Town Council - Regular Meeting

Something's different. I'll show you another picture. Oh, we're good. All right. Nosmfield Town Council meeting, March 16, 2026. Madame Clerk, can you start us with 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.

Thanks. [clears throat] Would anyone like to sign up for open forum? Can the town counselor speak in open forum as themselves? As themselves um anyone want to sign up? Yes. Yeah. I just want to make sure this Okay. All right. Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod, here. Mr. Christopharo, here. Mrs. O'Hara, here. Mr. Punchek, here. Miss House here. Open forum pursuant to 42-46-6D. Maximum three minutes per person. Uh Kevin Carrier.

One sec. Hey CJ, can you just stop his timer over?

Okay. All set. Thank you. I'm ready.

So, Kevin Carrier, 118 Elizabeth Avenue. Uh, hello again. At the last meeting, I spoke about the need for this council to listen. When my comments concluded, Councilman Bogard asked me whether I was a member of the Democratic Town Committee. He then wrote a letter to the editor in NRI now calling me out by name stating that a I was a member of said committee and b making claims about me because of this assumed membership, having never met me before. So, hello, my name is Kevin Carrier. I hold a masters in public policy and a PhD in political psychology from Georgetown University. Much of my research focuses on reducing conflict between political groups by identifying similarities that partisanship tends to obscure. For example, Councilman, uh, one may assume that Democrats support unions more than Republicans. However, my research shows that when asking about police unions, Republicans express stronger support for unions than Democrats. What Councilman Bogard demonstrated was a well doumented behavior called outgroup homogeneity bias. The tendency to see members of an out group as the same while seeing your own group as unique individuals with unique thoughts. Those who display this bias tend to show increased dehumanization, increased aggression, and increased prejudice towards others. In short, placing assumed group characteristics to individuals increases divisive politics. and quote, "Deivisive politics has no place in town government." The remedy against this is individuation. Stop seeing people as groups and instead see them as individuals. I am not a group in front of you. I am a resident and I have concerns. Councilman, I wager we agree on more things than you'd expect. That our teachers deserve strong salaries and benefits. That our children need safe, vibrant places to grow. Housing causes are pushing people out of our community that they love and grew up in. But I can see the agreement we share, even as I'm fundamentally uncomfortable when an elected official responds to a

constituent's concerns by demanding to know their party affiliation, then using their public position of power to call me out by name, make assumptions about who I am, and about the views I hold. Your letter to the editor noted that I offered no suggestions or solutions to real issues. I did. I ask you to change or step aside. What more can I do? Should I run against you? You tell me. I'll close with this. The next time a resident steps up to this microphone with a concern, please don't ask them what side they're on. Listen to the individual in front of you, not the label you've assigned them. Thank you. Thank you.

He doesn't even realize what he's saying. He's You're assuming what you're saying is correct. All right, can we move on? Discussion by council vote other action on consent agenda. All this Mike, you missed it. You're late. Okay. Can you three minutes, please? You usually say anybody else. Yeah. I just wanted to know if the uh if the budget for the town for the administrator's recommended budget could be put on the website if it hasn't already. Has it? The last time I checked, it wasn't up. It's not up yet. It'll be up by the end of the week. Okay. Has it been delivered to the budget committee yet? Because it's a public document

only, not the administrator by charter. It's supposed to have been in by the f second Monday of March. Oh, be a week ahead from last year. Well, that's that's not it's not my answer.

Okay. And you did you see no need to follow the language in the charter? No. Good. Okay. Discussion by council vote or other action on consent agenda. All items listed in this section are considered in one motion. There'll be no separate discussion of these items unless a council request in which event the item will be be removed from the consent agenda. A town council minutes of February 17th and March 2nd. And [clears throat] then communications um ap control monthly report for February 2026. No fire and rescue monthly report for February 2026. Nosfield Municipal Court monthly report for February 2026 and Nosfield Police Department monthly report for February 2026. Anyone like to remove anything from the consent agenda? I would like to remove both sets of minutes, please. Anyone else? All right. on uh the meeting minutes of February 17th. Um at the bottom on the first page when we're talking about the um town council sitting as a board of licensing, the motion it says to wave transfer fees, but it was really to wave the license fees. And then um and then on the second page for old business when we're talking about the uh Leo's auto one, two, three, four, the fifth paragraph down when Mr. Punchek um expressed frustration and then we had asked that um Mr. Cody give us a plan of what he's looking for. Do you know when we're going to receive that, administrator?

