My name is Richard Langseth. It's L-A-N-G-S-E-T-H, but long farm in Warwick. The first item is the fact that all during the planning process, so that the state of Rhode Island has the right to go forward with its concerns. Every time that I've been involved with a planning process when a butter was not identified, it goes back and they have re here the whole thing. This is quite alarming that the State of Rhode Island has not been notified until this very last minute and I believe they have not gotten a green card. I don't believe that the city has actually notified the State of Rhode Island only riot has and I think that that's a procedural failure of this hearing that you really have to take it back and start again because of that. It was very, very obvious all along that the state of Rhode Island isn't a butter and that point was misbyplanning, it should be redone. The appraisal is quite alarming. I do appreciate Mr. Scottyty I've known him for many years but he really doesn't know aviation appraisals. He was saying that the airport can that the airport will be able to build a 50 foot building on that property that is so far from the truth. The FAA has strong reservations about the height of buildings and properties like this. He's not showing aviation expertise at all and I really urge you to get an appraiser who understands how this actually works. He mentioned the comprehensive plan. This has nothing to do with the comprehensive plan. This has nothing to do with the comprehensive plan. This says everything to do with the FAA and the airport layout plan. And the airport layout plan is very, very clear that this is to be used for high-value aviation use, including the streets. The streets are not exempt from the airport layout plan. They're clearly in it. And it's the intent of the FAA to use this at the highest value possible in fact they demand it. And I'll give you an example the the Middletown Armory the Middletown Armory is owned by the National Guard and there was an attempt to relocate part of the armory and the FAA stepped in and said, RIAC, you must use the best use of this property and we have put money into it. And so therefore, it's going to remain an armory. This is the same situation on the strawberry field roads. The FAA has very, very strong rules about how this property is to be used and it's clearly to be used for executive hangers right up to the berm. That's why they want the berm. The berm doesn't do anything to protect the people against the warehouse. It's in the wrong location. Certainly, the berm north of the strawberry Road is important. And I support it all the way down to the old waiting area for the cell phone, that's right. But not on Palace Avenue. The reason for the Burm there is to gain control of the property and to build giant hangars behind it. The reason for the hangars is we have a very, very valuable airport that has an instrument landing system where planes can land in zero visibility. There are not many airports around with that kind of facility. And so therefore, there's a very high demand for hangers, for corporate hangers in Rhode Island because of its proximity to Boston. It is really great for a large corporation in Boston to have a plane put in a hanger here because they can't find any hangers at Hanscomfield. They can't find any hangers at Logan Airport, maybe at Westover, which is way far away, they could probably do it, but Westover does not have the ILS system that we have here in Warwick. That's a critical piece of information that we all have to understand. So therefore, the appraisal is just all wet. It really is. From what I've heard from Mr. Scott, he doesn't understand how the airport layout plan works. He doesn't understand the height restrictions of this property. It just needs to be redone. There's a question that Mr. Rick has asked about deed restrictions. The city has an ordinance on deed restrictions. If the city were to sell a piece of property to a butter, that's residential, there is a severe deed restriction on that property. You cannot build a fence on the property. This is the city ordinance. So, I think you can feel comfortable that if you move forward with this, you would have a deed according to the city ordinance deed, So I think you can feel comfortable that if you move forward with this you would have a deed According to the deed of the city ordinance deed which would require no fences on the property So so that you know this is the kind of thing that planning should have thought about years months ago and they just Missed all that and I don't really understand why but that's what happened. Not all the property and the appraisals residential. Mr. Scott, he said it's all residential property. No, it's not. The butter is the state of Rhode Island and the airport. So to say that all this property is residential is wrong. It's just simply wrong. The appraisal did not include the butter to the North Astrovery Field Road. That means the appraisal is invalid. It needs to be read done and put together with the correct butters on it. So I would urge you to consider that as a very important matter. The Mr. Scottie said that the FAA prohibits residential, or I'm sorry it was probably the lawyer, the FAA prohibits residential property to be purchased. In other words, when RIAC buys the property with FAA money, they can't allow residential. I totally agree with that. But what they do do is require that it's used at its highest level, which only makes sense. This is federal money. This is our money being spent. The federal government bought this property. They fully expected to be used at the very highest level. This is federal money. This is our money being spent. The federal government bought this property. They fully expected to be used at the very highest level. And for the appraisal not to recognize that just shows that your appraiser doesn't understand airports. It's quite simple. There was a discussion about public hearings. The lawyer said that there was a public hearing process all during the master plan. I totally agree with that. I was at those hearings. I understand. I was actually protesting some of it. I lost, but I was there. And the fact is that this master plan and the airport layout plan requires that RayQ use this for aeronautical purposes. And I can speak all night about that because I went through that whole thing. See what else? Yeah, I just want to urge everybody to take care and be concerned and be careful with this. I know the abutters are saying they want the berm, but they already had a berm and the berm didn't work. We tore the berm down. And now we're putting up another berm. Oh, yes, it's closer to some of these houses on Palace Avenue. I understand that, but that berm, it only protects against exposures that are right next to the berm. It doesn't protect exposures way down on the runway. So why on earth would they even build a berm to protect these folks when