I call the September 4th, 2024. City Council meeting in the order. The clerk will call the roll. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. Thank you very much. Councilman Rex, please lead us in the under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Oh, say, can you see my dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming, Whose bright shining tan bright stars through the perilous fight For the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming And the rocket's red glare, the sun's bursting in air It grew through the night, that our flag was still there, O say does that star single? And there again, O the land of the great. Good evening again. We are now under general communications. This is the announcements of congratulations, condolences, or community events. I have one and I would like to request a moment of silence for I.J. Valenas. Mr. Valenas was a long time, a Warwick resident, a member of St. Greg's Church in Kuisit. His three sons all went through the Warwick Public Schools system and his wife, his widow, lives in Kuisit still to this day in the house that they've owned for over 40 years. So if I could have a moment of silence for Mr. Volinas, please. Thank you. Are there any other council members have anything under general communications announcements of congratulations, condolences or community events? Councilman, how? Thank you, Mr. President. Along with same, I'm going to request a moment of silence for one of my neighbors and a quite honestly a great neighbor. Mr. Bob and Jilly, Mr. Anjali passed away, unfortunately, about a week ago after a long battle in hospice. And he, as he told me many times, he's just so grateful. He can rejoin his wife. He's the father who raised four boys, very involved in local sports, was in sales, traveled, but still always came home to war. So I respectfully request a moment of silence for Mr. Bob and Jelly. Thank you. We'll have a moment of silence at this time. Thank you. Any other council people have anything under general the city's community. Thank you. Any other council people have anything under general communications. Hearing none will now move on to executive communications from Peter Schaefer, the city finance director to present the five year forecast informational only. And then we'll turn the mic on. Mr. President. Yes, Councilman. I'd like to request the parliamentary inquiry please. Okay. So I want to get it on the record that I disagree with the manner in which this presentation is going to take place. I think that is a disservice to the taxpayers and to the public. And I had inquired with our legal council earlier this evening regarding a motion to suspend council rules and have this be an open hearing where people can ask questions and get the answers. And I'm advised that that is not possible without being in violation of the Open Meetings Act because of the way this was posted for an informational meeting only. So again, I just want to say I think that this is something that would have better served the public if this were an open conversation and questions and the answers could be done. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Shapa. Go ahead, Mr. Shaefer. Thank you, Mr. Councilor President. In July, I distributed a five-year forecast to the Council, which I had prepared for the mayor and filed with the state and compliance with state law. This is the third year I've distributed the report to the council. In summary, the report projects operating surpluses in fiscal year 29 are from 9.4 million to deficits of 35.4 million based upon the assumptions summarized in the report. This is after factoring in new school debt service requirements in both scenarios. And I did a best case, worst case scenario as I had. And I did a best case, worst case scenario, as I had done as I did last year. Obviously the debt service costs increases are the major challenge. This challenge was disclosed before the voters approved the $350 million bond. And before the Council acted to give final approval to the initiative. And I can recall you, Mr. Council President, saying that the residents have to understand that there will be a cost. While this will be a challenge, I don't believe it to be insurmountable. We had good news last week when we sold school bonds and an interest rate of 3.81% at competitive sale, well below the 4.5% incorporated in the forecast. Three council members have raised questions directly with me about the report. First councilman Gephardt asked about the employee benefits projection for fiscal year 19, fiscal year 26, in the worst case scenario, which increased more than the indexed assumption. And the answer is that the mayor's 2025 budget for employee benefits allocated 2 million in health insurance reserves to help cover those costs. This is a non-recurring resource, which will need to be replaced in the following year. Second, he questioned the other revenue increase in fiscal year 26. This is because the forecast now incorporates speed camera revenues of $3 million in fiscal year 19, 2020, 26, based upon the Actions of the Council in approving this initiative. the police department and spending time researching this issue with the target central falls, providence, other places that have had this initiative that that's a conservative estimate. When I was responding to him, I noticed an error in the base, best case scenario where he had not incorporated those two adjustments. I was wondering if the police department was in the case of scenario where he had not incorporated those two adjustments to the final forecast. I transmitted a revised forecast with this correction which moderately improved the best case projection and distributed this to the council and the state in August. So the state has that revised forecast. There was no change to the worst case scenario from what you originally saw in July. Second, Councilman Foley asked how this forecast compared with previous years forecast. And it's a good question because the latest forecast is better than the previous forecast. For example, the Deference Projection for Fiscal Year 26 in the new forecast is reduced by over $10 million compared to last year's forecast. This is partly because of the Speed Camera Initiative, which we've included as revenues, but also because baseline results in the most recent year, both revenues and expenses have been