Town Council - Regular Meeting

The prayer and the pledge, please.

Thank you for bringing us together today in a spirit of generosity. May we honor one another by keeping an open mind. May we voice our truth and listen with an open heart. May we discern your will to unite in a fruitful outcome. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call. Mr. . Well, my apologies. I didn't kick off the meeting with the night, what the date is. So I think I should probably say that. North Smithfield Town Council, June 25th, 2026. Now roll call. Mr. . Here. Mr. . Here. Mrs. O'Hara.

Here. Mr. . Here. Ms. .

Discussion by council vote or other action on adoption of 2026-2027 proposed budget. I would just like to indicate that we already have approved our budget on June 23rd, 2026. DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL VOTE OR OTHER ACTION ON METHOD OF TAX COLLECTION. I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THE METHOD OF TAX COLLECTION ON JUNE 23 OF 2026. SO NEXT UP WE HAVE DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL VOTE OR OTHER ACTION ON SETTING TAX RATE FOR 2026, 2027 WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Mr. .

Yes.

Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. .

Yes. Can I say something, Jeff?

It's been a long time.

Okay. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

That's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Mr. .

Yes.

Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. .

Yes.

Setting tax rates for 2026, FY2027, residential property, commercial property and tangible personal property.

So I handed out a piece of paper letting you know three options. It shows last year's tax rate. So you have option one, which basically increases commercial and residential by seven cents. Second option is Increasing commercial and residential, but giving as much relief to residential as possible without going over the 1.5% per state law. Then option three is to increase residential by eight cents and no change to commercial tax rate.

Can I ask you a question just because I'd like to be accurate. So the numbers at the bottom, the 2025 tax rates, 11.499 plus 0.7 cents doesn't equal the number that's proposed.

Well, for number one?

Yeah. So I just want to make sure that we have accurate numbers in front of us.

It's 0.07 cents, not 0.7 cents, right?

Yeah, but even still, I get there's a zero before the seven, but it just, so is it really 11.562 for real estate? If the prior year was, and actually no, it would be 11.569. If you add 7 cents to 11.499, you get 11.569. It's supposed to be .07.

I'm sorry.

I think it's supposed to be points. Was your increase for residential and commercial 0.7 or 0.07? 0.07.

Okay.

Okay, so add that to 11.499. Yeah, I got it. And then was your increase exactly 0.07 or was it 0.06 blah, blah, blah or 7 blah, blah, blah? Yeah. So there's extra decimal places. There's extra numbers.

Yes, there's multiple decimal places, but I'm not sure.

So the rates you see in front of you are accurate. The difference here up at the top, number one, increasing both residential and commercial tax rate by 0.07 cents is what it's supposed to be. And then the rates you have there are correct.

To be .007.

It's not 70 cents, it's 7 cents. I can go reprint one that says .07 cents if you like.

Do you want me to give you a new sheet? Well, nobody sees a sheet, but...

I just want to make sure the numbers are right in doing the math.

The number for all of the categories is correct because we go out three decimal places. So I just didn't put .007 on the description.

It's still, yeah, if you look at the commercial, it's 006. I get it's less than a penny, but I just want to make sure the numbers are right, because right now I'm not comfortable with that.

Okay, so if we have 11.499, Plus.

And you add seven cents to it. It's 11.569.

Right. So then it should be 11.569. And then, is that accurate? Is that accurate?

So the number that it would be increasing by is .073. .073. Okay. So 11.499 plus .073.

That's it there. Okay. So it's .073. three and then just maybe we indicate that like next year next year is that we just go out we just go out three times yeah yeah next time we go out three decimal places yeah yeah so i'm not standing up here saying i'm like point no definitely okay but maybe we just indicate that next year so that there's not confusion but those numbers are reflective of 0.073 cents for the first option of increasing both residential and commercial tax.

It's 0.073 for residential and 0.072 for commercial because it's how the numbers work out and how the sheet works out. You can't make it exactly the same. Okay. The rates you see in front of you are the accurate rates of what would be pushed out.

I was just trying to make it simpler in the description.

You guys made us go to pennies on the budget, so I got to go to sub pennies on the tax rate. Fair enough.

Okay, so this is my first time looking at this, so I just want a moment to read through. Do you remember last year what logic we chose? I think it was. Because it's a similar logic year over year. I do the same thing each year, giving you those options. I think we selected number two last year, increasing the commercial rate higher than the residential. We did do that?

Okay.

Still within the 150% spread. Mm-hm.

Okay, and this is 11, let's just focus on the first one. So $11.57 times 1,000, right? So it's 1,000. It's per thousand. So what's on average, though? What's our average household home here? It's 450, I think. Okay, so can we just do a quick map to see how much that would cost a homeowner with a $450,000 house? So, Tony, can you do the math? Because I'm not going to make myself look foolish.

Yeah.

I think our average home is 450.

