Town Council - Regular Meeting

Scheduled August meeting 2026.

We're going to rise to the Pledge of Allegiance and we'll be standing for a moment of silence for all the victims of impaired driving. Thank you. We may or may not realize the number of people who do die annually due to impaired driving. And we're going to have a quick presentation this evening In our public comment period, we will be hearing from Ms. Kerry Souza and Ms. Souza is the chief's wife and she's a representative. I'm going to unfortunately say my memory isn't working, but could Ms. Souza please come forward? Refresh my memory. The Warm Prevention Coalition. Thank you. I have so many acronyms in my head. Please come forward. You've requested a public comment. Yes. And we'd like to have you the opportunity to speak.

Thank you very much.

Maria Orsini, Water Street in Warren.

Thank you. Like we said, we represent the Warren Prevention Coalition and we are here to recognize International Overdose Awareness Month, which happens every August. Many of you probably noticed our table on your way into chambers this evening. These are the faces of overdose. These five young men and women lost their lives to overdose. What you may not know is that they all have ties to Warren and the East Bay. Some lived here or went to school here or worked here. They all left family and friends behind here. The reason for this display is to remind us that no one is immune to overdose. We feel the pain. That's why it is so important to have conversations with our loved ones, with our children, young, old, doesn't matter. Make sure they know they have support to find the help they need. In addition to this display, we are hosting two separate naloxone trainings. Naloxone, commonly known as Narcan, is a medicine that can reverse an overdose if administered in time. The first training will be held this Thursday for all town employees. You're all invited. And the second will be held on August 27th in the evening at 6 p.m. These will both be held in our office, the prevention office downstairs of this building. The second is open to the public if I did not say that. Both trainings are free of charge and everyone that attends will receive a dose or two of Markham. In prevention, our long-term goal is to have no one living dependent on substance. Our short-term goal is to keep them alive until they can make the decision to get help. And then our final event will be a gathering to celebrate life and hope. This will be held at St. Mary of the Bay Church in memory of those who've lost their lives to substance use and in support of those who struggle with addiction and those that are in recovery. This will be held on August 31st at 6 p.m. And again, all are welcome. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. And being someone who corrects myself when I realize I was wrong, if we could please stand. for a moment of silence for Alex Flanagan, Kerry Berggren, Jackie Amaral, Evan Zampa, and Casey Wood, victims of overdose.

Thank you.

Next on our public comment, we have Kathleen Rahm, 18, Tati, is she here? Hi, how did I butcher your name? Rami, thank you.

Counselors, department heads, Mr. Town Manager, my name is Kathleen Corey Rami. I live at 18 Taddy Avenue. We moved to Warren a year ago, May. We were immediately attracted to this area. Fabulous. I'm here to speak about a letter I received from the Department of Planning and Community Development on Friday regarding 360 Market Street, the current Highlander School. I do realize that this is not on the agenda this evening and it's in its early stages. I would like to request that the council keep a watchful eye on this project. I plan to do the same. I am disheartened by what I learned today from the development director, that perhaps zoning and town council have limited input because of Rhode Island general laws, 45, 24, 37, that bypasses local zoning laws for projects that have 50% of the square feet dedicated to housing. In a nutshell, MIOW LLC will be allowed to build a project that exceeds that which is allowed under warning zoning R20. I am not against the developing project. I am against the excessive development and the advantages that they are receiving from the Rhode Island general laws so much for town autonomy. Thank you.

Thank you. I reach out to you, ma'am, Ms. Rami.

Yes.

You may want to reach out to your local state reps because they're the ones that write these laws that tie our hands. I totally agree with you 100%, but as long as the state keeps tying our hands, there's not a whole lot we can do.

I just received the letter on Friday and I have a long road ahead.

Okay.

And I actually will be reaching out formally to all of you as well. Okay.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. And next we have Mr. Joshua Alameda. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. at the preceding meeting i was assured on the record that an answer would be rendered the answer has been silence since then worn police officers have continued to stage on private property without written consent serious civil rights and public records concerns remain unresolved faith in this body has been withdrawn Warned police officers have continued to stage on private property absent written consent. On the public and official records, the department attempts to conceal this unconstitutional practice by recording stops as occurring within the vicinity of public intersections and road corners. That variance is fatal. Official reports state one location, while the vehicles were in fact stationed on private and religious property. Specifically across a coordinated network including Patriot Liquors, AT&T, Liberty Tax, FedEx, Advance America, Monroe Breaks and Mufflers, the Lifespan Building, Child Care Connection, Crossroads Restaurant, Twigs Automotive, Highland Charter School, Sip and Dip Donuts, St. Alexander's Church, St. Mary of the Bay, St. Thomas the Apostle Church, and numerous others. Because staging occurred on private property without express written consent from the current owner of record, and because official reports falsify or misrepresent the actual staging locations, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, Wong Sun versus United States, applies in full force. Any and all reports, citations, observations, and evidence derived from these unconsented stops conditionally tainted and inadmissible in any court of law. The official reports fail on their face. In the absence of express written consent from the current owner of record, the staging must cease immediately. The evidence compromises photographs, videos, and the department's own records. Those records show motorists stopped in immediate succession within minutes of one another at identified locations. That sequence is evidence in revenue generation, not public safety. I invite the town to prove otherwise through its records, policies, and directives. The pattern of revenue generation practices and selective enforcement measures, including staging on private property and religious property, successive stops within minutes, radar and speed enforcement posts on religious property, seatbelt enforcement, mandatory court costs, even after good driving record dismissals, and the refusal to accept defense filings, has been carried out secure and maintained federal funding from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the amount of millions of dollars. This is a scheme pursued to satisfy enforcement quotas and funding criteria that flow into federal funds. Federal monies are being drawn down based on enforcement measures executed in violation of constitutional rights. Taken together, all of these violations constitute an illegal revenue generation scheme. There is no difference. It is a criminal enterprise that bears the flag on its uniform and operates under the color of law. It demands federal investigation and proof to the full extent of the law. The conduct described herein implicates specific federal statutory provisions on the United States law for the record and for public accountability. The applicable federal offenses and their maximum statutory penalties are enumerated as follows. 18 U.S.C. Section 666, theft or bribery concerning programs received federal funding, implicating the misuse of federal NHTSA grant allocations through quota-driven enforcement, maximum penalty, up to 10 years imprisonment, fines, and forfeiture per offense. 31 USC, Section 3729, False Claims Act, implicating the drawdown of federal funds based on false certifications of lawful enforcement operations, maximum penalty, civil penalties ranging from $13,000 to $27,000 per false claim, plus treble damages. 18 U.S.C. Section 1512, tampering with a witness, victim, or informant, obstruction, implicating the destruction, redaction, or withholding of exculpatory dispatch, video, and staging records, maximum penalty up to 20 years imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. Section 241, conspiracy against rights, implicating concerted action by officials to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate citizen in the free exercise of constitutional rights, maximum penalty up to 10 years imprisonment, up to life imprisonment or death if death results. 18 U.S.C. Section 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Implicating willful deprivations of constitutional protections by officers acting under color of law. Maximum penalty. Up to one year imprisonment. Up to ten years of bodily injury results. Up to life imprisonment or death if death results. 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, Implicating Individual and Municipal Civil Liability for Constitutional Violations, Remedy, Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages, and Statutory Attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C., Section 1988. I place this counsel on express notice. On the record, right here, in my hands, I hold a fully prepared federal civil rights complaint. I will amend it freely. Any new violation or party arising tonight or thereafter becomes an additional count or an additional defendant without limitations. The clerk refused to file important documents. Motions for discovery, motions to dismiss, and affidavits were presented and legally filed on the date they were submitted. They were improperly refused and ignored. The proper authorities must immediately review them. The motion for discovery must be granted. The motions and affidavits must be addressed on the record. Furthermore, the public records requests have not been fulfilled within the legal timeframe. They have been met with delay and extensive redaction. Staging locations and their associated records were purposely omitted from the department's reports and responses. That omission violates the law. I demand full compliance within the legal timeframe. I demand production without redaction of any kind. Finally, the courtroom record raises a further question. Persons directed toward good driving dismissals were required to pay mandatory court costs and fees demanded by a magistrate. That dynamic demands scrutiny for coercion, due process, and unlawful extraction. Chief Borges, after 20 years of service, either you do not know the law you swore to uphold, in which case you are unfit to wear the badge, or you know the law and knowingly permit its violation under your command, in which case you are unfit to wear it. Which is it, Chief? When an oath is not upheld, what is the purpose of taking one? Notice carries legal consequence. Any party who without limitation and with knowledge continues to dismiss their oath, continues participating, or permits these violations to persist shall have immunity extinguished to the extent permitted by law. This applies to, but not limited to, warrant police officers, court clerks, the chief, the magistrate, the town administrator. The on-record notice of pending federal civil rights complaint stands. Any new violation of party arising without limitation becomes an additional count or an additional defendant. Continued silence implicates those who turn a blind eye. I await no indefinite future. I demand written answers to every point and a full investigation within 30 days. The response must identify the records reviewed, the official responsible, the authority relied upon, and the corrective action taken. Silence will not be tolerated. Tyranny is the exercise of public office to subjugate constitutional rights for revenue and control. It begins with silence. Let it end here. Thank you.

And you're welcome. And because we follow the Constitution, of course, you're free to come here and speak your mind. Mr. DeSisto, anything you want to add to this?

I do. The gentleman says he's going to file a complaint in federal court. And I think what happens now is that it has to be filed. And the prop forum will be for it. And the town will answer that complaint when it's filed.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Almeida. Next, we have interviews. We have an opening still on the Arts and Culture Commission, or two positions actually are available. We have one position available on the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, and we have one position open on the Economic Development Board. Actually, excuse me, three positions available on the Economic Development Board. We have, I didn't forget, I've been staring at them.

So we're not going in order?

No. And now we have someone who is here but doesn't have to get up unless he wants to. He has been the Warren Housing Authority Executive Director. He's been the Town of Warren Finance Director. He's been the Second Story Theater's General Manager and CFO. He's been the State of Rhode Island Rideout Chief Financial Officer. He's been the Town of Warren Manager. And he's done various financial projects all over the world with Coca-Cola. There is a position open on our budget committee. Mr. Abruzzi would like to be on it. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion. Everybody, I want to make a motion. Michael Abruzzi.

All in favor?

Aye. Thank you. I don't want to bribe him if he wants to come up here and speak, though.

No, I don't want to either. Next, we have... Unfortunately, we have another position, juvenile hearing board, no applicants, and that is one ultimate position available. Then we have planning board, two alternate positions available. Then we have tax board of assessment review, two positions available. And we have zoning board of review, one position available. Please, everyone, we need some participation to run this town. All of these advisory boards are a healthy input of information to the council. Next, we have resignations. And we have a resignation from Economic Development Board Member Donald Mead. We have a resignation from Warren Housing Authority Commissioner Anton DeMaso. And we have Arts and Cultural Commission Member Erin D. Thomas.

