if there's not a place for them to live?

So you know, I think we're we're kind of like um making things jumble here.

Now we're saying, oh, we don't want to build single family because it's gonna increase kids.

You just you just you brought up single family, excuse me, but you brought up single family housing.

We're not talking about single family housing.

No, I know, but I'm I'm coming, I'm asking for something to compare versus 93 units, which we've heard close to a dozen people object to.

So that's why I'm asking.

Is there any um vision?

Is there a vision for this property in value in um fitting in with the community with the concern of the neighbors, viewing it in single family?

That's another issue I have is so we we ask, or I should say different folks ask for all these zoning changes and let's change planning and let's make all these changes and let's forget about that and let's increase this and reduce that.

And that's being done in some cases without concern for the community.

I don't mean the city of Warwick, I mean the local community.

In this case, Councilman Rix's community could be my community, could be any one of ours community, and blending in with the existing homes that are already in that area.

I get concerned because I see some of these things that sometimes that kind of like goes by the wayside.

So with single family housing, I'm not gonna speak for the planning director, but the post road is a heavily commercial road, and it's it's a two-lane each direction road.

So if you're putting single family housing, new single family housing on that road, you'd have to have a large setback, and you're probably not going to be able to maximize your investment if a bidder was interested in doing that.

The reason the city took this approach is it mirrors what was there, it's the same footprint as Aldridge.

It's additional units because it's a new building, but it mirrors what was approved as the as the bidder submitted.

This is not a new building that's taking up more land area than the school takes up now.

This this mirrors what was proposed by Wynn in the same the same footprint.

That's why we we are proposing this.

If a developer comes in and says, you know what, I want to do 12 single family houses, and they offer three million dollars for the property.

The council has the right to approve that, but not locked into the 93 units of a PDR.

That's just the overlaying overlaid zoning on it that allows someone to do that if their cost estimates and their financials dictate that.

I mean, there might be one person, Taylor Swift might want to buy build that, build a brand new house in on post road.

Sure.

For her and Travis Kelsey.

Chief, do you or um Director Kravitz have any idea in the past two years of how many 750 square foot apartments have been built and occupied?

You can build all you want, but it doesn't count till we're occupied.

So we have the reuse of the Sheridan Hotel.

I'm sorry.

The Sheridan on Post Roads.

That's one of them.

They've broken ground on Michael Integlius' property.

Skydra or Sky City, Sky City.

There's proposals for and back of the uh the old residents in.

Um, so we have about a thousand permits of house residential housing.

Most of the units that are being built on the commercial corridors, Post Road, Jefferson Boulevard, are smaller apartments for workforce housing, as you mentioned.

Okay.

More affordable housing.

750 square foot units.

750 square feet is not a small house.

Maybe it is for you, but like I said, I bought my house in 1999, and it's upstairs and downstairs, 1200 square feet of living areas, two bedrooms.

My wife and two kids live in it perfectly.

Yeah, I'm I'm familiar with the size.

Our first house in Warwick with two children was about 950 square feet.

So I'm I'm familiar with the size.

Um 750 square feet is a decent sized house or living space for someone that needs housing.

You know, everyone's heard that there's a housing crisis in the state of Rhode Island.

Speaker Sakai mentioned it, former Speaker Sakachi mentioned it.

Governor um Governor McKee has mentioned it.

Candidate folks has mentioned it, everyone's mentioned there's a housing crisis.

We're trying to help build the housing to house not just the elderly, not just families, but the new families starting out, the graduates of high school.

My kids will probably not be able to move out of my house for a long time because they can't afford to buy a house.

Housing values are not going down.

This is not going to cause your housing value to go down.

Housing values are going up, and that wasn't my suggestion.

What I asked was how many units have sold with 750 square feet.

And by the way, not sold, they're renting.

I understand that they're sold or rented.

I understand that there's a need uh for smaller apartments, smaller housing.

I understand that.

My point is you can build all of them that you want, but if you can't rent them and you can't sell them, then what happens?

I believe Alta is about 86% occupied.

I believe the Sheridan is almost 90 or 100% occupied, and those are all one bedroom, two bedroom, three-bedroom apartments.

Okay, good.

Those are the ones that have been built so far.

That's all I have for now.

Thank you.

And just sort of clear, uh, seven people came out to speak against the project.

Two came out to speak generally about the project.

This is a reference to the comment that roughly a dozen people came out against it.

Uh, and from my own ward, although I think the chief might have just mentioned it.

Um, which is had a wait list for some ungodly amount of time.

Those apartments aren't much bigger, and shalom, which is similarly in high demand, actually far smaller.

At least possibly all of them at the 500 and change mark.

That's not to say that this project's a good or a bad idea, pointing out the facts based on my own ward.