We had a statistical reval last year.

It's 5,000.

It's 5- Yeah, 5,000. 200.

Yeah, yeah, basically 5,200.

5,200, that would be property taxes on a $450,000 home compared to current rate. So how much is the increase? That might also be something helpful next year to see the average home is X amount of money. And then if you were to factor each of these into the average home, what's this current fiscal year versus- $10. So $10 more. $10 difference, yeah. Okay, $10 difference, okay. So then we'll assume that obviously number two is going to be less than number one.

Yes.

And then with number three being- And now is number three increasing the tax rate, the residential tax rate by 0.8 cents, is it 0.08? Yes. Okay, 0.08 and no change to the commercial tax rate. That one's a no for me. Does anybody disagree with that?

Yeah, I don't think that one makes sense.

Okay. Okay. Tony, I don't know how we could do a similar exercise for commercial as we just did for average home. Right. Right.

usually do it but I usually do that during a revalued I give you a bunch but all the averages and the median mm-hmm I just point zero seven

No, I'm mostly looking at number two, right? So if our current tax rate for commercial is $16.94, let's say, compared to number two with a commercial rate of $17.27, what would be the actual increase?

On commercial?

Yeah. Like on average, like your average commercial business is making this much. So like what would, or not making, like it's going to be this much.

I don't know commercial, I'm going to be honest, I don't know commercial average.

Right, right, yeah, real estate, yeah, real estate. So like your average commercial business is this large, so it would be this much money for 2027 in comparison to 2026.

As far as the residential though, the difference between one and two is $58, 59.

I'm sorry, say it one more time.

The difference between the residential rate of option one and option two is $59. $59.

Based on the house?

Yeah, on the 450 house.

Okay. Okay. Any thoughts? I don't want to monopolize the.

I had a question. You looked at me.

It might also be helpful next year to have minimum, middle, and max. Your average is 450. On average, what's our lowest? On average, what's our highest? So we can see. And then similarly for commercial, if that makes sense.

Put some notes down for next year.

So I normally have it. So I usually present that, but today it was. And I didn't think you would need it because it's not a reval year and the average home didn't change. So usually I do it with the rate because the average home changes during a reval and all the numbers have changed. The numbers, unless there's any permits that are done, additions, the median hasn't changed for real estate and commercial. So that's why I didn't do it. I apologize. No, it's okay.

I just think it would be helpful for us to see and then be able to explain that to the public that are watching. And further clarification on number two, increasing residential tax rate by 2 cents. That's 20 cents? 0.02. 0.02, okay. 0.02 and the commercial rate by 33 cents. Yes. Okay.

It's actually 0.337 if you want that number. Okay. And the commercial, the residential number two is .023. Do you want that number?

I'd be inclined to go with one, I think.

Yeah. I think last year we went with two and putting more of the, I don't want to say burden, but more of the rate on the commercial.

Mm-hmm.

so I would feel more comfortable going with one. And then...

I'm sorry. No, go ahead. No, there's a difference. There's only a difference of $22.50.

Between one and two for the residential? Yeah. And that's divided over the year or quarterly?

Quarterly, yeah.

Okay, so...

So $22 quarterly.

$22 quarterly. Okay. Okay.

No, for the year.

For the year, yeah, but- For the year, divided by four. $25 divided by four. Mm-hm. So $5.

And that's only for the average of a $450,000 house. Correct. Okay. Okay.

I would be inclined to go with one.

Yeah, I would agree with you, David. I think that let's, I mean, I would advocate for number one, last year we put the burden of the tax rate on commercial. So I would think, given that, with the average house being $450 and the difference between one and two of $22 over the year, I think it's really not material.

OK. I'll go along with that.

So.

Do we want to make a motion without Kim? I know she's on her way.

Yeah. OK.

I'd like to make a motion to set the tax rates for 2026, fiscal year 2027 as follows. Residential property, $11.50, I don't even know how to say this, $11.572. Commercial, $17.008. Tangible, $43.632.

I'll second that for discussion. There was no increase to tangible?

Tangible's frozen. We can't? You can't change it.

Okay. Okay, so that's a second. We have a motion and a second? Roll call, please.

Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. . Yes.

Madam President, I didn't know that the President is coming. We moved through the agenda and at the end, if for some reason the President disagrees and wants to reconsider, it could come back up. But we're short on time. Yes. So I want you to keep moving.

Okay.

It wasn't a two-two anyway.

I mean, her vote, it wasn't- But if she wanted to say something, you could allow her to say something.

Okay. Moving on, discussion by council vote or other action on presentation by the Charter Review Committee. Continuation of public hearing. I'll make a motion to open for public hearing.

Second.

That's a motion and a second.

May I make a suggestion, President, that you call, well, I guess we only have one person, so do it this way.

I've said all I need to say.

