Town Council - Regular Meeting

good to go yes thank you Seven o'clock, I'm gonna call the meeting to order. We're starting tonight with a public hearing, proposed amendments to the Compton Home Rule Charter to approve on the ballot for November 3rd, 2026 general election. In the public hearing, I'll invite folks to come to the podium. Please introduce yourself and I'll ask that you try to keep your remarks brief because we have a very lengthy agenda tonight. A council discussion on the proposed amendments appears later in our agenda under new business one, and this will provide another opportunity for your comment. So I opened the floor for comment.

I had, excuse me, I had the salute to the flag after the public hearing. Would you like to do that first? Oh, I was following. I know you were. I'm not trying to throw in a wrench, but up to you.

Let's do it after we... Let's just get over with. Let's do it.

Okay, sure. Salute to the flag, folks. Sorry, Victoria. It's a flag. The United States of America.

For which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Yeah, no problem.

Great. Now we are in the public hearing, so we invite your comments. You can step up to the podium if you have something to share.

Larry Anderson, and I will try to be as brief as I can.

Can you hear me? Is the green light on? The green light appears to be on.

Please do not I touched the thing that says.

That would be you, Larry. Picked out now.

So I attended quite a few of the Charterview Commission's early meetings, though not some of their more recent ones. So I can attest that they addressed their responsibilities in a business-like, disciplined, and collegial manner in which all members conscientiously participated. and suggestions of citizens who attended, and they engaged in vigorous discussion and lengthy discussion on some important topics. And importantly, their proposals include detailed and concrete provisions to address concerns that have arisen recently about town governmental financial accountability and procedure. Commission's members, all volunteers, deserve our gratitude. For myself, I just wanted to focus, have a few comments about some of their recommendations with which I have a direct experience. I have only recently had a chance to really focus on this. They're not substantial, but I felt I needed to address them. The first one is the Section 103, Town Property, which calls for, are these going to be projected in any way? I can put them up. This would help, I think. Second.

And there are copies in the back of the room. If they're already handed out, I just ask that you share with your neighbor. I think we have several copies, but.

So this is the section in the charter since its inception with regard to disposition of town property and the financial town meetings authority to vote on a variety of transactions. One of the proposals adds the word lease of real and intangible property. I'm concerned about the addition of the term intangible here and the meaning of the term in the context of this article. The history of this and the fundamental purpose of this has dealt with real property, buildings, and land. And it's been invoked quite frequently, really, over the years, most recently at the current town meeting where the voters authorized the council to renegotiate and renew the lease of the former Grange building to the community center. So it has been a matter of importance at the town meeting. I may not understand the purpose of this, but without a definition in the context of this article about what is meant by intangible property, I think that term is a loaded one which may lead to confusion in the future. That's just a comment. The other addition they propose here, town-owned property must be maintained in compliance with current local and state building codes. I understand the purpose and reason for that. This is the kind of language in a charter that's, in my opinion, sort of aspirational in an exhortation. It's not clear, and it may have some legal effect if there were a dispute, but it's not clear to me that it necessarily have much enforcement power, but I understand the reason it's there. So that's my comment about 103. Section 301, heading for which is financial town meeting. It proposes a new section C. So if we can scroll down C. which would authorize the ambassadors to establish the times for voting in elections that take place concurrently with financial town meeting. This question arose this year and the town clerk had to clarify it for the purpose of extending the hours opening the polls earlier than had been Okay, so I think this is a worthy thing to include. One question I have, and it won't be in this packet, is whether this should more appropriately be in Section 204 of the Charter, which is elections to office at town meeting, which includes specific reference to the Board of Canvass' role in conducting those elections. And as I looked at that, a place to put that would just be after the first sentence of that article. So that's just a thought. The other thing in terms of the language of this, I'm not sure that the clause which says, which oversees the setup of the financial timetable for elections, It's necessary here to establish the authority to designate a check-in time for voting. I don't dispute the accuracy or the substance of the language. I just don't think it's necessary. Section 304, notice and agenda for meetings. Section 304. So. There we go. And there's a, the third paragraph, it adds language, it says, and set warrant items shall be directly incorporated into the budget committee. I think there's some confusion, and again, I didn't attend the meeting of which this is discussed, but I think there's sometimes confusion about the distinction between the formal warrant As prepared and posted work on the budget committee report distributed orders the current charter language states and requires that the budget committee report show include the listing of what items. It also says further up of the listening and items of the war. Items to be voted shall be posted posted with the ward. So the formal. The formal warrant includes the traditional warning or preamble as described in state law, but the rest of the warrant comprises essentially the warrant items of the budget committee, that a budget committee includes exactly in the same format. The formal warrant may also include one or two other to be potentially redundant and add in length and expense to that warrant. So that's just a comment. Home duct of meetings. set section 305.

No paragraph, which I appreciate.

I only want suggestions. The town moderator shall coordinate with the town clerk and the information technology department to ensure the town provide adequate space such that all wishing to attend the financial town meeting shall be accommodated and have an opportunity to be heard. I think this accurately coordinate accurately describes the town moderate is limited, but essential responsibility in this regard. My only suggestion is to amend this to allow for a broader scope of town officials who share this responsibility. So this might read something like the town moderator shall coordinate with the town clerk, the information officer and other town officials. Just a suggestion because we learned this year and it could be different from year to year. Many town officials have to participate. We have the town administrator, police and fire chiefs, others who I have to cooperate to do that so it's just a thought to include race and other kind of missions, I don't think it would require it would notice it and then finally other can. It's a. Or 13 additional small to build. This. You. And I'm going down to Section E, which reads, as proposed, ensure compliance and accountability with the Charter, then adds ordinances and federal guidelines and laws, tell town officials, departments, and agencies to establish a process for review of complaints of nonconformity of the electors of the town. is specific to the other force. And I recall that this was inserted back in 2006. And a companion ordinance was created that describes the enforcement process. It's rarely been used. I think I may have been the only person who ever tried to invoke it. Can't remember what for. I know the council didn't accept my complaint, which I know. But I am a little concerned that the that the expectation council would be responsible for compliance with state and federal laws may create some legal and jurisdictional confusion. So this was inserted specifically because there was no other provision in the charter for its enforcement. There's an ordinance that calls for a process by which a complaint is made to the clerk comes before the council. The council acts on it. It's not a strong enforcement possibility, but it's more than we had. And the issue would be that if we didn't act on a complaint in a way satisfactory to a citizen, their next stop would be . Those are my suggestions. Thank you. Thank you for listening to me. I have one copy of this, Heather. Thank you.

Thank you, Larry.

Name is Vincent Kennedy. I'm a resident of Big Drum Road. Just a point of explanation with respect to the intangible property. I think that was driven towards the non-real assets of the town, including, for instance, delinquent taxes. So that, you know, there is an authority to sell non-real assets. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? I'm not seeing anyone, so I will close the public hearing.

I got some comments. Page 9.

We are going to go one by one through these, Gary, when we get to it on our agenda, if you want to do it then. It's up to you, however you'd rather do it. I just wanted to give you the option to say.

One by one. I'll wait for that time then.

OK. Let's do that.

Somebody should take Larry's notes.

I think some other has them. Okay, so I'm gonna close the public hearing and thank you for participating. Moving on. We have saluted the flag already. Oh, I'm sorry. Brandon, Peniel, please come up. Sorry. Do I need to reopen the public hearing? Still open. We're still open? Okay. Peniel, please. I appreciate it. Yeah, no problem. I'm sorry I didn't see your hand. I would have recognized you.

I wasn't standing up. I'll take responsibility for that. Thank you. This evening, I chose to take a few minutes just to address Section 506, the changes to Part B. And that is a change that is alarming to me. And my reasoning for that is by taking, making the said changes to go from a $5,000 limit before an RFP has to be put out in moving that up to a 20,000 or the other parameters that are outlined there. It's particularly alarming because I believe that by soliciting bids, particularly at the $5,000 stage, several things can happen there. What it does, in my opinion, is it provides an opportunity for bidders, both local bidders, sole proprietors, and also individuals from, say, the city up in Providence to basically be on an even keel. In addition to that, it allows the public to monitor spending and ensures that the bidders are basically all are on an even keel. In addition to that, it all ensures that we also get to evaluate whether or not those individuals understand the full scope of work. In other words, by raising this amount to say 20,000, where something could just be awarded to an individual or an outlet, we don't get the correspondence back and forth by the acknowledgment of the bid. be able to evaluate whether or not they understand fully the scope of work. So in other words, if we're getting bids in that are within $300 of each other from several different entities, it also allows us basically to establish what the fair market value of a particular job is. So in the future, we don't know who's gonna be sitting in these chairs. and sometimes a council person may understand what the fair value of the job is and they may not sometimes and in my opinion by keeping this at the five thousand dollar um limit the way it is right now before an rfp has to go out it allows for checks and balances both ways both the public can view and see what's going on and what's going out to bid and in addition to that we can also evaluate whether or not uh the individuals submitting for the bids understand the scope uh completely so By removing that, I feel that it hides the spending activity of the council in a way, because they could just be putting out these jobs and allocating them without really the scrutiny of the people. And I don't think that's transparent. It also allows ample ability down the road, because we don't know who's gonna be sitting in these chairs in the future, for potential fraud or favoritism by awarding contracts to friends or groups that they may have an understanding with. So basically, it also will not allow us to check or verify the qualifications of the companies because if the bid is just granted and we don't have the paperwork that's put in place for reflection on that saying, do we have the background? Are they insured? Are they ready for the job? Are they roofers? If you're putting on a roof, I mean, we don't know who's going to apply for these bids. So in my opinion, where it's at currently, I think allows for checks and balances both ways for everybody. And I would urge the council to consider not accepting that portion, in my opinion. I feel almost it's an attempt, and it's not an accusation, to almost clandestinely remove the ability for the public to scrutinize and have oversight over what's being put out for jobs around the town.

