Good evening, Council President and Council, Miss Schell, Comar, award one resident. And I have a few questions, probably about five topics. And I'm probably going to echo a little bit from Councilman Rick's and Councilman Lanniser and Getpart so far. I'll try not to repeat but have some new information. This soundbirm is not an independent project. Probably wouldn't be constructed without the freight cargo facility. Who's the proponent of the freight cargo facility? It's two private companies, FedEx and UPS. And they're the main funding sources for the cargo facility. FAA is funding a small portion of the project, and that's just the aprons for the airplane to approach the cargo facility. And I didn't make this information up, I've attended Ryax workshops. So I just wanted to know if anybody from UPS or FedEx who is the proponent of the and the funding source for the cargo facility is here tonight to explain why they need the cargo facility and therefore why this sound berm is needed. Anyone from those two. We're just here to talk about the abandonment. That's that's only thing that's before us this evening is the abandonment of the I view of four or against the city abandoning in this property. Thank you council I did try to my best to tie them in. I want to ask if there's an expert willing to testify from Riyak one of their consultants about the effectiveness of the sound berm. Is it going to work I heard a little bit from the project manager that said it's gonna reduce the noise I need to know by how much how effective is this sound berm going to be What I don't want to see happen is another riot land grab I'll just call grab because I don't know, better term right now. But we've seen the airport expand to gain more real estate. So I'm asking if there is an expert willing to testify to the effectiveness of this sound verb. Mrs. Comar, I'm not an expert of what you're requesting, but I would like to make a general comment, but I don't want to interrupt your time. May I make the comment? Sure. Thank you. Council President and my colleagues, the property and this is just for clarification. The property that is being discussed, the airport owner owns it, the roads are within the property the airport owns. So the airport, as the Councilman Rick's identified as strips of land, that's what we're speaking about the abatement of that road tonight. The, the, you're looking for Mrs. Comar, you're looking for information on the berm. The berm was something that we talked about before this project even came up. As you heard, the testimony from the Ryak representative, this is something that Ryak is building whatever they build on their property. Before they even announced or before they got into the depth of this cargo facility, I would stand on Ward 3 resident's properties on their porches and go speak to them while jets were idling, the air would blow jet fumes in my face in the summer, in the fall, in the winter, they would constantly say in the fall, they would leave their windows closed because sometimes the jet fumes were too much. So one of the things that I came up with, well one of the things that was discussed with Riyak, I won't say that I was, we, how about a berm, how about a barrier and where that idea came from Mr. President was if, and Mrs. Colmar, if you drive down Route 90 on, in Massachusetts, they have those barriers across the side of the highway. That was a desperation, at the time, a desperation call. Can we do something? Yes, there's noise. Yes, but it was something to deflect the fuel fumes, something to deflect the activity of a growing airport that just became an international airport. So this is what this abandonment is about. And that's where the idea of the wall came the city. So this is what this abandonment is about. And that's where the idea of the wall came or the idea of the barrier came from. And it was something that upon agreement between the city and Riyak, Riyak was not required to do, but agreed to do at the request of myself in the city. And I hope that clarifies and kind of makes things clear for everybody. Thank you. Well, I gladly let you interrupt me, Councilman, but I don't debate what you said about fumes, but this sound barrier has never been promoted by Rye Act to improve or help with air quality issues. It's sound. And I'm just asking, is there someone that can give expert testimony how successful this sound berm is gonna be? Again, before us is just the abandonment of these streets. It is not the sound barrier. That is not what we are voting on this evening. It is just the abandonment of these streets. Thank you, Councilman. Well, for every project I've heard about an abandonment, there's reposal that goes with law chapter 24-6-1. It's entitled highways, abandonment by towns. I think my comment, my question, has relevance here. There's no testimony to how effective this sound berm is going to be. I just want to bring the council's attention to what I will general law chapter 24-6-1. It's entitled Highways Abandonment by Towns and the first section of reading is Order of Abandonment and how I read it and I won't go work for word because the council can ask the solicitor for his opinion is that the use of the abandoned railway has to be gone. It's no use to the public. I think the council approved a driftway for the warehouse project. It was an old cow path. Well, that had no use for the public because the public didn't use it anymore. But the public does use this area to walk their dogs, to just walk and be outside. This is their home. It may not be where we want to live, but it's where they live and where they want to live. So I ask if the Council's voting on something that hasn't been proven Because this provision is whenever by the judgment of the town council or any town a highway or driftway in the town Or any part of either has ceased to be useful to the public The town council of the town is authorized to so declare it by an order or decree that shall be final and conclusive, and I won't keep going. So to me, you have to show that there's no public use at all. And that's not true in this case. And if any of the council want to ask for a legal opinion, I welcome it because I'm not an attorney. But I have read this law and it makes sense to me. We're not here to do a benefit project for a cargo facility. You have to show there's no public use left. And that this project fails to do that. And that is 24-6-1 of our dialogue general laws. So we know riots has been looking for money. UPS and FedEx are funding the cargo facility, FAA, the little apron for the approach of airplanes to the building. How is Royek going to fund the berm? What is the funding source? How much money is it going to cost