better than previously forecast. And because the property tax levy and other revenues have increased by more than the 1% index assumption, but nowhere near the 4% statutory cap. Both the last two years, we've had tax levy increases of over 1% that well below the 4%. I was also asked by Councilman Latissur, why the forecast ended in fiscal year 29? This is the state statutory requirement. And I can refer you to the state law that requires everyone to do this although frankly, not everyone does it. There's no penalty if you don't do it. I think less than half of the municipalities prepare this but I think it's the right thing to do when we've done it. He asked some classification questions. All I can say is the classifications in this five year forecast are identical to what you saw in the budget. So, if you go to revenues, whether it's property taxes, state aid, other revenues, license and fees, the categories are identical to what's the framework of this five-year forecast. I was asked why the existing debt service goes down. There's two components in this forecast. There's an existing debt service that's already outstanding and we're paying off debt every year. So it's going to drop over the five year period. The big challenge for us is the new debt service. For both the 56 million for elementary and middle schools, and for the major 350 million to high school project. So that's the big challenge for us here. He asked about the OPEB contribution and I probably could have been clear in the report, but the OPEB contribution, and we passed an ordinance that requires continuing contributions to OPEB, that's combined with the pension contributions. And that's the way the actuary structured it. So that you take your pension contributions, you take your OPEB contributions, and the claims experience that you have on your retiree health benefits, and you increase that by 2.5% each year. And that's the way this is structured in this forecast. He asks about the lease purchase payments. And by the way, thanks to our, but we haven't had to do any lease purchase since the first year I was here. So that that's a declining cost, but it's incorporated as part of the debt service. The existing debt service, and you can go to the, you can go to the debt service page in, in your budget, and you'll see that along with regular bond debt service, we also have the lease purchase. So that's incorporated here as part of, as part of the forecast. And then the question that's common from him, and I respect this question, but what is the projected tax rate changes? Now, Neil is not working on the full revaluation. You'll see people out there maybe you already have, so that we're going to have a full revaluation as of 1231-24. And the value is almost certainly low. So I can almost be certain to say that the rate will drop substantially next year. Who knows? Then there will be an update at the end of the period, three years later. Who knows what will happen then? So I can't give you an answer. What I can tell you is what I disclosed, which we've had an advertisement the paper the mayor and I signed it before the vote was that the cost of the debt service the net cost of the debt service after the state aid would be approximately $11.9 million $11.9 million after the state aid the continuing cost of the debt service for the high schools and the for the high schools borrowing and you know, that's about 5% of the tax levy. So that's the kind of challenge we have is that is that amount? The assumptions of the school spending are the most challenging and we really, you know, the mayor and I go into the budget process, we need to hold their feet to the fire on this. I ended up, we've assumed either a three and a half or three percent increase in spending by the schools less 1% for the client and enrollment. So that's what the forecast is. Annual declines and enrollment of 1% and that's what the forecast is. Annual declines an enrollment of 1%. And that's a challenge for them, but we need the resources to pay the debt service for the high schools. And I think that's a reasonable assumption to make. Where public schools is aware of the assumption. They did get more state aid this past year. From my looking at what actions they took. Most of the additional state aid they put in the capital aid that they put in the capital aid. They did get more state aid this past year from I looking at what actions they took Most of most of the additional state aid they put into capital items as maybe a $200,000 increase in personal services When they reallocated their budget after after the State aid numbers were known I would say that the most challenging part of this forecast is the last two years, fiscal year 29, which is the last year, but also fiscal year 30. Because if you look at the tables and then they're saying whether it's the rest or worst case, that's when we're assuming that we're going to get the state reimbursement of 55%. But the timing of that is the thing that I'm still, I don't have all the answers on. Because as you know, and we had a nine to zero vote here on supporting legislation that would start reimbursing us of four project completion. And I'm going to talk to them there because we should redo that again, because it referred to a specific legislation that is now no longer operative in the general assembly. So we should do that at least very beginning of the calendar year to support that. But another ingredient here is this. And I think Councilman Gephardt was at the forum a couple of weeks or so ago. And the strategy here is that they're going to build the new toll gate and the new pilgrim. And then the following year, they're going to tear down the old schools and the old afields. And the question is, and I can't get a straight answer, and the OPM needs to get involved in this. I've communicated with the state, I've copied Steve Godfberg and other people is, do we meet the test for project completion when the schools are real built, or do we have to have both projects done at it? The lag will be a very substantial amount of money of us paying debt service and then getting a big balloon payment afterwards which is which was the concern when we were trying to support legislation that would start reimbursing us as during the construction period. So that's that's where I'm most concerned is the end of this decade, what rules the state is