I'm sorry. the uh plan of what he's actually looking for for offense. He was supposed to submit that. Do you know when we're going to receive that? I told him there had to be a deadline as established by the council by the individual. Well, they're coming back May 1st. So, we would need Can we have that before? I will ask him for that. The problem that we have, which is kind of why I have raised the issue about the May deadline, is the fact that in order to finish this up has to to delineate wetland and I'm not sure they're going to be able to do that but I'll get an update on that president. Okay. DEM does not delineate wetlands. They verify.

That's what I meant. So he's going to hire somebody to go delineate them. All right. And then on page four at the very bottom it says um Punchac expressed concern about the project having only one interconnection. And then the last sentence says and you need to reclose it. Is that was that what you said? Reclosure. Recloser. So, can we just add an R onto that?

And then on the meeting minutes of March 2nd for roll call, you have um Mr. Bureag, Mr. Christopharro. So, can you fix that to Mr. Christopharro? And then [clears throat] um Mr. Ponjac was noted absent for the evening. Can you just fix the evening and application for temporary exemption on page three? Um they talked about the um electric company and it said running from isn't it Nasonville substation, not Masonville, right? It's Nasonville. So can we change that?

And that's all I have. Does anyone have anything else? Anyone like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. Second. It's a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgon? Yes. Mr. Christopharo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Miss Alves? Yes.

Discussion by council vote other action on payment of bills. Anyone have any questions? Tony, can I just um confirm that everything is up to date? Like everything has been posted, all the payroll and I think we're only um one payroll behind, but in terms of reconciliations, we are up to date. [snorts] So the um we don't have the current storm in the system yet. All right. That's what I was going to ask you. That hasn't been put in overtime included. Yeah, that time for the storm. No, no, no. That's what we do during this week, the off the off week from that payroll.

Okay. All right. Does anyone have any other questions? No. Anyone like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the payment of bills for March 16, 2022 in the amount of 2,665,85143.

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod, yes. Mr. Christopharo, yes. Mrs. O'Hara, yes. Mr. Punchek, yes. Miss Al, yes. Old business, Nosale Police Station renovations, a Environmental Consultants and Contractors, ECC, project funding and budget committee recommendation for the bond. Um, is ECC here tonight? No, I've asked not to be here tonight. Okay. As well as single work conversations. Okay. Can I point out one thing in the agenda?

So, it's ECC is engineering and construction consulting, not environmental consultants and contractors. Thank you. And then, uh, Madam President, before we discuss project funding, can we listen to the budget committee's recommendations? Well, yeah, that would go first. Yeah. Okay. Um, [clears throat]

good evening, everyone. My name is Douglas Oer. I'm chair of the budget committee 1984 Providence Pike. Uh so I guess I'll just kind of fill you in uh what the budget committee has been meeting on for the last couple of weeks regarding this topic. Uh it was brought to us that the council uh wanted to seek our recommendation in terms of how much should be drawn from the fund balance. And so the budget committee met over two weeks uh received input from the town administrator and even conducted our own analysis in terms of you know where we are funding wise in terms of percentages um for c um fund balance reserves and all that stuff. So the long story short is that the prior budget the prior council had recommended or had recommended $4 million in reserves. It was informed to us that that had also been since that vote had taken place, it had made our audit and has been reflected that those dollars were earmarked for this project in the future. With that being said, the other thing that the budget committee recom um tackled with was the auditor general and the percentage to which the auditor general recommends that the town hold on reserve uh in relation to its fund balancing expenditures. uh after a little bit of math to which uh Kevin Newton, he's not here tonight, but he he kind of traced the numbers for us and and verified that even with the 17% threshold, which is a percent higher than our own ordinance states, the the town would still be in good financial position to meet that goal and still be able to fund the 4 million out of the fund balance. So, the budget committee's recommendation at the following that last meeting, which was last Thursday, which is why I don't have a memo and I apologize it was late. um [clears throat] is to use the 4 million and if needed to not go any less than 2 million, but there was strong emphasis that the 4 million should be spent for this project as it has already been earmarked for that. And I'm happy to answer any

questions or any any other commentary. So Doug, did you were you um aware that um Mr. Maceroni was here last week? Did you hear any of his comments? I did not. No. Okay. So, he was recommending that we don't use any fund balance for the project. So, I was just wondering if the budget committee had any comments on that of between what he was saying. I know before he's come and said we could use a certain amount and that's probably how we got to that 4 million originally, but now he's saying he doesn't recommend it. So, I was just wondering if you were aware.

