By DANIEL KITTREDGE

Political sparks flew Monday as the City Council on a 5-4 vote rejected a resolution that would have expressed opposition to the placement of a truck-tolling gantry in Cranston.

The measure – introduced by Republican Ward 5 Councilman Chris Paplauskas, and co-sponsored by Democratic Citywide Councilman Michael Farina and Republicans Don Botts of Ward 2 and Michael Favicchio of Ward 6 – came in response to the recent release of 14 tentative gantry locations across the state as part of Gov. Gina Raimondo’s $600 million RhodeWorks bridge repair proposal. Among the locations included on that list is Route 295 in the city, over the Water Supply Viaduct and Plainfield Pike.

The resolution’s backers argued against tolling generally, and against the placement of a gantry in the city specifically.

“I know this council works very hard to promote a pro-business atmosphere, and I’m concerned a toll gantry in the city would hurt it,” Paplauskas said.

“I feel tolling is an additional tax,” Farina said. “Until I see the impact on my city, the people who elected me, I’m going to say ‘no’ to tolls.”

Favicchio said he feels tolls would hinder commercial and industrial growth in the city, and criticized Raimondo’s prior remarks indicating that law enforcement would be asked to enforce against large trucks bypassing the tolling system.

“Is that how we’re going attract business in Rhode Island, to have the state police waste their resources to make sure people don’t go around tolling booths?” he said.

Botts said he believes tolls would inevitably expand to include other classes of motor vehicles to support the spending of a General Assembly he derided as “money-hungry.”

“If you think it’s going to be limited to trucks, you’ve got another thing coming,” he said.

Those opposed to the resolution – Council President John Lanni, Vice President Richard Santamaria, Steven Stycos of Ward 1, Paul Archetto of Ward 3, and Mario Aceto of Ward 4, all Democrats – suggested the council should not involve itself in the debate at this point, given that talks at the state level remain ongoing and that the gantry site list is tentative. Several also sought a review of fiscal and traffic implications before taking a definitive position.

“I don’t know if some of the people in here are going to run for the General Assembly, but we’re sticking our nose in the General Assembly’s business again,” Santamaria said. “This is a General Assembly debate. It’s General Assembly work … They get paid more than we do, anyway. Let them do what they do.”

Archetto similarly called the resolution “premature.”

“We really don’t know what [legislators’] plan is yet,” he said.

Stycos said more information is needed before tolling – or any alternative funding mechanism for needed bridge and road repairs, such as a diesel tax increase – is ruled out.

“I think this statement that you’re either for tolls or you’re against them is just missing the whole point,” he said. “We have roads that need to be fixed … How do we fix the roads in the most cost-effective and fairest way? And I don’t have the answer to that.”

Lanni suggested seeking to remove Cranston as a gantry site could lead to it being overrun with trucks seeking to bypass tolls in the future.

“This resolution is going to hurt us more than it’s going to help us … the last thing I want to see is a convoy of trucks coming down Plainfield Pike to avoid a gantry that’s down further,” he said.

Lanni also had the sharpest words for the resolution’s supporters, asserting they were “trying to make political points with the public for yourselves.”

“You’re jumping the gun, and you’re just reacting to John DePetro or Dan Yorke or some other radio host,” he said. “You’re not doing your job as councilmen. That’s my personal opinion.”

Few members of the public were on hand for the majority of Monday’s meeting, but one person in attendance was critical of the council’s rejection of the resolution.

“To me, it was a no-brainer,” Valerie Schiulli told the council members during the agenda’s public comment section. “I never, ever thought that would fail.”

In other business, the council on Monday approved on an 8-1 vote a three-year contract with International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1363. The pact had previously received the backing of the council’s Finance Committee.

The agreement, which takes effect July 1, provides for a 6-percent salary increase over the three-year term – 3 percent in each of the last two years – and includes concessions on the part of the union. Those include deferring hiring for eight positions open in fiscal year 2017 and five in fiscal 2018, along with a first-time contribution toward dental insurance on the part of union members.

According to an attached fiscal impact statement, the agreement will cost the city an additional $636,084 over its three years.

Deputy Fire Chief Paul Valletta, who serves as president of Local 1363, urged the council to approve the contract. He spoke highly of the administration, and contrasted Cranston’s situation with the turmoil surrounding Providence’s fire department.

“It’s nice to be under a contract. It’s nice to have labor peace,” he said.

Council members spoke highly of the agreement.

“I think it’s a fair and just contract. I think it’s prudent,” Archetto said.

Farina said the raises included in the deal are modest compared to those seen in the private sectors. He also praised the firefighters for “always coming to the table” when the city has faced difficult circumstances.

“It’s fair. I think it’s in line with other contracts we’ve approved … We certainly don’t want to see what’s happening in Providence, because they’re gambling with complete failure,” Favicchio said.

Botts called the deal “fair to both taxpayers and the firefighters.”

Stycos, the lone vote against the agreement, said his opposition was rooted less in its specific provisions than in “what it doesn’t do.” He specifically pointed to the issue of fire department overtime – which he noted typically totals $3 million to $4 million annually – and the 15 paid holidays firefighters received, which he called “too many.”

“We spend more on fire overtime than we do on the public libraries, and it needs to be addressed,” he said.