going to apply for certifying project completion. And I'm concerned that they may not pay all the incentives if we try to certify just the two buildings without the playing fields that they may penalize us on the incentive bonus and that's something that I need to work on and get some answers on. So that really completes my presentation. There's a range of possibilities here. There's always our. We don't know what's going to happen to the economy. We don't know what's going to happen to inflation. Real estate prices. So we have a range of possibilities here, which I think is the right way to do it. Thank you Mr. Jaffer Next up on the agenda is a the acceptance of the minutes from the council meeting held on August 19th Councilman how move favorable action second by Councilman Foley all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any extensions. Okay, next up on the agenda is the announcements of appointments. There are none. Number two is the appointments requiring confirmation. There are none. Number three is the consent calendar. First up is PCR 83-24 committee report. Finance. Favourable action. For action, Councilman Howell. Move favour move favorable action second by councilman Foley go ahead councilman how Thank you miss president It 2025 172 2025 156 2025 179 2025 133 2025 080 2025 137 2025 177 2025 178 2025133, 2025080, 2025137, 2025177, 2025178, 2025149, 2025171, 2025136, 2025173, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025176, 2025-1-7-6-20-25-1-7-6-20-4-0-8-8. One more, Mr. President. One more, Mr. President. Corrections. So I read 2025173. I withdraw that from the bid package. Other than that, that's completes the bid package, Mr. President. Okay, thank you very much. So just make a note there that bid 2025173, that's going to be a PCR, which we'll vote on separately. So that is not part of this consent calendar. Are there any questions from members of the council that were not asked earlier this evening in the finance committee? Okay, hearing none. Number two, PCR 84-24 resolution relative to abatements. Councilman Hound. Favorable action. For action, Councilman Hound. Move favorable action. Second by Councilman Foley. Go ahead, Councilman Hound. The Committee recommend favoral action on the presentation by the Director of the week. For $8,580 and 80 cents. Yes, Ms. President. Any questions or comments that were not asked early this evening in the Finance Committee? Okay. Hearing none, the clerk will call the roll for favourable action on the consent calendar. Mr. McAllister? Yes. Mr. Foley? Yes. Mr. Gephot? Yes. Mr. Howard? Yes. Mr. Macaroid? Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, 2-0, 2-2, 0-6-7 is now PCR 85-24. Move favorable. Do we have a second by Councilman Foley? I believe Councilman Rick's asked for this to be pulled off. He's going to recuse. Any questions or comments that we're not asked earlier this evening in committee? Okay. Hearing none, the clerk will call the roll for favorable action. Mr. McHallister, Mr. Foley, Mr. Gaphart, Mr. Howell, Saladisa, Mr. McHallister, Mr. Rick, Mr. Travis, seven years one abstention. Thank you, the motion passes. The second item that was removed from the finance consent calendar. Councilman Hau. Formerly bid 2025136 now PCR 86-24. The recommendation was favorable action. And for action, Councilman Hau? A favorable action. Second by Councilman Foley, and I believe this is to amend the Ward 7 budget code from 63380 to 512, 510-05712. So just moving where the funds are going to come out of a different line item. Yes, Ms. President. Okay, any questions or comments? Oh, and do we have a second on the amendment the second by Councilman Foley any questions on the amendment Okay, the click will call the roll for favourable action Mr. McAllister. Yes, Mr. Foley. Yes, Mr. Gethot. Yes, Mr. Howell. Yes, yes, Mr. Mackinari. Yes, Mr. Rick. Yes, Mr. Howell. Yes, yes, yes, Mr. McElroy. Yes, Mr. Rick. Yes, Mr. Travis. Yes. Yes, to amend. And then do we have a motion for favor, as amended, favor, as amended. Second by Councilman Foley. Mr. Gephat. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Alaysa. Yes. This McElroy. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. This Travis. Yes. Yes. As amended. Thank you. Councilman Howell. The last item that was removed from the consent calendar. A bit 2025 173 is now PCR-7-24 favorable action. For action, Councilman Hau. Move favorable action. Second by Councilman Foley. Any questions or comments on this item? Councilman Hau. Just very quickly, I think this is a wonderful initiative before it by Councilman Latissar. If had I had any questions on it, I would have called him. And because I do respect the boundaries of his ward. And therefore I commend the councilman on doing this. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on this? Hearing none, the clerk will call the roll for favourable action. Mr. MacHall, yes. Mr. Bowley. Yes. Mr. Gephan. Yes. Mr. Howell. Yes. Mr. Matt Mori. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Matt Morley. Yes. Mr. Rick. Yes. Mr. Travis. Yes. It is a social process. Thank you, motion passes. That completes the finance stock. So now we're moving to unfinished business. So first up is PCO 8-24 in order of abandonment of portions of Strawberry Field Road, Committee Report Land Use. Recommend open public hearing. Okay, for action, Councilman Hal. Move, favorite election, open public hearing. Do we have a second. How? Move, favour, action, open and public hearing. Second by Councilman Foley and Councilman Gephardt and Councilman Ladishear. All those in favour to reopen the public hearing say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. So, just to reset here. So, before I start here is PCO 8-24. We are in the public hearing. So we're going to ask if any members of the public or anyone presenting would clearly state their name for the record. We have this synagre for here. Again this evening and speak slowly and into the microphone. How we run the public hearings here in the city of Warwick is I will ask is there anyone here to present this petition to the city council they will then present this petition then I will ask the administration if they have any comments on the petition then members of the council will be able to ask questions and then we will ask members of the public if they would like to be heard on this. Three times I will