Yeah. So, it gets a little tough when there's a lot of moving. I mean, we just received some updated numbers this evening. So, it gets a little tough when numbers are flying around, but it's the numbers tonight reflect the commentary from the last meeting. So, I don't believe we got an updated analysis, at least wasn't it made aware to us. Um, and so I don't know if that would have changed the committee's recommendation. Part of the discussion that took place was what's on the horizon for capital projects and why wouldn't the town spend $4 million if it was already earmarked or it was already held on reserve. hasn't come to any inclination that there is any long-term capital projects on the plan or the horizon. So that's why the budget committee recommended that pending any valid reason as to why we wouldn't take it out. We meet all the criteria. We have the 17% on reserve. It's not going to impact our bond rating. We're still well above our own ordinance that we've self-imposed. So that's why the committee felt that it should be some money should come out of the fund balance and stay at the forum.

So Mr. Maserone's logic was that we should not be using reserves for a long-term asset. That was his logic. I can only speak to what the committee recommended on. I mean, I could probably up here and edit editorialized myself, but that's it's not really my role right now. Um, you know, the committee can only operate with the information that it has, right? So, I mean, I don't know if that would have changed the impact. So the the committee just felt that it I mean there's only one other member of the committee here this evening so I don't know if Mike wants to Davis wants to come up and speak but I don't think that would have changed the committee's recommendation.

So in theory if we were to use the 4 million in reserves that were earmarked for this project then we would max out that 17%. You'd still no you'd still be over the 17%. Okay. you'd have 313,000 over what the audit of the general and that's using the audit of the general's formula of a different baseline expenditure. Okay. Ask a quick question. So, um just just to clarify, so when you say use 4 million, you're saying that instead of taking 9 million out of the bond, you take 5 million, correct?

But it's over the estimate of the building is exceeds $9 million is closer to 11 million. So now we saying take $6 million out of our bond. So I can't. So the only information we've been told is that the project was slightly over and that there's some value engineering taking place and that it sounds like there's going to be some continued value engineering to take place on the project. So it sounds like in this document I have here the total cost was 106 and then the total cost was with net capital sources was 9,139,288.

I don't know what number it's going to end up to be. That's not really the budget committee's role. Uh the budget committee was only tasked with making a recommendation and the budget committee had no valid reason not to say to use some fund balance and felt that it was appropriate to use the four million that was already reserved. But if the council decided not to, they should at least use some of that fund balance. And the lowest number they got to was 2 million, but was there a strong emphasis on the four?

Council president, can I just ask answer something to respond to Councilman Borgard's question? Um, if you take the money that we currently have set aside for this, we're at $9,140,000. So, we're $140,000 over that $9 million. The the construction contract based on current numbers is going to be that the CM finds an additional $140,000 of value engineering. We're kind of playing games with numbers because, you know, we'll wait and see what happens in this project. We're carrying, you know, uh a a um surplus, not a surplus, but a contingency account here. But we are 9,140, not the $11 million.

Okay. So, the 11 million on the front, right? But then when you take out some of the items that we could get rid of and then also with all the um potential bond and and grants and stuff, we have like 1.5 here. So, that brings it down to the the [clears throat] 9 million. Okay. So, budget committee's recommend recommendation is 4 million with the least amount being 2 million.