to be constructed? And what is the timeline? And what's required here that the city, the mayor was pursuing was a petition so that there was a roadway system that would be built to mitigate truck traffic to keep it off a post road and Jeff's symbol of art. And need to know what that cost is. We wanna make sure this is a viable project that's actually going to be constructed and not just a land grab. So if the council does seek to approve this project, I suggest some conditional approvals. That the cargo facility is constructed and operational. The berm is constructed and significantly reduces sound. The mitigating row way be constructed so that truck traffic cannot use post-road or Jeff's in Boulevard and instead must use the airport connector road. Now the mayor was pursuing a memorandum of understanding or agreement that seemed to flutter out. He had a petition. He dropped that without announcing anything to the public. But these were his concerns about truck traffic on local roads, post road in Jefferson Boulevard. And we want to make sure that that roadway that they are proposing to mitigate that, which is a rotary system. Canvy is feasible, engineering feasible to be constructed, and Raya cast the funds. So I don't know what you want in your conditional approval, but I think steps one, two, and three of the conditions be constructed within five years. I don't know how many years would expect to need to finish constructing the cargo facility, the berm, with a sound mitigation improvements and the mitigating roadway system to direct truck traffic to airport connector road. So I'm not hearing a lot of answers here. But I like to know if my suggestions that I'm asking for a conditional approval, how long would it take to complete these three projects? And we can get you that information. I don't think they're prepared to answer the timing for those three questions right off the bat. This is the first they're seeing it. I think they probably addressed it in their environmental assessment and their engineering cost estimates. What is the funding source? Do they have the money for construction of the sound boom and the mitigating roadway system? Again, do they have the money to purchase these roads? Is the question? And they're not in, yes, they do have the money to purchase these roads, which is before us as a statement. And how about the project that is going on the roads the sound room again just before I I'm sorry to keep repeating myself But we are just here to talk about the road abandonments not the whole project itself. It's not the berm. It's not the individual Items it is just the abandonment of these roads I think it has to be associated with the use and that's what we brought up at the planning board meeting. I think it has to be associated with the use and that's what we brought up at the planning board meeting. And the planning board actually said this is necessary because of the cargo facility. You have one minute, Ms. Cloma. Thank you. So I'm very uncomfortable approving this project with these unknowns. I think those three conditions with deadlines for construction need to be in place to approve this project with these unknowns. I think those three conditions with deadlines for construction need to be in place to approve this project. The appraisal is low. And I think we have the city council needs to look at if all public usefulness to the property is gone. And that's not true. So we'd be in violation or the council would be in violation of General law 24-6-1 if you approve the project tonight. I Think I've just about covered everything. I think a Lot of public input went into the planning board to make sure plans were correct and There wasn't a taking of private property, which one plan set showed. I believe the owners here tonight, I don't know if he's speaking. And that was corrected. So. Thank you very much, your time has expired. Is there anyone else that would like to speak against this project? Please identify yourself for the record. I don't know if you know that I'm going to say that I don't know if you know that I'm going to say that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I don't know if you know that I number of concerns and so did this nice lady. That don't think we have enough information as to whether or not that it should be abandoned. Because I think the question that she brought out is it just going to be abandoned or are we going to ignore what's going to be done for the benefit of the city and we citizens. So what I'm baking you to do is to put this on hold and get the proper information that we all need. Such as $2.00 a sum of cents a square foot for land around here. I think is an absolute insult. As you come from and brought up, it's not what it can, what it's is being used for. It's what it's highest best use. That's never been brought up. Are the sound barriers going to be efficacious for what they're going to be built for? Nobody can answer that question. There's so many unanswered questions that no one has the information to be able or should not approve this. They should put it on hold. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak against this project. Go ahead, Mr. Blum. There'll be another opportunity as well. Well, I live on the strawberry field road, I don't like the last house on strawberry. Oh, courtees. Courtees. Thank you guys for speaking right into the mic. It's very difficult to hear in here. Thank you, sir. I have a map here and it seems to show where the road will actually end. I don't like to speak to the heart because, yeah, that picture there. And I just wanna know, I just wanna know if it's the, is that's what we're gonna be left with after these roads maybe taking or whatnot, if this is gonna be be true, can you just repeat the question? I'm sorry. I did. This is going to be the area where the roads is going to be taken. They have some lines across the road that existed at different points. And if those are the points that will only have access to I'd like to know that's the case. Sure. Can you show them the map that you presented earlier? Yeah. So get a better look. And then it's a place in the field. I got it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Sure. The road's going to add right here. See your properties right here. So we got to go on the record. Yep. We're just changing the mic out. I understand. It seems so okay here. I'd like to ask the lady something else. Sure can we just get the answer to the question you made on the record? So the road will end a portion of strawberry field and a portion of field view drive. The only thing I want is... You know, back here, and I see where... I see the construction and everything. Looks fine