Okay, that's the only reason why, Because I only put item number four back on the agenda because I didn't know the Charter Review Commission was finished. If they're finished, we can move forward to the final item, which is a public hearing on the actual item.

On the actual item, okay.

So that's the only reason why I didn't follow it.

We have a motion and a second to open a public hearing, right? Number- Four, five.

Five, yep.

Six, I'm sorry.

Six, right. Okay, so we opened up public hearing. I did continuation of public hearing.

So we skipped six.

But we made a motion and a second. So we'll rescind the motion to continue public hearing for discussion by council vote or other action on presentation by the Charter Review Committee.

Second.

Okay. That's a motion and a second. Roll call.

Mr. Berrigan? Yes.

I'm not even sure what we... Yeah, actually, we never even made it to the beginning, so it's kind of irrelevant.

Just rescind and rescind. So, as David Igliosi just mentioned, the Charter Review Committee has completed their presentation on the ballot questions, so we will move on to the following item of discussion by council vote or other action on the ballot questions to be included for the 2026 election regarding amendments to the North Smithfield Home Rule Charter The first item on the agenda is our public hearing.

So I will make a motion to open a public hearing for this item.

Second. That is a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Mr. Berrigan? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes.

Would anybody like to speak? on the ballot, the proposed ballot questions.

I think you should point out that there's one person in the audience who is part of the Charter Review Committee. Just as a point of order, I guess.

You have one more person in your meeting right now that we typically .

Scott was usually there, so. all right motion to close the public hearing second roll call please mr barragán yes mr pistofaro yes mrs o'hara mr punchak yes miss alice no no moving on discussion by council vote or other action on the following questions and then david do am i reading every single one of these questions what i can do is i can do one at a time okay

Okay. Gotcha. Okay.

Okay, so let's start with our first question, proposed ballot question one, town council terms. Article two, section two, article four, section one, discussion, vote or other action on a proposed amendment to restructure the town council to five members elected at large to staggered four year terms commencing with the 2028 election, including a two consecutive term limit per office with eligibility to run again for the same office after a four year break. Am I reading anything else?

It's a rank and path thing.

So we just got open for discussions open then?

Yes, open for discussion.

Okay, if I may, I think that this is a very bad idea for a couple of reasons. Right now we have a built in recall system. If we don't like somebody, if we don't like the way somebody's behaving, or if we don't like the way somebody is just as a council person, we have an option in two years to not re-elect them. We could be stuck with somebody for four years. And if you look at, I'm not going to get into that, but anyway. There's some people that I just would not want to be stuck with for four years. Nobody here, of course. I'm very proud to be part of this council. You didn't even choke on that one. I'm sorry? You didn't even choke on that one. So you can end up with somebody. Maybe more than one person that you are not happy with, and you're stuck with that person for four years instead of there being a built in recall. Now their behavior might not rise to the level of a recall, but it could rise to the level that you don't want to vote for that person again. Or you might regret that you voted for that person the first time. Now you've got two years to make it right. The other point that I want to make is actually something that probably nobody really gave a lot of thought to, but because of the staggered terms, Three people will get elected during a presidential election every year. Two people will get elected during midterms every year. Those are two totally different games. Running a campaign during midterm elections and running a campaign during a presidential election is very, very different. It's unfair to either one, right? Some people might not like having to face a larger crowd during a presidential election. Some people might like it. But either way, you could be stuck having to run an election at the same time period every time for both elections that you're running.

I think that's a valid point. I didn't consider that.

The way I look at all of these though is that we had a committee of residents look at the charter, come up with these things. Regardless of what my opinion is, I don't feel right saying yes or no to giving the people of the town the ability to vote on it. This is what people in this town who volunteered to be on this committee came up with. I don't think that I can say, no, we shouldn't put that on the ballot.

And to piggyback on that, David, as the liaison, the town council liaison on the charter review committee. These questions weren't, yes, we all discussed them as residents and a town council liaison, but also a resident of the town. But these questions weren't decided in a vacuum. We did look at what the last charter review committee did. We did look at the work that Doug Osier did in presenting the question for town council staggered terms. So we looked at the work that was completed. We decided that that was good work, it was valid work, and that we did see value in those questions. And I was giving that some thought today too, that at the end of the day, I think that these questions were established by residents and we should allow the residents the opportunity to vote on it.

Well, we have all our committees, advisory committees, and we're not forced to take, and we don't take the opinion or the advice of every committee's advisory opinion. But that's all it is, they advise. We don't have to take their advice, but we just take it into consideration. And as far as listening to the people, yes, it's a small group of people, hardworking people, no doubt. But if you're going to listen to the people, then listen to the people, what they voted in the last election, and they said no to this. This was on the ballot two elections ago. and the people voted it down they said no we don't want four-year terms for the town council we want to be able to vote every two years for the town council and now it's on the agenda so now you could argue you could argue that the committee is going against the will of the people and making the suggestion but this was the will of the people that they said no to four-year terms for the town council and says yes to four-year terms for the administrator and that's why he has a four-year term and we don't

And I'm looking at it as a town council person. If someone runs for the first time and they get highest vote, they're in for four years. If they haven't served before, four years could be a really long time. And I just wonder if there might be more opportunity for people to resign and then we have to have special elections. Because going into something for four years, you don't think of it at the time when you're running, four years. as you do it each week. Some people only run one time and then they say they had enough. They didn't really realize what goes into it. So I'm thinking about it on that side is that until someone serves to say they're gonna serve for four years for the first time is quite the commitment without them knowing what they're getting into.