Thank you. Anybody else? Val, please.

I would like to reiterate Brandon, Mr. Pineo's position on that. I handle many, many contracts, mostly federal contracts. And I know it's time-consuming putting RFPs up. And the more you do it, though, the easier it gets, okay? And the more you're used to it, the easier it gets. And I don't see any reason to drop that threshold. I think that that threshold was a good threshold till now, and I think we should stay with it. Thank you.

Thank you, Sal. Anybody else? I don't want to miss anybody. I think that's it. Do you see any hands? All right. We're going to close the public hearing. Thank you, everybody. Moving on to announcements. I have one, which is to recognize the passing of a... Jeanette Brusso, who was a friend to many and a free spirit and will be greatly missed. And I'd like to ask that we just take a brief moment of silence in Jeanette's memory.

Thank you.

Next item, request for legal services from town boards, committees and commissions. We have none. Approval of minutes.

Watching to prove the minutes of the July 9th 2026 of the meeting let's anybody had any omissions of corrections.

I suppose I'm sorry that's fine and a second I just have a question of a little confused on the of. 32 comments issue. The approved.

That is in our agenda on under item old business two. So we haven't gotten to that one yet, but we're going to discuss that one.

I want to wait till then. I can wait till then.

It is on our agenda.

It's on the minutes. So I want to be able to pull it.

Okay. I'm going to refer to it and do a clarifying statement on the agenda. But I'm happy to, you know, engage with you when we get there.

If that's okay. As long as I can reference back to the minutes. Absolutely.

Is that okay if he references back to approved minutes?

Correct, yes.

Unless you want to change the minutes that you think it's not accurately recorded.

I basically have a question, but it's based on what the new agenda is quoting. I might as well just say it. It's saying electrical work and RFP for 32 Commons. But we approved a thing for 32 Commons to do electrical work as smoke detectors. I'm just...

And I'll clarify it when we get to that agenda item if that's okay. But yes, I have I have clarification on that.

Okay.

So then we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor. Department head reports.

Place the department head reports on file unless anybody wants to pull any for discussion. Second.

All in favor.

I

Business one request from young fam farm for matter of farm accessory ordinance to be remanded to the planning board for further discussion.

I'll make the motion this be remanded back to the planning board. So everybody didn't have a chance to speak to it. We'll have a chance at the planning board and just to let people know after the planning board comes up with a decision. Well, the town council will have a public hearing, so everybody's going to have a chance to speak on it, let their views be known. Can I comment just for clarification?

I'm going to second that.

It's been, it's been, the motion's been made and seconded and we're in discussion. Would you like to say something, Mike? Would you wait till you get to the mic and identify yourself, please?

Yes. Mike Steers, Pennsylvania Road. Mike. has to do with the burdening the young family farm with this activity. My understanding is that we're considering an expanded accessory use for all farms in town by special use permit. And so I think what you're asking the planning board to do is to reconsider such an ordinance for the town code.

This is a request that was made directly by the Young family to the council. And we are voting on whether or not to give them that opportunity to be heard again or more in front of the planning board. So that's what we're working on. Okay. Thank you, Mike. I have a motion. I have a second. Any more discussion? All right. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. I'm going to abstain.

Got that, Heather? Yep. Old business two, request for RFP for 32 Commons electrical wiring system. This is what Paul referred to questioning on our minutes. We did previously vote to approve this as a contract extension essentially with our contractor of record for 32 Commons. We had awarded him the contract to install the radio box about a year ago. We had a short time limit on that where we had to get it done in 60 days. or else we could potentially have the first floor of the Odd Fellows or 32 Commons closed. So we approved the first half of his vote one year ago, I believe it was June of 25. And so when it came time to go to the wiring, we voted to approve the second half of it. But what we've chosen to do here is sort of, as Tony likes to call it, a belt and suspenders approach. and go out to RFP for competitive pricing for the second half of that, which is just the wiring. So that's the motion or that is the agenda item is to go back out.

So the first one where we carry questions is no RFP. That was the second approval. Those approvals

Yeah, I think that when we were voting on that, I can speak for myself, was operating under the assumption that that was a contract extension because the original quote was a two-part quote from Crescent Alarm. But when I went back to check the minutes and the video from the meeting, I see that the council only voted to approve the first half of his quote, which was the radio box. We didn't vote to approve the second half of the wiring. So now the wiring job needs to be done. And so we're going to RFP for that for competitive pricing, or that's the proposal here.

All right. And so the comment that was made about you had a quote from one, but the other one declined recently.

We had two quotes, actually, for the radio box. We were unable to get a third at the time. And again, at the time, we were under a time crunch for getting the work done so that they wouldn't close the doors on the first floor.

The decline. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to get my confusion out of my head.

That's right.

The decline was for a third quote.

For a third quote, yeah, we reached out. There's not that many people who do the radio boxes, according to the chief. We found three people, and the third one that we found declined. We got two quotes, worked with those two. We compared those two and went with the lower quote.

I'm looking at the solicitor now. That covers our case as far as the RFP is concerned. Correct, yes. That was my concern. Yeah. Somebody was going to throw a flag on the plane. Thank you. Say, hey, you didn't get an RFP.

Yeah. That's what we're going to try to do here if there's a motion for that.

Yeah. What I had the concern about was that anytime we go to viz for anything, anything over $5,000, which I think that bid was $10,000 or $11,000. So I which leads right up to brandon pinio situation that anything over $5,000. He's an rfp and what I what the minute stays counselor. I asked if it was any other alarm company solicited council accused stated no consulate taba commented she learned that there is a small pool of companies. It was one of that decline. So now you say there was 2.

We asked for three, this is about a year ago, I believe it was in June of 2025. We tried to get three quotes for it. We were only able to get two. The third company that we identified declined to offer a quote. And so we discussed that as a council at that time, looked at those two quotes, compared them, voted to go with Crescent Alarms, who also is the alarm contractor of record on the building. And they were the lower of the two quotes.

So when we go through the chart or when they have proposed to raise it from $5,000 to $10,000, that'll be a different discussion. But I think it'd be a good idea for all of us to, if we get anything over whatever, we come up with $5,000 to $10,000. If it's over that amount, we should go for an RFP. Absolutely. Everything will be a lot cleaner.

So that's exactly what this is trying to take care of and clean up. So do I have a motion to go to RFP for the wiring system at 32 Commons?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Okay, new business. Proposed amendments to the Little Compton Home Rule Charter Again, there were copies in the back. So if you don't have a copy, share with a friend. And Heather has a couple more up here. So if someone wants a copy, there's a couple more up here. And Jonathan has them on both the screens. There are 36 proposed charter amendments, which is a lot. I would like to... First of all, begin by thanking the charter commission for all of their work over the last 18 months or so, and thank everybody who participated in those public meetings. The commission heard from department heads, boards and committees, the chiefs, the town moderator, the former and current clerk, the finance director, and several members of the public. They brought us 36 proposed amendments. I'd like to take them one by one for our consideration. Amendments that are approved will then go to the solicitor and the clerk to draft language for inclusion on the ballot and into the charter. The council will have another meeting proposed for next Thursday, the 30th at 6 p.m. Heather, has that been confirmed? Okay. To review the draft language and vote again. This will provide another opportunity for public comment. The final list of amendments will then go to the Secretary of State for ballot inclusion, and then we can all vote on them in November. So moving along, I'll start with section 102. I'm just going to read the title of the section and then invite a motion. If there's a motion and a second, we'll see if there's discussion and we'll just try to make our way through this list. Starting with section 102, powers of the town. Is there a motion to approve this consideration of the voters? Discussion? All in favor?

Aye. That's your line, Gary. What's that it's also comply with all ordinances regulation.

He does use it to it to us. All right, all right section. Yes, that is my built into my brain that we can have fun with it all section 1, 0, 3, town property.

A motion to approve. Seconded.

Any discussion on that?

Yeah, I thank Vincent Kennedy for explaining what intangible meant because I really didn't know what that meant myself. Tangible, yes. Intangible, so I think that's good that that was put in there because of the problems we have in this town with people not paying their taxes. I think something has started, but we've backed down on that in the financial problem.