Councilman Bido.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I just have a um more clarifying questions, uh, director.

Yeah.

So what does the city use as a criteria for highest and best use of a property?

That would be defined in the standard uniform appraisal definition.

So it's a financial metric.

I guess for the most part.

Okay.

Chief, did you have something to add to highest and best use?

I heard you whisper.

No, I was asking the uh technician if you had more batteries.

Okay.

So are there any other community metrics that planning does?

Because your job is more than just zoning and building permits and building.

There's a master use agreement for the city of Walwick.

Am I correct?

Uh comprehensive plan, you mean?

Yeah, yeah, right.

When this comes ultimately, when this comes before the planning board, that's when that will be put together, that record with public input examination of the comprehensive plan, multiple hearings.

This effort here tonight does nothing.

It doesn't bind the city to a thing except give us a potential high ceiling to drive up the bids.

One of the developers I talked to said, can I just put a bin in and put single family there?

I said, sure.

So I let me argue the other side here.

Is we're changing, you know, we're we're proposing or changing this zoning to a higher density zoning.

Is by doing that, are we leading the developers to that type of development?

Or is it just as uh beneficial to the city is to leave it open and see what people will bid with the contingency of zoning changes?

Well, a little of both.

You're you're you're sending a signal to the bidders that oh, we're entertaining you know, uh more density with the PDR.

Um but then the cost of this building to take it down.

But like I said, that one developer uh who's been developing in the city, he asked if single family was an option.

Of course it is.

Even if you change this to PDR, they could still propose single family.

So good, okay.

So this goes to my next next question.

What other uh uh highest and best use options have been considered for this property, such as you know uh city space, such as open space, such as recreational space.

Anything considered on that avenue?

And uh yeah, I mean you gotta consider the private market too.

I have no idea what you know what I mean.

The market could it changes quickly.

Um but it is our government, is our city in the business of selling our real estate to the highest highest bidder of course versus let me finish.

Let me finish, versus looking at our comprehensive use plan and say, you know, something we have a shortage of recreational space based on the new growth of people coming into the in into the population.

All I'm asking is have other options been considered besides a the a private development versus a uh municipal and public use.

So that's number one.

And number two is really just a um, if we do do this development, is there any consideration to offering or will there be a need to offer the development tax breaks?

The answer to that question, I think would be no.

Um, and it's we're not doing a development, we're putting out the notion of a zone change that would increase density.

It's not tied to anything.

This is just a concept.

Yeah, um, as far as studies being done to highest and best use.

I mean, um this existing recreation there.

We know we need to save that.

That's important.

Um there's a whole notion of even saving the historic building.

There's a there's a lot of people I didn't hear from them maybe here tonight, but they love historic buildings and they want to do anything to save them.

You know, this didn't start tonight, right?

This is a this iteration years before I was hired here.

A charter school was shot down for some reasons.

I don't know why.

You're building two new high schools.

I think it's gonna be tough to get a charter school put back in there, the competition in your own city, right?

We were gonna save the building with when that fell through.

Let's see what happened.

You know, it's it's uh it's a process.

It is a process, and I appreciate the process, but we've had two failed efforts.

Looking forward, uh, and I'll take it as that we haven't looked at any other best use options besides sale.

Besides what?

Sale, the sale of the property, right?

That would be accurate.

That'd be accurate.

So we're not considering other community impacts and uh benefits, such as recreational facilities.

We can look at that.

Okay, it depends what this body votes by a majority.

So you're asking right now, I think I have one more follow-up question here.

Looking at the maps here, we're looking at the platinum lot of 288-59, which encompasses the fire station, cell tower, aldridge, and the uh recreational facility, recreational areas.

That's the lot we're looking at to zone the entire area to change that zoning.

No, it'd be the one uh with the engine, it's it's entitled engineering sketch, if you will.

Yep.

So that's that's the one that depicts the minor subdivision that we think we think should happen regardless.

That that can happen.

That doesn't require council approval to have we affectuate a minority.

Have we already divided that?

That's my question.

So we're essentially voting on that full platin to change the zoning.

Exactly.

Okay.

The only reason we were potentially talking about proposed lot 485 was if you embraced the notion of a GB zone change, it would be restricted to just that lot we're creating the parking in the building.

So are we putting the cart before the horse before you divide this to change the zoning?

How so?

If we're changing the zoning for the entire platinum lot, you you just said you didn't have it divided, subdivided that lot yet.

I would not change the zone for the entire lot.

I would just make it applicable to the new lot we'd be creating.

I'm not an attorney here, not a pro, but we're voting on a platin lot in this.

So it actually specifically says this plat, this lot.

So it does right now encompass the entire area.

It does.

It does.

Which is why we took the GB off the table as part of the option in the bid.

Yeah.

So to simply deal it in the bid.