Yeah, and I think on the flip side of that, in retrospect, I would have appreciated four years in comparison to two. because I think being a new counselor, it took me at least six to eight months to get very grounded in protocol, like in the process. And then by that time, right, you're considering running again. And then you have to decide if you're going to campaign again. So I just feel like with all of that being said, I just felt that there wasn't a lot of time to really influence the change that I would have liked to influence or propose because you spend so much time getting grounded. We only meet twice a month. You do a lot of work in between, but I just feel as though in hindsight four years would have really allowed for just more ability to influence change. But with that being said, I mean,

Well, I don't want to give you the impression that there's not pros to four year terms. I'm just saying that the cons outweigh the pros. Okay.

As far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, okay. You know, I'm going to add something. At one time when people actually came to these meetings, and if you remember, some of you, a stage, stairs, it was packed. People were there. They actively communicated with us because it was at the moment. Now, they got the little thing up, they're looking, eating, it is not the same. It's not the same atmosphere, and it's not the same commitment. And I moved here in 75, started to go to those meetings. And let me tell you, at times when we moved, and people never complained, they were there. I'd like to know the ratio of people that even peek at it at home. When you're there in body and soul, it's much different. You're a big difference. And if you don't believe that, God bless you.

So I know there are a bit pressed for time. Are there any final words on... proposed ballot question number one, town council. David's raising his hand. Yes.

I just, because of the comments made by Councilman Beauregard, and I just thought you should be aware, the council certainly should, if they're considering the issue, which you indicated that wasn't considered, about which election you want the four-year term to be. That's one consideration. The other consideration is whether or not, if you want it to go forward, do you want it to be staggered or all four-year terms? In other words, if your attitude is you want the election to always be on the presidential year when there's the most people at the ballot box, then you would make it, you have the option of saying four year terms for everybody, every four years beginning in 28. And that way everybody's always having an election on a presidential year. I'm not telling you to do that, I'm saying Councilman Paraguay raised two issues. One, that this creates a staggered effect that somebody could always be on a presidential year and somebody could always be on a off year. And that may be a disadvantage to a council person, which nobody discussed.

What if you just pushed the first wave to the 2030 election, so you'd always be replacing three in an election year, right? If right now it's set up you're replacing three in a mid-year election.

No, right now it's set up three years in a presidential election. The way this works is it wouldn't take effect until 28. It won't be this election. It'll be the 2028 election. that the top three vote-getters would have a four-year term. The two lowest vote-getters would get a two-year term. So they would be elected in the presidential year, 2028.

David, may I make a point that I think first we should vote on whether or not we even agree on four-year terms, and then we can work out the details. For all we know, we might get shot down.

I'm fine with that, Counsel. I'm just saying that if you vote to approve this ballot, the ballot as written, and it's not taking into consideration the comments you just made.

Okay.

You're raising more comments than just that you're against the four-year term. You're raising the unequalness of the staggered term. uh and maybe you know that's a consideration i don't know i'm just want the council to be cognizant that that's an issue that was raised and you have a right to amend the ballot if you thought that was something that you wanted to do you don't have to my personal opinion i like the everyone's on the four-year staggered term with election at the same time

No, not staggered, sorry. Four-year term election at the same time. We didn't discuss that as a Charter Review Committee though. So I'm just speaking from my personal opinion. I don't know if I would feel comfortable changing it without consulting the Charter Review Committee. We have until August 5th, so we could theoretically hold on this question and then approve the other.

meeting for the next 15 days because it has to be approved by the Secretary of State's office by August 5th. Right. Which means Charter Review Committee would have to meet. It would have to come back to the council and it would have to, and the next council meeting is the 20th of July. Yeah. So it would have to get to the council docket on the 20th of July, then approved by the Board of Canvases, and then delivered to the Secretary of State by August 5th. So if you have some concerns about that, you have that time. Again, it's just assuming you could get the Charter Review Committee. I mean, this could come back on the council docket without the Charter Review, but I'm just suggesting to you, you could continue this to the 20th. Yeah. and then try to have that discussion with the Charter Review when you still have time to make the ballot.

Okay.

But that's up to you.

The only thing that I would say is that we were cognizant that we wanted to piggyback on the tax letters that would go out in July. But with that being said, if it's digital, right, then we still have time to include that ballot question even if we send out a notice with the tax letters.