because it seems like the berm is going to... the berm is going to be over. It comes across the back. And you almost... you leave quite a bit of land behind my place there. And that seems like you're going to be leaving all the way down somewhere behind. But wouldn't these people need a chance to get out somewhere through or behind the open area, that various space that you allow. Right. Well, we're proposing we're proposing to build the barrier and the wall on airport property. So if they're near that wall, they're they're technically on airport property. So there's. Well, I can see the barrier. So we got it. I'm sorry. We have that everything on the right. I almost where you're going to put the fence up because they see the markets down. So I can see the barrier and I can see the fence and leaving certain different. Well, you have it figured out on you land. Yeah. But, but I see where I'm going to write. Well, anybody have access to that land to go back with it? Or anything like that? if they want to walk? Well, the land surrounding these roads that we're requesting to be abandoned are all Ryeac owned property. It's all Ryeac owned. So right now, the old. I have to get back to the old. The good back of the countries and stuff like that. Overgrown. Again, sir, we need you on the microphone. We can't have private conversations in the public area. I have to get back there sometime to get rid of some trees. I don't want to grow and it's growing through my fence. My property, I want to clear up. I need access to get around to the back of my property. If no one lives there, I don't know how you could have cut that thing. So I don't know, we'll see. Maybe we can get your contact information and we can talk to the airport cooperation about your particular situation. I just want to leave it all at that point. Yes, everything's fine. I have no objection at a project. I just want to leave it all I can find. Yes, everything's fine. I have no objection at a project. I just want to like that. Sure. Yeah. So that would be my recommendation if that's all right with you, sir. We get your contact information. We connect you with the airport and you're going to have a one-on-one meeting to discuss your individual situation with exactly what your property is and the effect. I think that might be. Yeah, right. the property is and the effect. I think that might be. That's that would be better. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak against the project? My name is Richard Langseth, L-A-N-G-S-C-T-H, a long farm road in Warwick. I am just absolutely amazed at what just happened. I think it's the duty of the airport corporation to fund council for Mr. Teats so that he can appropriately address this body. He has significant problems with this. He's not a train lawyer. He needs representation. Always before the court, when a person comes up, the Constitution asks that he be represented competently. He needs competent representation here. It's obvious. And I urge the Council to delay this so that Mr. Teets can present himself with appropriate counsel. I'm just amazed. I had no idea this was going to come up. I have a whole prepared body of stuff I'm going to talk about today, but I just want to impress upon you folks that this is really important to Mr. Teats. His street is being abandoned just after his property ends. And if the street were abandoned in his property, he would gain half of the property, and he would have a buildable lot. What's going on now is there a banding the street just after the end of his property, which is not a buildable lot. Only 2,500 square feet. Under the new carcay bill, he has a buildable lot if that street were to be abandoned. I strongly ask that that riac fund council for him so that he can be appropriately represented before this body. Now getting off on the other things, one of the big questions was, will the berm work? We really know the answer to this because there is an existing berm built about 25 years ago and if you look at the news of the time when that existing berm was being built, or just after it was being built, it was said, and everybody knew it did not work. So why would this new berm work when the old one didn't? In fact, they're tearing down on the old berm to put up the new berm. Now, the other problem with the berm is it goes the wrong direction. The theory is that this berm will reduce the noise from the freight terminal, right? However, the berm goes 90 degrees angle to the freight terminal. It's gonna do nothing to reduce the noise for the freight terminal. And Mr. Latiser brings up a great point and Mr. Gebhart started it with the appraisal. This berm is being built so that the airport can build an industrial facility behind it. It's the only reason for the berm. It doesn't do anything for the freight terminal. It is truly a land grab so that the RIAC can build an industrial facility behind it. So it's entirely relevant to ask the question. When it comes to the appraisal, the duty is for the planning director to receive the petition for the abandonment and then hire an appraiser. This did not happen. What happened was, Rye Act presented a check for $409,000 to purchase the road. The city has the money. Rye Act thinks that it's buying the road already before we had the hearing. This is entirely inappropriate, right? But what's more inappropriate is, Reactor did not pay the planning department the money so that the planning department could do a proper appraisal. Reactor the appraisal on their own. The ordinance requires the planning department to order up the appraisal and react to pay for it. Now when we get to the appraisal this is a really interesting question and it's one that's been vexing me for a long time. The entire property is 20 acres. These streets are embedded in the property. Yes, the streets of three acres plus or so. The value of the streets is the value of the whole property. It's just not the value of the streets, but it's the value over the industrial facility. Now what happened was the representative from Riyak said this is vacant land and we can go back to the tape and we'll see that. This is not vacant land. This is an industrial facility built in a residential area for which Riyak is asking the city to sell for $2 a foot. It's worth far more than that. And I would urge the council to not pass on this item tonight, but to request that the planning director have an appropriate appraisal done following the ordinance, not just cooked up thing that rioted for which it passed the check to the city. That's really quite inappropriate. Now we'll get to the meat of what I need to say. The petition is invalid. The petition does not include Sturbury Field Road. Everybody keeps saying