I'll make a motion. We accept the resignation, send out a letter of recognition and advertise those positions as well as the ones previously that are still waiting. Sounds good.

Is there a second? We should just add to that. We should send a letter to the Warren Housing Authority because that's one of the internal commissioners. that they're looking for. That's a resident commission.

So they're aware. Okay, great. Thank you.

Next, we have the acceptance of minutes. And this is from the Tuesday, the 14th of July. I didn't notice any corrections. Make a motion to approve. Second. All in favor. Aye. Next, we have petitions. We have a request for a victualing license. And this is from Masters Express Cafe LLC is Miss Kang King. How did I put you that? Oh, it's not. Tell us a little bit about what you're trying to do.

Open a cafe that have served donuts, espresso, breakfast sandwiches, pastries.

Sounds good. And this is on Medicum Avenue. Yes. Yes. Any additional questions of the applicant?

Make a motion to approve.

Second. Good luck. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have a request for a one-day entertainment license from E. Jenny K. Flanagan. Hello. Hello. How are you?

Good, thank you very much.

This is one of the 250th?

Yeah, this is part of the 250th. And we're going to be closing the street as well. So it's block party. I've already talked to the police chief and the fire chief about it. It's on October 4th. It's going to be between on Linden Street and School Street that we're closing between Broad and Washington Street. With the entertainment license application, is there a possibility because this is part of the 250th program to get a waiver on the liability insurance requirement?

Mr. DeSisto is making that face that I don't think so. Mr. DeSisto, is that the I don't think so? We recommend it.

Right. Okay.

So you got it.

And the reason why we need to get it is because of the entertainment being amplified, correct?

It's because of an entertainment, which is a gathering. It's not necessarily because of the amplification.

Oh, so it's a safety.

It's so regardless of whether people are, you know, an entertainment license requires an insurance binder.

Okay. Okay. All right.

Are there any questions of the applicant? I'll make a motion. We approve the one day entertainment license pending fire and police approval. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have another request for a one day entertainment license from Hadley and Peter Arnold.

I'm Hadley Arnold.

Hello.

21 Linden Street. Request is for entertainment license. I'm not even sure it's actually necessary, but we're inquiring for a wedding and reception. Saturday, October 17th.

Mr. DeSisto, a wedding on private property.

So, what would you like to know? What can I address? Typically, uh,

So what mitigates that or what do I need to do?

I'm a little confused on that. Say I want to have a party at my house and I... Gentlemen, you have questions? Yes, I'm going to ask... Feel free.

Well, in case I want to have a party in my house. Well, you could take a chair.

I can have a little clam boil and have like 16 or 20 relatives over. And I put a couple of picnic tables out there and I want to give them beers and wine. I got to come here and get a liquor license?

No, but knowing the people you fight. Be a clean seat. Come on. Okay.

Licensed, insured, certified bartenders are hired as well as the caterers. It's a fenced property. It'll have a little tent over. It'll be pretty clear. It's just our guests and the certification requires a bartender to stop serving well before the end of the party and not serve anyone who seems to have had too much.

Would it be best advised to get the entertainment license? You're just asking questions, correct? You're not asking whether you need it or not. You're here asking for an entertainment policy. If I need it, I'm here to address whatever comes up. It's a belt and suspenders approach. So we always follow the advice of our solicitor. Some council members don't. And I see no reason. So is there a motion to approve? Can I ask a question? You absolutely can.

Does the homeowners cover this?

Well, I haven't seen the...

policy i haven't seen the big policy i think it's a multi-unit building correct it is not it's a single family oh it's a single family well okay yeah oh and you're inviting guests and entertainment license would cover that and uh you'd be able to get your insurance binder and uh you'd have a great wedding any other questions mr trombley

Not really a question, just more of a statement generally is that I think I'm not going to judge whether or not you need it or don't need it. But if you're asking for it, since you are asking for it, I think it's a perfectly appropriate use. Congratulations on the wedding. And I look forward to approving this.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay, so there's a motion? I'll make a motion we approve the one-day entertainment license for 21 Linden Street. I second that motion. All in favor? Aye.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Next, we have an additional request that wasn't on the agenda. Oh, no, it is on the agenda. Excuse me. Hi, Sarah Weed is here. That's what the difference is. So you're here soliciting for the family that wants to host the block party on Canario Drive.

That's exactly right.

Canario and Eisenhower. And this is a part of the 250th as well. Yes. And you've already spoken to the police and fire since you're the chair of the committee. That's true. Are there any questions of the applicant?

i'll just we don't have there's not going to be any outside entertainment so we don't need this but it's not amplified so no that's the wedding oh i'm sorry yeah put your glasses on uh this is the one to close off yeah if you don't have any i just want to make sure if you need an entertainment license we give you one so no we do not need an entertainment license thank you There's a motion. I'll make a motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Thank you, Ms. Weed. Thank you, Ms. Weed. Next, we have a public hearing, and it's the first public hearing of the evening. And this is for Chapter 32, Zoning, Article 8, Zoning District Use Regulations, Section 3255, Wholesale Business and Storage Uses, Self-Storage Facilities Allowed by Special Use Permit in Certain Zones, the second reading. I see the solicitor or the attorney for the applicant is here. Stan Gwila, please come on down.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Council. Last time we were here for first reading, and the Council appropriately referred this to the Planning Board for a recommendation, which I believe has been given. We have it. And we ask for passage tonight.

Well, one thing I would like the council to think about is passing this for this specific applicant. I don't see any reason for us to broaden the use in the rest of the town.

I don't think we can do that spot zone.

Well, um,

so you know years ago uh what the town did on actually 32 occasions john perhaps members this to do these so-called contract zones uh that's considered now in the law to be a uh a spot zone and therefore unlawful This proposal doesn't do that. It actually makes it so it's a special use permit in certain zones. It's not the entire town. It's in your business, commercial, industrial zones. That's what the proposal is. Also, I think speaking with staff, you might want to consider putting in rural business too, but that's the situation.

All right. Thank you. I apologize. Again, that was what I was referring to. Instead of extending this into rural business, I misspoke. I'd like to see how the council feels because no one has come and requested rural business. I don't see why we right now need to put self-storage potential in our rural business district.

versus keeping it... Yeah, it was not...

It's not part of what we passed. Correct. So I misspoke.

I read the planning board's decision and discussion, and I agree with it. And it raised one question to me. It says eventually they're going to come up with the standards for the special use. And I'm going to get back to what I said last meeting. If you create something that requires a special use, but you don't put in the standards, 99.9%... sure that the state laws that have changed make that if you don't have the conditions, it becomes a permitted use. So I don't want to do one without the other.

Correct.

If you don't have, so in other words, before this goes live and changes in those zones, I want the standards there because then if we don't have the standards, then anybody can come in and it's just, it's permitted by right. If we don't have the requirements, that's my one concern. And I'm not looking for any major standards, but just something in there. So it keeps that from happening.

The applicant has probably want to hear from your planner. Okay. But the applicant has a connection with this application. Correct me if I'm wrong. Forwarded along some proposed.

Standards for your specialty and along that right there that I mean, self storage. We have a problem with it. I think it's 1 of the least effective uses of land. However, I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but we do want to have some things in there to make sure that we don't end up the self-storage capital of the world because you don't really generate a whole lot of tax dollars on self-storage.

Or jobs. So my perspective of not expanding the additional zone was to give... that rural business district, the chance and opportunity to possibly create businesses that have more employment than self-storage. And that's not what you're asking for.

No, we're not asking for rural business at all. That's what I meant to say originally in my opening statement about the specific to your request and the permitted uses. And just if I may, just for a moment, Bear in mind, all we're asking for is to be allowed to apply for a special use permit before the zoning board. So many of these concerns that all these concerns you're raising would actually be aired before the zoning board with a full set of plans and all that a zoning board considers. With regard to standards, I submitted a set of standards to the planning board. I think they're pretty generic and they're pretty... They're not controversial. I've also shared it with your solicitor, and he could certainly opine on that. My biggest concern is that, as you know, there is a self-storage facility there right now. Correct. And my client wants to pump money into Warren to expand it. It's just a mere expansion. And I guess what I'm asking is I'd like to move this along, if at all possible. I understand the council's position, of course, and we'll do what the council wants us to do. but I would ask that you pass it tonight so the zoning ordinance can be amended. And then certainly you could come back and amend the amendment to the zoning ordinance with specific standards to address Mr. Hanley's concerns. And I can also, as I've already provided to the solicitor, what I think, if I read you all correctly, what I think your issues might be in terms of standards.

Yep, I can see them now in here. There is a whole list of standards sent by the planner.

I'd like to hear from Ms. Policastro if she would like to come over and our planner. Thank you, Ms. Anguilla, if you're done for now. Hello.

So, you know, to speak to both the council's concern, the planning board and your client. Yes, the...

I apologize. It's my first. Okay. But you can use files. Okay.

All right. So I was going to say Mr. Fowler, so that's why. My concern is that standards that were provided were a good template to start from. However, they left... I felt as did the planning board and my chair and vice chair here with me this evening, too many loopholes. We're constantly trying to find the balance between land use and general characteristics of a community. Like Councilman Hanley, I have seen saturation of storage facilities around the state. And some of them are very box store looking, not the best land use, but also aesthetically not what the town of Warren would want to see in most areas, separate from your client, which has already had some storage. So what we did was I was tasked by the planning board to come up with some language as it relates to Rhode Island general law. Obviously Rhode Island general law as it relates to self-storage is very broad sweeping. So myself and Ms. Flanagan looked at abutting communities and provided two examples, one from Massachusetts and one from Rhode Island as it relates to... tightening the definition of what self-storage is. I also agree that we should also look at open-air storage. I think you're going to see more of requests for people to store, whether it's construction equipment, boats, landscaping materials. And so I don't want to leave any loopholes or miscommunication. And so I believe that we should have tighter standards as it relates to self-storage, not just from a land use standpoint, but more importantly, from an aesthetic standpoint.

Any questions, Mr. Trombley?

That's a question more just a statement of where I'm at on this particular issue. As a matter of public policy, I'm just generally dubious about the claim that we need more self-storage facilities in our community. I asked at the last council meeting for... so the justification um the claim that was made that warren's deficient in its amount of self-storage and i didn't receive this in my packet but i received it tonight i've had brief time to go over it and it's it's just not very persuasive to me and the fact that we don't have any standards firmly set in terms of how we would adjudicate the special use applications i'm not prepared to to support this going forward tonight i agree with the councilman hanley that there are a lot of concerns that I have about this and I just can't move this forward.

Mr. Rago?

I don't have any issues with. So basically, we would be doing it. If we approve this, it would be a spot zone.