So again, where what I'm asking is are we putting the cart before the horse before you officially subdivide this into that area before we change the zoning?

Councilman, I'm not sure if I I understand.

I the way I'm hearing you ask is the entire lot that has exists now.

Yeah, we're not changing the zoning on that entire lot.

We're asking for the new lot that encompasses Aldridge and the parking lot to have the overlay.

The lot with a field is in back of the parking lot.

See, unfortunately, in the packet, it shows the entire lot and plat.

So my question to you is if we vote favorably on public records, land evidence records, it is the boundaries that fill out here because you're not giving me boundaries for that.

On the do they not have that?

We don't I don't have the boundaries.

Right, you would have to specify it on the lot to be created.

Exactly.

So we do have lot numbers and the platinot numbers for the new lot.

So you you've already gone through the process and subdivided it.

It's only on paper.

We had a subdivision drawn up.

The zoning of the our surveyor for the city drew up a subdivision in anticipation of this meeting to show two separate lots.

Okay.

All right.

I I think I've heard enough.

I I will not be supporting this basically because we are too premature on what we're looking for.

This is reminding me too much of other developments we do in the city.

So uh this will not get my support.

All right.

Before we go back to council members who have already spoken, is there anyone who hasn't spoken yet who wishes to do so?

Mark is true.

Councilman Napa.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, just some questions for the administration, either Director Kravitz or the chief, whoever can answer just for my education, so I can get my head wrapped around what it is we're actually gonna be considering.

So with the PDR overlay, can you explain to me?

Because I'm not afraid to admit that I don't really have a good understanding of what a PDR overlay is.

I'm assuming someone else in here listening may not also understand what a PDR overlay is and what that would allow a potential builder to then petition the city council to do.

Yeah, it's a mechanism in the zoning code, and it's called an overlay because that's effectively what it is.

You've dealt with the number of them in the past, where developer to increase the density will pursue um the PDR designation.

And so it's it's effectuated as a map change, a zoning map change.

Um that's simply all it is.

It allows a developer to put more units on a property than they otherwise would.

And there's various tables that dictate the maximum density allowed per zoning district, whatever it happens to be.

This one's A7, so it's the higher of the of the number.

I think it's 12 units an acre.

I forget, I'd have to look it up.

So we're talking about a maximum of 93 units if we approve it as it's presented before us today.

Right.

Does that can the city based on what the makeup is?

Because what a lot of what I'm hearing from the community members that came out is there's there's a density problem.

They don't that 93 number is not palatable.

Right.

Doesn't seem it anyway.

What seems as though is the last approval with win 63 was more palatable because it's in the existing footprint or preserve the building, and that was like pie in the sky.

I get that.

Can the city say, all right, clearly 93 is not accepted by the community?

Can the PDR stipulate that it's 60 or 45?

You could just embrace the PDR zone change with the density stipulated in the zoning code and not even speak to a number of units.

A developer could then, you know, when they're bidding on something, they'll say, Oh, the city council will approve of a PDR in some form, we'll take our chances.

So I my concern is, and I we say, okay, this is approved for up to 93.

A developer's coming in and putting in 93, they're not putting in 92 because they're gonna squeeze every penny out of that investment, right?

So if uh a super high density at 93 is not palatable and doesn't seem to make sense in the comprehensive plan.

As far as the community is concerned, you know, should we be considering decreasing that number?

I don't know, but I think that's worth delving into and having a longer discussion about um my other thought about some of the discussions that have happened here is you know, we we have this building.

There were four bids in the last time when I wasn't sitting here, so I don't know what there was.

There was four bids.

Was were any of those four bids to develop single family homes?

To your recollection.

I'm gonna say no.

Wynn definitely was clear about saving the building.

The other ones might have been just cost, just estimates.

Okay.

And did you mention that some of the conversations you've had with developers, their interest is there has been no discussion to this point about single family home development?

That there has been with one, yeah.

That's the very question.

Could we put in a bid and put single family?

And so, of course.

Of course, that person's bid might be different than someone who wants to build, you know, 50 units in a new building, say.

Right.

Because right, the cost to demo the existing building is is there.

Well, I think I think it is important, and I seem to have heard some of my colleagues allude to the fact that if we're hearing from the community and we're looking at the city usage and what that area could develop into, if we have a developer willing to come in and pay, you know, half of what win paid for the building to put up single family homes.

Yeah, I think it's worth a strong consideration.

After what I'm hearing tonight, a developer could come in at 300,000 and say I want to put you know 15 single family homes.

Done.

And then you guys can pick it, pick that one.

It doesn't have to be the highest number.

Okay.

I'm gonna put all this stuff in the bid.

This is why this is an important exercise tonight to hear from people.

Yeah, it's very beneficial.

I agree.

Um there was something else, but I think I lost it.