this is a Sturbury Field Road petition. However, Sturbury Field Road is not in the petition. It's a flaw. It's a flaw in the petition. City Council can't move forward with abandoning strawberry field road when riot has not petitioned for it Riot has to come back with an appropriate petition that says strawberry field road. This one just doesn't do that That's another reason for delaying and finding out what's really happening. In addition to Mr. Teets' problem, which is real, we also have a problem that that Riyak has not presented the proper petition. Now, it goes one step further. When Mr. Goodman stood up and presented, he said, I represent Riyak. Mr. Goodman cannot, he's not allowed to represent Riyak. He's not a member of the bar. He's exercising the corporate practice of law without being a member of the bar. That's another reason why the City Council needs the delay and request that Riaq bring in council or a member of the Rhode Island bar rather than some employee who has no authority to do this kind of thing. Where's the Riyak executives? Where's the president of Riyak? Remember in the old days, Mr. Dylan used to come, president of Riyak? Any other answer questions? He was a person of authority. He knows the answers. We really need to have the corporate executive of Riyak before the City Council. Not a staffer. I really think that that's another good reason why the City Council needs to delay this until Riyak can bring in their corporate executive who can speak on behalf of them for the future what the real plan is. The real plan by the way is to build corporate hangers and all that other kind of stuff. You have one minute Mr. Langseth. I'm sorry this is a public hearing this is not a city council presentation. I asked I asked a solicitor I asked the solicitor for his opinion about when you're having a public hearing, people are being cut off. I have a lot more things to say and I really think that this is entirely inappropriate for the city to attempt to cut off during a public hearing. If you can't agree to that, then the city council should agree that I can speak longer. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. recommendation. Sir, you can't ask the solicitor for anything. The solicitor works for the city council. At this time, you still have 10 seconds left. Okay. I am going to ask the city council to ask to extend my comments. They're very, very important. Mr. President, I'm not ready. I will take a motion to give you two more minutes. If there's any objection to hearing to giving this individual two more minutes, we understand his position. Again, we are just talking about the abandonment of these roads. I believe he's already had 10 minutes of time here. I'm happy to give him additional time, but this is not something we already understand his position on this and that's what the public hearing is part of is there any objection to giving this individual to two more minutes I object Mr. President I have not an analogy I have not okay so I just made a motion it had to be unanimous it was it was not unanimous okay Mr. President I'm not ready to announce you yet is not unanimous. Okay. Councilman, I'm not ready to acknowledge you yet. So solicitor, you said a vote on the motion that I made is a majority vote. So I should the clerk can call the roll. For rule 20, skipping to the middle under rule 20, it talks about no citizens or marks make seed 10 minutes. However, the 10 minute limitation may the committee. The committee is skipping to the middle under rule 20. It talks about no citizens or marks make seed. Ten minutes, however, the 10 minute limitation may be waived by majority voice vote. And so it would be a majority vote. Okay, so at this time, I've made a motion to give this individual an additional two minutes. All those in favor say aye. Mr. President, I thought he just said we need a second on that. He said a motion and a second and then discussion. Okay. Thank you. It's there a second to my motion. Second by Councilman Rex. All those in favor. Discussion. Mr. President. Councilman Ladders are on the amendment only. Go ahead. I would like to hear the opinions from the legal counsel to the question that Mr. Langs asked. He asked the question, does that 10 minute rule apply in a public meeting? I would like to have the legal expert answer that question. Whatever the answer is, I like to hear it. So, solicitor Wells, again, what I pointed out was only a council member can ask the solicitor. You just asked, so we're going to get the question. Councilman Ladisayers raised a call on a point of order to defer on the procedural determination rule 20 of the city council speaks in its entirety. Any citizen of the city of Warwick may be heard on any document of resolution or ordinance prior to passage by the city council by appearing before the committee at which the pose ordinance resolution has been referred for hearing before the council and an item is referred for public hearing comment or considered under the name of his consent or otherwise upon the favorable majority of the vote of the city council is compliant with the open meeting exact. I would like to ask you to ask the public hearing comment or considered under the unanimous consent or otherwise upon the favorable majority of the vote of the city council is compliant with the Open Meeting Act. I will repeat the considered under unanimous consent or otherwise upon the favorable majority vote of the city council as compliant with the Open Meeting Act. So we are just from a standpoint of where are we, we are in a public hearing. So he's an eligible, the rules further continue. No citizens remarks on any item may exceed 10 minutes. However, the 10 minute limitation may be waived by a majority voice vote. This time limitation shall not apply to any individual entity or designate that are unspecifically invited to appear and speak on a properly noticed topic. So the 10 minute rule is in effect. The per the rule the council president has made a motion. It's been seconded by councilman Ricks to extend Mr. Lancex remarks by two minutes. And so that's on the point of parliamentary clarification. So back to any discussion on the motion. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Mr. Speaker. Discussion on the motion, Councilman Haal. Thank you, Mr. President. I am urging my colleagues to vote against it. First of all, Mr. Langsleth used a majority of his time to speak on behalf of a citizen who already, or speak his own opinion of what award three resident might have to say when the award three resident already acknowledged that he will speak to the Riyak representative. Number two, we are not abandoning. He used a majority of his time to talk about how we're abandoning or requesting the abandonment of strawberry field. We're not. My final and most important part is that this is a Ward 1 resident, this is a Ward 3 community issue, this is a abatement of Ward 3 neighborhood, so the airport affects the entire city, but this discussion of this abatement is related to- Thank you, Council. We got to stay just on that, the motion. I'm sorry, what? That's why I'm asking that I think he's used this time ineffective and it's 10 minutes or over. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on the motion? Council in Ladisaw. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. So once again, we just spent about 10 minutes or more, just kind of debating about whether to let a member of the public speak. When we've gone over this time and time again, it would have been a lot easier to let them speak and a lot less confrontational. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on the motion? Okay. Any additional questions? Okay. The clerk will call the roll. Favorial actions to give this individual an additional two minutes. Mr. McHallister? Yes. Mr. Foley? Yes. Mr. Getpaw? Yes. Mr. Howell? No. Mr. Latissa? Yes. Mr. McHallroy? Yes. Mr. Sirix? Yes. Mr. Sennapi? Mr.a? Yes. Mr. McElroy? Yes. Mr. Rick? Yes. Mr. Sennapi? Mr. Travis? Yes. Yes, one, no. Two minutes to Mr. Lansop. Thank you. Two minutes to Mr. Lansop. This is a statutory hearing. This is a hearing required by the General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island to let the people speak on whether the road is to be used by the public still or abandoned. This is not an internal city of war-wearing. I can't believe that I am going into down the same road that Mr. Cody went down. We have a constitutional right to free speech in this country. For the City Council to go against the legislature who demands a public hearing on this matter is a porid to the public interest and I can assure you that if I'm not granted the amount of time required so that you can be thoroughly briefed on all the things going on with the airport, it will go much further than any of us want it to go. I have been refused to access to the green cards. I don't know if the airport has paid for the public notices. I am before the attorney general right now on the green cards. I can't see the green cards. This is just going way too far and I don't I just can't possibly believe that I'm being put in this position. I am J. Seconds. I still angsteth. I will continue talking until they take me away. This is totally totally inappropriate. Thank you. Thank it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. We have to do it. My name is Elizabeth McGovern and I live on Murray Street. And as far as the noise and the fumes, the berm they have now doesn't work. There are times if I walk out in my backyard, I have to turn around and go right back in because of the smell There are times I can't talk to someone right in front of me because of the noise So I don't see building another berm with another wall You know air moves air flows all around it comes up from the bay You know, it's and everybody who lives in that area along that road is subject to that all the time, all the time. So I mean if they're not utilizing that area right next to my house to have this big ugly wall put up there. That's really not going to do a thing besides maybe lower everybody's property value. I don't know. That's my two sets. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak against this project? Is there anyone else here that would like to speak against this project? Is there anyone else here that would like to speak against this project? Is there anyone else here that would like to speak against this project? Is there anyone here that would like to be heard on this project? Is there anyone here that would like to be heard on this project? Is there anyone here that would like to be heard on this project? Yep, go ahead, sir. John, similar to Ward 6, it's okay if I speak on this, right? I'm not in Ward 3. Can I speak on this? Yes, sir? Oh, thank you. Thank you. Welcome to America. My opinion on this is, from what started off the conversation with Councilman Howe was that he was selling this approval on the abatement of these roads in this property owned by the airport based on the fact that this world was going to be built at his request. So that would make it more palatable to the rest of the council to approve this process. $409,000 for this piece of abatement of roads. I would like to know, and I think Mr. Laddersour brought it up, and Mr. Gethot. It appears that they need the roads to tie in all of the puzzles of land the lots that are import already owns, but there's roads that dissect it. They need those roads so they can make it one big puzzle. And for my understanding is so then they can build this facility for FedEx and UPS. How much money is FedEx and UPS making for the ability to use this property in this storage? The appraise the amount that they should be given to the city should not only be based on the amount of land should be given to the city should not only be based on the amount of land that's being incorporated. It should be on how much profit the corporations that are going to get or if you're allowing them to complete the process because apparently without the roads being abated and given to them, this project can't go forward. So like any other negotiation, if Mr. Trouple is here, he'd probably be able to tell you better than me, but you have them by the Cahonis. They can't go and do what they want to do without your approval. So you tell them what you want for the property. They don't tell you what this gentleman said that the airport corporation did the assessment, not the city. So the airports telling the city how much it's worth or stated the city telling the airport how much they want for the property. So it's up to the council to step forward and do the job and force the city to do their job and come up with a number that satisfy you. Not the 409,000 that satisfies the airport. Because that's apparently what's taking place here. And maybe there's some promises of jobs that are going to be given after people leave this council, which is forcing them to push this father and to try to hoodwink the public and the rest of the council members, I don't know. But it seems strange to me that even the president, the selling point of this whole process was the abatement of the land was sold by, we're going to build this beautiful berm in world to protect the public. But then when the public tries to question about the efficacy and the size and shape and everything of this selling point, oh no, we can't talk about that. We're not here to talk about that. We're only here to talk about abating the roads. Well, the road shouldn't be abated without that wall. So one correlates to the other and it should be all part of the same question and process before the City Council. Not we'll talk about that at another time. Is the Council and the public ever going to get it right to talk about this berm and this well being built? Or just the abatement and once we do the abatement, and we say you can have the roads, that's it. See ya, bye. So they should be united together because the main selling point that was proposed by this council member was this big fabulous berm. So let the public question about the berm. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to be heard on this project? Can I apologize? I have to speak this many times at one meeting. What I've heard tonight from this City Council and you and you and your killer. You get to identify yourself from keeping the public from speaking. James is calling on you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm appalled at my Council President and most of my Council people for allowing or disallowing my fellow citizens to speak, especially when this is not a counsel mandated limited discussion, it's a state requirement. It's a constitutional mandate that we the people are free to speak and this has got to be changed my fellow citizens. There's every most of these people are free to speak. And this has got to be changed my fellow citizens. There's every most of these people are up for vote or another committee. So do you have any comments on the actual petition before us? The inability of our city council to allow us to speak and allow our freedom of speech. So I'm going to ask you to please speak on PCO 8-24. Are there any other residents that would like to speak on this project? Are there any other residents that would like to speak on this project? Are there any other residents that would like to speak on this project? Okay, what I'm looking for now is a motion to close the public hearing and come back to the full council which we will give every member of the council an opportunity to speak again. Motion to close public hearing. Second by Councilman Foley, all those favour say aye. Aye. Okay, we are back in the full council meeting. Any questions or comments from members of the council? Councilman Rex. One brief question. Is there an attorney representing the Rhode Island Airport Corporation present this evening? A question. It's for the record. She said no, correct. Consum in Ricks, just for the record. A question to the City Council solicitor. I have not been able to find this provision in the road out in general laws. But it was my understanding that a petitioner coming in front of the city council who is a corporation or other type of entity other than a natural person would have to be represented by an attorney at a public hearing. I'm not 100% certain as to the answer of that, but I believe that that may be required. If you can proceed with other comments, I'll do some research at this moment to double check and confirm. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and required. If you can proceed with other comments I'll do some research at this moment to double check and confirm. Thank you. One other comment for the moment. So I do have some reservations as to the dollar amount on this and when examining the petition and the proposed quip claim deed, I saw that while the petition does clearly state that, in the paragraph entitled first, the petitioner seeks to obtain abandonment of the following portions. I'll skip ahead. The reason for the petition is to obtain property atop which a sound barrier while may be constructed west of its former location to accommodate the South Cargo facility. And it continues. the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, and the city of San Francisco, I don't see anything in that sample quit claim deed that would restrict the road out airport corporation from potentially in the future using the land for a purpose other than a sound barrier. Obviously the intent is for that land to be exclusively used for a sound barrier that is to the exclusion of any other type of building or structure or the like other than I suppose open space. So I do have some reservations. This is something where I personally really I in my role as a city councillor, not simply a personal matter, but I individually in this role would be more comfortable if there were an attorney present for the airport corporation. And just as I know for a certainty that in a court of law, whether it's an LLC or a municipal corporation or any sort of entity, public, private, quasi-public, in any court of law here in Rhode Island, the city council's opinion but I would feel more comfortable if there were an attorney present for riot to answer that type of legal question on the restrictions that would go along with this abandonment. That's a very important question. I would say that the government is not going to have to be represented by an I would like to thank the staff for the presentation. I would like to thank the staff for the presentation. I would like to thank the staff for the presentation. I would like to thank the staff for the presentation. I would like to thank the staff for the presentation. I would like to thank the staff for the presentation. I would like to thank the So I have a follow up question. We got in a comment from Ms. Colma and it's the legal council and you can research this one while I'm doing my other points. Is her comment regarding 24-6-1 is that correct? So she had made the statement on that and I'm looking for your legal opinion regarding that. The second question I need to present to you is whether or not Strawberry Field Road is part of this petition as was identified by Mr. Langseth the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the majority of the I just yield my time while you're answering. Go ahead. So the Miss Coma did read accurately the opening lines of 24, 6, 1, the general laws, which reads whenever by the judgment of the town council of any town, a highway or driftway in the town, or any part of either has ceased to be useful to the public, the town council of the town or any part of either has ceased to be useful to the public. The town council, the town is authorized so to declare it by an order or decree in that final, in that shall be final and conclusive. But the general laws gives that determination to this body to decide. So it is something for all of you to decide and it's in your judgment. So this council is authorized. You examine all the testimony what you have heard is the council's determination and the and court case law has followed up to say that