there's nothing there to protect? No, the reason is that the berm is there so that they can build hangars behind the berm. Everybody wake up to this fact that's really gonna happen. And I don't know if I'm opposed to that, but just recognize it and get appropriate money for it. Here we had the administration coming with a five year plan saying that in 2029 and 2030 there's a huge financial hole. Okay. Now we have a city council sitting here. One minute. Okay. Now we have a city council sitting here. Okay. With the probability that if they used their judgment, they would get $5 million from the airport if they had a proper appraisal. No, they're saying, oh no, no, no, no, no. We want $400,000 and the deal is done by the way. They've cashed the check and it's all worked out. No, that's not the case. The city council needs to recognize the fact that the revenue is incredibly important and they should sit back and say, let's continue this and let's get an appropriate appraisal so that we don't get screwed out of $4 million. I mean, I think that that's the bottom line that all of us can agree to. And I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this project at this time? Evening James, it's all Annie buttonwood. And all of word six. There's a lot of issues that have not been resolved. We've done a lot of talking that have not been resolved. We've done a lot of talking about the berm. I happened to be a recently retired out of your pathologist and hearing conservationist. I was here when you folks talked last time from my professional opinion, which is within my scope of practice, you gave me no assurances whatsoever that the berm you talked about would protect the noise level for the community we're talking about. That's a huge failure. Okay. So from what I heard last time from what I've been able to look at your plans and all what I've seen. The berm will not be sufficient to cut down the noise. Okay. That is absolutely huge. You've given a check to the city. Before is approved by the council. You've got permits to do work on public property before the council or the city gave you approval. I mean, this is some crazy stuff here. And you want the city to quick claim over the deed to the rights of ways and the streets, but there's no limitations on that. Congressman Rick's talked about what would happen in the future, maybe not by you, but by your predecessor's predecessor's predecessor. Okay. There's got to be some limitations forever in finita. I lived near an airport that 50 years later was sold by the Department of the Navy and they were going to build an international airport over multi-million dollar homes and the only thing that stopped it is at the county at that time had the God given sense to say your fly over rights expire when the Department of Navy releases the property and that stopped the whole process. That could easily happen to us. These streets could easily be used in the future for projects that we the people of the city do not want to see or we simply may not be able to get financially reimbursed for the damage that reacking your future goals may do to our city. Jumping back just a moment. Mr. Crowell, you have worked so hard for so long to try to make this the best deal for all of us in this city and I know that, I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. Mr. Crowell, you have worked so hard for so long to try to make this the best deal for all of us in the city and I know that and I really appreciate that. I really, really do and you need to be lot for that. I just want to make sure that what we really get not just now far in the future is what we deserve and what's going to be the best use for all of we citizens. Last comment. You absolutely have to come up as far as the noise reduction for something and not I beg of you. Don't approve this. This is as we expand this airport. This is going to be a nightmare for half of the city, not just a few homes. So you need to take it back to community, you need to take it back to wherever, I'm more than willing to help you professionally for nothing to make sure that the berm that you do build is built properly for all of us. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here would like to speak against this project at this time? Go ahead, sir. I could even miss the President members of the City Council, people in the Planning Department who are here, people from Riyak and anyway, for the record, my name is Michael Zaram, for the Stunarcha, that's Michael M.I.C.H.A.E.L. Z-A-R-U-M, I'm a resident here in Walwick. I don't know where to start because this is such a complex topic. I guess I want to start off by thanking Council Ladder sir for his comments that we're full of due diligence, very perceptive and very accurate. I also want to thank Mr. Ricks. But to start off, I want to be very clear that I hereby oppose PCO 8 bit confused by Mr. McAllister saying this project when my understanding of what's before us tonight is not a project it's simply a street abandonment which has to do with title. I know myself after looking for years through planning documents master master plans, and whatnot for TF Green Airport, what they want to do here. One of the reasons they want to extend the berm for the west is to make room beyond what they originally told us were going to be six cargo gates for Boeing 767s, which have the region. Beyond what they originally told us we're going to be six cargo gates for Boeing 767s which have much more powerful engines to lift all that weight. They have larger triple fans which move a lot more air. They use a lot more fuel. They create high noise vibrations to homes that will be felt not just on strawberry field road but throughout the entire city. So I want to remind everybody that this is not just about the strawberry field road in that pocket neighborhood. But I have watched that neighborhood since I was at Ottawa, junior high school with friends that live there. I've had people call me to tell me they want to move when I rent them a room when we're going to the wingland tepid and they couldn't study from the noise. I also want to point out that in the document from Riyak, the petition for abandonment, they refer to it as a sound barrier. And I want to clarify, the word barrier is something that stops something. Maybe you got a mattress pad on your bed with somebody who's elderly and it stops water from going to the mattress. That's a barrier. It stops something. Calling a noise barrier is incorrect. It's not going to stop the noise. And if people on this honorable body were to check with the FAA New England region, you would find out that the impact to noise is not going to be significant. It's an earthen berm and I would ask everybody to call it an earthen berm. But I don't believe that's why we're here tonight. We're here to talk about street amendment. But I do want to clarify, I see no reason why if the street were not abandoned, it could be