Again, notice that the tax letter is going to be a decision of the council, not a decision of the Charter Review Committee. No, I know.

I'm just thinking timeline in my head. So I think I would like to continue this question specifically to July 20th and work with the Charter Review Committee to meet to discuss the four-year term as opposed to staggered. And then I think the logistics would still work out either way. So that's going to be-

Go ahead, I'm sorry. Yep. No, go ahead.

No, go ahead.

What I was going to say is it might be easier if you call the vote, and then we could decide. And then if it passes, then we can work out the details.

But might you vote differently if it was a four year term but not staggered?

I'm ready to vote. Given that that was one of your- I'm ready to vote.

So even if that's not a caveat?

It's not even a caveat. The four and two. I'm against the four year term.

Okay, okay. Does anybody want to make a motion?

Well, if we make a motion on it as written, it's a staggered term.

That's correct. That's the only thing. Right. I could go along with a four-year term.

Yes. so but let me just clarify something so if we vote on this one this one is for the staggered terms you could still come back with the four-year term when we vote again absolutely okay okay all right so i'll make a motion um to approve the proposed ballot question number one town council terms article two section two article four section one second that's a motion in a second

Roll call, please. Mr. Beauregard?

No.

Mr. Cristoforo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? No. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. House? Yes.

Okay, the next item is proposed ballot question two, personnel, board duties, and responsibilities. Section one, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to revise the political activity restrictions applicable to personnel board members and to update the board state duties to reflect current practice. I think this one's a bit self-explanatory. There wouldn't be a reason in my mind not to approve this because we just want to ensure that the charter is reflective of the actual personnel board's duties. Like I don't personally feel comfortable leaving responsibilities and duties in the charter that this personnel board is supposed to be doing when they are not. And they have not been.

Can I add something? Sure. That I wanted to make mention of as well.

Jeff Porter, Chair of the Charter Review Committee. We also put this on because in discussions with the town solicitor and town administrator, we're concerned about liability as well. With all of these outdated practices that are within the charter, we felt that if there's anybody that's hired, they could potentially come back and sue the town because we did not follow what is specifically listed in the charter. So that's pretty much cut and dry why we're recommending these adjustments.

So is this, the way this is here, this is the way it's gonna be worded on the ballot, correct?

Are we talking about the personnel number two now?

No, we're on number two. But essentially, all of these, we're voting on, this is the way it would be worded on the ballot?

Not on the agenda. On this.

Well, no, it's in our packet. So if you go down to, it's page 116. Ballot question two, personnel board duties and responsibilities, article 23, shall the home rule charter of the town of North Smithfield be amended by revising article 23, section one, personnel board to remove the existing prohibition that members shall not hold or be a candidate for any other public office or position and related political activity restrictions and to instead provide that. Personnel board members shall not hold or be candidates for elective office within the town of North Smithfield with resignation required upon candidacy while permitting such members to hold or seek elective office in other municipalities or at the state or federal level as allowed by Rhode Island law. And also be amended to reflect the accuracy of the current duties of the personnel board which have been modified since the last update. Approve, reject. And John. There will be education for, because that question is not very self-explanatory. Right, exactly. So there will be education that the charter review committee will make public. So people will have a better understanding of what that means prior to voting. So I don't want to oversimplify it, but I think that that one's pretty self-explanatory.

Okay.

I will make a motion to approve proposed ballot question to Personnel Board Duties and Responsibilities, Article 13, Section 1.

Is it 13? Mm-hm. I'm sorry, guys. I'm also a medieval historian and I can't even read. I'll second. Okay, that's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Discussion? So essentially, is that saying that a member of the personnel board cannot run for public office in town?

Any other prohibition is unconstitutional. But you can prohibit the personnel board from not running for a town office.

So they would have to resign before they run.

Well, that's always the issue, right? Right. But technically speaking, it's not about before they run, they can't hold. All right, so they can't run. If they run and they win, if they won, then theoretically, the moment they win, because personnel members are appointed, the town administrator would notify them that they are now disqualified from holding that position as a personnel.

All right.

And that hasn't changed, that's what it was.

No, that has changed. Oh, that changed. Originally, your language said you can't hold public office, federal, state, or local, and that public office or another town, and that would all be unconstitutional.

Okay.

And so that language has been removed.

Okay.

I believe that was done at the Charter Review level.

Okay. Okay, so that was a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak?

Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes. Madam President, can I just go back to pallet number one, only because I just want to make sure that I gave the President accurate information. So with that ballot passed, Madam President, I'm talking about not VP, but President. I want to make sure, when you were saying, well, can they come back with the other proposal? Theoretically, the reason they would come back is because it failed. If it passed, I mean, I guess they could decide to come in with another version, but- But it passed, so I just want to make sure. Were you suggesting that they were going to come back if it passed or failed, or were you suggesting that they're going to come back only if it failed?