The the Yeah, correct. The committee felt that it was appropriate to use fund balance for this project. Um, again, working with the information that the budget committee had available, but like I said, I don't think based on the conversations last Thursday that that would have changed any of the decision-m u from the committee. The committee's been focused on trying to align both short-term projects with long-term capital planning and long-term project planning. And so with the absence of any long-term projects sound like they're in the pipeline, at least for this budget and maybe even next budget, felt it was a good use of capital. And what information were you given for like long-term capital or that or what capital played into your your

specifically? We asked about the hallow project. Um, sounds like there's not a lot of at least immediate traction. There may be some other stuff. There was a conversation about school capital and maybe the roof with a ride reimbursement ramp and then uh some water um some water line projects but some what some water line projects but nothing I mean some of these projects have been going on for years. Uh so without any resolution we felt that this is the immediate project to fund this project cross it off the list get done as fast as possible and that would free up money for future projects as well. maybe not necessarily from fund balance, but maybe there's alternative funding sources that could be addressed um as those projects um materialize.

Does anyone have any other questions for the budget committee? Thank you. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks, Mike. What's the council's thought on the funding of the uh project?

Well, my thought on this is um and I said this when the when the bids came in, Gilbane was a lot higher than everybody else. They were like 17 million or something like that. Something crazy. And Gil Bane is a legit company. They are doing a lot of work around here. They're doing big projects down at URI. So, my concern was what is Gilbane seeing? Why did Gil Bane look at that building and say 17 million and everybody else was so low? So my concern now is that we're going to get into this building and the costs are going to go up a little bit. We don't know when what's going to happen when you start opening up those walls. And we just uh we're going to limit ourselves. We're going to lock ourselves in and then we're going to be in big trouble. We're going to have to start taking more than $4 million if we if if if you know worst case scenario happens. But it doesn't allow us for that buffer in case the worst does happen. So, I think we're really playing with fire if we, you know, if we start tapping into our reserves. We're going to have to tap into them anyway. We're going to go. It's going to go over. I'm telling you right now, it's going to go over soon as they open up those walls. Gil Bane's not stupid. They saw something in that building that made it that they came up with a much bigger number. So, I think we got to prepare for the worst.

Anyone else? I I mean I'm in agreement with John. My concern is that the 9.1 is with no buffer, no unanticipated costs. In [snorts] the event that there are unforeseen circumstances, we have to tap into our reserves. We only go for the bond for seven. That means that we have to tap in to the reserves for at least two. If there's unanticipated costs, we're going to have to go in for over two. So we won't necessarily have the flexibility to use our reserves for any other unanticipated projects un like an emergency fund if there is and correct me if I'm wrong but if there isn't any material impact to the rateayer and taking out the $9 million bond then I don't see why we would not go for the $9 million bond. [clears throat] Um thanks for allowing me to speak again. So we did so our recommendation also came with looking at the budget.

There is going to be significant pressure again on the budget. So the rate payer will pay. There is a difference. It's not free money. So you're spending 11 million of the bond on the uh 9 million on the bond I should say with the interest expense on top of that versus $5 million on the interest expense. there is some money there that's going to be allocated towards the t the council should have done if they didn't have done a tax rate study like we did with the prior uh police station bond that failed. Also, the town voted against an $18 million bond. If you say you're going to use 9 million, and this is a question that the budget committee did grapple with. If you're going to use 9 million plus another four or five million, you're not much off. the count the C the budget committee did not feel that it was in the best interest of the town to maximize out the use of the fund balance on this project because there would be a significant impact to the taxpayer on terms of how much you were going to borrow on top of the budgetary expense on top of everything else that would eventually compound and we didn't want to see a lot of people that are already feeling pressure with inflationary issues to feel further inflationary issue on their tax rate. So,

so when you say maximize out the fund balance, use the four. Well, whatever way the council feels fit, but to use the four to avoid going the full bond, that was the essential. That's why we recommend using some fund balance. So, if we use the four of the reserves, then what how much leniency do we have in the reserves in the future? 300.

You have a ton. You have 313. If you use the recommendation, you have $313,000. Unless I don't have the paper. I just got it confirmed in front of me tonight. But you have 313,000 off the base of $44 million in expenditure. The budget committee reviews the review the ordinance and for the U town's ordinance it's off of its annual expenditure which is 16% max 12%. You can go as low as 12%. You don't have to follow the 16% or the 17%. So, if the if the council decided to use 4 million now and needed to dip into it to cover a cost because who knows what costs are going to look like, there would still be some runway 300,000