it is not something that they review. It is something that they give that deference to this body to determine. So it is right for you to sit here and decide for yourselves and the neither of you are in charge of that. And as it relates to the question about the petition, the petition that I have seen as part of this file does itemize and reference strawberry field road. So I'm unclear as to what deficiency was cited at that case. There are. Answering the councilman's question. Sure. The petition that is part of the file that I have seen here does directly reference both in title as well as in the petition itself a portion of strawberry field road. So I'm unaware of a defect based on the evidence that has been presented to me on that point. So on those two points it's it's allowable to proceed. I'll get back to Councilman Rex's comments as well. So I just want to make a few statements. First of all, I disagree with the positions that some of the discussions that was taking place was not appropriate I guess guess, because you got to speak to the item. Well, this item is an abandonment of a series of roads and properties. And in order to make an intelligent, informed decision, then I think those questions are very not only are they pertinent, I think they're very well presented. So if you ask me to give up something, I want to know why you want me to give it up. And I think those questions were very appropriate. And I think there was spot on with what we're here to vote for. And with all due respect to Councilman Howe and the time and effort that he has put into this, I absolutely feel this is much more than a ward issue. That UPS facility and that FedEx facility that is being discussed here and is very much a big pot of this abandonment. That affects the entire city. It affects the entire state. I am a firm believer and award issue, sure. It's award issue and, you know, typically, I don't get involved in that. This is something that I think FAR exceeds that with when you bring in the gameplay from FedEx and UPS and what the real reason is for abandoning this. The airport corporation, they should on their own put up this berm that Councilman Howe has worked so diligently to get. We shouldn't have to abandon any properties in order to do that. They should do it because it's the right thing to do, assuming that it's going to work. And those questions were asked by members of the public and those questions weren't answered as to whether or not it's going to work. Apparently, from testimony we heard tonight, they don't, the one that's there now, doesn't work. So, I think in addition to that, the question is that another member of the public, I believe, was Ms. Coma. She had asked, but couldn't get the answers to. I think Ryak should have those answers right here, right now readily available. And that is with regards to the construction, the operationals, the brim sound reductions, the truck traffic. So I would ask the airport cooperation, there's a senior vice president here. If this were to pass, would you agree to those three amendments that in order to fulfill the approval of this, would you agree that it only becomes a valid upon construction, operational aspects of your proposal that the berm does in fact reduce sound and poses a benefit to the people that live in that area and that that traffic would be redefined and redirected as I believe Mayor Pocosi has been really pushing for and fighting for for some time. So the questions if you will all heard an answer would be received. And I also feel that especially given the testimony from all the members of the public, from Councilor Rick's Councilor Geot, there is far more questions this evening than we have answers. I think significant questions and we don't have the answers for them. And I think that it would be prudent upon us to exercise our due diligence and hold this item until the airport cooperation has the time to be prepared, comes before us with legal counsel and addresses all the concerns and questions from the council as well as the many questions that were posed from the general public. Thank you Mr. President. Thank you and do you ever respond for Council and Ladishear? Yeah so I would like to respond to your question about the wall. It's something that we should be doing. So we put the construction documents out to bid last March. The contractor we executed a construction contract in October of last year to build this berm and wall. We have actually already started building the wall or the berm on airport property. As we mentioned before we own all of those parcels, we just don't own the roads. So we have already started building the berm on our property, on our parcels. Now the issue here is we can't there'll be gaps in the wall if we don't get this road abandonment we're still going to build the berm we're still going to build the wall on riot property. But there will be three gaps. That where we cannot build because those are city own streets. The wall and the berm will it work? The answer is yes., will it work? The answer is yes, it will reduce sound. And that was studied in the environmental assessments. We had two public workshops last year, one last January, one last April. The studies are posted on our website. I don't know the exact reduction, but I believe it's around five decibel reduction, but we did do that study. It will work. The traffic. We did a supplemental environmental assessment for the Roundabout, which received a finding of no significance from the FAA, this past July. So we are moving forward with the roundabout. Our Board of Directors just approved that construction contract. And then to answer the next question about the construction schedule. We are planning to start construction of that cargo apron. We just received our federal grants this week. We are starting that construction in October of this year, and the estimated completion of the cargo apron, the access road, and the roundabout is November of next year. Do I miss any questions? Yeah, so you answered the questions, but you also raised a much larger concern for me with your comments that you've already begun to build a wall, but unless we approve the abandonment of those roads, you can't complete the wall. And that's not going to serve the purpose. That makes this whole issue even more concerned with me. Is the fact that the airport corporation just said to this city council that we started the wall, but unless you give us those roads, we can't finish it. And it won't work. That is not acceptable to me. Thank you. Thank you. Any other council members have any questions or comments? Councilman Sinabee. So I have the solicitor touched on at least some of it, but I went through with the Supreme