Only if it failed.

Okay, so you were well aware of that, okay. Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, proposed ballot question three, Department of Facilities and Capital Assets. Article 15, section 12, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to establish a Department of Facilities and Capital Assets headed by a director of facilities and to renumber existing section 12 as section 13. So this was the. Facilities, department conversations, and town administrator felt that we shouldn't make a department for this role, that it should just be a head.

The Asset Management Commission could concur with that. However, I don't have a real big heartburn on this. The bottom line is the money would have to be appropriated to hire the position anyways. So it would be part of the administration. So whether you call them a director or her, a director, it doesn't really matter to me.

So this would be a full time position?

That hasn't been defined. It's just basically authorizing to create the position. We'd have to put together a job description, compensation, all that kind of stuff. Just basically enables us to create that position. But it would have to be budget appropriation to allow that to happen. And one of my concerns is that clearly this enables it, but that would be completely premature until the Asset Management Commission finishes its work. Is that effectively what the asset manager, facilities manager would operate off of? Right now we don't have the information. Again, I had heartburn over the concept of creating a department and a director, but I don't think it's a big issue.

And then in theory we would have at least until 2028 for the asset management team to come out with.

Yeah, they're completing phase one now. They're going to have to come back to the council on phase two. There's going to have to be multiple phases focusing on each asset class. Right now they're dealing with the water systems. They'll probably come back the next time, maybe working on the sewer systems. That's all going to be driven by whether or not the council appropriates the funds to allow them to do it or if they can go out and find grant funds to do it.

Okay. Jeff.

If I may. Again, this was one of the items where we wanted to be a little bit more proactive as the Charter Review Commission was concerned. We saw the need for it. We understand that it needs to be a budgeted position. However, in creation of the department, the town is growing, there's things that are moving. we could potentially have what could be a fully staffed department to oversee things like scouters, like Hallowell, like myriad of different things between the water and sewer infrastructure that's coming into play as well. So we want it to be proactive, be able to give the ability to the administration, the council to have a position in a department to rely on with this level of expertise that's required. So whether it gets filled as a part-time position at the get-go or we wait for the Asset Management Commission to finish their work, but this eventually enables them to have someone to move forward. So once again, it's a proactive approach as opposed to reactive. I know history in this town, we're always reactive, so let's do something and get it set before we have to do something about it.

I concur.

I think that we, I just hate to see us make the government bigger and make it more. It just keeps growing, and that's what we're doing. We're adding another thing that we gotta pay for, another salary we gotta pay for. And we should be looking at trying to make government smaller, not bigger.

I know, John, I agree to an extent, but if we don't have a position to oversee these major assets, then we're going to end up paying, in the long run, more for these assets than for the salary. So what's the payoff?

Who's doing it now? Someone.

When was the last time anybody did an assessment of this building since it was built? for NEP, useful life, the roof, windows. We already have ceiling tiles that are leaking here.

From day one we had those.

So we have someone that is dedicated to that position. We don't have to worry about stuff like that. The school department has a facilities director. That gets taken care of. So why are we... lagging behind. I understand big government, yes, totally agree. However, we need to maintain our assets because otherwise we're paying a lot more because we have something that failed and now we have to go back and be reactive. Police station, perfect example. appropriately and analyzing it and saying X, Y, Z needs to be done within these next five years. Otherwise, we're going to have problems.

I agree, Jeff. But somebody along the chain of command is not doing their job because that job is that someone does have that responsibility right now. So who is it? So someone's not doing their job.

Wouldn't it be the Asset Management Commission? Right? To some extent?

Well, that's what they're trying to do. The problem is that The ability to do that is only as good as the information that you have. And we've got structures in this town where we don't even have hard information on even the MEPs. And without that and without the manuals and everything of which, then we could put the useful life span, the maintenance requirements. Typically, and this is no attack on anybody, we typically respond to these issues when they break. Right. As opposed to being in front of it. But I just want to, and I absolutely, I mean, after going through my second budget process, I mean, the costs of operating have got to be effectively managed for all cities and towns. And this, I think, is an effort to better manage it, but this doesn't require the town to do anything. It just enables the town to do something at some point in time when it feels it's appropriate. All this does is it creates the position, allows you to fill it in the future. It doesn't say you're going to fill it. And in the end, the council makes that decision anyways. It has to appropriate the money.

And equally, you know, the planning board has the planning department. The budget committee has the financial department. Massive management right now has no administrative department to assist with their units. So we're effectively relying on five volunteers to do an administrative job. And that is a huge liability. Again, I'm going back to liability. I want to make sure that we have things black and white this town is covered. These are the reasons why we've made these recommendations, and we did not take them lightly.

Okay, I think we're pressed for time. Do we need to conclude this at 7? Yes, we do. Okay, so how do we go about this? Because we have 10 minutes, 9 minutes left.