But yet, no, no, no.

It would be the permission to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special use permit.

I was speaking about the specific applicant with his application to all of the permitted zones. In my head, I was thinking of just one person, meaning one request. My position was it's also possible for us to expand the use into the rural business district which is not what i'm saying i i really don't wouldn't like to see that me personally putting it out there for all of you to follow so basically we would be okay with this

this here, but we would want to send it to the planner and to Zoni for further review.

This would go to the Zoni Board of Appeals for this particular use of which the Planning Commission did vote favorably to make a recommendation to Council. That being said, they would like to see us clean up the ordinance language as it relates to Rhode Island General Law definitions and design signage HAB-Masyn Moyer- That's all aesthetics facade things of that nature.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Missing we're.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Going to zoning for special use permit what it.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Right next I think that so just to bring everybody up to speed, Mr wheeler is encouraging us to move this as fast as possible for his client, but we have more questions miss chronic.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Some while I feel that. likely to support this particular request that's before us tonight or to approve it going through the next step of the process. Tonight is not the time where we are going to write, identify, approve, go through the process of creating these standards.

Correct. It's just to say that Mr. Guila. This client can go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply for a special use permit for this particular site.

So by having this discussion tonight and by agreeing, it would seem as a council that we do need to create

stronger um uh standards or create standards for our ordinance what is that process yeah actually can i make a suggestion on this because i i agree with what uh mr hanley said in the beginning so you probably want to do them in tandem and you're not ready to do that now um you have an applicant that that is anxious to move forward the difficulty that the applicant runs into is is that um What is there now to sell storage is what's known as a prior non-conforming use. It's grandfathered. You have a provision in your zoning ordinance now, which is part of public hearing two, which addresses the specific provision. You cannot expand a non-conforming use more than 25%. of the original thing. That's the holdup. What they want to do is expand what they have, but they want to do it for more than 25%. That's why public hearing two is on. Your council president said, gee, you know, I'd like to take a look at it here at this, but I'm a little concerned with the rest of the town. The way to address that is to take a look at public hearing two. This is not a provision. 25% maximum sometimes have it, but most don't. So I think the best way to go forward on this to accommodate all the concerns that were raised is to continue this out until you can see the specific criteria for the special use permit that Ms. Palo Castro will give to you so you can take a look at it on a broader scale. And for this applicant, you take a look at Public Hearing 2. For that expansion, you get specific for this site.

That's what I was thinking. Approve PH2 where they will be able to proceed and continue PH1 until next month. And we can get the conditions, the planner and the planning board can get together and get the conditions. And then we can incorporate that next month.

That's correct. And let's wait till we have the second public hearing. So, Mr. Anguilla, do you want to have another go at it? And then we're going to hear from the public because this is a public hearing.

As I understand it, What you all, what the solicitor is suggesting is that you pass the second part of the ordinance. And you'll recall way back when, when I first came before you, people asked me, why are you doing both sides, both two ordinance amendments? And this is kind of a little bit of what I had in mind. The reason, correct. So you passed that second... Possibly. We're going to discuss the second public hearing. Fair point and well taken. Hypothetically, you passed the second one. We then get to go and submit our application to the zoning board. With regard to the use table itself, you're going to want to have, I think, your planner along with your solicitor and I I'm willing to help however I can. use my meager talents to get a set of criteria, which you will then consider in your September 14th meeting. I think it's September 14th.

That sounds accurate.

But it doesn't stop us from going before the zoning board based on the second amendment, which keeps you moving in the right direction after tonight's meeting. And that, and quite honestly, for you and your client, and that's, that's what my client is looking for is just to go from,

We're helping you deal with the 25% expansion. So for those of you who don't remember or know, Mr. Anguilla was also once our solicitor.

Many years ago.

You hang out in Rhode Island long enough and everybody's in one chair at some point. Thank you. And now I'm going to open up the... Any other questions from the council?

So eliminating the 25% limit to expansion of non-conforming uses means they could just double the size or triple the size?

That's not what we're going to be doing this evening. We're going to be going to the second public hearing, and we're going to be discussing that. That's their request right now.

Okay, we're still back on this one.

We're on PH1. All we were saying was what... TH2 could hypothetically give this client.

Gotcha.

Just to clarify. What our plans are is to increase it by 36%. Okay. We hit a roadblock in trying to do that. under your present ordinance because you have this 25% cap. In my very humble opinion, that cap could be successfully challenged in court. Leave that as it may. So by doing PH2, your use table doesn't change tonight. But you may want to consider why this use table doesn't have self-storage. Why don't we take things

In the order of the agenda, let's hear from the public on PH1. And we will ask the public for input. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this issue? It's an opportunity. It's a public hearing. All right.

I will make a motion. We continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled council meeting.

Good motion.

Second.

All in favor.

I'm sorry. The purpose of the continuance is so we can, the planning and the planning board and the solicitor can come up with some of the requirements or for the standards standards for the special use permit. And that's, that's in the notion.

Yeah. They're all going to work together. And that's in the motion. Yep. And the motion is seconded. All in favor? Aye. Okay, now we're going to move on to the ever much talked about public hearing two.

Mr. Anguilla, the opportunity is yours. I don't want to take up too much of your time.

It's your opportunity to explain now at the right time what you want to do.

We have a footnote. in your ordinances, which limits a expansion of a non-conforming use to 25%. Bear in mind, understanding that it always goes in front of the zoning board of review. We simply ask that that 25% arbitrary cap be eliminated. So the zoning board could then consider a special use permit for this problem.

Which we kind of spoke about in the previous public hearing, but now it's specific. Mr. DeSisto, anything you would like to add to the public hearing 2, Chapter 32, Zoning Article 7, Nonconforming Development, Section 3274 extension. This eliminates the 25% limit to expansion of nonconforming uses.

No, as I said earlier, some communities have this type of a limitation. Most don't. It's up to the zoning board as to what is the appropriate expansion of non-conforming use. There's some other limiting language, by the way. There's some other limiting language in the ordinance as to the expansion of a non-conforming use. So, you know, I think that that would be the one preferable to go forward with if the council wants to do it. Again, that goes back to the council president's original comments that, you know, we'd like to see things limited to this application. It would be limited to this. But other non-conforming uses in the town would be able to take advantage of it, too, if they want to expand the non-conforming use program. to in excess of 25% of the current use.

Questions from the council.

Mr. Hanley. Anthony, do you agree that the number is arbitrary and wouldn't stand up in court? I'm saying just because Kerry had a real concern, maybe if we raised it to 50 percent or something like that. Do you think that would stand up in court or do you think it's arbitrary and it would?

Yeah, there's a question as to whether or not, you know, you have to have some type of a mechanism to expand the nonconforming use. That's under case law. The question is whether or not you can have some type of a number saying you can't go beyond this. You know, it's not a question that has been answered by the courts yet. There is some questions as to whether or not it would be upheld. So it's always a question. But, you know, you have a zoning board and you expect the zoning board to handle this in the appropriate fashion.

Mr. Tromley, questions? Mr. Rago.

Yeah, I do have a question. Please, go right ahead. We're eliminating the 25%. We're bringing it to the zoning board to make that decision. They have the authority to put in the percentage that they feel is appropriate for that.

That's correct, yes. Okay. In other words, the zoning board could say, you're asking for a 75% increase. We think that's too attentive. Under the criteria that we have in the zoning ordinance now, we deny the applicants.

Ms. Cronin.

In a case like that, would it be appropriate for the zoning board to say, but we'll give you 50% or does it require the applicant to come back for another go round?

No, a zoning board has the ability to say that, you know, we're going to grant the application on the condition that instead of you've asked 75%, it's granted on the condition that the expansion be no more than 40%. Okay. They could do that. All right.

Before I open it to the floor, Mr. Tromley, anything?

I'm just a little dubious to this as well, and it's nothing against the particular applicant coming before us or anything of that nature. To me, it just kind of feels like the nose of the camel coming into the tent. If you let the nose in and the head, why not, and the neck, and then before you know it, the whole camel's in there. Our previous council put a 25% limit on it, thinking that that was a good way to limit the amount of nonconforming uses that can expand in town or the scope of it. I don't see any reason to challenge the, I mean, the logic of it to say that, you know, there are uses that are in scope, should remain as they are. And also, I'm just curious, Tony, if someone went before the zoning board and said, today, and said, I want a 25% expansion in my non-conforming use. And then they put in another application, let's say it was granted. And then the next day they went in and said, we want another 25% increase. Is that a lot permissible to us? So they get 125% called stacking. You can't can't stack.

Yeah. So my only concern is when we talk about logic. And I think that Mr handling alluded to this. Why 25%? Why not? 20? Why not? 30? There's no objective criteria for that. I think any appeal would be based on that. In this instance, at least the zoning board gets to say, you get this expansion, we've got these criteria, you can meet them or not.

I don't know. I don't like not having a number in that. And I'm certainly happy to instruct our planner or our solicitor to develop a rationale as to what number is appropriate if they don't feel 25% is appropriate or just reach some calculation. But I just don't feel comfortable not having a number there, at least some cap. So that's where I stand on this.

Thank you. Everybody good? So again, the... Question to the public. Anyone want to speak on this issue? It's a public hearing. This is your opportunity.

All right. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right. What's the will of the council? Mr. Handley, please.

I'm going to make a motion. I'm not overly concerned with the percentage because we do have the oversight of the zoning board on this and there's going to be certain requirements that they have to meet. I was just concerned why it was a 25 and if we go to 50, uh, I don't really have a problem doing it as written without a percentage allowed because it's going to go to the zoning board. You know, you have to have faith in your zoning board. If you don't have faith in your zoning board, then you should probably appoint a new zoning board. And I have faith in our zoning board. So I'm going to make a motion. We approve PH2 as written. Second. Any discussion?

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. No. Mr. Tromley is in the opposition. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Next, we have Ordinance 1, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article 3, Stopping, Standing, and Parking, Section 12-66. This is the designated fines. Second reading. This is our approach at increasing the fines that haven't been touched for years in town. Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion. We approve second reading of the fine increase for motor vehicles and traffic.

Any discussion on that motion? All in favor? Aye. Next, we have Old Business 2, Chapter 10. Mooring regulations, mooring permit fees. This is the first reading. Mooring permit fees shall be determined by the town council based on the recommendation of the harbor master. The harbor master has given a recommendation. The annual fees for vessels 25 feet in length add an additional $8 per foot for vessels over 25 feet, noting the following fees are recommended by the harbor commission. So... Mr. Silva, could you come on over to the mic and explain your position on this?

Yeah. There are two that I feel are too high. The morning application fee, this is just to get on a list that you might be on for 10 years. We've always charged 25. That's in line with the rest of... And we checked other towns. So this is on page six.