to do that more than that. You have potentially probably another million or two to do that because you're only the 313,000 is only to say you have 17% of your fund balance reser expenditures reserved against your fund balance. So, you still have room to run down if you so choose. you have to be at 12% minimum and finance director can probably speak to the math up to-date numbers than I can uh because it sounds like we don't get them up to date all the time anyways but that would be my that's why the budget committee felt that there was still enough runway to say hey if we needed to pull from it to fund a future project there still is sorry there's way too many there's way too many conversations going on

to summarize we did study the pet tax we did review and consider the tax rate and we did consider the fund balance reserves both at the attorney general recommendation and in the town ordinance Mhm. And I appreciate the due diligence, but I also want to take into consideration what our municipal financial advisor mentioned two weeks ago when he did say that I think he said using no more than 2 million, right? And he wouldn't even necessarily touch the fund balance be the reserves because um it's not for a long-term asset.

Tony, do you know what kind of reserve we're anticipating for the end of this um fiscal? I don't have that at the moment, but I can I can get that number for you guys based off the projections of at least till since February. And correct me if I'm wrong, Tony, but if we look at history, it's been typically running around $900,000 to a million dollars. So, so we're looking at potentially another million dollars theoretically. Yeah. Until we have the audit and because we don't know, but that's what it was last year. So theoretically there hasn't been a material change in anything. It could be the same. Yeah.

Can can somebody explain to me what the difference would be to the tax rate if we were to take use the $9 million bond or do a $7 million bond with 2 million in reserve. I believe, and I might be wrong on this, Councilwoman, but I believe that the original numbers that the uh fiscal advisor ran, it was translating to like I think it was $130 per rate a month a year. A year. However, what that did not take into consideration was the retirement of debt in 2027.

Right. the retirement of debt is greater than the new debt payments associated with the new bond. Now, with that being said, got to understand that there are other larger budget issues here. You know, we have to vet through the whole budget because everything's moving. But if you segment out our bond or our debt payments, our debt payments with the payment of the school bonds off in 2027, we will be to the positive by about $300 to $400,000. [snorts] So if you use that in an isolated case, you would argue that there would be no impact on the rateayers, but you have to look at the total budget, right?

You know, to get an accurate assessment of that. So then, and I'm not great with numbers. I don't pretend to be. That's why I ask a lot of questions when we talk about numbers. So until 2027, the rateayer would pay roughly 10 what? 127 extra dollars a year in taxes until our debt clears for the current bonds and then it would essentially be a wash. Yeah, we're we're going into fiscal 2027 starting July 1. We're going into fiscal year 2027 starting July 1.

So that is effectively the construction period for the project. So effectively we will not be paying any debt during that period of time.

Okay? But we will be paying interest carry, but we haven't done a a real time analysis of that for you during the based on the projected draws. I'd also like to not suggest but also point out that there is nothing that precludes the town from accelerating payments of principle on the bond. So effectively, we could pull the full $9 million out at the end of the project, say, "Okay, you know, we're going to advance pay x amount of dollars out of the bond and and draw the principle down." We have that flexibility as well. So there's a lot of things I think and we I did not ask bond council to be here tonight, but we could have the bond council vet out those flexibilities for us as well. the during my conversations with the budget committee and and I appreciated that and um the question was posed to me are there any significant capital expenditures planned and as it relates to a project my answer was no based on the assumption that with Hollowwell I did not see um a dying interest by the council to put cash into the hollow wallal project. That's my assumption based on comments I've had with certain members of the council. But we do have some other things that are concerning. Um the issue of the um the school roof and HVAC units is concerning and I didn't know about that until this year. I'm a little bit concerned that we don't have more of an asset plan there. Um, and we've always been trying to get across the um end zone as it relates to the um the uh water line connecting into

Blackstone. We have a hole there, but a significant amount of federal money sitting, but we don't have the amount of money to close that gap. So although we don't have a specific project in hand that we would say there's going to be a draw on capital, there are issues and will always be issues as a community going forward. So my concern is always that we don't tie our hands in our ability to respond to those challenges. That's all. May I just I just want to make a couple of points. Um what Mr. OJ said about uh the people didn't vote for a bond to be uh vote for a whatever million dollar building. That's true.