Court of Rhode Island set about this process and they care about whether or not the procedures were followed who represent the representations made here tonight unless I'm mistaken in which case someone please correct me, the procedures were allegedly followed. They care if in a butter says they'll be damaged. The only even potential of butter who came that they had no objection. I understand the concerns about representation of unfortunately that's not how it works, at least in a simple matter, not to mention that that would be a dangerous precedent. the city. How it works, at least not a simple matter, not to mention that that would be a dangerous precedent. And the overall summary of the situation, I mean, it's riot land, it's war work roads for which we're currently responsible. By abandoning those roads, the city gets money, we get a completed sound barrier, we have less liability and upkeep regarding those roads. I mean, that's a series of wins for this city. And as far as the legal process, I mean, I understand that it might not be preferred or ideal, but the law states what it states. And Rhode Island Supreme Court is already weighed in as to what that law means and how it should be interpreted and effectuated. So it's one thing if people want to petition the general assembly to get those laws changed by all means, We still free, but the law is currently stanced as pointed up by the solicitor appears to support the project and the circumstances as well, at least unless there's an butter who had come up to speak and I somehow missed it. And so there would be damage, but it didn't happen to my recollection. So again, I understand the misgivings. I am no fan of Riyak by any means, even before I got on the council. I would classify my view of them as not positive, It was put in the gentlest way possible. And that has not changed. If anything, it's gotten worse. I was there for the planning board meeting for, well, to address what was stated in the crowd, the butter stated he had no objection. He did not state that he had an objection. And there's a stenographer here who can for which the report could be checked. But regardless, the first planning board meeting where this came up, if it had gone from there to here, this would be a very different conversation, that planning board meeting or rather the presentation therein was a train wreck. It was awful. But even the planning board acknowledged it and sent it back. They reported, cut their act together. They presented it accordingly. I just don't see how we can deny it other than on the grounds that we don't like Rye Act. Granted, I don't like Rye Act. But that's not a reason for me to say no, unfortunately. Not when, according to all representations here, the law was allegedly followed. And the city is benefiting andedly from this and no butters are being damaged per the testimony provided. The only testimony alleging damage is from nonabutters. So I feel like I don't really have much of a choice, but to vote in favor. Thank you, Councilman Snappi. I just was conferring with our legal council here. So I just wanted to get my, get some thoughts from the Council members. I think a number of with our legal counsel here, so I just wanted to get my, get some thoughts from the council members. I think a number of legitimate concerns have been raised. I think Councilman Sonampi did a good job of kind of explaining where we're at, but they, I'm being advised by the solicitor that there are some issues that he would, it may be to our benefit to do some additional research on to make sure that everybody is covered, make that everything is the way it's supposed to be. We have a meeting in a couple of weeks, I believe September 4th is our next meeting. So I let the solicitor speak to this, like I said, we just did a quick consult here, but I'm on the thinking right now that maybe we should take a step back. Get these questions, there's a allow for some, the solicitor to do some additional research to answer councilman Rick's questions, other questions that may have come up. We would, what I would recommend is to continue the meeting, continue this portion until the next meeting which means the public hearing would continue which would allow individuals to continue to be able to speak on this. I think we put a lot of time on this, but we want to make sure everybody is heard. Everyone gets their two cents in, but I personally, and again, it's up to my colleagues as well, and we'll hear from the solicitor that I would take the solicitor advice is maybe that we take some time, let him do some additional research, the city solicitor could weigh in as well. If we have some additional time, the ripac attorneys can become involved as well. So, solicitor Walsh, I mean, it's still all your thunder there, but I just wanted everyone to know what we were discussing. So all my colleagues are on the same page. Thank you, Mr. President. I would concur with your remarks. There have been a couple of ambiguities and things raised that I think warrant further attention from this body and allow us the time to appropriately address them. And so my recommendation to this body given no apparent emergency between now and the September 4th meeting would be it would be appropriate to continue this item to the next hearing and we can get some clarity on the ambiguities that have been asked. So I will make that motion. First, if we get a second, then we can have some discussion. So I will make a motion, so I'll continue this. Second by Councilman Rex, Councilwoman Travis, Councilman Sonata, Councilman Gephard, Councilman Laddacer. Any questions or comments on the motion? Councilman Sonata. Yes, so that being comments on the motion? Councilman Sennapin? Yes, so that being the case, I'd urge either those listening either here or at home if you know of an a butter or if you are in a butter and you are damaged by this perspective project, please inform the council, comment testify or somehow submit written testimony, assuming that's a lot even allowed. You'd have to check first, but we can't be making definitive decisions based on other people who are not a butters stating that a butters will be damaged. So please, there's a butter who's going to be damaged. Love a God. Say so. Don't you know, I'm going to be retaliated against or anything like that, but we, it just, it needs to be stated. We can't make the decision on guessing. Councilman Latice. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd point out that I didn't see anyone jumping up and down at this podium in favor of it, but I do believe that the couple in the back are about as in that lady, I believe she did have objections to it for the record. Okay, thank you.