Uh, I did want to say to all of the community members that came out, it's refreshing to see and hear from all of you in this forum.

We often don't see people come out and speak.

Um, it changes our perspective in real time.

So I truly appreciate you taking time out of your busy days to come here and sit in this room and speak to us.

Some of us just like to hear ourselves talk a lot.

So I appreciate you kind of belaboring through that.

Um, and I thank you for your perspective because without your input, we don't have a direction to vote on other than our own conscience and what our own thoughts might be, and we're not certainly educated the way you are surrounding that community.

So I appreciate that.

Um that's probably all I have.

Thanks, Tom.

Councilman Foley.

Thank you.

Uh, to follow up on Councilman Napa and for clarification.

If we vote in favor tonight of what you've presented, it does not lock the city into accepting anything.

As Councilman Napa said, up to 93.

If a developer comes in and wants to do 93, but we have the public come to the public hearings for planning, and it gets in front of us again, and that's the proposal.

Right, you could deny it.

We can vote against it.

We're not locked in, correct?

Right.

So in the process, this is step one.

In step five, you have three bids, one at 93, one at 63, and one at single family homes.

It would be your expertise looking at the comprehensive plan, the highest and best use community input to say at this point, single family homes is the way to go.

And that's what you would present to us.

We're gonna present three sealed bids.

Right.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Understood.

You will probably recollect the conversations you heard this evening and make a decision on the bid you pick.

That's probably what you'll do as a council person.

All right.

And so I guess the point I'm trying to get to is our vote tonight allows the process to continue, or it stops the process in its tracks.

No, it allows it to continue.

It simply simply gives us a high ceiling potentially to see what we get for bids.

Could you repeat that, please?

I couldn't it simply gives us a high ceiling, potentially, to see what we can get for bids to maximize the bid price, which is not the only thing I care about.

It's one of the things.

Councilman Riggs.

Thank you.

If no objection, I'd request three minutes.

So first you gotta actually request it and then thank you.

Okay.

So uh first, just wanted to make a few things.

Oh, pardon me.

Uh, first I'll request three minutes, please.

Second.

Is there any objection to Councilman Ricks receiving three more minutes?

All right, so you have three minutes and 20 seconds.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh a few quick points here.

Uh looking at the appendix A and the planning board recommendation, uh, those documents that were posted.

It appears that the maximum density for this area that would be carved off that is uh where the Aldridge building is right now, maximum density allowed without the PDR overlay would be 57 units, quite substantial.

Now, I don't want to do this based on mental math, but I don't want to get anybody's hopes up here either as to single family houses, because I believe that that 4.76 acres, I'd have to compare that to the roads site.

Wasn't able to pull up that data, but uh yeah, the uh you're not fitting 57 single family houses there, that's for sure.

Uh I'm guessing maybe around 20 or so, but I don't want to go on the record with that kind of math without doing it out.

When you consider the roads and things that have to come out, that's probably more in line, yeah.

Yeah, and from experience, I don't see a developer coming through with that kind of a proposal, so I don't want to get people's hopes up there.

I do want to thank my colleagues for uh for all of their comments, a lot of insightful comments here.

Now, when it comes to the action we take this evening, a concern that I have procedurally here is that there is a reference to a legal description and exhibit A, but when I check my email, uh, you know, how we often receive these items, as well as when I check the city council website, and also for good measure, I double check the Secretary of State's website, although generally it's just the agendas posted there.

Uh, I am not actually seeing that exhibit A and change in legal description anywhere there.

So, based on that and the actual maps that show the PDR overlay as to the entirety of the property, I'm thinking that procedurally, the only thing that we could really vote on tonight would be the whether or not to do the PDR overlay here now or something along those lines, as opposed to a partition based on a change in well, partitioning, that is splitting off the one lot into two different lots, with that second lot being the field and the fire station, for instance.

Uh so I just want to make sure that I'm clear on that point that uh that would have to be its own publicly advertised, and uh that that would have to be posted anyway.

So I just want to make sure that I'm clear on that point that uh that would have to be its own publicly advertised, and uh that that would have to be posted anyway.

Uh where we're not able to go ahead and do that division here this evening, regardless, right?

Right.

Yeah.

I concur with you that the PDR overlay should only apply to the lot we were poised to record, if you will.

You got about 11 seconds left.

Okay.

So in 11 seconds, I'll briefly state that I don't think that we're really holding up anything here tonight.

I'd be comfortable holding this.

Thank you.

I want to make sure I heard you out.

You you'd prefer to hold it, is that what you said?

All right, understood.

Councilman Napa?

Yep.

I remember what I was gonna ask.

Relative to the recreational fields that exist now, the tennis courts, the baseball, the ball field, baseball, softball, whatever it's and the open space.