But unfortunately, we chose to go with rehab. I wanted a new building. I'm sorry. Thank you. We chose to go with a rehab. I was I was hoping we had a new building, but we didn't. So now we don't know what we're going to get when we open up a wall or a ceiling or something like that. And when we open it up, we can't say, "Oh boy, that's going to because it might have to close it back up." That's not an option. So, I think we're playing with fire if we don't allow ourselves more of a buffer. And because we're going to have to tap into reserves, I guarantee it. Even if we take out the 9 million. And then the second point that I want to make is how long is the bond for? 20 years, right? 20 years.

Well, the people, and I made this point before, but the people who put that money in the reserves are the people the taxpayers of today. So if we spread that cost out, it's the gener it's generational equity where they today's people will today's generation will pay it tomorrow's three four gen two or three four generations will pay equally for that building. We're asking the people today to pay for the lion share of that building instead of sharing the cost among 20 years among everybody over the course of 20 years. So it's it's you know it's important to think about that. You got to be fair. We're asking too many. We're asking too much of the people, the taxpayers of today to cover the cost of something that's going to be around for another 50 years.

Yeah. You're still with the budget committee. Yeah. That's why I want to speak to it. Speaking on that behalf, right? Yeah. Only on the budget committee's recommend uh behalf. So, the budget committee every year askked about the reason we asked about capital projects and things. We we understand that the town has a large called a nest egg sitting in the fund balance. That money's already been taxed and is sitting there. So to use it now, you wouldn't have to worry about future taxation and stuff. So that's why the budget committee felt awesome to use the full amount was to because it had already been taxed. You don't have to retax people on top of the money they've already taxed to sit in our rainy day account essentially.

And to the $127, the budget committee did look at that. That's just for this bond. It doesn't take into consideration the increase that would come from the rest of the budget, right? As the administrator said. Right. Just to clarify, that's all.

I I also wanted to respond uh to Council Borgard's comments. I I agree construction um is never an easy business. Um especially when you're talking about rehab. Um new construction is a little bit easier to define. I've spent 40 years in this business. Where new construction raises higher risk are the areas of site development, but we have placed into this budget um reserves both on the CM side as well as on our side uh somewhere to the tune of about $800,000. And we also have set aside a half a million dollars on remediation um because we know we have a environmental problem. To me that's one of the bigger risks is on the environmental remediation. But you know I I but I do understand what you're saying councilman. I was involved with a project in Newport on the rehab of an old school into a tech center and that project originally came in at about uh I think we budgeted five five and a half million. It came in at eight but in that particular case there was very little upfront due diligence done on the project. Um and the biggest issues that we ended up encountering was both environmental as well as there were masonry problems on the envelope. the the brook needed to be repointed which is very expensive. So there was not as much due diligence done on that project as there has been on this one but there's always risk. So administrative I'm a little confused. Um so where do you what is your position on this?

Um my position is and and I respect and and I will honor the role that the council has on this. It's third decision. My personal opinion is the long-term capital assets should be funded by debt. Period, not cash. Now, I understand the sensitivities that have been expressed relative to some of the money that's been spent on this project, which were from previous bonded money. In other words, the taxpayers already got taxed once, so why are you going to tax them again? I understand that. So although I typically look at these projects and say you you basically use debt to fund long-term capital assets in this particular case taking a position of let's use a million and a half say of cash as part of the capital stack I think makes some sense from an equity standpoint given that it was previous money that was leveraged against the taxpayers. So I think that makes sense. Yeah, because I think your last memo when you gave us I think it was close to like 1.7 or it was up there almost two million. So speaking to the budget committee's recommendation of a base of two going up to four. I mean and I think I've always been talking about we should probably replace that money that has been used for something other than actually doing the building. So I totally agree that with the budget committee we should at least do 2 million. But I think if we have more questions for um Ellen. Yep.

Then maybe we can just move this off to one more meeting and get every all the confirmation that we want need to get. I think the questions with Ellen should be one of structure. I think we need to understand the flexibility that we have as it relates to that. Um, and we also have to be very comfortable with Steve Maseron's position in terms of how much debt, how much of our cash can we use without putting us in more of a a more sensitive place as it relates to our bond rating. Um, I can get more definitive feedback from both of those individuals on those issues for you.

But go ahead. Sorry. But even if we use two million, we could possibly have another million coming in to replace it. So really, it's only a million from what he's talking from, right? But um I think based on what Steve said, the 2 million is not going to be an issue from his perspective, right? Okay. If we were to say 7 million from bond, 2 million from reserves, we can't go back to that bond. Yes or no? According to bond council, we would have to frontload the bond. Okay. So, we have to pull the bond down. Can you put that in layman's terms?