I'm sorry? Page six. On page six. The mooring application fee recommendation here says $40. $40. And you're saying... And I'm feeling it's too high.

My recommendation... that I put forth was to stay at 25. And it somehow got raised to- Is this annual or it's a one-time fee until you- One-time fee to get on a list that you, again, might be on for 10 years. And is it refundable or added towards the- I mean, we could set that. That's not the way it is now.

Joe, can- Mr. Rago. Joe, could you tell me about how many applicants do we have?

Are you talking to me or Mr. Silva?

You're both Joe, right? Correct. Problem, huh? Okay. That's why we use Mr. Silverman. Yes, sir. Well, how many applicants do we have annually that put in?

That's not a number I have at handy. I can find out.

50, 100, 200? Under 50. Maybe 50.

25 bucks to get on a week, unless that sounds reasonable. 40 does sound a little high.

And then I look at it like if you want to have skin in the game and you put $40 down, $40 they're in. I mean, I don't know. I don't have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with keeping it at $25. I do think if you have 50 people that, you know.

So I'm reading this now. It's $25 to get on and then $10 a year.

It's an annual fee to stay on the list, which has never been done before. It's going to be now that we're on the online program or going to the online program. In order to stay on a list, you have to pay. And again, going to $25 annually to stay on a list that you might be on for 10 years. See, I look at this as a very useful tool because you're responsible for the list.

When people come in and there's 50 people, you say, well, you're 51. You're saying that this seems to be a heavy economic burden. I look at it as a very good way of Measuring out the people who really want to be in or not. So if somebody really wants to be on the list, they pay the money. They stay in touch with you every year. They give the $10. And when the day. It's going up to 25. Let me speak broadly. The money in these issues really doesn't matter to me in regards to being on a list. Correct. Because to me, it's the skin in the game. So if somebody can't afford $40 to be on a list, they probably are going to end up having a hard time with voting. So I think it would help you keep the list manageable. I don't know.

I mean, if it's too low, we haven't charged a dime. And the lists currently are useless. I've called 25 people to fill one mooring. That's my point. If these people had to pay $10 annually, they might be dropping off the list. They wouldn't respond.

With the software, I'm sure you can put in if they pay, it renews them. If they don't, it drops them off the list. If they don't pay, they don't get dropped off. It could just be a stroke of a key. Paid, okay. Not paid, they go off the list.

If you're on a list for 10 years waiting for a kayak back,

you're paying $25 a year, it starts to... Well, that's why I was thinking that it should be accumulative towards the ultimate end cost.

I think what the president is saying is that if you pay $40 initially to get on the list and then $25 a year to stay on the list, let's say it takes five years, that would be... 125 plus 40, which is 165. That amount that you've paid would go towards your first year's actual mooring fees. That's what I think the president is proposing.

That's complicated.

How do you feel about that?

You know, Joe, we can do anything that you guys ask us to do. I just think if we charge 10 bucks a year, it keeps the list real. Okay. People will not I mean, there are a lot of people that I sold my boat 10 years ago, but they stayed on the list because we were not updating the list. This is just a little something that they have to pay to... I mean, there are people that are keeping moorings because they don't want boats in front of their house. I mean, we have all kinds of...

I'm not going to... You're not hurting me personally. I upgave my input. Ms. Cronin, do you have anything you'd like to add? Clearly, we'll do it any way that you guys... It was just a recommendation.

I just... My personal opinion is I thought they were high. We're in line with what many other towns are doing. I did spend a good bit of time checking the differences and whatnot. All the other... Changes are pretty much in line with what I had proposed.

So, Joe, you're recommending the more application fees be changed and kept at $25?

$25 or a more modest increase would be $30.

When does this program start?

We're close. But I have to wait until these are approved because I can't charge these new amounts. So I can't go live until we have... It's going to be for next season. Oh, no, we're going to go live as soon as this is...

This will be retroactive towards people?

No. I'm going to... The system won't go live until I have a second reading.

Until you can populate what the cost is going to be.

I have to... They're waiting to put these costs in the system right now. So I'm going to have them put what's decided tonight in the system. Well, until we have the second reading, I can't go live with you.

But Mr. Silva, correct me if I'm wrong. Somebody's already paid for a slip at the town dock.

Correct.

You're not going to increase the fees this year on that slip.

Not this year. That's what I asked. But if somebody wants to...

It's going to go into effect next year. It's going to go into effect next year.

Well, that'll go into effect immediately. I am confused.

And do you have, you have all of your applicants information. So as soon as you input the fees that we approve tonight, you can go live on everything. You have all the names, the contacts, the payment, um,

They will do that online themselves as soon as we go live. Well, this is the first reading, number one, so it's not happening today.

It's going to be a second. I need clarification in regards to your term of the word live. If somebody has a slip at the town dock and they paid, like, let's say $500, they're not going to have an increase this year. No. So... Help me understand how I'm saying.

If you file for a mooring waiting list, you're going to pay. That's going to be immediate.

There are some components of this that will go now. Mostly, this will be applied next year. Thank you. It will increase next year. Okay. Any other questions or comments for the...

I have a question. Mr. Rego and then Mr. Tromley. Mr. Tromley. Thank you, Mr. Rego. Mr. President. Just to recollect my memory, we have a new software. We have a new program that's tracking all these.

Being built as we speak.

It's being built as we speak. There's a cost associated with that to the town, correct? Correct. So the idea with raising these mooring costs is not punitive. It's not punishment. It's not a revenue generator. It's to help offset the cost of this new system. Is that fair to say?

It was a one-time fee of $450. Okay.

Well, but these prices are being changed. They're being increased tonight, going forward. Correct?

Yes.

Yes. And that will, when they're in the system, they'll be tracked better. It'll be processed faster. People who are delinquent aren't going to remain on the list. So it's going to be a much better system that they're paying for.

And there's real-time tracking.

There's real-time tracking. So I understand what you're saying. And I think that the president makes a good point that what you pay should ultimately go to that final cost to stay on the program. Do you seem to disagree with that? Why?

Just wondering how we're going to manage it through the system. I don't know if it's part of the system.

That's something.

That'll be something that'll have to get.

You don't want to make things complicated.

We're going to be complicating the.

I'm not sure if it's that complicated. If somebody's on the list and they give you $25. I understand the math of it.

Okay, so how is it complicated? The system does it. We don't get involved in payments anymore.

Okay, so how would it be complicated if at the end of five years, that person is giving you $100,000?

We program the software to make that adjustment.

Or you could just make a note and somebody who's on the list for five years, you already know that's $125. I'm afraid what Mr. Silva is saying is- Mr. President, may I make a suggestion?

Yes. That I work with the Harbormaster and the software company and ask them these questions as to what we can and cannot do with the software. And I understand what the council is looking for. If you pay, it's almost like putting money in the bank, right? And then by the time your number comes up, you've already paid for whatever your first year, so to say. I can work with the hobby master and find out from the software company if that is a possibility.

I can find out quickly with a phone call.

That's fine. What I would recommend, because what we're looking for is modest increase. We're not looking to generate a million dollars with this. So if you're good with instead of 25, bring it down 40 to 30. I would be good with that. And then the $10, just bring it up to 15. We just have a little modest increase. As far as what Joe says, I think he has good intentions. But I think when you make things complicated, I think it's worse. So I would just rather keep it simple.

Right. And not only that, but those fees are just for the waiting list. Look at all the other fees that we're increasing. The software covers all of that stuff, too.

If you think about how my application was a relief to the applicant. That's all.

The person who is paying to be on the list. I understand what you're saying. That's all it is. Maybe it's a simple thing for them to do.

Again, it has to have three people's support. I've already vetted it enough to realize that I'm not going to die on this bill.

I want to make a motion to change the lowering application fee. We had 40 to change it down to 30.

Well, let's start at the first page.

Well, let's change. If this is the only change, then we can approve the whole thing.

Oh, you're changing the corrections. I'm sorry. Yeah, take a motion on the corrections, please.

So again, I just made a motion. I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye. And then I make a motion to change.

Clarity, we changed from the 40 to 30.

So you're doing this separately, the renewal?

First he's making the changes. And then we'll approve the whole thing. Then we'll approve the whole thing. So the first change was from $40 to $30. That was the Maury application fee. And all in favor on that motion that was seconded?

Aye. And I make a motion to change the waiting list fee renewal fee. We've had $25, bring it down to $15.

Is there a second discussion, Ms. Cronin?

No, I just.

Do you know what we're doing?

I know exactly what we're doing. I don't know why you just didn't do them all as one.

Because these are the only two we're changing.

Okay.

Now we're going to do it all as one.

I got you. I get it.

So all in favor? Aye. Aye.

Okay. Now, Mr. I'll make a motion we change. the mooring permit fees as presented to the council under 02. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. As amended, obviously.

Okay. And are we going to do the private and non-resident and the town doc fee and the commercial doc fee? I believe that's all part of 02.

We just approved all of that.

Okay, so they're not separate. Nope. Thank you. I didn't mean to complicate things. Just a question. I can find out. No, it's fine. It's fine. They don't want to do it.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Next, we have chapter three, animals and fowls.

I think we mean a different kind of fowl, but maybe we don't.

I think it's with a W, unless these animals are. This is Article 2, Dogs, Section 3-31 Impoundment Fees. The fee, it's the first reading. The fee will go from $10 to $25 for a foul dog. Any discussion?

There are motion. Are we going to vote on the whole thing? That's the only change.

I'll make a motion we increase the fees from $10 to $25 under impoundment fees. Is there a second? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Next, we have violation notices and charges. This is an unlicensed dog. First offense will be $50 from $25. A vicious dog from $10 to $20. A vicious dog harmed to another domestic animal, $15. A vicious dog bites a human each year. What does it mean when it says the vicious dog bites human each year?

You only want one bite a year. Yeah, you get one free bite.

All right, from $20 to $30. And a dog waste non-removal fee is from $25 to $50. Ms. Cronin likes that.

Let me just say something about that dog.

Go right ahead.

Yeah, I got these signs I buy from Amazon. It says, don't poop in my yard. Now I can add to those signs $50 if you do. So hopefully that'll help.

Great added input. I'm looking at this, and I'm just a little confused. To have an unlicensed dog, you're going to pay $50. But if your dog bites somebody, we're only going to charge you $30?

There's some liability, by the way. You know, with the dog bite, there's the civil penalty, but there's also a negligence component to it.

So if the dog keeps biting you, would that fine then go towards the... No.

No, but it escalates on it. By the way, your homeowner's policy covers dog bites.

Okay. It's not a joking matter. But sitting here... HAB-Jacques Juilland, On ladies and gentlemen, what would you like to do with these increases of the fines that haven't been touched since HAB-Jacques Juilland, I will make a motion.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, 1967 the fine increases on the section three dash 39 second.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, All in favor. HAB-Jacques Juilland, I'm okay first place free next correspondent also first place.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, First place don't cost you 30 bucks.