We have to split that off because of the restriction that's on there, the federal restriction.

Yeah.

So regardless of the PDR overlay, that has to be done.

It needs to stay.

We shouldn't have actually disposed of that with the last bit.

Right.

So okay.

Uh you're gonna find a suitable replacement of equal size in acreage, and you just don't find lots that big and city owned.

So I just want to clear that up for anyone who is following that conversation train along, is it made it seem like it was like a horse trade, like oh, we're preserving the space, but we have to.

We should have done that in the last disposition of this property.

Yeah, frankly, should have subdivided a long time ago.

That's the most minor no matter what we do in the future tonight, yeah.

Whatever we do with that property, that recreational space is essentially.

It's gonna be preserved.

Okay.

I just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks, Doug.

Yeah.

All right.

So my own two cents.

I'm as one gentleman from the public pointed out.

That building is a derelict, it's just kind of a blight at this point.

I'm not a big fan of the fact that the city is responsible currently for a blighted property, despite our best efforts to get rid of it one way or another.

It's exorbitantly expensive to demo it, as we well know, and exorbitantly expensive to redevelop it.

I am similarly concerned about the density, because I know if this was my ward, I would be saying the same thing that councilman Rix is saying.

In fact, this this is a current topic somewhat in my water already with Centerville Road.

So the concerns seem well founded.

Um it sounds like, based on what I'm hearing tonight, that I suspect the will of the body would be to hold it.

I obviously can't speak for everyone.

Uh I might even suggest the administration you may want to consider putting this out to bid regardless, not for the proposal before us, because I don't think the proposal is gonna pass one way or another tonight.

But considering there were other bidders before it doesn't seem like the worst idea, rather than letting this language for months and months, potentially.

It might it might not resolicit bids, especially if at that point you can offer or suggest to the bidders that they provide some alternative bids, such as if the property was owned XYZ, feel free to bid as that was the case to see if anyone actually bites rather than us debating based on speculation what may or may not come around.

Because while it's true for most developments, when the developer won't go in at the max because they'll know it's unpalatable, they'll come down.

If the max is set at 93, then they'll come down from there, as opposed to if the max is set at 60 something and come down from there, etc.

Well, I think councilman is right.

Rick's is right when it comes to the community opinion, which we heard a mix of tonight.

And the overall opinion is that seems to be high density, blended property, and everyone definitely has invested interest in what happens to it.

So given what members of the council have already stated tonight, does anyone have a motion?

I'd I'd yield to you on this one, Councilman Rix.

Move to hold August 17th.

Second.

So sort of had a good point.

Is does it make more sense on your end if it's held till September?

Potentially, I have another question.

Uh we um recording the minor subdivision, and then we're re-advertising with a proper description, right?

For September, we can do that.

That makes sense.

I think if you if you're looking to entertain other steps in between, time gives us some flexibility to see if we can kind of square that circle.

Um, if we're rushed within a few weeks, it may be a moot gesture to begin with because of whatever steps you may be taking.

So my my position would be more time gives us the ability to decide if uh we can proceed through this vehicle or if we need to come up with a different one down the road.

So it depends on what you do, but I think time gives us uh the flexibility to figure out how to address it in a very narrowly tailored way.

I would agree with with uh just working with the clerk alone, the extra time helps both of us.

We we can always, depending on what steps you take, we can always have another matter um brought up as well.

If if this is not the best vehicle to do it with, but if this vehicle could work, then we we can attempt that down the road.

But my sense is uh August may not afford us enough time to uh take some of those steps.

So just so I'm clear because the acoustics in here are terrible.

Do you have any objection to if you have to choose between September or August?

Does it matter for you?

September would be better.

All right, we could record the minor subdivision.

Heck, we could we could take the 93 units off the table altogether and just ask for a PD on that new lot.

Done.

So councilman Rix, would September be acceptable for you?

Yes.

September 14th, I believe is the September meeting.

Does that mean you're you're comfortable modifying your proposed motion to hold accordingly?

Yes.

Is there any objection to that?

And the second, I assume is okay with that.

All right.

So now before us is the motion to hold until September 14th.

Is there any further discussion?

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

Yes.

Mr.

Delouis, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lassa, Mr.

Mill, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

Yes, to fold.

All right, that brings us to our next matter.

PCO 24-26, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinances of the city of Warwick, MJV Enterprises LLC, applicant 2281 and 2279 West Shore Road, Assessors Plat 350, lots 84 and 661.

This is public properties.

So councilman Ricks.

Committee recommends open public hearing.

For action, Councilman Muda.

Second.

Oh action is to open public.

Seconded by Councilman Latticer.

Any discussion?

Uh seeing none, Clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snapchat.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Foley.

Yes.

Mr.

Carly.

Mr.

Lazarus.