In other words, you can't you can't bring the bond down in tanches. Meaning, I'll take two million now, two, you have to bring whatever you choose to borrow, you have to bring it down. the adv that the advantages. One of the caveats to that is that the that the arbitrage between the bond interest rate and our return rate on our investments is a fairly narrow bandwidth of only 45 basis points

and therefore it's not a big hit for us to do that. But she was very clear that's how you would do it. Uh the other thing I had asked her because I was under the assumption as to if the bond got to a certain level, we would have to go to a private placement versus a public placement. Her response was it's going to be a public placement regardless because of the the the bond buyer market right now. Um, I think I asked ECC this the last time we met and I don't believe they provided us with a definitive timeline, but do we all have an understanding of when we need to make a final decision on funding strategy? Yes. In order to meet these deadlines.

They said they had a cash flow somewhere, but I don't think we've seen it. Have you seen the project cash flow? I've seen a draw schedule. Um, again, because of the change in the difference in the arbitrage, it's not going to be a big difference between the two. The idea being if you're if you're using more cash than debt, then the debt payment on the bond, the interest goes down, right?

But you're losing the return on the invested capital. So, you have to do an arbitrage between those two to get a more accurate assessment in terms of what are the real cost. You know, they've given me a draw schedule. My opinion is you take a you take a X million dollar project and you put it if it's a $12 million construction schedule, you divide it by 12 and that's it. I mean, we could play games with this forever in the end. It's not going to translate to any material difference. So, if we had to fund the project in the beginning while we're figuring out what we're doing with the bond, we have time then because we have that is correct and we could reimburse ourselves whatever we decide.

That is correct. Once the bond was approved by the voters, you can pay out of cash and get reimbursed out of the bond. Okay. Is it completely So, it's March. We have this the bond's been approved. Yes. But we have we have a a a process that we have to go through to place that bond. If we were to start today, that bond would probably be paced placed around the first week in May or the second week of May. However, this decision in terms of capital structure of this project

does not have to have an impact on project schedule. That's the important point. And in fact, what we're looking at doing as they're they're uploading the construction plans to the building official tomorrow. And I've talked to the building official and I've indicated that um can we bifurcate the permit process and do a demo um you know remediation permit first before we do the full construction permit. He said yes, we can. So they that's what they have to do upfront anyways. So we can still start that now and we can pay for those costs out of our reserves.

Okay. This might be an asinine suggestion but I'm going to make it. It's March. March is over in my opinion. April May we'll have budget when we start to have the budget an understanding of budget. End of May for FY7. Right. By that time, by that time, the budget committee should be around the the final steps. By miday, if all the okay the meetings happen, we should have a pretty good understanding of where the budget's going to be.

Can this funding decision wait until we have an understanding of 2027 budget? If we can reimburse ourselves with the bond, then wouldn't it make more sense to have an understanding of our 2027 budget before we make a decision on how much of this bond we want to use? If that's what the council wants to entertain, what I could do is take a look at if that was ultimately the decision, then when would we go to market on the bond and how much construction cost are we projected to incur right

during that period of time. So you know what your ultimate exposure is on the using unrestricted reserves. Could we have that assessment done in time for next I I could have that assessment done before the end of this week. Okay. Is anybody opposed to that? Are you thinking a number like way out of Are you thinking somewhere between 2 and 4 million? Are you thinking less than 2 million? I guess I'm just curious like I'm thinking no million. You're thinking nothing. [laughter] Okay.

But I understand that that's a controversial um position. So, I would like to make more informed decision because if if the concern is that we don't know what will be in the 2027 budget, then let's look at the 2027 budget. If we're not if if we're not if our feet aren't being held to the fire right now to make a decision on this because it's not going to hold up the construction timeline, then why not have the larger picture before we make this decision? But it looks like Doug has comment from the budget committee. I just want to I just want to ask that [clears throat] if the council holds this decision to the end of the budget that we would also have the ability to weigh in at that point as part of the larger budget process and work with the administration to evaluate the tax impact all that not in a vacuum, not just one bond as it relates to the whole budget, but to give you guys a more comprehensive picture and a more thorough analysis of that because we were under the impression we had to kind of make a decision and recommendation, but ultimately we would have like to uphold that. So, whatever that timeline looks like, even if it's before the end, as long as we can weigh in on that, I think it would be helpful and a good independent analysis as well.

