Warwick council approves $200,000 spending authority after discovery of underground tanks, questions raised about $91,493 disposal charge

The Warwick City Council on Dec. 16 approved an increase in spending authority of up to $200,000 for Bid 2024322, the City Hall Plaza site improvements, after contractors uncovered two previously undocumented underground storage tanks and removed soils from the site.

The additional funds will replenish contingency authority and cover remaining potential change orders associated with the site work, city planning director Tom Kravitz told the Finance Committee and the full council. Kravitz said the change order covered “two underground unforeseen storage tanks and associated contaminated soils that had to be removed from the site, which cost just under a hundred and 44,000,” and the requested $200,000 is intended as a cautious cushion so the administration does not repeatedly return to the council for minor, additional change orders.

Why it matters: council members and members of the public pressed administrators over whether soils were in fact contaminated, and why the city was being invoiced roughly $91,493 for disposal when state closure documents submitted by the contractor indicate laboratory results “were below DEM standards” and that “contaminated soil was not encountered as part of the UST closure work.” The exchange put the administration on the defensive about project oversight, documentation and fund source choices — including the use of ARPA and OPERA/earmarked community planning funds — and the need to meet ARPA commitment deadlines.

Key details and debate

Tom Kravitz and staff told the committee that the tanks were discovered during excavation after bid award; although records indicated the tanks had been removed in the 1980s, the tanks and some soil had to be physically removed to allow proper compaction and site work. Kravitz said multiple rounds of soil testing were performed and that later testing “did not show exceedances,” permitting reuse of some materials on-site. He said the city expects credits from landfill deliveries if less soil is ultimately disposed of off-site.

Councilman Lattice pressed staff on timing and disclosure, reading a timeline into the record that said the tanks were discovered June 18, removal work occurred in August, and that paperwork and pricing changes followed through September. Lattice challenged why the $91,493 line item appears for “disposal of contaminated soils” when a DEM official and the Clean Harbors closure report say no exceedances were found. “If there was no contaminated soil, then why are we being charged ... $91,000 for removing it?” Lattice asked.

Administration and staff responses

Chief of Staff Bill Vicente explained how Resource Recovery handles soils: material can be accepted as landfill cap material or treated as solid waste depending on test results and regulatory acceptance. Vicente said the soils in question were not at concentrations that would require out-of-state disposal, but they were not acceptable as landfill cap, so they were shipped and billed as solid waste. Kravitz and other staff members said trucking slips and disposal invoices should appear in the bid file and can be produced for council review.

Public comment and documentary evidence

Resident Michelle Colmar, who said she reviewed the Clean Harbors closure report and emailed DEM staff, told council that the Clean Harbors closure assessment, submitted electronically on Sept. 20, states the samples were “non-detect” for contaminants and that “no exceedances” were found. Colmar urged the council to require invoice-level backup rather than rely on allowances or “guesstimates.” She said: “The closure report is done. DEM is satisfied.”

Council response and legal/financial concerns

Council members expressed competing priorities: several said they wanted invoice-level documentation before approving additional obligations; others, including members of the Finance Committee, argued the modest replenishment of contingency would avoid triggering Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements (which would add an estimated 25–30% to project costs) or risking ARPA fund commitment deadlines. Councilman Synappe (Sanappi) highlighted that the vendor contract includes remedies if an invoice were fraudulent and favored moving forward while the city investigates.

Vote and next steps

The council moved the PCR (PCR 121-24) to approve the revised spending authority and voted to approve it; one council member recorded a no vote. The administration agreed to circulate the Clean Harbors and DEM correspondence and to provide trucking slips and disposal invoices for the council’s review. Staff said they will follow up with DEM to confirm whether any soils exceeded reportable thresholds and will provide the council with the documents that public speakers requested.

What remains uncertain

The Clean Harbors closure report and DEM correspondence cited to the council by members of the public indicate no reportable contamination, while project invoices include a $91,493 line described as disposal of contaminated soils; staff said the invoice reflects disposal as solid waste because material could not be used as landfill cap, not because concentrations required out-of-state hazardous disposal. Kravitz said credits are possible if less soil was hauled than anticipated and that the $200,000 is intended to replenish depleted owner's allowances.

Votes at a glance

- PCR 121-24 (Bid2024322 — City Hall Plaza site improvements): Approved (motion for favorable action carried; recorded council vote: majority in favor, one no).