We have the department head reports. We have the letter from the State of Rhode Island State Traffic Commission regarding the pedestrian safety study for the existing crosswalk located in the vicinity of the Tourista Mill. We have a letter from the Department of Environmental Management. This is what I asked for, and the Palmer River is going to be closed for shellfishing because of E. coli and fecal infection. And then we have a letter from the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.

I'd like to pull that. Okay.

Looks like they're expiring, and Mr. Rego and I talked, and he had... Well, let's pull it and take a motion on passing all correspondence. Well, correspondence C1, 2, and 3.

I'll make a motion we pull C4 and file C1, C2, and C3. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

There you go. Mr. Bolster, you're on the Warren Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. You'd like to continue this for another period of time. I think the council would like you to go for another year. And is there any discussion on that?

No, I think it should be under the...

work with a planner on the direction of the planner and i think they have a close relationship now we have been yeah she's been great there you go and uh so we'll uh this is an ad hoc committee and mr desisto is this uh proper this evening that we can just allow this committee to continue or do we have to so okay so i'll make a motion to continue for another year on under the guidance of the plan second all in favor all right yep there you go mr bolster Next, we have old business, discussion and action.

Mr. President, before we go on to old business, I was informed that there are some members of the Harbor Commission that would like to address the council concerning the ordinance that was just discussed, the mooring regulations and mooring permit fees. That we already acted on? That we've already done, yes.

It would have been good if somebody raised their hand. Who wants to speak on an issue we already voted on? Did I miss you?

Did you put, I didn't, I didn't see anything. Sorry. I'm Roxanne Waldem on the Harbor Management Commission. No, we just wanted to clarify for accuracy state point that this ordinance language says that these recommendations, this is the recommendation of the Harbor Commission, all these new increased fees, none of those new increased fees were recommended by the Harbor Commission. We wrote you a letter in March recommending that all the fees stay the same. Based on our review of all the other fees in all the neighboring towns, we met Councilman Arrigo about this and some of his budget committee people. So this was, I don't know who is the one that added all these additional fees into the ordinance, but it wasn't at the recommendation of the Harbor Commission. And the ordinance language shouldn't say that the Harbor Commission recommended these fees for 2026.

Well, we noted. I'm seeing, I'm reading it right here at the top. More information will be determined by the town council based on the recommendation of the Harbor Commission. Means we set the fees where we want. You can recommend higher or lower, but we can do whatever we want.

But the next sentence says, the fees for 2026 or these are the fees for 2026 recommended by the harbor commission. And it's an error. It's not true.

OK, so we can just fix it. Yeah, we'll redact that from the record. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. OK, thank you, Mr. Sisto. Does that need to be put into the form of a motion?

No, I don't think so. What you need to do, though, is just have it corrected for the next. For the second reading. And correct the minutes. And correct the minutes. Yeah.

As long as the minutes show that the correction was made, they should be correct. Okay. Now we have a discussion in action. Authorization for the town manager to sign a contract extension with power options under the Rhode Island Energy Aggregation Program of the Rhode Island League of City and Towns. Hello, Mr. Sullivan.

Good evening, Mr. President, members of the council. If you recall, sometime last fall, we had a discussion about this program and to continue our, we currently have a contract under this program, which is run by the Rhode Island Leads of Cities and Towns for our energy costs. At that time, the council decided that our contract expires at the end of December. At the time, the council decided that they wanted to wait until we were closer to the expiration of our contract before we made any decision on where we would go with that. I do have representatives from the program who can explain the benefits of this program to the council. And the idea is that I would be able to work with them and get the best price for the town and locked it in for three years.

And this is negotiated through the majority holders in the league. That's correct.

Not just Warren, that's the power of multiple towns and cities. That's correct. And the program is through Power Options, which is a nonprofit organization that works with many cities and towns and also other nonprofit organizations to get the best energy rates for those that are in the program. They can explain it a lot better than I can, but we did bring this before the Budget Committee, and the Budget Committee did recommend that the council enter into another agreement with power. And these are three-year contracts? I believe it's three-year contracts. Is that...

All right, so please can we hear from you?

Good evening. My name is Charlotte Tiago. I'm actually from Constellation Energy. We're the energy supplier, and I work hand-in-hand with Rita Moran here from power options, and we collectively work together with the endorsement of the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns. We serve about 29 of the 39 communities in Rhode Island through this program, and we've been the endorsed supplier now since 2018. So the town of Warren has been a member of this program for a number of years, as the town manager mentioned, it is coming to expiration in December. So I did put together a presentation, we can go through it in detail, talk about kind of what's driving electricity prices, why we're at a higher rate than where we were a number of years ago, the last time you locked in to an electricity supply agreement, if you'd like, or I can just kind of talk very broadly and answer any questions, it's completely up to you.

What would you like, members of the council? I think broadly.

Okay. It is a lot of information, I know. And we did meet with the budget committee and have a very detailed conversation about exactly what drives energy prices in New England and specifically in Rhode Island. So there's a number of things right now. We had a very cold winter. Geopolitical events are not helping prices right now. There's a number of issues with where we are geographically here in New England. We're at the tail end of the pipeline. We rely very heavily on natural gas to produce electricity here in New England and that we're at the tail end of the pipeline. So when we're in really cold months, energy gets very expensive. So currently you're locked in at a rate of 11.97 until the end of December. You could hypothetically lock in a contract tomorrow and you would still remain under that 11.97 until your meter read cycles in December. So what the town manager and myself and Rita would work on is prices expire each day. So we might provide the town manager prices one day and the next day the market changes and they're expired. So we will work hand in hand to figure out is the market in a good position today. So I think he's just seeking approval for that authority to be able to lock in when the timing is right. Since the last time we did meet, prices have come down a touch. Which is a good thing.

Yes. I was worried about Jim, but go ahead.

Yeah, down a touch. Waiting till you get closer to your expiration in December is never a good idea. Winter is really the driving force of volatility. And if we are projected to have a cold winter, we'll start to see those prices elevate. So once you lock in, it would be a contract. a constellation contract partnered with power options. Um, Rita can and can walk through the benefits of the power options contract that is again negotiated with the Rhode Island to cities and towns. You do not have to go out to bid for this program because the Rhode Island League of cities and towns have done it on your behalf.

I mean, just for an example, the average kilowatt cost for a house is what, about 18? Correct.

Yeah. So right now you're at 1197. If you were to look on one of the last pages, it says pricing for the town of Warren. There's two sets of prices here. If you want kind of the most fixed price you could get, which is what most municipalities want to be able to set a budget and know what their price is going to be for one, two, three, four years. you're looking at about 12.87 cents. That's today's price. So that could change tomorrow, but that's about what you're looking at for the town. If you do, a lot of communities do a residential aggregation program within their communities. Those are always going to be more expensive because there's a premium built into that because you can opt out at any time. So going and getting a direct price from a supplier like Constellation and the Power Options program, we're pricing your account specifically. So you have 47 accounts for the town of Warren. They're all included in that price.

Are there any questions? Go ahead. Mr. Hanley. Actually, one question for you and then a question for the town manager. I'm reading this page here where it says, will you get all your electricity? The renewable portfolio, what does that jack it up?

So right now in 2026, 41% is the compliance rate in the state of Rhode Island. So we are told from the state what the compliance percentage is. They want to be 100% by 2033. So the longer you go into the future, we're going to see that cost increase. So if you look at that page, everything but the blue, the blue is the cost to produce the electrons. Right now, that's actually a pretty good spot. Everything else, think of the state or federally mandated charges. We're being told what those costs are. So for a renewable portfolio standard, the easiest way to think about it is all load-serving entities like Constellation show up at the Statehouse at the end of the year and show that we have 41% of our portfolio is coming from a renewable source. That's going to be 100% in 2033. So that's a cost to consumers for sure.

Yep. And my question to the town managers is, If we know exactly how much we're going to be paying for electricity, how do we miss so badly every year on our budgeting for town facilities?

Like the sewer plant? The sewer plant unfortunately fell into the category of the previous year we were asleep at the wheel. No. What do you mean no?

Can I respond to that? Okay. When you look at your electricity bill, and that's something that I hadn't talked to Brian about, you have the cost of electricity, but it's the servicing. It's what? Well, the servicing. The delivery charge.

The delivery charge.

That's where they sock us.

But what Mr. Hanley is referring to is three years ago, we didn't increase the sewer usage fee, and at the end of the year... No, what I'm referring to is every year, at the end of every year, we get like $5,000 more for electricity, closing out the budget for the government center.

$12,000 more for electricity to close out the sewer plant. It's usage. $8,000 more to close out this building. But if we know what the cost is, how the hell are we missing by...

It's usage. It's the delivery. It's not the supply. If you look at your bill, what they... What we pay for the actual electricity is peanuts or the water or the gas. It's the delivery it charges.

Distribution portion of your bill, which is Rhode Island Energy, your power goes out, right? You're calling Rhode Island Energy. That used to be about 30% of your overall cost. It's about 50%. And we did have it.

And that's not $5,000. Gentlemen, please.

Also, the billing happens after the usage. So there are many factors that go into it at the end of the year.

I can understand we may have a little more usage, but when you're talking big dollars like that, did somebody leave an air conditioner running in the basement for the whole year?

no he knows a big over we're going to live we're going to move on um are there any other questions from the left oh i thought you would go right ahead when we met i believe the rate was 11 uh 11.98 and we were concerned that it was going to go up we didn't know and then i did a survey five year look back and it seems like from july to september is the best time to be making these purchases So we should probably act now. So can we commit to today's rate for another four years or do we have to wait till December?

No, you do not have to wait in December, nor do you want to because you're getting close to the winter.

Right. And again, I did that five years look back.

You can call and say, let's lock in four years.

But now you just said it's at 11.97, but then you said 12.8.

So your rate currently is 11.97 through December of the year. Renewal rates, so we're looking at a contract beyond that period, you're at like 12.87. So there is an increase in what the future rate will be. Okay.

But when we sat down at that time, it wasn't 12.8. I thought it was 11.98. Okay. She said it changes daily.

It changes daily, but it hasn't been in the 11s in years.

Only because you just said it's come down since.

It has come down from the rates that we provided to you when we met.

Okay, maybe it was off on the rates yet.

It was probably 12.

When we met, I think it was July 7th that we met. And these are the rates that you gave us. 13. 13 points. 13.16, 13.06.

Yeah, and actually what we're talking about is with the day had ancillary component fixed.

It was in the 13. It was 1314. Good thing you waited.

So, you want to make a motion? Yeah, I would make a motion that we have. That we authorize. Is there a second?

I will second that. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. I don't know if I like that based on the number we just talked about. He's got to wait to pull the trigger. He can't. It's not based on the number they just said. It's based on what he can negotiate. Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

The motion should be corrected and read that we're giving the authorization to the town manager to enter into a contractual agreement at the right time

For this agreement, we put a year about 3 year agreement.