Well, we can do a couple things, right? If we can continue these matters to the... the next meeting, or depending if there's no other controversial matters, you could take them as a block. But I don't know if there's more, if council feels they need to discuss these matters in more detail, we can move them to July 20th. Okay. That's the next meeting? Yes.

I mean, I think that we know which way we're going to vote for Department of Facilities. I think we can then vote on 4 through 10 as a block because those are simply aligning with

Well, it's up to you. State law.

So I don't think we should do a block. I think we should probably do one at a time because I don't want to just rush it just because we're running out of time.

So Madam President, questions four through ten are specifically addressing the charter in their lack of acknowledgment to state law. State law are automatically overrules.

Can you go on the podium because people probably can't hear you.

So we didn't. Like as a charter review committee unilaterally make these changes. These were just aligning with the changes of state law.

Yeah, so questions four through ten are strictly state law updates and referencing state law. So then whenever the state law does get updated, our charter is automatically in compliance. These are things that were outdated. They were noted by E-code and the solicitor that these are just outdated items similar to the personnel board. But this again is just bringing our charter into alignment with the state law. It's as simple as that. There's no hidden language. There's nothing that we're trying to sneak in here. It's just referencing the appropriate state law. Planning board responsibilities have been updated since our charter, so we're getting those planning board responsibilities updated. Similarly with all these other ones that are noted here.

Okay, so I'm going to make a motion on proposed ballot question three, Department of Facilities and Capital Assets. I'm going to motion that we do establish the Department of Facilities and Capital Assets headed by Director of Facilities. And to renumber existing section 12 as section 13. So that's a motion, do we have a second?

Second.

Roll call, please.

Roll discussion real quick. I'm going to be a no on this, and I know you mean well and you guys are doing a great job, but you look at the charter, since it's charter. In the charter, who's responsible for this right now? There's somebody in the charter based on the charter that is responsible for doing exactly this right now. So who is that person?

It's currently handled through the Department of Public Works. However, that's really more of a facilities, and I don't want to say this because it's going to come across as derogatory. It's not at all. It's more of a facilities maintenance in terms of janitorial service. Whenever we need anything of substance, we have to go out because we don't have the in-house capabilities to handle that. But it does currently fall under DPW.

Right, which is why, and I don't think Ray should have to be everywhere. No. Of course not, but he, at the same time, could appoint somebody, send somebody to school for a lot less money than what we're going to pay somebody to be a director.

But according to the rep, what you have to do to take that job, if you read it, that person is supposed to be an engineer.

I'm not talking about the director, I'm talking about we have a gentleman that comes into our town hall, for example, every day. Yeah. And does not maintenance from the hard standing, he does janitorial services. And if there's something that needs to be fixed that's minor, he also does that as well. But that kind of function falls under DPW right now. What this effectively does is it takes it out of DPW, it beefs it up, and make sure that it has the capacity, not necessarily just to repair, but to manage the ongoing maintenance of what we have. So we know, for example, what is the hard life cycle of our roof, I say on this building. And it takes a look at what that is and say, okay, in such and such time, in such a year, you have to replace this roof. So we'd recommend that you put aside money into a capital account so that when that happens, we can do that without going out to bond. The HVAC system has to be replaced, or it should be maintained every quarter. Those are the kinds of things. We have a problem right now in this building with HVAC, a big problem. Those are the kinds of issues it kind of addresses, and we don't have in-house staff to do that. We have to go out for that expertise.

Okay, and last comment, I don't know when the DPW language was changed in the charter, but I'm sure that the scope of our assets have increased substantially since that charter was, whether created or amended. So the scope of our assets that we currently have now may not have been something that was taken into consideration at the time that that charter was crafted. or that specific section was crafted. So I stand by my motion to approve this question. So is a motion in the second, roll call please.

Mr. Berrigan? No. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? No. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? No.

Okay, so do we want to take this as a block four through ten? We have four minutes.

What I'm going to suggest, Madam President, is we try to get through what we can when we ask for the, when we go into executive session, we can do one of the things, ask the planning board to open up their meeting and recess for 10 minutes or ask the planning board to recess when you come out of executive session because it's only going to be a matter of Announcing your vote. So that way you'll be on the record both places. So I know you've got three minutes, but I think you could ask the planning board to open up the meeting while we go into executive session and recess for 10 minutes. We come out, we finish, because it's going to be.

Should we come out and finish the rest of the agenda or just executive session? Just how far we get.

uh don't we just finish to the open session yeah we could finish the open session now and then go into executive that what you think councilman yeah no i think you're talking about the executive session that's in open we got two minutes do we need to check with gary if he's willing to do that we can do that so we're basically where he is um he was in the hallway a second ago but we could keep moving while we're trying to do that

So we don't want to just work on discussions as a block.

I think if you keep moving on the agenda for a few minutes, or if he's going to recess, we can go into executive session and come back up and finish.