Any other discussion? All in favor.

Aye.

All right. Section 202. Canvassing authority.

Motion to approve. Second.

Discussion? All in favor? Aye. Section 301. Date and purpose of financial town meeting.

I'll second.

stopping any further discussion it's like doing it all thanks all right all right there we go all in favor sorry excuse me sorry who's seconded it i seconded it all in favor don't everybody speak at once is there any miracle any you want to be in discussion yeah yeah okay is there any layer is there any merit to larry's suggestion to move section c of this or Section C to section to report.

I would never suggest that there's no merit to something that Larry Anderson suggests.

It doesn't appear that was making it complicated, but the same thing.

It seems a little complicated to me since we don't have language for that one on this on this list of proposed amendments. Any other thoughts on that?

All right.

Back.

Yeah, just you you have the ability to amend the proposal. Here now, right?

I understand. Yep. Yep. Do you want to make an amendment? Andrew? Okay. Anybody else?

Okay.

All in favor? Section 302 recessed and special town meetings.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Section 304, notice and agenda for meetings.

Motion to approve.

I'll second it and comment.

OK. Go ahead, Paul, if you're going to comment.

I just want to know your opinion.

I reiterate what Larry had stated about the word, who drafts the warrant, Larry did state that the warrant items are already in the budget report. To have the full warrant, which just shows being minimal, like the statement Larry talked about to accept the treasurer's report, and then it would have the a town sergeant's signature, the clerk's signature, those things in the process aren't ready to roll based on timeline of the editing and the printing of that budget book. And also already at times the budget book spacing is limited. So I think it's not necessary, but that's my opinion as the clerk.

Would you make a recommendation what you would like to see in there? Because this basically falls on you.

Just that it not be the actual said warrant. I mean, warrant item.

Do you want to leave it? Can I make a suggestion on this? You have a warrant. It's a public document. It's the predicate document to having that financial town meeting. Voters should already have it. So I don't think this is necessary. Actually, I hope this isn't being recorded. I agree with Mr. Anderson. It's duplicative.

Good night, Larry.

Motion is made and on the table to approve.

So I'm going to withdraw your motion.

Yes. Okay.

Who seconded Gary's motion? I wouldn't draw the second. Okay.

And I would make a motion that we strike the first underlying section of this proposal. Keep the second amendment. Okay.

strike the first and leave the last section, which is the underlined at the end of the third paragraph.

Yeah, which says at least 48 hours prior to the annual financial plan meeting.

Okay.

But the incorporation is out. Correct. Yes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Go ahead. Second.

Any other discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Aye, as amended. Thank you. Section 305, conduct of meetings.

I'll make a motion to approve. I can.

All in favor.

I pardon is it going to be the amendment that was suggested by Mister Anderson.

It was the amendment that on this item.

Suggested that after a technology depart and all the town officials that could be the fire chief that could be the chief of police inserting and other town officials, yes.

Do you want to amend your, do we need to withdraw the, not to make it complicated for you, I want to- I leave it up to the council, but I, again, agree with Larry on that, that the- Other officials that- Very integral part, the police chief and the fire chief in the safety of the function of the financial town meeting is very important.

um their authoritative figure to be able to handle the flow and make sure it works as necessary and capacity is very important then i will make a motion to accept this with the amendment that states uh town moderators shall coordinate on the town clerk the infer information technology department and other town officials to ensure the town provides adequate space i'll second that one

Any further discussion on that? All in favor?

Aye.

Section 306, proposals for expenditure outside of the budget.

Make a motion to approve this.

Second.

Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Section 405, eligibility of council members, town employment. Did I miss one, Heather? No, I did. Okay.

I'll make a motion for that. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Section 407, forfeiture of office.

So... This goes from missing three meetings in six months. Or a total of six meetings for any one year. And it's been changed to attend no regularly scheduled council meeting for a period of three consecutive months. That's what it was. It has no regularly scheduled council meeting for a period of three months. And then it was changed to schedule council meeting for period three consecutive meetings. Okay. Or a total of six meetings during the year. Now I'm in my twilight years. And as everybody knows, I take a month and a half off in the winter. and when covid was out it was great to have zoom where we could all be in our houses and zoom and when that was happened i made every meeting this seems like a direct attack on me because sometimes i miss two meetings sometimes i miss three so it feels like they're trying to say well madarones can't get out by electing him out. So let's try to force him out because he misses three consecutive meetings. Okay. Which I don't think is right. You got people that come up here. We don't get paid to be here. And now you're putting restrictions on it. And I'll say the same thing on other boards and commissions when they come up. You're asking people to come up here for no funding. We take a lot of abuse at times. I think we do a good job for the town. And now you're putting restrictions on what we can do. There is no way that I shirk my responsibility or anybody else here shirks their responsibilities. Okay. So I think that should go back to the way it was.

Gary, I'll stand with you on that as well. I won't deny I've missed three consecutive meetings before. This is a volunteer, almost volunteer responsibility. And as someone that has a full-time job, sometimes my job requires me to have evening events that I don't always have control over. And I always try to make sure that they're scheduled appropriately. But sometimes it just doesn't happen. So if people don't like, like what we've been doing, then they can, you know, vote us out in November.

But I'll make a motion we leave it as is with no change. Second.

All in favor. Section 408 meetings and procedures.

looking to approve.

All in favor. 413 additional council responsibilities.

The council the way I read it. So contract appropriate firm specialize in said work which I guess is. getting a company to come up and codify audiences or to write the audiences? Is that what it is to put them in the form, to put them in the code book?

I can, I can read the, um, at the bottom of each of these proposed amendments, there's the reason for the proposed amendment. So, um, it's helpful. I can read this, um, or we can read it on any that, that helps for clarity. This, the proposed changes to section four 13 a substantially changed the timeframe in which local ordinances are updated on the town website from one year to no later than seven days following approval. This change is focused on increasing visibility and access to current information for the public. Proposed changes to subsections E, F, and G focus on strengthening the town council's obligations to comply with laws, regulations, and ordinances to increase fiscal accountability, to state oversight responsibilities for key personnel, and require monthly review of financial statements for the public record.

Right. And I read those too, Victoria. I don't think seven days is enough time. Is seven days enough time? No. No.

Do you want to offer an amendment to the time?

I mean, it's kind of at the mercy of the general code. They get the submission and then they put up a document that would say approved at such a meeting. It's on that first page there, but that may not necessarily get implemented into the actual section accordingly until they print our document. Code that could take months. They don't do it on a regular basis. And sometimes we've had matters that use the recent or last year Harbor Commission mooring fee adjustment. That was approved. It ended up going back before the council. It was kind of held back before it got put in there because it needed to be reworked on. So I just mentioned all that, that seven days is really.

Is the prior, in your opinion, since you're the one that handles this, is the one year an appropriate time frame or at seven days, it feels like quite a difference. One year is excessive.

I mean, six months, four months, I would say that's.

I'll amend that from seven days to six months.

I have a procedural question on the hold on.

So by making a motion to amend the the seven days to six months. Is there a second on Gary's motion? Okay. Now we're in discussion. Go ahead, Paul.

Just a procedural question that said, including the town administrator and finance director, I'm probably misinformed or confused, but I thought the finance director worked for the town administrator. Is that not true?

Yes, he reports to the town administrator. Where are you at?

My dad and the finance director. Our oversight is the town administrator who oversees it all. I just don't understand why the finance looks to me like the finance director was put out for some reason.

That's interesting. I don't know. I don't know what the what the background is on that. That text on the next page is on item F. It says provide oversight for all appointed town officials, including town administrator and finance director. And Paul is correctly pointing out that the finance director already reports to the town administrator. So really, this is just for the council's oversight of the town administrator. Good point. Yeah. So do you want to add that to the amendment to that?

Well, this is strike the finance director.

No, I agree with that, but you know, we've had problems with finance directors. Fortunately, we've got a good one now. So I, I don't think it's a problem to have more eyes on finance department. And, you know, so I think it should be left. But it's up to what everybody wants to, um, I'll move that that be left. Well, I still have a motion on the table.

So we have we have the motion in the second for changing the text in Section A, from seven days to six months. Is that correct? Heather, we have both. And are there any other proposed amendments to this proposed amendment?

I like to pose an amendment to eliminate the finance director on the OSI.

Why don't we vote on just leave it as provide oversight for all appointed town officials. That works. That way it would cover the finance director.

Yeah, that's a that's a blanket. Yeah.

And then it's not prioritizing Yeah, it's not creating levels of authority or

We're not going to make that on the channel.

Okay, I'll make the most military guy. We have a motion. We have a motion. Let's, let's, let's prove my emotion. Okay.

We have the motion in the second on Gary's change from seven days to six months. And all in favor. Aye.

We go to see before we go to the back. So, um, Also may provide with such additional orders as it may be appropriate. And then they got struck out which and for which town meeting may have made appropriation. How we're going to get an order that the might not appropriate or It's just a question. I mean, if it seems to be okay. I mean, what I wrote down was no appropriation for the monies to do an audit, then no audit.