ask is there anyone here to speak in favor of the project? Then after all those speakers I will go to the next I will ask is there any individuals here that would like to speak against this project? We will ask that three times and then we'll also provide an opportunity and I will ask three times is anyone that would just like to be heard on this project and and individuals will have an opportunity to speak at that point as well. So that is how we will continue to run this public hearing. So at this time is there someone here to present PCO 8-24 to the City Council. Good evening, Mr. President and members of the Council. My name is Brittany Morgan. I am Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Council for the petitioner, the Rhode Island Airport Corporation on this matter. Thank you all for having us here this evening. I am joined by my colleagues who previously appeared in front of the Council, acting Senior Vice President of the council, acting senior vice president of infrastructure, Miss Dawn Minnaker, Assistant Vice President of Media and Government Relations, Mr. John Goodman, and we also have our consultant, Stan Tech, who worked on this petition for abandonment, as well as our sub-consultant, and the appraiser, Mr. Peter Scotty. And so I do understand that there were questions raised at the last council meeting. So I am here in my capacity as legal council for the petitioner to present this in front of the council this evening. I would like to note for the record that we did receive the comments from the council during the August 19th meeting. One of the questions related to the appraisal. Mr. Scotty, our appraisal did review his appraisal and confirm his methodology is correct per his professional standards. We also reviewed and out of an abundance of caution, although we felt we did not need to legally under our master lease. We did notice the round of Department of Transportation as a no butter. We do technically lease the airport property from the round of Department of Transportation. Again, full belts and suspenders as the saying goes. We did notice the round of Department of Transportation as a no butter. However, if there are additional questions, either myself or my colleagues in our consultants are prepared to answer them. Thank you very much. However, if there are additional questions, either myself or my colleagues in our consultants are prepared to answer them. Thank you very much. At this time, the administration have anything to resent? Okay. So we'll open it up to members of the council. Any questions on PCO 8-24 at this time? Councilman Ladditzer. Thank you, Mr. President. So first, let me preface my questions slash comments to the fact that this isn't just about a berm and it's not just a ward issue. And I realize, Chairman Howe has put a lot of time and effort into the issue on the berm, but I think this is a much bigger issue. We're talking about the value of property. We're talking about abandoning city streets. We're talking about lots of things that are beyond award issue. And I am a believer in not playing in someone else's sandbox when it's strictly a sandbox issue. With that said, I visited the site, I believe it was last Friday. And I was to say, surprised at what I saw is putting it mildly, to say that I see things that have occurred that indicate to me that there was a presumption of approval for this abandonment. And what I saw was a substantial amount of activity by the airport corporation, which blocked off city roads that we had not abandoned. You have posted signs that say private property. You have blocked off public access to at least two or three, I think, of these areas. And doing this sends a message to me that you're of the belief that this is a done deal. To take that level of effort to put six feet high by 10 feet or whatever wide, hundreds of truckloads of dirt across property you did not control or property that this city council hadn't abandoned. That is very concerning to me. The perception of it is very concerning to me. The perception of it is very concerning to me. The berm is not my major issue. By standing there for an hour, whether or not the berm is gonna work, that'll certainly be up to the residents. I know what I experienced when I was there. To say that I am just going to rubber stamp a $409,000 purchase price for over three acres without visiting this area and without doing my due diligence, it's not going to happen. I think people should have already realized that. I asked about an application for a permit and I was presented with a fiscal alteration application that for a permit. And I was presented with a fiscal alteration application that had been approved back in April 26th. I question whether or not you had the approval or even who would have given you that approval to literally put up a wall, sand wall, across all of this still-owned city property. In addition to that, there's a large section of road after it was blocked off that has literally been excavated. You've already dug up the road. You've removed the asphalt. Those are very concerning to me. In this fiscal alteration application, it says owner to ensure that contractor, which means the airport corporation, overseeing the contractor. Can you tell me if all of those requirements that are in there have been completed? Another word, sorry. Oh, sorry. Oh sorry, you should question. Some of them are very simple. Some of them require certain things. So has the airport corporation notified digsafe? And you have a digSafe ticket number. Have you applied by the DigSafe regulations and notified the warded department and if so on what date? Those things, those are things that I'm referring to. Have all of those things been completed? Sure. I will call Ms. Minnaker who can address your questions related, those specific questions related to the project. So yes, I have the the physical alteration permit. If you could just introduce yourself for the record. My name is Don Minnaker, the acting Senior Vice President of Infrastructure for the Rhode Island Airport Corporation. So yes, our contractor, DeGrogorio, has coordinated with all of the city agencies with the water department specifically, as you noted fully realize what digsafe requirements are. My question was, have you ascertained a permit from digsafe? Do you have a digsafe ticket permit number? Because on this authorization