Well, 1st, we have to amend this motion.

Okay. You were very good on catching that. Can I just make another motion? Mr. assistant make a superseding motion.

There you go. We're going to supersede.

I'm going to do a superseding motion. I'll make a motion. We authorized the town manager to sign a contract. With power options under the program. by the League of Cities and Towns and to negotiate the best possible price for a three-year contract. Can't go four. Well, we did three last time, right? Well, four may be a benefit. I think in four years, things are going to cost more. I'm going to stick Louie with the bill, so I'll go make it a four-year contract.

I'll second the motion. All in favor? Aye. Here we go. Thank you, ladies.

Thank you.

Next, we have We have a discussion and action on agreement with Johnny Quattrochi, and this is the John Quattrochi Trust, excuse me, regarding ownership and easement for the foot of Boston Street. And Mr. DeSisto, we need to clarify that we are not voting on this in its entirety. We're voting on the amendments that the council allowed Mr. Quattrochi to think about. That information has come back to you. And they're in agreement, correct?

Yeah, I'm reading from the council meeting minutes from February 12th, 2026. And the relevant motion was by Councilman Hanley, seconded by Vice President Cronin to approve the agreement pending the following conditions. Sunrise to sunset access, four-foot delineation slash width, And bench in the right of way for public access. The motion passed unanimously. So what tonight is for. Is to approve the proposed agreement, which you have there. Along with the related documents that you have. And do you have any questions about the agreement that you have in your packet? and the related documents, the deed, the two easements, and the map showing where the...

I believe paragraph 10, the sunrise to sunset is just inadvertently switched. unless I'm reading it wrong. It says, shall be, public access shall be restricted from sunrise to sunset. That would mean it was restricted all day. So it's the opposite.

Yeah, so my suggestion there, and I had a chance to speak to Mr. Portrochi's lawyer today, on paragraph 10, eliminate the word which and the word restricted. So it would read, the easement shall provide the hours of public access to the public easement. and Quattrocchi's property within the easement, comma, shall be from sunrise to sunset.

Okay, and you want that in the form of a motion?

I do. And also in speaking with Mr. Quattrocchi's lawyer, paragraph 11 of the fencing. Yes. The recommendation there is just to eliminate the paragraph.

Yeah, we like that. So... We're going to eliminate number 11? Correct. Make a motion... We eliminate paragraph 11, requiring... No, 10. Well, we're eliminating 11. We're not eliminating 10. Well, sorry, yeah. Eliminate 11 to paragraph 11, which requires the fencing along the southern boundary. Is there a second? Second. Discussion? All in favor? Aye. And I'll make a motion we amend paragraph 10 as the... that... Takes out the word restricted. And what was the other? Words which and the restricted from paragraph 10. Authorizing use from sunrise to sunset.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

All right. Could I have a further motion on the... related documents, exhibits A through D. There has to be some changes made in the legal basis. Again, I spoke to the attorney. There has to be some amendments to them with the notary clause and things of that nature. So if you can approve those subject to review by the solicitor,

put up the agreement and the exhibits in other words i'll make a motion to approve the agreement wait one second would it be appropriate mr kemp raised his hand is discussion after this or

And I have a question also.

So, Mr. Rago, go right ahead.

Yeah, so paragraph 7, it says, one will accept the profit disposal, any contaminated waste collected in the road oil and enrolled sand trap structures to be constructed or maintained. So that's anything, after he does what he needs to do, anything that runs off, we will take care of.

That would be in accordance with what we do with all catch basins in town.

There's a pillow that catches the... sediment in the sediment and that's something that you do now and because that sentiment is being generated by warring roads, it goes through. I think it's appropriate that you continue that practice. Okay.

Mr. Kemp had his hand up. Mr. Kemp, would you like to speak?

Hi, I'm Woody Kemp, Chairman of the Hire Commission and We've had a position on this from day one that we didn't think this was the correct direction the town should go. Regardless, we're looking at an agreement that we have in place. One of the questions that we have is that there doesn't seem to be any timelines on this agreement. And our concern is that with no timelines on the agreement, there's no reason for any of these things to actually ever get done. There's no conditions on it.

Mr. Singwald had brought that to our attention. So we were prepared with an answer.

I didn't mean to. Yeah, that's our main concern. And the other point that we wanted to make is that if... The agreement is defaulted on such as the timeline that this agreement would be rescinded and we would go back to what our position is from day one, that it is a right of way that the town owns.

Thank you. Mr. DeSisto.

So this is all being driven by the Department of Environmental Management. There's hazardous waste on the site. There's an order for cleanup. I've seen some documentation from DEM on that. They're driving the bus. There's three separate parcels that are subject to their order. I understand from DEM, by the way, that the cleanup has already started on one of the parcels. So to the extent that there's timelines, that's being driven by DEM. The issue with what we're talking about, this land, there was a dispute as to the ownership. which DEM wanted to have clarified. So, once it is clear that the owner of this land is Mr. Fortrucci, then he's subject to DEM's time limits. And they are the ones that have the jurisdiction for this. And, you know, I can tell you from experience. That if there's any issues there, they will go after Mr. to make sure that there's a clean up on this.

But the other question I have is that. Dave Kuntz, And correct me if i'm wrong, but the em doesn't have any jurisdiction on coastline improvements should be a CRM see jurisdiction and I haven't seen any documentation from CRM see. Dave Kuntz, Any plans any anything any no engineering studies nothing as far as how they're actually going to address that and we we have an application in front of CMC that's been there for. A decade that we have been able to that should substantiate that it is a kind of right of way. But we've never gotten any answers from so we have a couple of agencies here. That don't seem to be working in conjunction to begin with. And we're concerned about whose jurisdiction and who's. Who's going to be making sure that this project actually is completed?

Well, CRMC takes some. Go right ahead.

So the first issue is the environmental cleanup. That's DEN. They're already taking care of it. CRMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over that. That's number one. Number two, with this agreement and this easement, once that easement is put into place, you don't need the CRMC jurisdiction designation because the town has it. And if there's any blockage, The town can go to court and get an injunction for this. They have the equitable relief for that. The only remaining thing that has to be done is the seawall and the bench. And that's something that Mr. Portochi would have to do. And if he doesn't, again, the town would be able to enforce this agreement in court. Wouldn't have to rely on the decade long, the CRMC. So I do think that there's some advantages going this way.

We would still like to see a timeline. We'd like to see some conditions onto the set. The project is completed in a timely fashion.

Mr. Kemp, once this takes place, the timeline is on him. This relieves the town of the burden of the cleanup and the responsibility of the seawall and the stormwater drainage.

I understand. In our position, we feel that we should have gotten a better deal to begin with. And are we going to wait forever for the deal that we got? And we should have some conditions in this for to ensure that this actually happens. Okay.

I understand that DEM is pretty hot on this. They were getting ready to start assessing us fine. Yes, that's correct. Yeah. So I don't think they're going to, they're going to back down.

Well, we've now we've heard from Mr. Kemp and we've heard from the commission. Do you want to continue on?

I will make a motion. that we approve the agreement presented to us and the exhibits attached pending review and approval by the town's solicitor.

Second.

All in favor?

Discussion, sorry. Correct?

So, Mr. Sisto, you have a great deal of background experience in maritime matters. In fact, you are the CRMC legal... What is your title officially? I'm the legal counsel. Legal counsel. Now, you've reviewed this contract. Do you feel that this is in the best interest of the citizens of Warren? I do, yes.

You have two ways to go here, as I said back in February. You go this route where you can say, look, this is ours. Go to court. You could win or lose. You never know. If you win, then you got to do the cleanup. Then you have to do the other repairs that are specified in this thing. So, you know, the council already voted on it, and here we are. It's taken months to get to this point with this agreement, which I think is a good agreement, and it does protect the town.

Great.

Thank you.

The last page, we're not in Broward County, though.

That's one of the things that has to be changed.

And we're getting there.

So, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Next. We have the second part, correct? Is that it? And it's entirely?

We're done with that, yeah. I approved the exhibit. Oh, yeah, we did the language.

Thank you. We did the language. Okay. Next, we have new business. Update on the traffic plan for Orchard Avenue. We have a lot of residents here from Orchard Avenue, and we'd like to hear... what our update is from DPW. Orchard Avenue is a town road. All right, so in other words, no comment on the bottom of Orchard Ave.

By Chief James Souza, I'm willing to speak on it due to attending of many of the school construction meetings over the past few months. Right now, there is more traffic on that road due to the construction. The parking lot is being worked on and maintenance crews are using that entrance to get to their maintenance barn. In the final plans, there will be a turnaround at the end of Orchard Avenue with a fence and a gate parking off just after the turnaround. Excellent. It's pretty much it. The turnaround was based on size of apparatus and trash trucks.

Good news. Mr. DeBlois, would you like to come down? Not Mr. DeBlois. You have to come to the microphone. State your name and address. So there's going to be a turnaround and a gate and a fence.

Yeah, that's great. First of all, there's a lot more traffic.

Mr. DuBlois, if you could state your name.

Norman DuBlois, Orchard Avenue.

Thank you. And speak to the council, not... The chief.

Okay. Anyway, there's definitely more traffic every day, not just through the construction that's going on right now. And I would ask the council to put no parking signs down the road because otherwise people are going to park in the turnaround and walk alongside the fence and block the road like they're doing now anyway.

we can send that request to our traffic commission and they'll review it to make sure that it fits the model.

Even if it's just down at the turnaround, no parking.

We could make it a fire lane because that's technically what it is.

Yeah. Okay.

Perfect.

Just so you know, that's how we make these decisions. First, we hear and then send for the input of our DPW fire and police, and then it comes back to us. So I'm hearing that that's going to be a no parking fire lane anyway.

Great.

So the changes that the neighborhood has requested over the years actually It has been heard and is being implemented at the end of this construction phase.

Fantastic. Thank you.

Mr. Rago.

So, Jim, so what's paved there now is going to create, they're going to create a cul-de-sac with a fence, and you're going to have a key to it so you're able to drive through it.

We haven't addressed the key, but we will have an access box or a key that's fire and police do have in the cruises and in our vehicles to get through when needed. Not a cul-de-sac. It'll be a T-design turnaround. Pull in and then back towards the gate and drive out.

And the highway department will also have a key in order.

Sure. Access could be. You can make arrangements as needed. They do have their own lock system as well that we can get on there.

All right, great. I'm so glad this is finally coming to a good conclusion. Thank you. More quick. Hi. Come on down.