I agree with you. You got to get the appropriation.

So I would move that we believe and for which the town meeting may have made an appropriation.

Yes, please come up to the make been.

With a second year.

Yes, you're awesome. We're getting back in and by Andrew be what was the most the motion was to leave and for which town meeting may have made an appropriation.

I think this arose in the context of a a contingency that could arise in the future where there is a circumstance where a audit would be required under the, you know, if there had been a defaultation of some variety and the prior authorization applied only to the annual audit. The intention was that The funding for an audit that would arise under what I'll call exigent circumstance would fall, in my opinion, under the incidental and emergency budget line. Thank you for your time.

I stand corrected. He's right. Okay. This goes to a situation where an order is required, not the annual order. So there wouldn't be an appropriation for that. He's right.

All right. So let me know. I'll withdraw your motion. Okay.

Heather, do you have the withdrawals? Okay. All right. Any other discussion? We were going to move on to which one? Okay.

Yep, I'll make a motion that we amend the simply say provide oversight for all appointed town officials.

If you want to say something, Gary, Larry, just a comment on subsection before you go, okay, we're gonna vote on this motion in the second all in favor. Hi.

Something on G. It says perform want to review time town's financial statements and provide public record reports. The first town council meeting of each munch what each month long with the bills to be paid for for the upcoming month. So I'm not sure. But the upcoming month. I guess I'm not understand that. But I'm saying how do we know what will build we're going to have come in for the upcoming month.

That section about the bills, yeah.

The bills arrive every day in the mail via email. And they, whatever is brought in up to the moment on Wednesday at noontime is what is on your listing of bills for that immediately following council meeting. Right. Unless there is something that may come in Wednesday afternoon that, you know, is... like a big road payment or something like that would be added. But other than that, I mean, we don't know. I mean, John, the finance director may know, or Jonathan, the IT director may know if there's a contract item that might be coming due, you know, Microsoft or- Recurrent, recurring bills.

Yeah, yeah. So Gary, are you just questioning the end of that sentence after the comma, the along with the bills?

Well, yeah, along with the bills to be paid for the upcoming month. How do you know what the bills are going to be? So I would say strike along with the bills to be paid for the upcoming month, unless, Vincent, I figured you'd have something.

I wouldn't. Recommend that you consider a change from the first meeting of each month. I think operationally that would place an undue burden on the finance department because just the way the calendar works, closing a monthly statement consumes some time. So I don't think the first meeting meeting of a calendar month is operationally feasible. So I would suggest that. With respect to the pending accounts payable, you might want to just use that phrase as the then pending accounts payable. rather than the bills. I mean, you're very, very correct to point out, you know, it comes in at five o'clock on Wednesday, who knows? So I would just recommend, you know, operate, you know, the operational cycle of the finance department be recognized within this. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

So how do we want to change that then?

May I ask, I still don't understand that scenario.

But I'm just trying to think about bills are done by the council and be paid and I'm still I believe what Mr. Kennedy was suggesting was that rather than the language that exists, which is the bills to be paid for the upcoming month, it's just to pay the pending bill pending bills accounts payable. Whatever bills are pending. At that time, I believe that's that's the proposed change.

But along with the bills payable.

Well, pending.

Pending accounts payable.

Pending accounts payable.

Along with the bills, pending accounts payable. Sorry, maybe I'm the only one in the room that's not understanding this, but is this meaning that you're giving the finance department, you would be giving the finance department the open purview to just pay whatever comes and not come before the council at a bi-weekly meeting, bi-monthly meeting?

And can I make a suggestion?

Yes, please.

You know, you have at every meeting a list of bills to be paid. The objection is to the last phrase for the upcoming month. So go along with what Mr. Kennedy said, strike a first town council meeting of each month and make that reports to the town council on a monthly basis, along with the bills to be paid. And that will track what you're doing currently.

Nothing changes.

Nothing changes operationally.

Okay. Right. Yeah. Did you get that change? Because we could make that a motion. Tony, do you have that? Gary, would you like to make that a motion?

Can you give that to?

The G would read, perform monthly review of the town's financial statements and provide public record reports to the town council on a monthly basis, along with the bills to be paid.

I'll make that motion.

I'll second that. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Was there other, anything else on 413? I think we can move on to 501. Oh, I'm sorry, Larry. Yes, that's right. Yep.

I want to make clear that I have no objection to ensuring clients and accountability with not only the charter, but ordinances and state, federal regulations and laws. I'm not opposed to that. I just point out that the current language of this is that this is a two-part provision here. Existing language says, I'm reading from the existing charter, ensure compliance, and remember the word to is at the beginning of this, so this is to ensure compliance with the charter by all town officials, departments, and agencies, as this is the existing language, and to establish a process for review of complaints of noncompliance from qualified electors of the town. As I mentioned before, the town, to comply with this adopted an ordinance 2-17D that describes the mechanism for enforcement of charter complaints. So I would urge you if you accept this language to perhaps have the Town Solicitor review that section to see whether it's compatible with the new language, I would just urge you to do that.

It isn't, it just passes, then that ordinance would have to be amended.

Okay, well, I just wanted to, you should, you want to look at that ordinance and try to think of the consequences of adding whole other categories of grounds for complaints.

501.

Thank you Larry. Section 5 a 1 fiscal year and definitions.

I think this is just clarification of what the definitions are they are the definition so I'll make a motion to approve.

I'm sorry Heather we can go to you after on you. Yes, yes, thank you. Pass it off to you.

The The market place. I've been reading this pointed out that under budget timeline. Item so that's F. That it's more practical to say by the 31st of December.

I'm sorry so you're clear.

So I would propose that we strike January and and insert December there and then under 4. It reads a copy of the town warrant will be provided by the committee immediately following its adoption by the council and that should read to the budget committee rather than by.

Thank you on your thank you Martha, I'll make that motion Heather you already have that language yes.

So I'll have to amend my motion to include on use. Thank you statements.

And did you have a second carry. But I made your second and your second OK. And the discussion all in favor. I section 502 budget committee.

And have any action anything wrong with that one so I'll make a motion to approve. All section.

On paper. About to have a brief. The reason of the budget.

I don't have anything written down this morning this will make a motion to approve.

All in favor. Action 5, 0, 4 public hearings on budget.

Motion to approve.

All in favor. All right. I can 5, 0, 5, capital program.

So I was 5, 0, 6, be this 5, 0, 5, 0, motion to approve.

All in favor aye aye.

5, 0, 6, 5, 0, 6, B. Tony is the state up the amount that you have to go out to bid 5,000 to 10,000. It currently 45 dash 55 dash 9.

is that 5,000 individually and then 10,000 for construction in aggregate. There was a bill in that would have changed that to the figures you see here in 506B, but that bill did not get through the General Assembly. It made it to the last step and then they adjourned.

But I know that wouldn't be a requirement off out to provide that correct that would only apply to state contracts.

I I've always read. Title 45 chapter 55 to also applied in cities and towns and not to say that the city of town can have a more stringent regulations, but they can't exceed past it. I've always that that's been the advice that was given.

So my recommendation would be to leave it as it is.

Is there anything in state law about basically inflation? 5,000 was a limit set so many years ago. 5,000 isn't 5,000 today anymore. 5,000 today is.

Wasn't that why the General Assembly was going to bump it to 10? Yes.

The bill just made it the last step and then just didn't get over the finish line. But you're correct. By the way, that would have matched the CPI from the last time they changed it going through, but it just didn't.

If we do nothing, we stay compliant or in line with what the state regs are?

That's correct, yes. I'll make a motion to leave 506B as is. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Section B, just Section B. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So we were on Section 506. Yeah, we were under discussion on Section B.

The other change that was in Section A, I guess it's A and B. Yeah, I would suggest we leave Section 506A and B as is.

By the way, A does comply with 45559. Just so you know, I'm not saying you need to do it, but it's compliant. The amendment is compliant with state law.

But we can be more stringent than state law.

You can, yeah.

So we can leave it. You can leave it as is. Yes, you can. So my feeling is... get an RFP and everybody's going to know what's going on rather than one person on the council saying, well, I can bid up to $20,000. So, I mean, if that wasn't going to go through, I was going to say, well, it would have to have council approval and if it went through the way it's written, there would be no oversight on spending, so.

So Heather, the current motion is to leave that entire section 506 and not make any changes to it. So the amendment on 506 does not pass. Yes. Okay, thank you. And do we need to vote on not passing something?

I would. Well, yeah, it was the motion to leave it as is.

I think, but if we're not doing something, but fine, we can, yeah, so all in favor? Aye. Done that previously. Yeah, have I?

All right, I'm trying to keep, it's a lot to keep track of. Oh, you're doing a great job.

510 budget adjustments.

Motion to approve. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Section 511 currently titled council discretionary fund proposed new title town council incidental and emergency budget.

Approve that motion to approve. Second. Sounds a lot more professional.