preserved for public use in open space. And also at the same time, if they move the center line of the berm back east about 12 to 25 feet, then the people would still be able to use that street for walking with their families, walking with their dogs, and open space. And everybody knows we need more open space in this community. They can still pull the broom but just move it back a little bit. So why does the FWF operation really want that space? Well, as Mr. Langseth mentioned, beyond the six original parking spaces for huge Vong 767s, they want to build additional gates for a regional freight, say the small safton of Kerrigan fans that fly freight in from other places in the willing to put on the larger aircraft. They also want to add a terminal for corporate aviation and of course most corporate aviation jet engines make a lot more noise, much, much higher pitch noise than do some of the regular commercial jets. With that, I also want to defer to Riyac's petition for abandonment. First of all, I want to remind everybody that Riyac is a corporation. Let us from a former Attorney General directed to Riyac's former Council reminded them that they're a corporation and they need to abide by all laws or regulations both state and federal. The same holds true today. I also want to thank Mr. Kravitz for earlier agreeing that Warwick zoning applies. I've seen a lot of projects in my life and this one is being done backwards. You don't do something like this. You get all your approvals first. But what I see Riot trying to do here is get something done when other things are on approved and if they get a little bit in the door and then later on they're going to come back and say, oh, we really never designed the access and egress first, which is the first thing they should be doing and the reason we have the supplemental EIS. But they haven't done that. And I really believe that later on they're going to say, well, we got this done and now we can't have access to the gress and this is what we want to do instead. It's a true problem and you really got to put the horse before the cart not the other way around. Just a few comments on where expedition. It mentions in here, the illegal council, Brittany Morgan, sign this. We're for petition the file, this petition, praise this honorable council. We're suing to authority, bested by chapter 24-6. Second. the . We are to authority bested by chapter 24-6. Second. We have a read it. This was signed by Rax Legal Council, Brittany Morgan. It states, wherefore your petition files, petition files. This petition impries that this honorable council pursuant to authority vested in it by chapter 24 dash six of the general laws of the state of Rhode Island 1956 is an admission from Ryehack's legal council that they knew before this petition went in that this body before us tonight the Warwick City Council has the authority to approve Whether they can go in there and do things tonight yet we had The City of Warwick's DPW and highway department give them permission I think most of us know that doesn't happen with consent from our mayor The next thing I want to go to is the cumulative impacts here. This area slowly, slowly has warholmed here after year after year. What they want to do here simply is not compatible with a budding residential. I'm concerned if I look at the PCO824 this before us tonight. It states attached here to be abandoned for the reason that said premises have ceased to be useful to the public as a highway or a driftway. It doesn't mention other useful aspects such that those roads can continue to be used. My family is in that neighborhood. It's open space to walk with their families and Walk with their pets and dogs That's another use of those roadways and there's no reason that that can't continue if this is done properly The next paragraph two of PCO 8-24 I would ask that it be stricken paragraph two states I hope you guys don't agree with this. City Council of Warwick that no owner of land of butting on. One minute, Mr. Zahram. I'm going to reference paragraph two. It basically says that homeowners will not be awarded any compensation. I've got calls from several people in that neighborhood in the last week that they smell carousine, which is a lot of things that are not available. but it basically says that homeowners will not be awarded any compensation. And I've got calls from several people in that neighborhood in the last week that they smell caracene, which is highly, highly toxic. There's too many reasons. It can't be covered in the time I laudate tonight, so I'd ask you not to approve this. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else we'd like to speak against this project? Yes, good good evening Council. My name is Michelle Comar. I'm a work resident and I'd like to ask questions of Riyak and then the planning director and then lastly chief of the Sente Riyak's questions are The Burm Was it documented in the environmental assessment that it would mitigate air quality. And what is the reduction in noise that was documented in the E.A. to be expected with the construction of the BIRM? So just please identify yourself. Sure. My name is Donna Minnicker, acting Senior Vice President of Infrastructure for the Rhode Island Airport Corporation. So the purpose of the BIRM is to provide a noise reduction and a visual barrier. So I'll read this exactly from the environmental assessment that's posted on our website. An analysis of a proposed noise barrier was conducted. That's the six foot berm and the nine foot wall. The analysis indicated that a six foot berm and a nine foot wall on a six foot berm and nine foot wall will provide noise reduction. FA has a measurement day night average, one to four decibels to the adjacent homes. It goes on to say that a noise reduction from single noise events will be reduced by one to 13 decibels. Okay, so are there any air quality mitigation benefits with the berm? That is not the purpose of the berm, so that was not studied. Who is funding the construction of the berm? The airport corporation. And why didn't FAA noise analysis, the berm did not just, it did not increase the levels, the proposed actions did not increase the levels to a threshold where the FA would fund it. Okay. Last public hearing, what was the 5% reduction that you mentioned? So at the last hearing two weeks ago, I indicated that off the top of my memory, I thought it was a 5-deciple reduction, so I'm correcting myself tonight. It's 1-4-deciple reduction. Because I don't believe the two gentlemen that spoke in favor of the project We're here at that first hearing so I was hoping they would hear that there's very little reduction in noise For this construction in the berm there are no air quality benefits With the construction of the berm Thank you Plenty director Kravitz, please two questions Hi director Is a Berm construction of a berm permitted in a residential zone like this. According to the FAA