Hi, Colleen Deshaines, 14 Orchard Ave. I just want to go a little bit deeper. I'm a little confused that no parking. Is that just at the dead end part, like at the last two houses? Are we talking the whole street? Our problem is, recently, we've had the police to the street twice, last night and the night before, because the soccer... Football, cheerleading, it's more the nightly activities where parents are going and parking all along the streets. I saw it with my own eyes two nights ago. They were pulling up on the empty lot across from my house, doing a turnaround, and that's somebody's private property. And they were literally driving their car on the private property and turning around. So I think first of all, we need to do is address that it's a dead end street. We have no signage saying that they can't go through even with the construction. You know, they come all the way down to find it's a dead end because the gates are closed. So we definitely need a sign for that. And at what point are we doing no parking? Is it the whole street? Is it just the end where the fence is?

I think the traffic commission will be taking all of that into account when they come back with their recommendation.

Okay.

At least that's what I believe is going to take place because I think the little bit of the glitch now I believe is because of the construction and the This is the first time that we're making finally this change. Right.

And we are so thankful for this change. This is huge. And we've been wanting this for 20 plus years.

The three years that I ran, I was told this was an issue back then.

It's been an issue. Maybe I can suggest parking on one side of the street because I know a lot of us as residents have Me being one have, you know, teenagers and young adults that also have cars.

They're going to take all of those things into consideration. And public safety over there because of the rule and access is going to be number one.

But it is the, you know, the football, the cheerleading and the soccer using in the fields that's causing the majority of the traffic in our neighborhood.

We could probably, I'll ask, this is a question. Is there a construction sign that we can get there quicker than a permanent sign? I saw us saying, you know, dead end or construction, or is there any way, no through traffic for now, for those who are trying to beat something that, ultimately makes them turn around that they don't know we could deal with signage miss this uh okay so yeah thank you for bringing all of this to our attention i just wanted to add one thing if i mr tronley wants to add one thing just so when the safety commission comes back to us with the recommendation i believe that they're going to be shared with you guys and they're going to come

The recommendation is going to be come before us. So when you guys get the chance to review it, then you can come and give us either by email or message or come here in person and testify as to whether you think those are good changes or not a tweak. So you will have the opportunity for further public input in this process.

Great. Thank you.

So there you have it. No council action. Actually, we've heard from the police, the fire chief is working in cooperation with the police and the town manager, as well as DPW on dealing with this issue. I don't think any council action is needed right now. Traffic Commission will... And the Traffic Commission, it's all happening as we speak. It's a miracle. So half the room can empty, and we'll move on to discussion and action regarding the clearing of sidewalks after snow events. Councilman Trombley.

Thank you, Mr. President. So obviously this last year we've had two pretty big storms, and that's not... unusual, we'll usually always have one big snow event or what have you. And oftentimes there comes from folks in the community recommendations of how to improve and make the process better. And in particular, after this last storm, I heard from a number of constituents that suggested that we put, thank you very much, that we put in a provision. So if you go to the documents for NB2, on removal of snow or ice from sidewalks. This is an example I got from another community. In section C, the last sentence, in addition, such person shall be responsible for the cost of removal by the city as provided for in section of this chapter. So what that would mean is that if we had a situation where We had a street where the sidewalks weren't shoveled by the homeowner. This town would be able to, under this, hire someone to do that work. and expense that cost to the homeowner as a lien or I guess as a fine potentially. I've talked about this with the solicitor. I'll let him mention if he has any other suggestions about how to implement this, but I think this would be a good way to address the public safety aspect of it, especially on those sidewalks that are responsible for getting kids to and from bus stops to home. I saw a lot during the last two storms, particularly because the snow stayed for as long as it did because it was so cold that the kids were walking in the streets and the parents were very concerned about the cars hitting them, particularly the younger kids. I ended up going and shoveling out a few of them myself. And I know that we could try to organize more snow shoveling squads throughout the town but the problem is that we just don't have as many kids as we once did we don't have as many opportunities to do that as we once did and uh I think this would be a reasonable way to try to address some of the problems we dealt with in the last storm and try to make, we might not ever have to enforce it. I hope we don't. But in the event that people don't shovel their sidewalks, instead of just finding them, we go out and we have someone shovel it and then pass the cost on to the property owner, which I think is the reasonable way to go. So that's my suggestion to the council. I'll let the rest of the council let me know what they think.

Any questions from the council?

Yeah. How does this what are this big difference between this and our existing ordinance?

So as I understand it, our current ordinance just finds them. So we can't under this, you know, we can't hire somebody to clear the snow and then charge the property owner for it. This would allow us to do that.

And we have something similar to this where I work. Six hours of daylight, I think that's a little short. If this does go through, I would like to see that go up to 12 hours of daylight. And the reason being is if the snow stops at 1 o'clock in the afternoon and you're at work and you don't get home, until 5 o'clock at night, at least the next day you can get it shoveled for hours of daylight. I think six hours is kind of a little short.

I understand. If I might just clarify, Mr. Hanley, the only thing that I want to add to our current ordinance is that very last sentence in Section C, which says, in addition, such person shall be responsible for the cost of removal by the, in this case, town, as provided for in this chapter.

Okay, so we're just adding, we're not, you don't want to change the whole, adopt the whole thing, just that last sentence. Just that last sentence.

I got you. That the ordinance from the other community is almost identical to Warren's except for that one provision.

But who is going to manage this?

Who's going to plead?

No, I think it's a question for Ms. Hunt as well as Mr. DeSisto in regards to the legality of it because we'd then be putting a lien on the house. Correct? If they didn't pay, yeah. All right. Well, can I ask a question? Well, sure. You can ask a question.

So, so I own property and I'll tell you, I'm always out there cleaning, but there are some times that you just can't clean the stone. Sometimes it might be cheaper for me to pay the 50 bucks and have you cleaning. And the second thing is if somebody came to my house and gave me a fine, would you have to find everyone in town and would you have to clean every other, every sidewalk in town? Are we opening that door?

men believe it would be enforcement where there would be an enforcement officer that's going to go out, identify every property that isn't shoveled six hours after the storm or eight hours or 12 hours. And then we're going to have the ability to contract with a contractor that doesn't violate our union grievance on that case. And then we're going to coordinate this effort to then have not only Ms. Glent, if I correctly think of how this is going to play out, Ms. Glent, he responds with the town roads. She's then going to have to be coordinating with the private industry on shoveling properties that haven't been cleared. And then those properties get penalized the cost of the snow removal.

My question is, where is, I mean, to what extent is this feasible? I mean, are you going to make somebody on Coggeshell Street in Twisset? Are you going to send somebody over there to shovel their sidewalk? Are you going to send somebody to Dead End Middle Street? I mean, maybe. I mean, some places are more risk. There are some streets, my street, nobody walks on the sidewalk, even in the summertime.

Because of you. That's right. What's your question?

I mean, where are we going to? I mean, you're saying we're going to write everybody up. That means everybody in the entire town, no matter where you live, if you don't shovel your sidewalk, we're going to send a crew out there and shovel. No. Even if you live on a dead end street that the four houses at the end are vacant, you still got to shovel that sidewalk.

Can I make a suggestion? Well, wait, let me just for clarity. What I stated was, if this were to go into effect and the monitoring of the clock and the storm starts to take place, it would be shared amongst every violator. So you couldn't just pick and choose. I'm agreeing with you. Are you trying to understand the whole place?

I was trying to go. Can I make a question? Yes.

Can we...

Design this ordinance for specific high traffic areas in town. In other words, there are some streets where it's like it didn't shovel the sidewalk. Who cares? But if you're on Main Street or if you're on Child Street and some kids are trying to walk to the high school, that's a big problem. Could we target could we get a target ordinance, a target audience for this ordinance?

So in other words, what he's saying, his house, no, but my house, yes. That's pretty much what he's saying. Everybody on Patty's right.

There's so much going on right now. Can I make a suggestion?

Well, Mr. Trombley wanted to say something. You can make a suggestion.

I'm begging to make a suggestion.

Make a suggestion.

I think a lot of these questions can be answered if we just reach out to the community that already has this as an ordinance. to see how they administer to it. And my guess is they're going to be able to answer some questions. So to me, what we should do is have the town manager and town planner reach out to that community and say, these are the questions we have in regard to your ordinance. I'm sure they'd be happy to forward that and we can come back to you. It's August, so we have a few months before the snow starts on this. Perhaps that's the best way to go. We can answer these questions that you have that we don't have the experience on, but another community does.

Very good point. Mr. Romley?

My legal question, you would be the one I would have to answer it. Can we target... specific neighborhoods under this ordinance instead of the town in general?

The answer is maybe.

Okay.

Mr. Tromney, you want to add to this or end?

I think that's a very accurate assessment. It depends as often the lawyers answer to many questions. I just have one. Here's my vision of how this would work. Under the law, that we have, or the ordinance that we have, you are supposed, everyone in town is supposed to shovel their sidewalk within a certain time period after a snowstorm. For purposes of this provision, we presume that everyone has done so, unless we are made aware that someone has not. In other words, as long as nobody on that dead end street calls and says, hey, somebody hasn't shoveled this person out, we presume that they have. So that's how I envision it would work. It would work much like you're saying the high traffic areas that haven't been shoveled by the homeowners,

would get priority in terms of what the the sort of enforcement mechanism here and those that aren't would probably not be i want to i want to answer his wait wait i just need to say something please because we do have our building official who does a very good job of going out And using our ordinance to get people, as well as DPW, as well as the police, they do work in cooperation of each other, with each other, to go out and to make sure that these sidewalks are cleared. And when they're not cleared, we've had DPW get to those locations. So I don't want to paint a picture that we're not doing what we're trying to do in Toronto. Mr. Trombley has brought an idea forward to try to encourage participation in a different way.

Right.

And what Mr. Trombley tried to do what, what the right thing and more.

We were saying, you know, if nobody complains on the dead end street, I, I do this. I live this in the winter time at my job. And anybody that gets cited gets so mad. They drive around the entire city and right. Come in with 15, 20, 30 addresses. that aren't shoveled on dead-end streets, on cul-de-sacs, So it's not going to be just limited, because as soon as you cite one person, they're going to sell everybody out in their entire neighborhood and everybody out in the next neighborhood over. So if we start doing this, it's going to be all or nothing unless we can selectively target the problem areas.

I'm real happy about the going to the final column up, but I want to let our two department heads speak, and then we're going to end this.

I have one last question before we end it. Okay, although we were just going to ask, you know, I know things, but I spent 3, 4 hours on these packages. We spent another 5 minutes.

Okay. I. Whatever you guys want to say. I do expect it is there a go? I'm trying to move the issue along. You want me to ask my question?

So we have narrow streets, narrow sidewalks most of the time to snow. You don't put it right in front of sidewalk. I clean my snow, you come along and you put it back on the sidewalk. How do you police that and who gets the fine and who's going to pay for it when that happens is my only question.

You have to make a path. It's illegal in Warren to throw snow in the road.

But if you make the path, then they throw it back. You're a perfect example, Joe.