All in favor?

Aye.

Section 512, formerly titled, or currently titled reserve fund. Section 512 new title proposed the town contingency fund TCF.

I didn't have anything written down on this, but it's for a layman, it gets kind of confusing.

I'm going to read the reason for the proposed amendment, because I do know that there has been robust debate and conversation and deliberation on this item. Reason for the proposed amendment, the finance director and members of the budget committee proposed the deletion of wording about the fund formerly known as quote unquote reserve funds, which has been a source of confusion and potentially a source of fiscal misunderstanding. The proposed changes include a new section 512 named the town contingency fund TCF with a statement of purpose and descriptions of the TCF components with associated responsibilities. The objective of the changes is to increase transparency and accountability for manage and use of the town's contingency funds.

Do we have a motion on this yet?

Oh, I have been Kennedy and then Andy Ryan.

This is a factfully intensive topic. The issue arose that Section 512, as currently drafted, referred to two funds, the Salt Tower Fund and the Reserve Fund, one of which no longer exists. That was sometime in 2023. What used to be the cell tower fund was retitled with some transactions now being referred to and titled as the cell tower reserve fund. So In part, this language is to conform to the current use of account titles. More importantly, the use of funds under this were limited to three circumstances. For use in rather than borrowing in anticipation of taxes, could be for construction. It could be also for emergency purposes. Much more importantly, under the Execution 512, any funds drawn from that account was subject to repayment by appropriation in the next year's tax year. So if there is, by way of example, and this is just to make it up to illustrate the point, if there's a breach at South Shore Beach and it costs $50,000 to fix it, that goes into the tax base the next year. So that's one purpose was to sort of smooth out, if you will, the use of funds without a mandated source of repayment. So that was the principle hurdles with respect to the existing 512. The proposed section 512 combines what is now called cell tower reserve fund and the reserve fund that between the two of them have a current balance somewhere in the order of $320,000. And it lays out that any funds received from the cell tower leases are paid into the contingency fund until a $400,000 balance is attained and any amounts received in excess of 400,000 is then the general revenue of the town. So it provides some operational flexibility above 400,000. It also provides that there are voting requirements to draw in the event of exigent circumstance such, but not the immediate obligation to repay in the next tax year. So it provides further financial flexibility to the town. This was a hideously complex set of circumstances. I hope I've captured the essence of it and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ben. Andy?

We are so lucky to have Mr. Kennedy come and spend so much time with us on these very complicated financial topics. But I will note that we spent 10 hours talking about this in the budget committee, I think, something like that in committee, probably if you added it all up. One thing I think you should also be aware of is that Bob Muschen is the only person who really, I think, clarified this issue for us in a meeting where he was able to give us the complete history of how the fund popped up. And it really was from the self-tower revenue. And it was, what do we do with that? And then how do we use that as some type of fund? And then it could, right? But it has never been used that I know of or very sparingly and money has just built up in there. And so you have a nice emergency fund, but real no way of using it. And then I think the next thing you need to understand too is that we probably will not have cell tower revenue forever because the next generation of cell towers will go on light posts. And that's not gonna happen today or tomorrow, but when that does come through, you're gonna lose $45,000 in that revenue that's building that fund up annually. And so you should not come into custom to having that revenue necessarily. But, and I think that's why we kind of thought about putting a structure of a $400,000 cap before it flows in to, you know, before it flows into the general revenue fund base, right? So, So those are the kind of the context there. I think Vin did a really great job explaining the nuance behind it. But I can tell you, we spent a tremendous amount of time on this. This is an enormous, people have no idea what this fund is. That's why you can't track it financially right now. And so we just tried to clean this up and provide some structure for how the council may use the fund and then how you may repay it. Thank you.

Thank you, Andy. Do we have a motion on the table on this one?

I don't think we do.

We have a motion from Gary, a second from Andrew, and Paul, go ahead.

For some reason, the cell telephone was somehow tied into the fire department. And I can't remember why. I remember we bought a fire truck with it. And it was on a payment schedule and the cell phone supplied the money. There was some contingency.

It may have been prior to 2021, which is the last debit transaction with HyperDrop. So from the last five years, there's been no...

Nothing's been drawn from it.

There's been no trend other than the credits to the self-valued

Okay.

Just something that popped in my head from sitting here a while ago.

So we have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion on this one? All in favor? Aye. Section 601 town administrator.

So one be I'm a station benefits for the time ministry should be as set by the town council and should that read proof that financial Tom meeting.

Sure financial company has ultimate authority of all all set up everything about that yeah.

So we said what the. The benefits for the time administrator, but it we still have to have approval by the financial town meeting, so I would just add that to be a town council and and approve the financial town meeting.

I'm just not sure it's necessary because everything gets approved at the financial town meeting. Why would that have specific? I mean, I know that there's precedent language that they're proposing striking out. But other than that, I'm not sure that we would need that language in there.

Well, I think the way that was originally read was the town administrator itself shall be as set by the financial town meeting. and financial town meeting does not set compensation benefits. They only approve what the town council has already said are the compensation benefits. So now it says the compensation benefits for the town administration should be set by the town council and approved at the financial town meeting. So where it was originally, financial town meeting would approve, set the compensation and benefits. Now it says the council will, but it still has to be approved by financial town meeting.

Victoria, you have a problem?

Sure, please come to the microphone.

I mean, I'm open to clarification.

And identify yourself, please. Oh, sorry. Bonnie Finney. And chair of our charter commission. Thank you, Bonnie. Although I delegate a lot to that defense.

Okay. Um, the main point was clarification, just exactly as you say, Gary, that everyone's salary and benefits is approved by the town council. But for some reason it was stated in here that for the town administrator, so which is illogical. So we just changed it for clarification. And I don't know, and it's under the title of town administrator. So I think that the change is simple and just to get it out of the hands of the financial town meeting, because as you say, they all go there anyway.

Right.

Okay. So that's why we changed.

I'm going to let you know what the legal import of this.

Thank you.

Take a look at your collective bargaining agreements, which are the contract. Once you enter into them, if the financial town meeting doesn't fund that, the town is still obligated to pay. By doing it this way, once the town council sets that, whether or not the financial town meeting funds it, it's a contract and you're obligated to pay.

So we don't need approved at the financial town meeting in that?

If you don't have that language in and you have that contract, if it's not funded by the financial town meeting, the town is still obligated to pay.

So should that language be in there or not? Should it end with town council? That's a policy consideration.

If you put that language in, set by a town council and approved by the financial town meeting, if the financial town meeting says no, then the contract is not effective as to that portion of it. If the language isn't in there and the financial town meeting does not fund it fully, then the town will still be obligated to pay. That's the legal import of this. That's policy consideration oriented on this.

Thank you, Tony. Andy?

I would just remind you how the financial town meeting works, and that is the budget committee makes a recommendation that's based on the town council's recommendation. So the budget committee's recommendation for a salary for an individual would be the elected individual at the clerk's salary and compensation is by the budget committee. Town council sends everything else to us, I believe. We then vote on a recommendation and then the voters at the financial town meeting approve the line item numbers at the final, not line by line. Voters cannot amend line by line budget details. So essentially, you could end up in a situation where someone may make a motion to reduce the line item number for the town administrator on the warrant item to some amount, but that doesn't give the voters the right to change what is paid in that amount. And so my recommendation would be that the town council sets the salary and benefits, but that the budget committee has basically can go in and adjust those budget items in the budget report. But I'm not even sure if we do line item level work in the budget committee necessarily where we would do the bottom line. But I'm trying to think in a case where we have... changed a sub part of a warrant, or if we're voting on those warrants to recommend or not recommend, we might not recommend a full amount for a particular reason, right? But I don't know if we would come in and vote to say, change the administrator's salary within that part of the budget. I don't think we do that even if, I think, so to answer your question, the solicitor's question, I think the town councils, once they vote on a budget that has the salaries of those individuals you know, the budget committee then, I guess could come in and wanna change part of that, but can they actually tell you how to spend that individual's, that accounts funds in there, right? So I think you need to think about how that's done, but I don't think the financial town meeting approves the town administrator salary. They approve the town administrator, the warrant item associated with that salary. And you would have to have a warrant item that was town administrator's salary. And if you're going to have the financial town meeting approve that.

So if we strike financial town meeting, which I understand why it doesn't make sense that that was in there and why we would wanna strike that and add town council instead. And I understand why that would be. And now the question is, do we also add to that for approval at financial town meeting? I just wonder if we add the language that it's for approval at financial town meeting, are we suggesting that this one particular salary is is somehow handled differently than other salary items that we don't have specific language about further being confirmed at financial town meeting. Do you know what? Yes, that makes sense.

That's fine. Yeah.

So I'll make the motion that we accept it as written.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right, that was the one we're moving on guys. 605 tax assessor A second. Sorry, read it to you.