Yes.

Mr.

Newdown.

Yes.

Mr.

Dambox.

Yes.

Mr.

Rick.

Yes.

All right.

The public hearing stands open.

Uh we'll start with the applicant.

Good evening, Council President and honorable members of the Warwick City Council.

Attorney Joseph Brennan here on behalf of the applicants, MJV Enterprises LLC.

Um quick little just background, but I'm sure you are all familiar with this property.

Um, it lies at 2281 and 2279 West Shore Road.

Uh the existing property as it stands today, is split between two zones at the front along West Shore Road is a general business zone, and along the back is it with a which is a landlocked parcel is in an A7 zone.

So in reality, the way that the zoning ordinance works, because the back lot doesn't have any access to street frontage, and these two lots are in common ownership for zoning and building purposes, these are considered one lot, although the deeds and other descriptions may say otherwise.

If anyone were to apply for a building permit, the city would consider this one lot already as part of our application, just to make things clean, title searches, new buy, new everything.

We'll be merging these lots as part of the approval process into one lot.

What exists there today is like a minor small, like I've been working on this property for like three to four years.

So I've I refer to it as the TV shop.

I guess it was an old commercial shop.

It fixed TV repairs, had a couple of other small uses in it.

And then there's another home, which is a single family home, which I've had they're not arguments, but just discussions with the applicants and the city over time, because there's debate whether it's a uh pre-existing legal two family from before when the zoning ordinance was created, or if it's any illegal two family.

Um, but so everyone knows only one family has been living in it.

But this property just had a my rate of problems over the years, especially for the size of it.

There was auto storage illegally at one point.

We cleaned that up.

There's just been a couple of different things.

So what the applicant is before you today after many different proposals with more units at different times, but they've come to um what I believe is a good fair proposal for the lot size.

It's going to demolish the existing structures on the building, start with a fresh grade and do what you'll see as 11 townhouse homes.

And along the front on West Shaw Road, you'll see the two sets.

One is two units, the other is three.

Then you'll see it along the back on the and then again on the side.

Two our east is uh the bank, uh, the credit union.

So as from an abutter's perspective, um, generally there they don't we haven't heard from them, we haven't had any concerns from them, which is also why you can see our building placement is closer to that edge.

So when you see the variances that we are requesting, most of them lie along that edge because we're trying to encroach more on that setback where and when we have to, rather than on the current neighbors who are along Glen Drive.

Um, and then when you go to Glen Drive where those those two units are being proposed, we own to the corner.

So we don't have a necessarily a butter there, it's the street, but then yes, of course, we've got that side yard of butter for that the existing two properties that are there.

Um, when it comes to parking, we meet all the parking requirements.

Um, we're not asking for any relief from that, besides the fact that parking in the city's ordinance requires you to have a 15-foot setback from your residential structures.

Now, just so you know, that's for the residential structures on our own lot that we're creating.

We're not asking for that variance from a neighbor's lot.

We're providing plenty of buffer required, but of course, that 15-foot setback is a very difficult standard for developer to meet when they're developing any kind of multifamily, because oftentimes you want your parking spaces close to your house or your unit that you own.

You don't want them set back on a long walk.

So you try to balance those those inequities.

And also during the planning stage, um, we uh had some neighbors come out and we heard very clearly from the chairman uh Slocum that he was very concerned, and I'm sure this board would be too.

That's why I'm um just letting you know the history of it, that along the side where you see right in the middle, we've got some parking that does kind of face the residence.

He wants extreme heavy screening, and I'm sure that the applicant will provide that.

I think they do show like some kind of fencing as part of it that will block the a thick barrier to block out lights, and then he expects and we will provide um intense um vegetative screening that would be year-round screening as well, not foliage that you lose in the winter time that can allow those lights to come through.

Um, as part of our approval process, we have been before the planning board.

We've received master plan approval and the positive recommendation to the council, and then going forward next is where more of the heavy engineering comes in.

So they'll start working on stormwater management runoff.

The town, the city engineer will review all of those things.

We have to get Rhode Island DEM and Rhode Island DOT permits in order to do it as well.

So any questions or issues about traffic would be answered by those experts because they'll have to review any physical alteration permits that we have for the for providing these types of change of uses.

Um, so with that being said, um, I am here to do my best to answer any questions on that the council has.

Normally we would have uh the engineer's office here too, but uh this was their holiday day because they were going off the state's schedule because they do so much permitting work before those agencies.

So um I'll do my best.

Thank you.

All right, first up, is there anyone here to speak for this project?

Is anyone here to speak for this project?

Is there anyone here to speak for this project?

Is anyone here to speak against this project?

Is there anyone here to speak against this project?

Is there anyone here to speak against this project?

Is there anyone here to speak generally about this project?