I am. And then I make a path next to the sidewalk. I mean, next to the house.

So from a DPW standpoint, the... Language. I can't speak to the legality of any of it, but the language that concerns me is, is that the city or town. We'll clear the sidewalk. I have concerns about that because we don't have the bandwidth to be able to do that. In a place where the ordinance changes so that folks see an option for the town to do it. I would, I, my concern would be that people would lean on that very heavily. From what we learned last season, I learned it very quickly. Snow is an equalizer. It affects everyone. The patience is required from everyone. The community effort is required from everyone. I am acting director of the DPW. I had to call a kid from a phone number I got on Facebook to see if he could shovel out my driveway because I couldn't do it. I think there are certain hardships that people are facing. There's disability, elderly people, people with health problems, people with financial problems that not everyone is able to do this. But I think we really need to think about a solution that is community focused. Perhaps we can work with some of our partners in town, health equity zone, not to throw them into this and loop them into this as well. But I think we have organizations who may be able to help us recruit a volunteer corps, get people set up with resources. My concern is putting the responsibility back on the town. We do get to the sidewalks on Child Street to clear, but realistically speaking, it took us a long time to get there. And I don't want kids walking in the street because they're waiting for us We had people working a week straight with very little rest. I just want to be realistic about what our resources are and what we are capable of doing. It doesn't mean we don't want to do it. We don't want to clear the sidewalks, but our Ventrac machine can't hit every sidewalk. It's not built for that. We don't have the personnel to send out to be, you know, it's like the parking fine, right? I'd rather just risk, now it's more, so people may pay attention to it, but I'd rather just risk the $20 and pay the ticket and hope for the best. And maybe the town will show up and take care of it. I just want to make sure that we're not giving this as an option when we don't have the means to fulfill it.

And again, I'm very happy with Mr. DeSisto's solution to get the information first. Please don't take this.

No, no, no, I'm not taking this as a criticism at all. I'm just, I'm a realist and we had to learn this. I personally had to learn this really quickly. So I want to make sure that if we are offering services to the residents, that we are able to make good on those commitments. And I want to be able to- There's a lot of boxes that are going to need to be checked. Be what we can do to solve this problem because it's a real problem that really exists. But also I do think, Oftentimes, not always, certainly there are plenty of people who struggle with this very issue. But again, I mean, I had to hire someone. I have access to a garage full of plows, but I'm a resident. I have to clear my sidewalk. So those are things that I think... We have to figure out a way to motivate people and also help the people who are in most need. And I think that would be the crux of the conversation is how do we identify the people who are in genuine need versus the people who are, you know, would look to use this as an easy way to get the snow shovel.

Understood. Thank you, Mr. Cabral.

So Mac Cabral, building zoning official and code compliance. So I just want to speak real quick because this was brought up as to the enforcement. We had two major storms this year and that falls under my department for the enforcement of this ordinance. So we sent out, I believe it was 70 and change violation warnings. So it was basically a letter that we sent out to all the property owners saying you're in violation. Here's the ordinance. You need to remove the snow or rice in front of your property. Cut to the point where that actually worked. We did get a lot of compliance, but then it was getting someone to do it. And, you know, we have a great DPW, but they only have so many people for such a big area and they're already plowing and major snow events, trying to get the snow. So there are private companies that we can get on contract that they will come in. Luckily, there was a company in Bristol that has a DPW. two very big machines that's what you need on these on these large events the smaller machines are sometimes tough um so i would say moving forward yes that that the what you're um proposing councilman trombley gives a little bit more of a bite so we can do it immediately we don't have to i don't have to go and wait the time period it can be if it's something where it's an emergent situation um but i think looking forward um you know Mary brought up a very good point where, you know, we have people who they may have been able to shovel the snow in front of their properties and now they can't. And on, especially on a major snow event, I know other communities, they do have companies that they contract, they do this, they do the sidewalk. And that's one thing I know money is, is, you know, an issue right now but maybe we should look at what at least get a cost what would it cost for a company to come in just to do our sidewalks our downtown sidewalks and our walk to school sidewalks that way we know that those sidewalks are done the ordinance actually says that it includes all sidewalks from kinnicket all the way down to water street so that's that's a large area uh dpw you know to already plow the snow so when i just want i think you know it's this kind of big It was made into something big, but we were doing it already right now. We're already on it. And I do have some ideas. We can work with Mary to maybe work with the people who would need to do this. But I agree with you that will give us a little bit more of a bite where we can do it immediately. But we would also need a company on retainer that we can just call them. And it's very tough when you have a major storm event. We found that out. We couldn't even get equipment. So to call a company and say, hey, we need sidewalks cleared. If we don't have anybody, we're going to be waiting.

All right. I have a motion to ask that solicitor, DPW, whoever wants to be on the phone call to call. What are we calling? Connecticut, New Britain?

New Britain, Connecticut.

Okay. Can I have a motion to do that?

I'll second it, but then I just have one last thing I want to add. Please. So just what I recall from the last snow, and I'm glad that we're talking about it now when it's very hot out and there's no snow. We're not driving people crazy. What I'm envisioning is, typically speaking, even in the most severe snow emergencies, there's usually maybe a one or two day disaster declaration, then kids go back to school. That gives us some time for DPW to clear the streets and they do great work. And it gives folks as well the opportunity to clear their sidewalks. But there's a period after DPW the declaration period ends where kids have to go back to school and they have to make their way to the bus stop. And then the people who have not shoveled the sidewalk are still like, those sidewalks are still covered in snow. And in the last storm, because of how cold it was, those sidewalks were like that for weeks. And I think that giving this additional bite, what I'm hoping for, and this can be a discussion between DPW, building inspector, manager and everything is, During that after not during that two day period or one or two day period where there's a declaration of emergency and everyone working around the clock and and even for weeks working around the clock. It's the period after that. That's what I'm looking for.

All right. So we're not looking at like, remember this. You have a great idea. Let's get off of the specifics of the idea because it was six, eight hours after snow. Let's have them call. Let's find out because it's cost imperative. Probably it's going to be money we don't have. So these are all great questions. We'll send it off to our people in DPW and over there and they'll look into this. So we have a motion. Mr. Tromley, second, all in favor of having them find out what New Britain does as well as other things.

All in favor? Aye.

Thank you. Next, we have discussion in action regarding the proportional distribution of BV licenses in the town of Warren. This is also brought to us by Councilman Tromley.

Thank you, Mr. President. We received a correspondence several months ago, and I've also spoken to several local business owners that are concerned about the amount of businesses, particularly in the downtown district as compared to the rest of the town, and that it's sort of cannibalizing each other. And they're very worried about new businesses or new restaurants and bars coming in and taking existing clientele and therefore making them not only less profitable, not profitable. And I think that It's a legitimate concern that I'd like to see if we can address, especially with, we had at the last council meeting, someone come before us proposing to, I believe Alt changed the use for a building to, which was across, it's on Child Street, I remember that. And I'm just wondering if we can put anything into either our zoning ordinances or some sort of direction to the special use permit, a condition about looking at sort of what the surrounding business environment looks like. That way we just don't have businesses kind of on top of each other that are like hurting each other, if that makes sense. So that's why my vision, I'm hoping I see that has been attached the number and list of all of the BVL establishments and their locations throughout town. It's quite a number. And I'm not saying that any of them are bad businesses. They certainly aren't. I just wonder if they can all continue to survive, if there's more to come, so to speak.

Mr. DeSisto, can you give us an answer?

I can, yes, and I have a suggestion. Please. What Councilman Troutwood's last comments had to deal with were the request for the liquor license that came. They had already been approved by the zoning board. So I think to effectuate what he wants to do would require a look at the specific criteria in the zoning ordinance for the granting of a special use permit for either a restaurant or an otherwise liquor-licensed establishment. My suggestion would be to refer the matter to your outstanding town planner to come up with the criteria that would be needed for this. You can take a look at it and then amend the zoning ordinance after that to take into accommodation those concerns.

Okay. Is there any discussion or is there a motion?

Motion to refer to the town planner.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Suggestion? Thank you. I just want to amend that to say the exceptional town planner. I think was the words that was used. I think I said I was standing. Oh, I'm sorry.

So there was a request that evidently came in. I didn't quite see it, but it's a discussion in action regarding the traffic study for the intersection of Child Street and Hugh Cole Road. So my recommendation is to... We didn't vote on that. On the previous? Yes. All in favor? Aye. I thought so. Sorry. This is a request... for a traffic study, and that would be done by the State Traffic Commission. And we should send that off, a request for the intersection of Charles Street and Hugh Cole Road.

I'll make a motion we refer this to the State Traffic Commission for a study for the traffic condition on Charles Street and Hugh Cole Road. And that would be...

that's held up. Do you have something you want to add to that?

No.

Okay. Next item. So that's held in Providence. And Mr. Sullivan and I would probably attend when that is on the agenda.

Mr. President, I think Mr. Barlow wants to say something.

I know, but I'm a little torn on that one. So I think our action is to send it off. Unfortunately, the request on the agenda slipped my, it never, the way that a motion gets put on the agenda, an item gets put on the agenda is through the sponsorship of a councilman. It never came to my knowledge that a councilman was sponsoring this request. So I think we're just going to deal with this this way. So that's how we're going to do it. and it's been done. So your request for the study has been sent to the State Traffic Commission.

Okay?

Thank you. Next, we have the tax assessor, or am I wrong? Town Manager, wrong page. Town Manager, discussion and action concerning the Economic Development Board.

Thank you, Mr. President. If you recall, there was a resignation at the beginning of this meeting from the Economic Development Board. The Council President asked me to reach out to the members of the Economic Development Board in the chair to find out if, in fact, they were meeting. plans of going forward when they will be meeting. I sent an email to all of the members of the Economic Development Board. I received one reply back. Actually, I'm sorry. I received two replies, one from the member that had put in his resignation, let me know that he was no longer a member of that board. And then a second one from another member who stated that she was no longer a member of the board either. I have not heard from either the chair or the co-chair of that board.

I know. There seems to be a... I don't know how to, what would you say, a lack of... Are they meeting? I don't believe so. I don't believe they are.

I don't think there was any reports ever submitted. Part of my email was, you know, asking, you know, how many times they have met in the last six months and what their plans were meeting going forward, including tomorrow night.

So the only information we have is from the resignation letter.

Correct.

Which spurred us into this position. I would like the boards to continue. This board actually isn't in the charter. It's an ad hoc, I believe, and I can be corrected.

I don't know. It might be in the charter.

I've been around for a long time. When we created it, I don't think we put it in the charter. It might be in the charter now. So where I was going with this is, if it's not an ad hoc, it has to stay. as a recognized board, whether it's personed. Is that a correct word? Whether there are people on the board or not, that's a different story. Whether it's staffed.

Could we refer this to the planner to come up with something?