The tax is calculated based on the total aggregate collective conveyances, plural, transfers, transactions, number of deeds or other instruments, again, plural, and the number of buyers or sellers participating. There's also language in there about contemporaneous transfers. So it really is going to depend case by case, transfer by transfer. If there's a transfer that comes in and it is comporting to treat what is, for example, being used as one lot, but somehow it has been separated out, whether it's dotted line lots, old lots that are mapped but not deeded, things like that are gonna become important. Because if it is a contemporary transfer of all of the rights of a particular owner, then only one $450,000 exemption will apply. It's also important to know on the other way, if you sell part of your interest, That $450,000 exemption then gets prorated. But the law is very clear. It applies to contemporaneous transfers of interests. The plurals are there throughout the Enabling Act. And it is one exemption. So what will happen in your case? I don't know. I would need more facts. The form, that's why the form is spelled out with such information. We would need all of the information to look at it to determine it.

Under that, guys, I think we should push this to the solicitor for comment from him. Even though you say you've talked to the solicitor, I'd like to get some comments from the solicitor I don't want to see people, so we'll go back to the six lots. So they're each deeded separately. They've each been paying tax on separately. If somebody sells one in January, and then in July he sells another one, and then the next January he sells another one, and so on until all six lots get sold, how is that going to be? How is that going to work?

That's a great question. And it's not at issue tonight. Tonight is just to put the transfer tax rule codified under the Enabling Act into the rules and regulations. What you're talking about and your concern comes after once forms are filled out and given to the Ag Trust to interpret. And that then becomes my job, the trust job, the solicitor's job to make sure that no one is violating the law. And I can assure you that given all of the discussion and effort that has gone into this and my offices and the trust research on the voluminous number of transfers that have happened that do not appear to have correctly calculated the tax, that we will be looking at this very carefully with the goal of one, complying with state law always, and two, being consistent so that everyone is treated consistently across the board.

I think we discussed this a few years ago. Go ahead.

I think this is going to clarify things. I see the term contemporaneous. That means at the same time.

Correct.

Okay. So the example, one lot is conveyed out in January. In September of that year, another lot goes out. The next year, another lot goes out. In that circumstance, then, under this regulation, it would not be the combination. It would have to be conveyed at once.

Correct. You have to meet the Enabling Act's definition of the transfer tax and how it's calculated.

Okay, so Gary's example of conveyances that are not contemporaneous would not... be captured by this change in your regs?

It is very possible that when you fill out a form, the closing or the transfer contemplated at that moment should be fully filled out. I would never advocate for someone to purposely delay selling land or conveying interest in order to avoid the transfer tax. But yes, the contemporaneous language is in the act.

Can I make a comment here? I'm just trying to put this in English. You guys have legalese, drives me crazy. Let's use Gary's example. You've got lot one through six. You come in with lot one, you fill out an application. The administration triggers the tax, $450,000. The next day you come in, hey, I'm going to sell my other lot. Don't you have to reapply all over again, start like from scratch?

It really depends. There's so much other information that we would need. Historically, we have a history of taking what we're calling separate lots, for example, which in your mind, as you're sitting here, it seems like a clear idea. Separate lots, lot lines, deeds, things like that. Not always so clear. We have an issue historically where lots have been created historically, they've then been merged, or there's been an idea that they may have been merged. And then owners have then said, well, I never officially merged them, the assessor hasn't merged them, so I can sell them separately when really they are merged. So again, I go back to the idea that the Rules Amendment before you tonight is just to codify the Enabling Act, the state law, and to give some clarity on the math and how to calculate the form. The interpretation and the application comes later. And those issues will arise as they will arise as people fill out the form and discussions will happen. But as always, again, The goal is consistency and compliance with state law. It's going to be a case-by-case basis.

May I ask another, just a quick clarification question? It's slightly off topic. By the way, blame Mark Hardin for this one.

Okay.

Will do. And the form is assessor's platenlot. Do you see any problem with that?

Where are you? I'm sorry. Where are you looking?

In other words, Mark, the regulation you have references reported lots.

I'm not seeing the language where Mark .

That'd be under section eight, paragraph three, as used here in the total purchase aggregate consideration received by a seller or seller's collection. for the transfer of each recorded lot of real property, whether in a single conveyance or in separate conveyances.

That's correct.

Okay. Just a clarification. Absolutely. Little Compton real estate transfer tax form, it's with assessor's plat and lots. Or at least I'm assuming that first lot, plat and lot, both with assessor's plat and lot.

I'm not sure what the question is, but I'll tell you that that language that you're quoting is from the State Enabling Act. We did not draft that.

I'm not saying that. I just want to make sure that this discrepancy doesn't create an issue.

I'm sorry. You're pointing out a discrepancy between the Enabling Act and the form?

Yes.

Okay. I'm on the first page or on the second page?

I don't even know if it is. I just want to make sure it's not an issue.

And the second one down at the bottom of the first page where it says the completed form will be included with any request for municipal lien certificate intended for purposes of real estate conveyance and transfers. Can you explain that?

Yes. So right now, your municipal lien certificate that is issued today has language in it that says I'm paraphrasing. Hey, by the way, in addition to whatever taxes are indicated here, there may be an additional tax that is owed to the Little Compton Ag Trust. So what we decided to do in order to take the burden off of staff and give it to the Ag Trust to review these forms and the calculations was to say, what mechanism can we use to trigger the person involved in the conveyance to have to submit the form. And that's where the MLC became the easiest way to plug into the process to make sure that everyone gets access to the form and everyone knows when it has to be termed in.

Comments? Sorry. Yes, please. Okay. I'm the town clerk and I have some concern with this, which I've already expressed to a couple of members of the Ag Trust based on, I mean, reporting land evidence records, office is responsible for. And I just made a statement just now about to move the burden off of the staff. In my experience here in prior, the receipt of the ag trust document to be accepted via the finance department, formerly treasurer town tax collector's office and the clerk's office more so. is requested from the finance department upwards of three months in advance and then received and then the attorney or the closing real estate agent, individual for that matter, would hold onto that and record that as part of the recording process for a deed, which is not, a requirement to have a deed recorded. I cannot refuse in the clerk's office a deed to be recorded without a municipal lease certificate. 90% of the time it's present, but there are times when either it wasn't requested ahead of time or they didn't receive it in the mail in time or for whatever reason. And then that comes in maybe a few days later, a week later, whatever would be recorded to satisfy that factor. So I did bring up my concerns with the hardship to many in this aspect of all this. And I'm not for or against the Ag Trust or anything like that. And I don't want to be perceived as that, but I'm just really concerned. And I've been voicing my concerns for the clerk's office, from the clerk's office for those that have to do this. whether it be a real estate attorney, an individual for buyer or seller, the financial hardship or loss they may have if they thought that a closing was scheduled at 10 a.m. today here in the council chambers to then go to the finance office and do their recording of the ag trust form to them, come to the clerk's office, and then by 10.30 a.m., the attorney saying, yeah, send the wire. And I understand there's some mechanism that has to be put in place to clear this up, but this is really going to put a hardship on if you're requiring this to be done at a time of filing for those that have clothing scheduled to be able to do the transactions as necessary.

Yeah, could I respond to that if I may? I think I'd be able to clarify this for you. This in no way is related to any recording of a municipal lien cert. This amendment, this form does not require a recording of the form or a recording of the municipal lien cert.

Yes, but in here, if I'm reading it correctly, you're asking for the ag trust form to be submitted at the time of the request of the municipal lease. Am I reading that inaccurate?

Copy of this form completed by a party to the transaction shall be included with any request for a municipal lien certificate. It goes on, but we'll stop there. So anybody that is a party to the transaction, at the time they come into your office, I assume whosoever office they go in to get the municipal lien cert would come in with a copy of the form. And they would say, I need a municipal lien cert. And here is my ag trust form. That's it.

Okay, I guess maybe I'm not being clear about the process and how a recording is done or maybe a closing is done. And I understand we're not responsible for attorneys or real estate agents or a buyer or seller. We are the town, but the flow of a process for a closing. We live in Little Compton here where a lot of our buyers or sellers don't even live here. And, you know, they may come into town for the closing or they may come into town now, get everything, all the ducks in a row. The attorney goes back. Okay, here we go. I'm going to have the closing or whatever. So I'm just, I'm really concerned on the hardship that this is going to cause for not only the town, but for the pushback that we're gonna get, but also the fact that those that are involved, this is really gonna be a problem.

Sorry. Heather, can I try to understand more of the specific issue that you're worried about? Because the transfer tax form will be filled out, submitted to the treasurer's office, signed by the ag trust upon confirmation stamped by the treasurer's office and then they go over to the clerk's office to record and when they get to the clerk's office to record they have the stamped and signed ag trust form right and then they go about recording just as they've always recorded

So I don't... Well, my concern is that... And I'm not trying to belong this, but... You just stated something that a question that I had asked initially when one of the Ag Trust members reached out to speak to me, I said, what is the turnaround time for the Ag Trust person to review that? And I did not get an answer.

That is, well, I apologize.

So is it 48 hours? Is it 48 minutes? Is it two weeks? Because you can't go in and file and then go into the clerk's office, ask for the municipal lien certificate for the clerk's office and file.