and the fanzis that were done over the past three years, one of which we challenged in court to make improvements to it. In Riyak, act that as a partner with the city to render those improvements that the city administration sought. Yes, yes, this is part of their master plan. There's an existing wall present. To me, it only made sense to relocate the wall. That was as such that was contemplated in the faunzee that was approved by the FAA. And I had no idea that they did this much controversy over this project at this point, but to answer your question, yes. So in my neighborhood, in Warwick, residential neighborhood, someone could construct a nine foot firm that's permitted by zoning in a residential neighborhood. Yeah, if there was an airport in your neighborhood for over many years, that has grown over so many years and got approvals from the FAA with city input, I suppose. Yeah. I think you're trying to draw an apples and oranges situation here. No, what I'm trying to find out is what other approvals might be needed down the line. So right now a berm is not permitted where these abandoned roadways are located by our city ordinance, our city zoning ordinance. I know you've given us what needs to get done if everybody teams up, the city teams up with FAA. But presently, because I can't imagine somebody getting approval for a burn in my neighborhood of eight feet, nine feet high when offense is only, is less than that. So how, right now, by present zoning, is a burn permitted in a residential zone? Why will we find that in the zoning ordinance? No, I think we should maybe just let DOT condemn it like they've always done through sovereignty and not try to work in cooperation with the airport. Maybe that's the answer. I'm not getting an answer from the director. No, no need. I know. You're working your way around it. What I think your answer is no. It's what you're trying to say that in any other circumstance in the city, including this one, unless there are other approvals provided that a berm is not permitted in a residential zone of 9 feet high. And so so many feet long. Okay, thank you. There were two plenty board hearings and I attended both of them on this application. And the plenty board was reluctant to approve it the first hearing because the plans were not clean or accurate enough to pass on the city council. At that point I knew that there was construction being already done when those board meetings had occurred and I brought that up. Why would the board reward somebody who's in violation of city law and taking over city property and doing what they want with it? Yeah, no, we're looking at this perspective. Oh, sorry. I'm kind of leading up to the question. My question is when did the city, meaning the Plain Department and Eric Earl's planning DPW Director. When did they give Ryak the permission to start construction? Was that before after the Plain Board hearings? Before. Before. April 8th. Ms. Councilman Latterson, I think you read the date. April 26th. April 26th. I think you read the date. 26 April 26 and when did the planning board hearings take place? I don't have a calendar in front of me. Ma'am, I'm going to ask that you keep to the abatement. I just good director. We guys are getting in the weeds. We got to stay to the abatement of these lands. You're talking about your off track. What I'm saying is that there's been a violation here and the information wasn't given to the planning board that plan... No, I take exception to this. It was. We, in the planning department, we're working prospectively at times, rarely, but in this case, with the airport, to avoid letting them construct a wall in their property with big gaps in it, that makes no sense to me. So of course we work with them, try to advance some aspects of the project, which if the council doesn't like it, you can reverse it, lead gaps in the wall, let them build the wall with gaps and move on. Sometimes we have to take chances to move things in a manner that makes sense for neighbors. So it doesn't always work. Well, it wasn't announced with the public meeting portion of the planning board. Oh, I mentioned it at the planning board meeting. Okay. All right. So thank you, director. Thank you. Chief Fesente, please. Cup questions. Hi, Chief. I was a little taken aback by your introduction about how this sound barrier was or burn was going to benefit. It's, as you can hear from Riot directly today, it has very little sound mitigation benefits. One to four decibels. I think you kind of insinuated that this was going to be a big benefit to those residents and they absolutely needed it. No, I actually said that the residents want the burn. I didn't say I was going to work. I said they want the burn. The mayor and the councilman worked with Riyak to get what the butters wanted. Yes, and I hope they fully realize and the two gentlemen, I know there's still here left that it's only going to be a wonderful decibel decrease. But what I want to ask you, could you, the mayor had signed an MOA and the mayor also dropped the petition? Could you just explain what those two consisted of? Again, this is not on this abatement. This is that that's a different item. That is not before us. I'm sorry, but we need to stick to the abatement of this property. Okay, was the firm in the MOA or in the petition? It's an abandonment, sorry. Yes. The abandonment and the firm were they in the MOA and the petition and the reason I'm asking is Because if the council's going to lead into Some conditions or deed restrictions of this approval. I want to be in tune with what the mayor said like what the mayor wanted So the mayor the mayor fought along with councilman how in the residence of budding the new cargo facility cooperatively with Ryak to get a sound berm. A berm, a sound berm, a sound barrier, whatever you wanna call it, I'm not an engineer. It's a berm, whether it's 10 feet high, eight feet high or 100 feet high. That's what he wants, that's what he fought for, that's what Ryak agreed to do. Okay, we fought this hard. I'm talking about the residents. Miss Coleman, you have one minute. For, thank you, Lynn. For a one to four decibel reduction. Thank you. You're welcome. So if the council so feels they're going to approve this abandonment, there are conditions that I'm going to suggest. And one is that the condition approval will be a deed restriction that only the berm can be built. The soundbar can only be built on the abandoned roadways. ways. And that no other construction can take place, whether it's Earth, work, or structures. Number two, that riot complete the freight cargo terminal because the terminal is why we need the burr. Don't have the terminal. If the funding doesn't work out for that, we don't need the berm. That's only that they go hand in hand. And the last condition is that riot complete the traffic mitigation. Time, Ms. Colma. That the mayor so worked hard for, that will keep traffic off of post road and strawberry fill road, Jeff Zimbullvar, and we'll put traffic onto Airport Connector Road. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this project at this time? Thank you, Patrick Maloney. More, resident. I originally wasn't gonna speak against this, but I've decided to, after hearing everybody else speak, specifically Councilman Rick's who was given a promotion during this meeting to congressman. So I'd like to go back to things that other people said. First of all, I want to comment on the fact that there's been any work whatsoever done on this area without approval of the city council. I know that Rhode Island Airport Corporation says they'll put everything back and it'll be better than ever and I really appreciate that. But I think it goes back to the fact that people put the cart before the horse, and this isn't the first time this has happened. The mayor hadn't as budget speed cameras before the council approved it. Then the council, I think, has approved it at this point. Reacts started using this public land before the council has approved it. This is a pattern that things are happening without your approval. And I think it's very disrespectful to the Council people that are here that put in the work and it's disrespectful to the taxpayers who want things done on their behalf and they want to get the most for their money. The other thing that Councilman Rick's mentioned that I thought was very telling is the fact that they won't sign an agreement to use this particular amount of land for anything other than this noise of batement, which is very minimal one to four decibels. He said that the spokesperson said that the FAA would refuse to sign. Well, I think we've already shown our hand, and we've shown that we're basically given them the land because we allowed them to work on it previously. So what I'd like to say is that I'd like the City Council to ask for an investigation of anybody who is working with React, prior to Council approval, and providingac access to this land without a approval. There were two people mentioned or two groups of people mentioned earlier. It's already on record, so I'd like those groups investigated. And I'd like to make sure that in the future that when we do go out to look for working with entities like reac or anybody else, any of the private or public entity that we specifically tell employees of the city that until the council votes, they are to do nothing. I think that's really important because this group over here thinks it's a done deal and you haven't voted. So it's not a done deal. So they've already gone back to their stakeholders and told them, we know this city's gonna go ahead and do this. So let's go ahead and get it in a praise along this land and let's lowball them because we know they're gonna do it anyway. So, we can't get assurances that it's not gonna be used for anything else and they're telling us that they're going to give us an amount of money based on it not being residential, which it's zoned as. So I don't care what you're going to build it as, if it's zoned that way, give the city the money for that. So please don't show our hand in the future. I think that this City Council should be very aware. Are we all awake? Thank you. I think that this City Council should be very aware that it's inappropriate to take land and use it for whatever you want to, because sometimes you end up having to give it back. Now, React is saying that they want to help the work residents. My question is why are we building a large berm on their side on their property if it's to help the residents? I want to make sure we get an appropriate price and then finally I'll say did the public get a chance to speak publicly regarding the 20-year plan? And then I'll say that if we are allowing the public to talk about these long plans that we should also allow the public to speak about shorter plans, five-year plans. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this project at this time? My name is Beth Grough and I live on Palatown Avenue. And I've lived in my house for about 40 years and watched the airport take neighborhoods one by one by one. It's hard to watch the people your children grew up with. Leave in neighborhoods. And the airport has taken a lot. But I'd love my house because there's a lot of memories there. My kids grew up there, their friends grew up there. And I woke up one morning to construction going on and pictures were fallen up the wall and I looked out my window and there were booze-osers all over the place and they were right behind my fence and they dug up behind our fence and we found out they were going to put a burn there and a sound barrier so that I could come out into my yard and it would, I guess, look like a prison in the back of it with the sound barrier. One of the first things they did was take the existing sound barriers down. I don't know why that's one of the first things they did, where it used to be, where it's going to be now the berm in the sound barrier is probably this far from the back of my fence and it's going across. I've heard that it's going to be, there's going to be hangers and FedEx and UPS are going to have their, that's where they're going to do their business now right behind us. And so I think for the people who say, yeah, I want to burn or the the sound barrier. They think if we don't have any rights already and we're gonna smell the carousine like we do already and the planes are larger and they're louder. So I think that some people are saying that they do want to burn because that's the that's one thing maybe that could help a little bit. But I think that the airport is taken enough and I think that we need more housing and we're just taking neighborhoods at a time. The airport is and I see now on post road there building a rose and rose and rose of houses but yet we keep the airport keeps taking houses. Oh, they don't anymore. They just start doing construction in your backyard. And also about the city making sure they get enough money for the roads and all. If this goes in and they start this, whatever they're going to do with FedEx and UPS and the hangers. I, the value of our houses is going to be a quarter of what it is now. So I just, I just think it's too much. I think it's been too much for a long, long time. And I guess the only other answer is to move out of woe work and I think a lot of people feel that way. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is anyone else who would like to speak against this project? Hello, my name is Elizabeth McGovern. As far as the berm goes, I can understand some people on Strowberry Field, because you're looking at a big ugly parking lot and you see the planes and the cars and all that. But along the back of Palace Avenue, coming across Murray Street, you know, you're gonna put this giant burn with a big old fence. These people aren't gonna see the light of day till the late afternoon. The house is going to be dark. It's going to stop the morning light from coming in. And as you can see, it's really not going to stop the noise. I made the mistake of leaving my window open last night and Plains woke me up this morning. And there's a berm out there on the runway already. This is very traumatic for the people who live in the area. And like this woman said, killing everybody's property value, how do you sell a house when someone comes in? I guess you can only show it the late afternoon because it's going to be dark of the health. No one wants to live in a cave. How do you grow anything in your backyard when there's no white? It's just, it's a shame. It's a shame and as far as the noise, it's not gonna do a thing for the noise. The ones they had didn't really do much for the noise. I often wonder if anyone ever checks the air quality in the area because, you know, those Italian jets that were in the other day were very nice and it was a great little show. But if you lived on Murray Street and you had to grandchildren in the art, you were getting poisoned by the exhaust and it happens a lot. There are times you cannot go out in your yard. You can't open a window because you're letting that toxic fume in your house. You know, maybe when they did this whole thing, they should have gave it a whole much more thought to the people who are living there. Are we being poisoned every day in our homes? You know, with people gross stuff in the yard, is it really toxic? Because all this crap from these planes is falling on it, coding everything? I guess no one cares about that, people's health. Is there any kind of air quality control for that area? Anyone? Ma'am, that's not before us at this time. Well, I'm just throwing it out there. I wanted to be heard. Thank you. That's it. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this project at this time? Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this project at this time? Is there anyone who would like to speak against this project at this time? Is there anyone who would like to seek against this project at this time? Is there anyone who would like to be heard on this project at this time? Can you talk? Sir, you already spoke Make this very good. Excuse me. Is there any I want to give the opportunity for any individual who hasn't had a chance to speak yet? Is there anybody who would like to be heard at this time? Go ahead Good evening Mr. President members of the council Michael or civil city solicitor I just wanted to put on the record I'm not sure if you can see that there's any missing Mr. President and members of the council, Michael or the City solicitor. I just wanted to put on the record a few items in response to some of the statements that were made this evening that I think might clarify for the city council on the various topics that were mentioned. To begin with, the memory end of understanding between the city and riot that was negotiated by the mayor. I had a pot in creating that document. Does indeed obligate riot to construct what we refer to in that agreement, a noise wall, in other words, a burn. I want you to know that they were not obligated to do that, going forward with the South Coggle Facility Project, but it is something that based upon the concerns that were raised by the constituents in Mr. Howes Award, as well as the Mayors' feelings, et cetera. The airport corporation did agree to do that. It is in the MOU. Number two, with regard to notice to the State of Rhode Island, that was indeed accomplished. It was accomplished by the city as a matter of fact the chief of staff personally hand delivered Notice the state representative now as attorney Morgan reference at the beginning of the hearing that wasn't Technically necessary because of the mass the least agreement between the State of Rhode Island and Raya. However, as an abundance of caution, I advise that personal notice be made upon the appropriate state official. So that was a fact accomplished. Finally, I just want to put on the record that, as I'm sure you're all well, aware, you're proceeding here, pursuant to an abandonment petition that was brought to you by Raya under state law of 2461 and this city ordinance 1-13. A process is laid out about how to go about doing that. That process is very different from a situation in which the city puts out to bid the sale of property that may be owned by the city, such as former school property, et cetera. That is all controlled by a different ordinance, 2-19. That is the ordinance that talks about the fact that when the city sells property to an individual, it has the right to put on D restrictions, et cetera, et cetera. That's a whole different process. This is not a case where the city put out a bid to sell its land. This is an abandoned process whereby the city is entitled to its fair market value, if in fact you all decide to abandon the property, but it's under a whole different set of ordinances and statutes. So thank you for allowing me to clarify the record with the God to those items. Thank you, Mr. O'Sullough. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this topic at this time? Is there anyone like to be heard on this topic at this time? Is there anyone like to be heard of this topic at this time? Okay. Is anyone like to be heard of this topic at this time? Okay Hearing none do I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'd like to propose close public hearing I guess about one decibel is the slightest excuse me sir Here can hear four decibels in meaningless meanings sir, so what needs to be done about the Burmese Measure to ocean standards protect the hearingmese, the police should be measured to ocean standards to protect the hearing of this community. I'm done. Safety of the community. Motion closed public hearing has been made by Councilman Howe. It's been second by Councilman Fully. We are now all those in favor say I. I. Thank you. So now we are back to the full council. Are there any members of the council that haven't had an opportunity to speak? Would like to make any comments at this time. That's for Travis. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I've been on the council for a long time and I've had my share of fights with Riyak arguing about air quality traffic noise pollution the fact that houses would take it off the tax roll I had my share of arguments with the Riyak and all we wanted basically was them to be a good neighbor and helped the you know citizens of Walwick. I want to personally thank Tim how for breaking the ice because a lot of people sat in that seat and never got through to them and he has worked hard to work and become at least working with the riot, because for some reason, I don't know, I think they never wanted to work with anybody on the council or the city, but Tim made an effort and he worked hard at it and he's got the cooperation. Pete, I've been hearing Ward three complain about the noise and that they wanted a burn for a long, long time. And he fought for those people. Now, unfortunately, Tim, where are they? Why ain't they here saying that they want the burn? Because they got the people here that say they don't want it. That's the sad part on your behalf because you work hard for it and I feel bad for it because if they wanted it so bad they should be here but I think I want to thank you personally I think you work hard. I know a lot of council people that sat in that seat that tried to work with Royak they just couldn't and I know it. I argued with them so many times. I said, leave it to the ward three. So thanks. Thank you. Any other council members? Councilman Howell. Thank you, Mr. President. So thank you, Councilwoman Travis. And I appreciate once again, you bring it back to the to the neighborhood to answer your question. It's one of those things where we had numerous meetings. Please understand the Ward 3 residents went to the planning board and to go back what you said that the the ice was broken. I have to compliment the RIAC team. I have said on numerous occasions, John Goodman is my point of contact, but I meet with all these people. And if there's one thing that's been at home is we want to be good neighbors. And I want to also reiterate what the solicitors said and what the chief of staff said. they were not required by FAA to build this berm. This was something that they offered to do in the good nature of, okay, let's mean what we say. So please understand the Ward three residents have been participating. They have been going to the meetings. They sacrifice a lot of time as a matter of fact, one of the speakers, Brian Napa has a list and I have it. Unfortunately, he had an unfortunate event in this family and he had to go, but he sent me the picture over the signatures of the neighbors in support of this firm. And I'm going to use this time, Mr. President, to plead with my colleagues, or basically reach out to my colleagues and say, you know, and I can call up the Riyak representation right now. The cargo facility, and I know that that's not part of what we are speaking of. That is happening. People are tired of the growth of the airport. I get it. The neighbors are tired of the growth of the airport. I get it. The neighbors are tired of the noise, the smell. I get it. But ladies and gentlemen, the cargo facility, the reason why we requested this berm is because it is happening on Riyak property. And in the past, the city and Riyak were seen as two separate entities as they are. We are trying to work together, keep in mind the residents. So I heard neighbors speak of the frustration of the noise, the frustration of the smell, the frustration of the fumes. I understand that. I am a butter to the airport as well in my personal home, and I've been there for 22 years. The berm and the abatement of these streets, if this abatement doesn't go through, and again, and I'm appealing to my colleagues Riyak basically said okay will build firm as agreed upon but we'll just leave gaps where the spree's are and therefore still doesn't mean that you'll be able to you'll have a berm and they'll still be gaps. We are doing, I as a council person, the city, the mayor, the administration, the Rhode Island Airport Corporation, we are trying to do something, understanding what the challenges are. We cannot stop the airport from being an airport. We cannot stop the facility from being a facility. We cannot stop business from being business. We are two separate entities, the City of Warwick and Riyak. What this does is it's something. So I, to hear, I'm going to say this very genuinely, to hear people speak against the burn that are not from the neighborhood. And I'm talking about speaking openly against the burn that are not by saying it's only one or four decimals. I think of that. To that neighborhood, it's something. We are trying something. We are attempting to do something. So I think people would just be happy to say I win if this fails if these Abatements fail they would feel so impact themselves on the back good you know Is it for the neighbors? No because we're trying to do something We're trying to be proactive as an airport rose and becomes an economic growth in the state in that neighborhood and that strawberry field west neighborhood it's something is it perfect I never said it was perfect it's something the airport is gonna grow the airport is gonna compete grow. The airport is going to compete internationally. They're already an international airport. The jets are going to land. The jets are going to take off. The engines are going to run. The trucks are going to run. The cargo facility is going to operate. What next? Do we just sit there and go, oh well, or do a few people who basically you know, basically complaining about whether what decimals it is, it's something. And I just want to say I am asking my colleagues after years of work, I'm asking my colleagues the police look at it that way. These abatements we had someone brought in who has over 50 years of experience in doing abatements and understands the law. The city agreed upon it, Rayaca agreed upon it, representing during the planning process all the way through the planning department represented the city well and the citizens showed up. This is something that is my job to do something for the safety and security of my citizens that I represent in Ward 3 and it's something. Now if we do not approve this, I'm not exaggerating. It'll be a berm, a gap, a berm, a gap, a berm gap. And then the city is still responsible for the roads and the plowing and the maintenance and that's a waste of money because we can't develop there. So again, this is part of the this is part of the plan. I can't stress it enough. I it's something and for the first time councilwoman Travis, I thank you so much for the first time. We were able to sit down with Ryak and and say can we do this and Ryak agreed? So I thank you for that, but Thank you, Mr. President. I have nothing more said Councilman, did you want to make a motion? We get a second and then I can continue discussion you wanted to make a motion Make a motion. I apologize. Yeah, if you would like to make a motion, you could do that at this time. We could get a second and continue discussion. Oh, okay. I make a motion to continue discussion with the council. Do you have a motion like favourable action? Oh, I have. So I please respectfully make a motion for favourable action on this. Second by Councilman Foley and Councilman McElroy and Councilwoman Travis. Okay, so discussion continues. We have a motion for favourable, it's been second, so discussion continues. Councilman Ladison. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I'll reiterate my opening comments and recognizing Chairman Hall's efforts on this and not to take away anything of those efforts or his good intentions and his dedication to his constituents. We've heard a lot of conversation this evening about the berm. We've heard from the airport corporation how they're so willing to do this berm and the effectiveness of it and the necessity of it. And actually kind of saying, you know, we're going to do this because we think it's the right thing to do. So my question to the airport corporation and through the chair is that permissible, my question to the airport corporation, given the fact that you folks are on the record about saying the main purpose of being here with this road abandonment is to do the berm. It's the main focus. Councilman Rick's asked some excellent questions. And I certainly concur with his concerns. So being your main concern is this berm and to provide relief to those residents along the city of Wark that would allow you to have an easement over the roads that you want to install the berm. That's it. No abandonment of over the roads that you want to install the berm. That's it. No abandonment of any other roads because you don't have any plans on building and bringing in cargo and whatever else. So your intent is appreciated that is to provide a berm that Councilman Howe has worked so diligently on for a very long time. Would you be willing to enter into a memo with the City of Warwick to build the berm if we provide you an easement just in that area? Does anyone want to answer that, or should I draw my own conclusion? Right, I could if you like to again, before us is what you have proposed. So, you can get back to the Councilman on that as well. If you'd like additional time. Because the city can certainly provide an easement. We do it all the time. The other question Mr. President that I have and I'm not sure if it be for Director Cravitz or the Chief of Staff or Director DePuis. At the last meeting there was a lot of conversation and serious request that the city conduct its own appraisal of that property. How does the city conduct its own appraisal of the property? By a license of appraisal, let me preface it with that. No, Councilman, the city did not conduct his own appraisal. Neil depraved the city taxes as a certified real estate appraiser. Looked over the appraisal of Mr. Scotty and concurred in his findings. If you want to ask, Neil, directly you can. No, I believe you. I have no reason to to doubt what you're saying. But I certainly would question why we didn't hire an outside, disconnected person to give us an independent appraisal. So not speaking for anyone else, but Mr. Scotty has had over 50 years experience. He's done work for the city. He's worked with Neil. Neil knows his work and the city knows his work. And that's why Neil reviewed his is appraising. So thank you chief. So I guess I'll ask for the answer from the if walk cooperation. the Council. Thank you, Councilman. To respond to your question, I mean the answer at this point would be no as we are here, again, with our petition for abandonment and that is our intention in front of the Council. in front of the council. So thank you for that. And now it's crystal clear to me that the main intention here is not to only do a berm. So we know about, or at least I know about berms, I know about sound barriers. And I think that if this were strictly about the berm, then Ryak would have agreed to do the berm. But to me, it seems as though there's a lot more down the road, and this is just another land grab by the airport corporation has been going on for years. So again, my compliments and all of his efforts. The berm is not the issue for me. It's not the issue. It's far greater than that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the council? Councilman Foley the appropriate to call the question, please. I Like to call the question. Yep. Is there a second to that? Second by councilman Howell. Okay, so this has been moved favourable and it has been second So the clerk will call the roll for favour favorable action on PCO 8-24. Yes. This is holding. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Excuse me. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Six yes to know for first passage. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. We still have some other business to attend here at the council. The synagogues for you are all set. So thank you very much. And thank you to all the residents who came out and spoke at this and the representatives from Riyak in the administration. Next up on the agenda is PCR 77-24 committee report finance. I believe that was favorable action. Yes sir, favourable action. Second by Councilman Foley. Any questions or comments that would not ask earlier this evening committee? Hearing none the clinical call to roll for favourable action. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes, as motion passes. Number three this evening is PCR 81-24 resolution relative to issuing requests for proposals for community projects, community report finance. Favorable action. For action, we have a second to that recommendation, second by Councilman Foley. Any questions or comments that were not asked earlier this evening in committee? Hearing none, the clerk will call the roll for favoral action. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you, motion passes. We're now moving to new business. There is none. So we're on to unanimous consent. First up is PCO2-24 in order of abandonment of portions of West Pontiac Street and Pontiac Street, the city of Warwick, the petitioners. This is for second passage. Councilman Sinapi is not here today. Councilman Macaroi. Move favourable action, Mr. President. Second by Councilman Haal and Councilman Ricks and Councilwoman Travis and Councilman Latissa. Any discussion on this? PCO2-24. We had a public hearing on this at the last meeting This was not heard earlier this evening in committee So I want to offer the public is there anyone that would like to speak on PCO 2-24 At this time Okay hearing none the click will call favourable action for second passage. Yes. Mr. Hau. Yes. Mr. Ladasa. Yes. Mr. McElroy. Yes. Mr. Riggs. Yes. Mr. Travis. Yes. Thank you. Second passage. Ward one. Anything to docket this evening under unanimous consent. Ward two. Thank you. Second passage. Ward one, anything to docket this evening under unanimous consent. Ward two, pass. Ward three, pass. Ward four, pass. Ward five, Ward six, pass. Ward seven passes, Ward nine, pass. Councilwoman Travis. If there be no business of this honor of money and move to a docket session. All those in favor to move in docket session say aye aye aye aye any opposed. We are now in the docket session. I have one item to docket. It is the resolution neighborhood opera projects. What is finance neighborhood opera projects. Ward one anything to docket this evening. Ward two. the finance. Needlehood Opera projects. Ward one, anything to docket this evening? Ward two. Pass. Ward three. Pass, thank you. Ward four. Pass. Ward five. Ward six. Ward nine. All right. Thank you very much. We are adjourned.