Okay. But I am going to propose that we approve questions four through ten as a block, since they're just to align our charter with state changes.

It's a matter of ten minutes. It's a matter of ten minutes, I think.

Okay. Is everybody aligned to that, or do we want to go question by question? I'm okay with that. Okay. I'll second that. Okay, so that's a motion and a second to discuss these as a block. To consider them as a block. To consider them as a block, yes. Roll call please, Tammy.

Yes.

Mr. Cristoforo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. House? No.

Okay, I will list the following questions and then we will motion for vote or discussion.

No, they're as a block.

So I don't have to read them all?

Okay. You can read them all, but when you finish reading them, then the discussion begins.

Okay, well I don't know if we need to read them all. I think we can all see them. So do we have any discussion on approving or not approving these to align with state law?

You don't want them in the record?

Yeah, I would read them, but then you can discuss any one of them, because you're considering them as a block.

Right, okay. So question four, proposed ballot question four, Board of Canvassers and Registration, Article 2, Section 11 rather. Discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to provide that members of the Board of Canvassers and Registration are appointed rather than elected by the town council consistent with Rhode Island general laws, 17-8-1. Proposed ballot question five, article three. Section 8C, terminology correction, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to correct terminology regarding the town council's authority to authorize tax anticipation notes and related municipal financing. Proposed ballot question six, ordinance publication and electronic notice. Article 4, Section 9, discussion vote or other action on the proposed amendment to permit electronic publication of notice of proposed ordinances and regulations on the Secretary of State's website. In lieu of newspaper publication consistent with Rhode Island general law, Section 45-6-1C, proposed ballot question 7, municipal audit requirements. Article 4, Section 10, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to update municipal audit requirements consistent with Rhode Island general laws, Section 45-10-4. Proposed ballot question eight, planning board powers and comprehensive plan article 12, section two, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to update the planning board's powers and duties and the public notice requirements for comprehensive plan adoption or amendment consistent with Rhode Island general laws. Sections 45-22-7 and 45-22.2-8. Proposed ballot question nine, school committee powers reference. Article 14, Section 5, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment clarifying that the school committee's powers and duties are in addition to those set forth in Rhode Island general laws. Section 16-2-9, proposed ballot question 10, ethics provision update. Article 16-8, Section 8 rather, discussion vote or other action on a proposed amendment to replace existing local ethics provisions with the requirement that town officials and employees comply with the Rhode Island ethics of Rhode Island Code of Ethics, Rhode Island General Laws, Section 36-4-1, ET- That's 14-1. 14-1, ET, I don't know what that stands for. Any discussion on those?

And just for the record, all those amendments are laid out in your package. Yes. They're all laid out. They're all relatively short. They're almost verbatim what you read.

Motion to approve proposed ballot question four through ten.

That's a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. That's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes.

Are we continuing?

I would take the second reading on that ordinance because that's all it is. Okay. It's to a vote for a second reading. You may recall this was an ordinance for the flood zone. We had the flood zone ordinance. We had the public hearing. It was closed, but that was only a first reading. This is the second reading that makes it official.

Okay. Kim, do you want to take over? Okay. Okay. Discussion by council vote or other action on amendment to flood zone ordinance, second reading. Do we need more? Are we good?

It's just needs a motion to approve the second reading and it becomes.

Motion to approve the second reading.

That's a motion. Do we have a second? Second. That's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Mr. Gargan? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Ms. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes.

I don't know anything about number nine.

That's mine. This was just to pick up the 2024 sewer use supplemental of 379, 89. This is relative to the one you guys had abated back in the first meeting of this month. I was supposed to have both of them in there, 2025 and 2024 supplemental, but I only had 2025 in there. So this is just picking this up so that more can roll over the sewer taxes with the right dollar amount coming into the next fiscal year. Otherwise, I would have put it in the next. regularly scheduled meeting. It's for the same account that you guys had done earlier this month as well.

So are you just looking- For 379, please. To approve the 379? Yep. I'll make a motion to approve $379.89 for an abatement in the 2024 Sioux Youth Supplement. Second.

That's a motion and a second, roll call please. Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punchak. Yes. Yes.

The next item on our agenda is executive session, closed session, discussion by council, vote or other action pursuant to Rhode Island General Law 42-46-5A2, sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation or work sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation or potential litigation. One HT Auto LLC versus North Smithfield Town Council. David Puncak individually and in his capacity as Town Council person. Rebecca DeCristofaro individually and in her capacity as Town Council Vice President. Claire O'Hara individually and in her capacity as Town Council person. John Beauregard, individually and in his capacity as town council person. Kimberly Alves, individually and in her capacity as town council president in town of North Smithfield. Case number PC2026-03051.

Motion to go into executive session.

That's a motion, do we have a second? Second. Roll call please. Mr. . Yes.

Mr. . Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you.