That is the sole reason why we're asking for the Ag Trust form to be submitted when they request the MLC. It has nothing to do with the MLC or what happens to the MLC. It's just that if they can submit the form at the time they request the MLC, while the Treasurer's Office is preparing the MLC, the Ag Trust will then be confirming the transfer tax to be paid. So we're simply using the time that the MLC takes to be prepared for the Ag trust to confirm. That's why we built it into the process that way. So there's no extra time being added to the process. We'll confirm while the treasurer's office is issuing the MLC.

I still believe that there's a time problem there because, as I said, MLCs sometimes are requested three months in advance. Sometimes they're requested a week in advance. The attorneys come in and pick up the MLC. And to get that ag trust form signed, we already not. I mean, it's not really our problem, but we already are presented on a regular basis with MLCs. deed to be recorded and we go, where's the MLC? I mean, excuse me, where's the ag trust form? What do you mean? Because not a lot of people know about the ag trust form. We educate them, us in Block Island, and then it's a scramble to get that ag trust form done. And so I'm just bringing up the fact of timing really, I believe, from my experience, going to cause a hardship to people on their closings.

Okay, I would... I think we've built a process.

As soon as Don is done, you're next. All right. No, no, I was saying as soon as Don is done, because he was in the middle of a sentence. Don, please. I'm sorry, Don. I was just letting her know she was next.

We have tried to build a process that accepts the fact that we are not trying to add any time to the process. And I know that you've got concerns about that, and I appreciate that. I would just like to point out that The number of instances in which the Ag Trust believes that the improper tax has been paid over the last number of years has grown and grown to a point where that is the hardship, that people are not being dealt with equitably in town. So there is a difference in the amount paid case by case, and that shouldn't be the case. So while I understand that there might be with this transition to the new process or a different process, there might be some burden. I'm telling you the burden that the town already feels and not equitably collecting the tax, in my opinion, is much larger than that specific issue. But, you know, I think this is where the Ag Trust, the clerk's office and the town treasurer's office should all work together. And if there are problems, we'll fix the problems. But right now we have a problem that's not been addressed for years and we're trying to address it.

Thank you, Dawn. Denise? Yes.

Denise Cosbo, tax assessor, and I work closely in the finance department. And over the years, for almost 20 years now, I've seen this problem get worse and worse. So when an MLC comes in, it comes in usually with plenty of time. I don't remember the exact time frame, but Anita has quite a bit of time to respond to an MLC. I think it's 10 days or 12 or 20 days, but I'm not exactly positive on that. So having the form from the Ag Trust come in at that time is I think very important, very important. It will stop a lot of questions on her end and I think it'll save a lot of aggravation. Thank you. Thank you, Denise.

I'm gonna add, I wasn't gonna read John McNamee's letter, but since we've heard from the clerk and the tax assessor and the Ag Trust and everyone, I feel like I should read it just so John has heard on this. I'm right, I'm speaking in John's voice what he wrote to me today. I am writing to indicate my support for the proposed changes to the transfer tax assessment policy to be presented by Mr. McNaughton at tonight's town council meeting. We have been discussing these changes for months and the result will be a more accurate transfer tax assessment since representatives from the Ag Trust will be reviewing the tax calculation prior to the finance department processing the collection of such taxes. This will result in a more accurate MLC for the payment of the transfer tax prior to the recording of property transfer. As you are aware, the past practice was for the tax collector to receive a signed document from both the buyer and the seller on the amount of the tax based on a predetermined formula. When received by the tax collector, a recalculation of the tax due was prepared based on the agreed upon formula. No additional support was being provided. If a dispute as to the amount of the transfer tax was determined by the Ag Trust, it would be after the transaction was complete and the tax was paid, if any. Under the proposed changes, the form that is being used to calculate the transfer tax will still be signed by the buyers and the sellers, but a representative from the Ag Trust will sign off on transaction prior to the payment of the tax. Accordingly, any disputes will be addressed in a timelier manner prior to the closing. The proposed changes will not add any additional burden to the staff and finance office since we will process the payment of such taxes in the very same manner as we always have done. But now we have signed off by an Ag Trust representative on the form, respectfully, John McNamee, Finance Director. Larry. Larry.

So as Don knows and as other members of the Agricultural Conservancy Trust know, this issue, I've been before the Agricultural Trust for 25 years on this one. The poison pill was when the law was amended in 1999 by adding the phrase each recorded lot to a language that was created by the trust lawyer at the time, the contemporaries language. the council wouldn't pass it, wouldn't send it to the legislature without adding at each recorded law. That problem has festered to the point of, and personal note, I was going to trust meetings and finding mistake after mistake and filing out forms, but by then they were recorded and there's no mechanism in this to correct mistake. The real problem now is the equity problem, because if we've increased the exemption, from 75,000 to 150 to whatever, to 450, if there's a mistake, that inequity in the application, just the stakes that that's one of the stakes that's being made either by intention or just confusion, people are paying different, substantially different taxes based on mistakes or the multiplication of lots. I'll give you an example. It's not to single it out, but when the vineyard was last purchased, that's 11 lots in a contemporaneous purchase. If that property is sold, that's 11 times 450,000. The exemption on that is millions of dollars compared to the same dollar amount for a property in one parcel. We don't deal with our property taxes that way. So the equity problem, the fairness, if we were buying the same system to our property taxes, it'd be a riot in town hall. So something has to be done. And the only other precedent for this in Rhode Island is Block Island Land Trust, which has very similar language. They have been following this system where their trust signs off on the accuracy of the form. They've been doing that for 40 years. I mean, I imagine that the closing things for a place you have to fly in to do a closing are pretty complicated, but they figured it out. So we either have to do this, or we have to go back and amend the law.

Ms. Mary? A motion on this?

I have a motion to approve this. My motion was to- Go on, I'm sorry. Yeah, I didn't make a motion. I believe I made a motion.

Heather, what was Gary's motion? Could you read that?

Make one.

You started to say included with the MLC, but you didn't finish.

I thought I made a motion to get some more clarification for this.

From this law, I'm sorry you did yes, I apologize. Let me turn the page.

Yes, was there a second?

No, you you made a motion to refer to the solicitor for further review income.

I mean, I think have this made some comments that I think need to be cleared up so that this is a smooth and orderly transition between departments downstairs. And I understand that previously the Ag Trust didn't look at their, and I may be wrong and you can correct me, didn't look at their exemption form before the deeds were recorded. And they're trying to do that now, but what's happened in the past is in the past and whether this is gonna resolve that, I don't know. So that's why I just like to have some answers from the solicitor before we go sign something that, you know, like my situation, if you got 10 lots and you saw them all at the same time, but you've been paying separate taxes and they did it separately, Well, the trust lawyer says, well, we don't know how that's going to, we have to see it before we can make a determination on that. In my mind, it's pretty clear. You got 10 lots that have been paying taxes on separately, that deeded separately, and now if you saw them all at once, it's contemporaneous, and you're going to get taxed on each one of those? Is that how it is?

I have a motion and not a second, and we have Don. Go ahead, Don.

Gary, I appreciate your concerns. Having looked at the various transfer tax transactions for the past five to 10 years, that issue is not one of the issues that has come up time and time again. So I'm not saying that that may not occur, but that has never occurred in my memory. And I admit that it could be faulty at times. So I don't think that is that your particular scenario is one that has ever been brought to my attention. So I'm sure we can create other scenario that might cause some level of confusion, but 99.9% of the transactions that are carried out with this process are pretty rote. And there are many instances of people misapplying the transfer tax exemption, as well as taking a $450,000 exemption when they're only purchasing a fraction of the property. Those are the two that I see time and time again. So, Again, not to say that your issue may not come up in the future, but if it does, we'll deal with it. But that is not sort of top of mind for me.

I just would like to say that I have issue with the equity piece of this. That's what bothers me the most when we look at the transfer tax exemption amount. You know, in my mind, raising it as the Ag Trust did, what was it, two, three years ago to 450, in my hope was that it would make housing a bit more affordable for the first time home buyer who gets an exemption of 450, not for the person who batches all their lots together and takes multiple exemptions. So whether it's intentional or accidental, I think we have an equity problem. And I think that's worth noting.

So should we allow the solicitor to come back with some kind of recommendation to us?

Are you proposing we continue it pending some feedback from the solicitor?

How about contingent upon the solicitor's review?

Contingent upon the solicitor's review.

I'd rather have the explosive come back and give us this explanation about what all these things are going to do. I mean, you've been working on it for 18 months. Another couple of weeks isn't all the time.

Yeah, I understand that.

In another meeting, we will also have a full council, which would be good for the council here to vote for it. Okay.