fiscal application that I have, it doesn't have any of those items checked off or Indicated correct so at the time that the permit was granted to us We did not do any work so I will have to get that information to you So this just continues to become more concerning to me This permit was given to you folks on April 26th. Since that time, you've removed asphalt off the street, you've blocked off numerous city roads, and you have put in hundreds of trucks of gravel across city property. And you now you're telling me that we don't know if these other requirements have been completed. So where did the airport corporation get that idea that this was going to happen? That this city council was just going to approve the abandonment of these streets. And thus, the airport corporation decided we're going to go ahead and do all of this. We're going to block off roads. We're going to put signs up that say, do not enter. It's not even property that you own. You literally tick over thousands of feet of property that encompassed some of your property and also the very public roads that you're looking for this city council to abandon. Where did that idea come from, that it was okay to go ahead and do this without the approval of the city council. So with this permit that allowed us to move the excavated material should the road abandonments not be approved by the city council we will remove that material and restore the roads to existing condition or better. This fiscal alteration gave you permission to block off roads that you don't own to apply this gravel across city roads that we have not abandoned and you don't own. And your opinion that this gives you the authority to do that. Yes, it's not a band and you don't own. And your opinion, that this gives you the authority to do that. Yes, we also shared the road closure documentation with the city as part of this permit, which was approved. Was approved by whom? The planning department. And the Department of Public Works, Mr. Eric. They approve you doing all of this work on roads that had not been abandoned, as a matter of fact, had not even come before this council yet. Correct. And that was what we coordinated with the city. They approved this. They were aware of the situation that we are also pursuing the road abandonment. And again, should the abandonment not get approved by the city council? We will remove the berm and restore the road to existing conditions are better. And I heard that the attorney for Riyak stated that you've revisited that appraisal. And what was that appraisal value based on? Was that based on the overall value of the entire property? Or was that based upon just some square footage numbers? Sure. So I will have, as I mentioned, we have an attendance, our sub consultant in the appraiser. Mr. Peter Scotty, who can come up and provide his methodology to you. I'm going to go to the next slide. Good evening, sir. When you get that will die. Just give your name and title for the record place. Sure. Peter M. Scotty, I'm a certified general Fraser, State of Rhode Island, Massachusetts. You get to put the mic right up. It's very difficult to hear in here. Yeah. A little bit taller than them. I'm a certified general Fraser in the state of Rhode Island in Massachusetts. My whole BMI designation, which is the highest designation you can obtain. As a real estate appraiser, and I've been appraising real estate in Rhode Island since about 1974. Commercial industrial residential, et cetera. I was hired as a subcontractor by Stantec Corporation, which is a contractor with Ryach, and we were asked to value the roadways that would be abandoned. We value them as we do all roadway abandonments, which is, I'm not sure if it's statute in more, but it is in many other municipalities throughout the state. You value the property as if it's attached to the properties that are but it. Otherwise otherwise you would be valuing a 50 foot wide, you know, 100 foot long parcel, but really wouldn't have much utility. So basically the way you do it is you look at the entire process. So in this instance, we had a bit over 17 acres, including 3.5 acres or so of city roads, 17.72 acres in total, 3.5 acres of roadway. Now the land in question, the roadways, but all but one small portion of Sturbera Field Road all fall within the R7 residential zone. Now, since all those lots were acquired through FAA funding, residential use had been extinguished on those lots. You can't build residences. You can't use them for residences. So that left us with two choices. One, we could appraise the land as unbuildable residential land, which would give you a value of, you know, 25 and 30 or 40 cents an acre, a square foot, which we thought was not in keeping with the highest investment used to the property. So we look to the comprehensive plan future land use map and to be a budding parcels. And the airport proper itself, or with the portion of budding's triivore field road, is owned LI, light industrial. The comprehensive plan future land use map identifies the subject area for future use as light industrial. So we very simply look for comparable sales of light industrial zones, parcels that were similar in size, similar in configuration. And this is a nice rectangular shaped parcel. Certainly can sustain significant construction on it. I think we figured about 175,000 square feet of building in total. And we went about looking for sales. Now, we went back, we had to go back, I think it's first 2021, to find some light industrial sales, to compare to the subject. But we did, we found four sales. One in Cumberland One in West Wall They're all enumerated in the appraisal report Do you have a copy of the referral report? I'm sure the riot can provide you as one But the cops start at least not handy anyways. We do this in our folders. It's in the folders. We have it. Okay. So the cops start on page 47. They're all written up. We had men in road in one socket, which is up in the Highland Industrial Park. We had a piece down in North Kingston, down by the West Kingston train station where that industrial area is. It was a good piece. We had Comstock Industrial Park in Cranston, which is another good piece. And finally, we had Keysway in West Orleans. We had four good sales. We wrote them up, we put them on a grid. We adjusted them for data sale, potential use, size, utilities, etc. And came to a basically a range