Is there anyone here who wishes to speak generally about this project?

Is there anyone here who wishes to speak generally about this project?

All right, seeing none councilman Muto.

Thank you, Ms.

President.

Do you want me to close public hearing first?

Yes, please make a motion to close public comment.

Seconded by Councilman Latticer.

Any further discussion?

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

Yes.

Yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Lattice, yes, Mr.

Muto, yes, Mr.

Napa, Mr.

Right.

Yes.

Yes, public hearing.

All right, then now questions from the council.

Councilman Muto.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh I've been intimately close to uh the discussions here and the neighbors.

I will give credit to uh the developers, they have listened to the neighbors and the concerns uh with adjusting um their setbacks and their designs.

Uh I will be uh supporting this um this motion.

This is a piece of land that uh I've been here 57 years.

I think it hasn't changed in 57 years.

So uh we're talking earlier about uh having higher density units uh for to combat some of the housing shortage.

This will fit nicely within the neighborhood.

Uh it was very respectful when it was talking with some of the uh issues in the adjustments.

There's a similar type development going in that's been approved almost across the street.

So um this one right here.

I have no concerns uh with the with the new adjustments.

So uh thank you very much for all the work.

I agree with this been three years.

Uh two of them have been you know talking with the neighbors, and uh I think this will be very good for our community and for our blighted property.

So thank you so much.

Any other members of the council wish to speak on this?

Councilman Ricks.

I'll try to keep it brief.

I think it's really a testament here uh to the all of the work that was done in advance, meeting with neighbors and a community working with the city councilor for the area that uh you know, something like this, significant change to that property.

And uh yeah, I'll uh take your word and the city councillors' word for it that this is something that's uh supported by the community.

Don't have uh people coming out with concerns and objections.

So just have to recognize an excellent job, and I think that yeah, this is an excellent use for a property like that.

We certainly need more housing, and uh this is uh from everything I'm seeing and hearing, this is the right way to do it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the council wish to speak?

All right.

Uh seeing none, do we have a motion?

Councilman Mudo.

Mr.

President, I'd like to make a motion for favorable action.

Seconded by Councilman Latticer.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLuise, yes, Mr.

Bowley, Mr.

Kirby, yes, Mr.

Ladissa, yes, Murano.

Yes, yes, Mr.

Rex.

Yes, yes, first passed.

Thank you so much for your time.

All right.

So now we will go back to consent calendar.

Yeah, PCR 75-26 resolution relative to bids.

This is finance committee.

Councilman Lattice here.

Committee recommends favorable action.

So for action, Councilman Latticer.

Recommend favorable action on PCR 75-26.

You mean move favorable action?

Right.

Move sorry, move favorable action for PCR 5-26.

We do have two withdrawal, two PCRs removed.

And with seconded by Councilman Mudo.

Is there any further discussion on the consent calendar minus the items that were removed?

Just to note the two items that were removed was bid 2027 074, which has become PCR 7626, and bid 2025 237 has become PCR 7726, which will be dealt with after the uh consent calendar.

All right.

So any discussion on the remaining consent calendar.

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

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

D.

Louise, yes, Mr.

Foley, Mr.

Carby, Mr.

Ladissa, yes.

Mr.

Mudo, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Riggs, yes.

Yes, consent passes.

All right.

So first up is bid 2027-074, which is now PCR 76-26.

Uh Councilman Latticer.

Oh, yes, Mr.

Chairman.

The um recommendation was to move it was moved to the floor recommendation.

All righty.

So first up, we uh well make sure I know which one we're talking about.

Yeah, all right.

So this is the purchase various police vehicles.

Uh was the first item we that was considered by the finance committee.

Does anyone have a motion for this so that we can actually discuss it?

Okay, well, councilman foley second, seconded by councilman Napa.

All right, so for discussion, uh does anyone have any comment?

That wasn't raised in committee.

Councilman Latticer.

This is a comment that kind of was, wasn't at any event.

Um, I as I stated in committee, I will not be voting in favor of this, and I put on the record my reasons for taking that position.

That's the perfect way to do that, by the way.

You can absolutely and you should cite back to your committee comments.

There's no reason to rehash everything.

So thank you.

Does anyone else wish to speak on this?

All right.

Seeing no no one, clerk will please call the roll on the motion for favorable action for PCR 76-26.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

Delouise, yes, Mr.

Foley, yes, Mr.

Carby, Mr.

Lattice, no, Mr.

Muirdo, yes, Mr.

Napa, yes, Mr.

Riggs, no.

62 motion passes.

All right, next up is bid 2025-237, which is now PCR 77-26.

Councilman Latticer.

Committee um recommended favorable action with one no vote.

With one what?

I'm sorry.

No vote.

All right.

So for action.

Motion to move favorable action.

