City Council OKs union contracts amid debt worries

2 members warn of fiscal ‘point of no return’

By ADAM ZANGARI
Posted 1/30/25

The Warwick City Council approved two separate collective bargaining agreements for members of the city’s Police Department and city employees in addition to a memorandum of agreement with members of the city’s Fire Department in their third meeting this month.

The first two contracts...

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

City Council OKs union contracts amid debt worries

2 members warn of fiscal ‘point of no return’

Posted

The Warwick City Council approved two separate collective bargaining agreements for members of the city’s Police Department and city employees in addition to a memorandum of agreement with members of the city’s Fire Department in their third meeting this month.

The first two contracts, between the city and Warwick Lodge no. 7, Fraternal Order of Police and the city and Council 94, Local 1651, were approved in a 7-2 vote, with Ward 2 Councilman Jeremy Rix and Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur the sole dissenters.

The third contact approval  – between the city and Local 2748, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO – was done in an 8-1 vote with Ward 9 Councilman Vincent Gebhart the sole dissenter, though he said his vote was symbolic and he would have voted in favor had he been the deciding vote.

Each of the CBAs will be in place through June 30, 2027, and the memorandum of agreement will resolve a dispute between the city administration and the Fire Department regarding other post-employment benefits by raising both the city’s and the union’s contributions to 2% of it by 2027, matching the amount in the two police collective bargaining agreements.

Rix said that while he believed that there were “some positives” in each of the agreements, he believed the city was leaving money on the table, and that leaving other post-employment benefits underfunded were things he could not agree to.

“Where I do have an issue is not starting out with the OPEB right at the 2% to match what was the contingent agreement of Local 2748; effectively, this is a matter of the city leaving money on the table to the tune of something greater than $360,000,” Rix said. “I am just truly confused by some of the logic here with where we are going as a city.”

While other council members shared their concerns, each said they were in favor of the contracts because they believed that the CBAs represented “a step in the right direction” for the city and the unions.

Ward 3 Councilman Bryan Nappa said keeping the city’s finances in perspective was important, but that the numbers looked more frightening than they are.

“The unfunded liability to that end would only come into true fruition at $280 million if all of that was to come to call all at once, which I think we can all agree the chance of that happening is essentially zero,” Nappa said. “So net positioning, as far as fiscal health for the city, while it’s a good barometer in some instances, is not a good overall barometer of the fiscal health of the city. That large number scares people often, and I think we need to keep that in perspective as to what that actually means.”

City Council President Anthony Sinapi said the method by which OPEB was being funded in the agreements was viable, and that it was not feasible for the city to immediately jump to agreements where the unions sharply increased their OPEB funding.

“You can only do incremental change. Collective bargaining negotiations are a give and take. If they give 8% all at once, they also get to take something,” Sinapi said. “This is a good thing. Incremental benefits are how CBAs work.”

Sinapi also said that the council’s role in ratifying the agreements was rather small “for better or for worse” and that the council not approving the CBAs would send the city and the unions to arbitration.

Rix and Ladouceur warned that they were deeply concerned that the city was nearing or had already passed the financial “point of no return.”

“The indebtedness that continues to mount is not sustainable,” Ladouceur said. “Just a few days ago, a finance director said that two out of the five criteria for a state takeover is eminent … I will not be able to support this contract not because I disagree with the pay raises but because they have not negotiated a reasonable contribution or increase in contribution to the health care costs.”

Rix and Ladouceur both voted for the AFL-CIO agreement, saying that it did not make sense not to vote in favor with the other two already passed.  

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here