of value after adjustment of 243 to.94 per square foot. We concluded the 2.65 per square foot and came up with 109,000 for the city streets. And that's basically what we did. So for the record, this report you indicated, it was in my folder on my desk tonight. Yeah, it should be a report dated. The effective data is March 8th, 2024. The report date is May 20th, 2024. And it's addressed to Janicey Bland senior associate with Dan Tech Consultant. They were our client. Mr. Scott, did I understand you and it's a little difficult to hear sometimes in this chamber? Are you an aviator,raiser consultant? My aviation appraiser consultant. An aviation appraiser consultant. We have done a great number of avigation easelings. We've done work for the airport. We've done work for the city. You know, we, we get paid whether the client likes the number or they don't like the number. Doesn't make any difference to us. We're going to tell you exactly what we think and our drivers to tell you what we think and why we think it. And I think if you read that appraiser report, I think you'll find it a pretty convincing document. So you've also said that because the airport acquired this property, it loses its residential status. Actually, I would like to ask our planning director this question, if I could, Mr. President. Mr. Crabbits. Good evening. Hi, director. Just identify yourself, please. Tom Krabitz, City Plane Director. With the statement that was just made that when the airport corporation took over this property that basically that residential zoning went away. Does that mean the airport corporation had the right to change the zoning without going through the zoning board process in having that change in zoning approved by the City Council? No, I believe the zoning is still residential-owned. that change in zoning approved by the City Council? No, I believe the zoning is still residential-y zone. So the zoning is still residential? Right. There's other pots around the airport, summer, even on the tar map, where they relocated main avenue, which is still zone residential. There is some cleaning up of the zoning map that we're working on with Riyak. On the north western portion we're working on with, uh, uh, riot on the Northeast, uh, Northwestern portion across from the airport road, there's some property that zone GC, which should really be probably light industrial as well. But currently it's still zone residential. Correct. So why isn't it being appraised at its best use with its current zoning of residential? I mean I defer back to the appraiser on questions on I believe it was high as high as best use in the appraisal. Not as residential he said light industrial. Basically the FAA prohibits residential use on that property. It would be much for same if you did a piece of residential property and you put a conservation easement on it. You know, it can't be, you can't build houses there. So when you look at market value, which is what's the willing buyer going to pay and what's the willing sell or going to sell for, the willing buyer, if it was, you know, a residential developer, then I'm going to pay anything for it because they can't do anything with it. That's why we looked at it from the perspective of light industrial because frankly, we didn't want to shortchange for city by appraising it as unusable residential land. So I think my opinion, what's happening is this appraisal is certainly in a, it's a great spot for the airport corporation, but it certainly isn't in the best So short of getting a, getting this property re-zoned, it's still zoned residential. Whether you can build a house on it or not, it's still residential. Correct. And you still must comply with the residential zoning laws that apply to residential. Correct. And what is the restrictions on residential property for heights? Heights of fences, walls, etc. Oh, I think it's 35 feet. That's what? I believe it's 35 feet. For residential? For residential? I believe so. I know 35 feet. For residential? For residential? I believe so. 35 foot. Let me look in the report and find it so I don't give you any erroneous information in the 87 zone. Councilman, while he looks that up, after this question, we're going to pause and open it up to other council members. Thank you. In the L.I. zone, it's 45 feet. The restriction from the airport for height by our calculations was about 50 feet, so it would be within the L.I. zone. I'm not sure in the R7, the H7 zone, whether it's 30 or 35 feet, as far as the height restriction. I'm not positive. We're talking about a residential zone here. Yeah, so it's, you could build. I don't know, I've never seen a 35 foot fence in a residential property. If you were allowed by the seller to build a residence, you could build it to an house with no problem The problem is, much like a conservation easement, the FAA has restricted the use of those, that portion of land, those parcels of land that they acquired, and will not allow residential construction. So when you're given that situation, you know, it is conservation easel and it's a great example of it. That use is still zone residential, but it's extinguished. So, and we could value it as residential land that you can't build residences on it, and you're going to go from 265 square foot to 50 cents a square foot. I mean, we're happy to do that calculation as you like. There's a big difference between a building at 32 or 35 feet in the requirements for offense. Offence is in a building. I'm not sure what you're getting at with requirement for fence. Thank you. Councilor Mellazza. We're going to pause there. Are there any other members to council that have any questions at this time? Councilor Rickson. Thank you. Let's have, I suppose it would be a question to the Airports General Council. So before I ask the question, I'll just give a little comment. It's a comment that I've made to many people. Sometimes I've been a little bit more illiterative with this. But my view of the airport is it is similar to a black hole in the middle of the city that continues to gobble up houses, businesses, et cetera. And once those houses, businesses, and anything else is gobbled up, they're not coming back. They are beyond the point of no return. So when we're looking at the city voluntarily conveying land to the airport and I'm reviewing to be used by the airport for anything other than a sound