All right, motion made by councilman Nappa, seconded by Councilman Foley.

So any discussion on PCR 77-26, formally bid 2025 237, which was the pre-engineered metal building work police department.

Councilman Lattice.

Oh, same comments, Mr.

President.

I'll be voting no on this for the reasons I stated in the finance committee.

Thank you.

And same comment for me.

Thank you for doing that exactly right.

Is anyone else wish Councilman Ricks?

I'll just comment briefly that uh I do support the finance chair on this.

Uh don't necessarily have an issue with uh, you know, I mean, there's some need to be addressed here, but well, I think that enough was said during the finance committee itself.

Thank you.

All right, uh, just my own two sentence.

Well, I do plan on voting.

Yes, I was not terribly thrilled.

Oh, actually, am I mixing up?

No, this is the change order one, correct?

Right, yeah.

I wasn't terribly thrilled with the documentation lacking the signatures, although I'm confident that the documentation exists somewhere where it is properly notated and or that it was somewhat made irrelevant by the fact that the city accepted it.

It's still not great.

The fact that that's what we got provided.

That's what gets posted for the world to see.

Just a bad look at a minimum.

Uh but that being said, that that's my only real gripe.

So clerk will please call the roll.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, Councilman Napa lit up.

I apologize.

Uh just briefly, I I agree with Councilman Latticer and all his points and gripes about accountability and tracking, and I think that all departments need to get to the root cause of these issues so that we don't keep having this same problem where there's a miscommunication or a misunderstanding about what's available, what we should have, and there does need to be more accountability on the part of the architects and the contractors, so that we don't have these issues keep coming up because it is it is extremely frustrating.

And we waste an inabsorbitant amount of time trying to figure out where the disconnect happened and why.

So I'm with the chairman on that.

Um I share your concerns, Council President.

So I do support the premise of this vote to get this done and get this paid and closed out, but share all the same concerns.

All right.

Does anyone else?

All right.

So seeing none, clerk will please call the roll.

Mr.

Snappy, yes, Mr.

DeLouis, yes, Mr.

Pole.

Yes, Mr.

Carby, Mr.

Laddisa.

No, Mr.

Muito?

Yes.

Mr.

Napa?

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Rex.

No.

Six two motion passes.

All right.

And because we jumped around, I just want to make sure I didn't jump over something.

Correct.

So unfinished business PCO 22-25, an ordinance prohibiting camping on public property.

This is ordinance.

That is correct.

Is there any objection to holding until November 23rd?

Seeing none, so help.

Next is PCO 8-26, an ordinance establishing a real estate non-utilization tax.

Also correct.

Is there any objection to holding until August 17th?

Seeing none, so held.

And that brings us to new business, which there is none.

On to unanimous consent.

Does anyone have anything for unanimous consent?

Seeing none, we'll stare at Councilman Ford.

There are a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right.

To the docket session we go.

Uh ward one.

Uh I have one an ordinance in regards to no overnight parking on the easterly side of River Street.

There is a traffic stud.

Public safety.

Ordinance.

Councilman Bricks.

Pass.

Ward three.

Pass.

Ward four.

I just have one, but I don't know how to present this.

The study was done, and a decision was made um by the state in 2024 regarding one of my constituents who just opened a cafe on West Shore Road.

Uh Cafe Namaste.

She wanted me to inquire about a crosswalk where farm is.

And they already denied this one time.

They did a traffic study, but the neighbors, some other neighbors came to me and said, Well, there was never a reason for anyone to go across the street.

Um there was a laundromat, the liquor stores there.

Now there's a cafe there.

Well, traffic light may help, but state road, right?

They did a traffic study and they did three-year traffic study.

And they also did a study, and they claim that only one person in a three-hour period tried to cross the road.

So I don't know if I mean I'm I'm just want to help them out.

I don't know if we can do a traffic study.

It sounds like you're requesting.

I think the same result is gonna happen.

I mean, it sounds like you're requesting the state do another traffic study.

So we it could be rather than trying to figure out the fine details now, which we shouldn't.

We can at least say uh what traffic study regarding West Shore Road, and then we can figure out what to do exactly.

Yeah, I recommend docketing a resolution uh regarding safety enhancements for that area.

Yeah, between like coal farm and the fire station that's there, and we can assign that to intergovernmental.

We've had a few of those pending before.

We'll see if we can get a different answer.

All right, do you have anything else?

No, that's it.

All right, Councilman Laser Ward 5.

Oh, I'll circle back.

Ward seven pass.

Got it.

All right, ward nine, obviously.

Yes, the pass is not here.

I have one uh a resolution in regards to the 2027 city council calendar.

That'll be intergov, and then we'll just wait a moment or two.

We'll hear from ward six.

All right, ward six passes, so we are concluded at 8 48 p.m.