One last point. Tony and I work together a lot. We have a great relationship. I always appreciate input from his office, but I will say in this instance, this particular has been going on for a long time. Mr. Justice's office has been given copies and has had the language to review and going forward, if it is an interpretation question that we're looking for legal advice on with utmost respect to my brother, that's my role. I am counsel for the Ag Trust. That box stops with me with the understanding that if Tony ever called me and said, we have an issue we need to discuss, I will listen and we will discuss that. But my role is to represent my client and to interpret this issue and the issues that come up, the hypothetical included when it comes up, if it comes up, At that time. Thank you.

Tony, can you?

Yeah. Thank you. Legalese from Karen, which basically says she's sick of dealing with me. After we get done with what we're going to be doing on the with the charter. provisions. But then then I'll be able to take this up and be ready for your next regular meeting meeting.

So Gary's made that motion to continue it pending the solicitors review and reporting recommendations. Do I have a second on that?

Yeah, second.

Okay. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Those that are you I all right unanimous other the by all right, okay, thank you, thank you. Let's see I trust number for a new business for options for 2026 paving program and potential vote on RFP on you.

I'm going to recommend that because it's one meeting that we all this to your next regular meeting.

Option to postpone postpone this. Agenda item to the next town council meeting.

All in favor? Aye. Number five, request for approval of RFP for paint removal and repainting DOT garage located at 144 Willow Ave. Second. All in favor? Aye. Number six, Anya is on this one. Request to apply for state funding for an EV charger.

and pull the same card on this one and suggest that we push this forward to the next council meeting.

All in favor? Aye. Number seven request for approval of hiring a DPW employee Anya has given us a letter with her recommendation and the recommendation of the department head Ted Boddington. Do I have a motion on this?

Yes. So the only question I had on this is How many people will that bring into the maintenance department, Ted? You want me to speak to them? Just worried about the union contract.

Do you want to speak to the union contract?

I think you were... Or Ted can. Before Ted talks, though, I just want to make sure that you know, there is a typo in my memo. I said Ian had been working part-time. I want to correct that, and then Ted can...

In what we're looking to do, we obviously have one person out on medical, and then we lost our part-time transfer station employee abruptly one day, looking to replace that body with a full-time body, basically. So it will give me five total, including myself.

And I have no problem with that. I just don't want to have an arbitration coming up that there's only three people in the union contract that you can have, or is there four?

Actually, I'm taking a look at the last contract you have with this particular bargaining unit, and there's no limit. Okay. It doesn't identify who is in the collective bargaining agreement. What happens is it states that the employer hereby recognizes and acknowledges that the union is the exclusive representative for all employees classifications and categories of work covered by disagreement for purposes of collective bargaining. So there's no set amount of people that are in the DLW? So long as you know, once this fellow gets this appointment, he's in the union. Yeah.

Understood. I assume that whatever limits would be put on is up to the council.

Yeah, it's not in the agreement.

Right, it's not in the contract.

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Thank you very much thank you. Number 8 received letter of retirement from captain Randall what who has served the town for 30 years on the little Compton fire department.

Motion to accept with a regret and I will say one thing. Randy what has been temporary fire personnel for us for 30 years. And I wish everybody down there refinement could he set example for and would be like him. I wish he was here tonight.

Thank you, Captain Watt, and congratulations on your retirement, 30 years. That's quite a...

I don't think there was a motion.

He made the motion. What is the motion, sorry?

Accept with regret. Okay.

And you seconded, Paul?

And send a letter of thank you.

All right, Heather, you got that? Yes. Seconded by Paul. Yep. Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

New Business 9, Town Common Needs Assessment Committee. This was put on the agenda by Councillor McHugh, who would have liked to have been here and was unable to. So I propose that we continue that to a future meeting.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Number 10, request from tax assessor Denise Cosgrove, Melissa Baer appraisal consulting LLC proposal to provide mass appraisal consulting services.

So is this somebody that's going to be looking for an assessment company?

Denise, do you want to speak to that, please?

This consultant, I'm hoping to... Solicit here is independent of the appraisal company. She's going to look at the data we have, help me to draft the RFP so that it encompasses everything we need it to encompass. And she's going to review what the appraisal company that we do put the RFP out and get the bid, award the bid to. what they've done in addition to me. So she's going to work in tandem with me to make sure that everything is copacetic.

And Denise, am I right in understanding that in addition to your appraisal budget, you also have a budget for professional services that this would fall under? Yes, I do.

So it's $175 an hour. So that budget you have for outside services, it's not going to go over that budget?

Correct.

Okay. All right, motion to approve. Second.

On paper? Aye. Number 11, presentation by Steve Lubar, Stonewall Stewards. It's my understanding that Mr. Lubar will not be presenting tonight. Instead, he will present at a future meeting, likely in conjunction with Luke Driver.

Motion placed on file. Second.

Could you come to the podium, please, and give us your name, please? I know your name, but just for the folks at home.

So Steve is the president of, I'm the president of the Stonewall Stewards. The chairperson is- I know who you are, but- It's late, Donna, for all of us. Whatever. So I'm the chairperson of Stonewall Stewards. Steve, we agreed to come with, when Luke is here, And Steve is the treasurer. So I am requesting now that instead of Steve speaking, that I'm requesting of the council that I can say a few words on behalf, not of Stonewall Stewards, but of Little Compton Community Center. I'm the chair of the building committee. And I just have a few words.

Solicitor, if this is not an agenda item, can we entertain that?

This item is Stonewall's.

Okay, then. Can I? After you do this, can I ask to be speak on behalf of the community center?

We don't have it as an agenda item tonight. So I'll defer to the solicitor again on that.

I did submit a request to speak and I was on the agenda and was taken off the agenda. So now I'm making a verbal request. So I guess you have to say yes, Donna, you can talk or no, you can't.

Okay, you know, the technical answer is no, because it's not on the agenda that was posted. That's the first thing. I can tell you, I did speak with Ms. Pilkington before the meeting. I understand you're going to be meeting with her. Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. And this relates to a matter, a contractual matter for a lease that has not yet been executed. So to the extent that you are not on the agenda, it is on the advice of counsel. Because I want to see that lease finalized before we discuss anything.

Okay, but what I told you council. But I was when we were coming in outside is I'm not talking about the lease.

I understand you know here we are talking about something that's not on the agenda. I don't want to have an open meetings violation. And it's not on the agenda.

Most decision was that it might that was your decision by the city, yes.

I'm sorry, Donna, but we can talk tomorrow morning and get it on a future agenda. Once we have our I think with the solicitors advice with the leases to an email about what is the agenda?

I know that there's a meeting, but I don't know.

So I don't have an agenda for the meeting. I was invited to the meeting, and I will be at the meeting. I will be at the meeting.

I will see you tomorrow.

Thank you. Board of licensed commissioners, none. Communications, communications one. Letter of request from the United Congregational Church for use of town landing for an in-person beach service on Sunday, August 23rd, 2026 at 10 a.m. Motion to approve with all local and state ordinances adhered to.

Second. Sounds like charter. Yeah.

All in favor. I number two requests from the Nature Conservancy for an evening viewing of the Perseid meteor shower at town landing on August 12 2026. Rain a motion August 11 2026. All in favor. Number three requests from Little Compton celebrates America 250 to honor and name Caroline Wilkie Wardell as Little Compton's town crier. I would like to make the motion to approve naming Carolyn Wilkie as the town crier and charge the clerk to draft a proclamation to that effect.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Request from Buzzards Bay Coalition for use of Veterans Field on Sunday, October 4th, 2026 for their 20th annual watershed ride.

Motion to approve with all local and state audiences adhered to.

All in favor? Aye. Number five, receive email of gratitude for beach manager Jim Farrell for his outstanding team and the entire beach commission for hosting the Little Compton Community Center at the beach on June 25th, 2026 for their S'mores at South Shore event.

The town council would like to thank Jim for all the services that he does on these extracurricular situations. And you know how to write that in there. Motion to place on fire.

No, there was a motion to thank Jim from the town motion of a letter of thanks to be drafted from the council. OK, second second all in favor. I thank you number 6 request from Newport County prevention coalition to display their awareness banners slash flags within the town between August 28th and September 3rd 2026 recognize entry international opioid overdose awareness day.

Motion to approve, but I'd like to know where these are going to be placed.

Second. Discussion we have here. Polly, thank you for sticking this out. That's fine with me. Am I right in understanding this is an annual request?

An annual event. I think this might be the fifth time. Polly Allen, South of Commons. In previous years, we've done them right on Pikes Peak. Last year, we deferred to the 350th had something going on, but Pikes Peak is the ideal location. It really brings awareness to the situation and reduces the stigma around opioid use disorder. And I would like to add that in 2022 in Rhode Island, we had 436 deaths due to opioid overdose. Through a lot of people's work, including the Prevention Coalition, We still lost a lot of people, but it's down to 219 last year. So, and I believe that's through a lot of work reducing stigma and making things like this public. Thank you.

The motion was to approve. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you, Polly. Number seven, thank you letter from the Military Order of Foreign Wars of the United States Rhode Island Commandery for the generous donation from the town for their Purple Heart Monument at the Veterans Cemetery in Exeter.

Second.

Favor?

Aye.

Payment of the bills.

Payment of the bills. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.