berm that is. Could this conveyance of this piece of land be used by the airport in the future for any kind of structure. Anything that would be used by the airport for anything other than a sound berm that is. Could this conveyance of this piece of land be used by the airport in the future for any kind of structure, anything that would allow it to otherwise expand airport facilities in a way that the airport couldn't have expanded, if not for, the sale of this land. And can we have assurances on the record that the airport is not in the future going to be using this land for anything of that nature but only for the purpose of a sound barrier where the purpose of benefiting the neighborhood. Sure so to that question so the Rhode Island airport corporation like airports around the country, engages in what are known as master plans with the Federal Aviation Administration. We have a master plan that was approved by the FAA back in 2021. The process of that master plan began back as far back as 2016. The Riyak Administration worked very closely with members of the public, the city administrations. Regarding that master plan, it's a public document posted on our website. It's a very, very public process. It's actually a required public process. And essentially that master plan is a 20 year planning document that looks at possible development of the airport. And so this abandonment that's currently in front of you is a project that was a part of that master plan. So this South Cargo project included, as noted again, on that master plan that was developed many years ago in very close coordination with the city. This noise and visual berm because we understand its importance to the city and the residents of that area. the city. So the petition in front of you is for the abandonment of those rights of ways so that we can construct that. We are constructing the other portions of that noise and visual berm that we are able to you know that we do have the existing property rights for again recognizing the importance of it. And so our master plan recognizing the importance of it. And so our master plan has various phases of development, possible development. Because again, it's a 20-year document. It has all kinds of possible development. And so I would encourage you to look through that document because it does show really all the possible development at the airport you know again for that 20-year period it's required to show that in an order for us to carry out those projects it actually does have to be a part of that master plan. Do we anticipate that the airport is going to disappear after the 20 years is up? No. Okay. So, do we have any way of getting assurances perhaps, including in the deed, some sort of a conservation or something of that nature, an agreement to that. Something to the effect of that, this particular piece of land is not going to have any type of structure that's used for say storage or any sort of structure that, well, I suppose, structure other than a sound or noise berm, something of that nature as opposed to, say, leaving it open-ended where we don't know exactly what the next 20-year plan may involve. And down the road, my concern is that unless there is some sort of legal control here, I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I think that I to that. I certainly think it is very rational to trade those streets that there are no houses on those portions of the streets that would be conveyed. And I think it's quite rational to have the city basically trading those streets and receiving the amount that is fair market value in the opinion of a professional appraiser in exchange for a noise berm that would benefit these rounding neighbors. But I don't want to run a risk of that changing 20 years from now because I'm anticipating that the airport is still gonna be there. And hopefully with any luck, those homeowners, their homes are still gonna be where they currently are too. So as for a deed restriction, the FAA would not allow Riot to be able to purchase property and have such a deed restriction because we do have to maintain certain rights and control over the land for possible development. It is something that we are required by our obligations with our regulatory authority, the Federal Aviation Administration. However, like I said, the master plan process that's governed by the FAA is a very public process. So to your point about what does the next master plan look like? We are required by the Federal Aviation Administration to engage with the city and the surrounding community, public notices, public hearings on what that process looks like because the FAA recognizes the value and importance of that exact community input that you are discussing. So while we can't agree to a deed restriction, like I said, the Federal Aviation Administration MasterClean process does provide those assurances on the community input related to future airport development. And currently there is no discussion, there is nothing that Riaq is planning whether as part of or either part of the master plan or any discussions of any future master plan of using that land for anything other than the purpose for which it's being presented here tonight. Correct? So the master plan does have possible development in the area. There are not any existing plans as of today's date. There's nothing in design or permitting or anything like that. You will see the master plan again that 20 year forecast on in 2021. There is various possible developments in that area, but our main concern right now and the reason that we're here is again so that we are able to construct that full noise and visual barrier for the residents in that community. We've been in discussions with the city administration on this for many years and have been working very closely with the city, a special councilman how, and the residents in public meetings, in public hearings, in community meetings. And so we recognize the importance, and so our purpose here today again is that petition and we are looking to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to see if we can get the board to understand that there are plans and discussions regarding that general area, that side of the airport, but all of those discussions formal, informal are strictly concerned with future development on land that is currently owned by the airport. So when you refer to that area, there are no discussions informal, formal otherwise about any development other than the noise barrier on this particular, these particular parcels of land, the little bit over three acres that we're here discussing tonight. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we have those assurances on the record. Thank you, Councilman. Any other council members have questions at this time? Councilman Blitz, here from public and we'll come back. Have another opportunity. So at this time, I'm going to again, we're going to ask three times for each category. come back have another opportunity. So at this time, I'm going to again, we're going to ask three times for each category. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of this project? We'll ask that three times. Those representatives will come up. Then I will ask is anyone here to speak against this project? Those individuals will come up. And then I will ask is anyone here that would like to be heard on this project? And those individuals will come up and then I will ask is anyone here that would like to be heard on this project and those individuals will come up. I asked that members of the public speak at that podium there so we can have a response here. Chief would you like to weigh in before we go to the public? Yes, good evening. Bill Fesendi, Chief Chief Staff, to Mayor Frank Pukosi. I just want to remind everyone that we're here to discuss a noise berm that impacts the residents of budding the proposed cargo facility. We're not here to talk about the airport corporation, the expansion of the airport in 20, 30, 40 years. We're here to talk about the noise berm that impacts board three residents that the mayor and councilman how have fought diligently to protect the interests and the well-being quality of life of those residents that are budding the noise bet the proposed cargo facility. The airport corporation has agreed to build it. If they do not abandon, we do not abandon the roads. They'll the residents of Ward 3. The residents of Ward 3. They're abutting the cargo facility. Deserve to have this. The abandonment done. The berm built. Whether it's 12 feet high, 30 feet high. They're going to be looking at it. People walking in their dogs can walk the dogs anywhere else. We have a lot of city parks, we have a brand new dog park, we have a lot of trails and paths. So the use is being abandoned to preserve the quality of life of the residents, abutting the new cargo facility that is happening. No matter how much we talk about it, cargo facility is being built. We're not here to talk about that. That's already been approved. It's for the noise burn. I just want to say again, Councilman How has worked diligently to get this approved to protect the quality of life of his ward three residents and the residents of budding the noise barrier. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Let's go to the end. We'll come back to the council. So also I do want to say I know everyone will get a chance to speak this evening. But we do want to offer. Is there anyone here that would like to speak either in favor at the time and then when to speak against at the time or just be heard at the time? If they haven't had an opportunity to speak yet, please let them come up as well. So first up, is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this project at this time? Is there anyone here that would like to thank you very much. And just please for everyone please introduce yourself for the record and speak slowly and clearly into the microphone. It's directly adjacent to the airport property. Well, I appreciate the council's comments about their concern about the airport overstepping. I think the chief makes a very good point that The cargo facility is coming no matter what we do and as a member of that community that's directly affected by the expansion of that airport, my family, my daughter, my neighbors, we need a continuous berm in order to have a continuous berm that is both sound and visually and impairing what the airport is pushing on our neighborhood, we need that to be continuous. Like the chief said, but for the abatement, we're going to have massive gaps that are going to let the noise, the visual impairments, and also the pollutants through. The grass and vegetation that'll inevitably grow on that berm are going to keep air quality, at least hopefully better than it would be without it. And I think that there is value, and we're talking a lot about how much value we're getting for the abandonment of these properties. The value that we get is in preservation of our quality about how much value we're getting for the abandonment of these properties, the value that we get is in preservation of our quality of life in that neighborhood holds a value. So maybe we are taking a couple cents off the acreage and when we look at it as dollar for the acreage, but as a resident there, I think that holds some value. So maybe we do exchange 10 cents on an acre for 10 cents on a square foot for having a continuous burn. Maybe we are giving up a little bit, but we're giving it up in exchange for an increase in our quality of life. So I would urge the council to move forward and approve the project for the abatement or for the abandonment rather and I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project? Good. Stan Smith, I live on Strawberry Field Road. To be honest with you, I agree with you, Councilman Rex. The output is a black hole. However, I live directly across from the airport. So I have to look at this every day. This berm and this wall is going to do a lot for us in our community. Still, the airport may have parts of field view by Lockdown right now. Doesn't mean I sit on slip through there and walk the dog. But the whole idea is there's no berm, there's no wall down there in the sound barrier that they do have. It doesn't work. So they really need to, I hate to say you know abandoned those streets, but we need a continuous wall, otherwise it's just not going to work. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak in favor of this project? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this project? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this project? Is anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this project? Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to speak against this project?