Would you have time to do that? Like, I know there's a lot to get everything together before presenting and stuff. Would that give would you actually have time to do that? As long as we could have the resources and work with the administration and Tony, then I I I we would at least have an input in terms of what it would look like from the budget because if we're doing the budget correctly, we should be able to say here's the projected increase in the tax rate. They already calculate that and then here's the bond on top. So, a lot of that's already being done behind the scenes. It's just now layering in the bond and and assessing with the new information.

I I think more of a comprehensive assessment would be helpful. I think we're making a decision in a vacuum right now. And if we don't have to make this decision at this moment and we can wait to see the 2027 budget, I would be more comfortable making a decision on this funding strategy at that point. But I'll defer to the majority. Administrator, can we send you if we have any questions for Ellen for bond counsel? Can we send you some questions and you can have her answer and whether or not she wants to come back or not or we can put them up screen. Please, please do. All I ask is do not call bond counsel. No, no, no. I know. Um, but yes, any questions that you have, let me know immediately and I'll get Ellen to respond to those. Yeah, maybe we can just get them all together so you're not constantly emailing her like No problem. She's been she's been very responsive.

Friday or something. Yep. I I already have a schedule that she prepared at my request in terms of from the point of decision how long to place the bond. So, I have that schedule. That schedule moves to when you guys make a decision. So the only variable here notwithstanding the larger municipal budget decisions is what is the actual draw going to be during that hold period which is what our exposure is as a community using cash. Okay. But that's not that difficult to do. And sorry I don't mean to keep like beating this dead horse here but um I can say that because I own horses. But yeah,

we won't exceed 2 million between now and budget for construction costs. So even if we were to say Okay. Yeah. So even if we were say we only want to pull 2 million from reserves, like we wouldn't exceed 2 million. Well, e even if you did Yeah. and the ultimate decision is to theoretically only put 2 million. You just get reimbured, right? Okay. Okay. So it's not a big issue. Uh, but no, I mean, if we're talking about a matter of two, three months maximum, no, you're not drawing $2 million out on a project. Okay. Well, you say two or three months maximum, but then there's still the processing time, which is another couple months. So, now we're going out like we're out four or five months.

Yeah, I'll do that analysis for you. I'll give you a spreadsheet projecting it all the way out so you can see it. Okay. Can I just say one more thing? the um the 9,139,000 that we came up with or they came up with. Do you think in a million years that's going to be the final number? There's no way. Well, I'm not I'm not going to I'm not going to say that, Councilman. I'm not going to say that.

Could it be less? Yeah. Could it be more? Yes. But I think there's enough design into this budget that would protect us. Now, with that being said, I think the the big key here is going to be they they've got to go back out to market once the the the plans have been submitted, which will be tomorrow. They're going back out to market to basically sell the project to the vendors, to the to the subs. That's when you're going to get the final hard numbers. Parasalt seems to believe that there's additional wiggle in here that we can save some money. I'll wait till I see the final numbers coming in from the subs. When the subs come in with their final numbers, they're basically buying the project. They're committed to those numbers. So, I think we'll have a little bit better comfort level and that um David, how do you how long do you think that would really take to once they go to once they submit the plans and and go to the subs for final pricing?

They said two weeks. Two weeks. Okay. So, it's going to be quick. So, I would say by maybe the meeting in April, we'll have hard numbers, but but how they got also what bothers me too is how they got from 11 to 9. The things they're cutting like for instance, just as an example, the paving they said we're going to do three inches instead of four. Four inches is the industry standard. So now they're saying they're going to do a lesser paving job and that that's that doesn't save us any money in the long run by cut making those kind of cuts. Well, first of all, getting getting down to the $9 million figure was using also using money that we already have set aside for this this project.

So it's not just the the add value engineering. It's a lot more than that. It's about a million dollars worth of of um of cash that we have or actually it's a million3 of value engineering or 1 million 3,000 value engineering and I forgot what we had in terms of cash. I don't actually I do have it right in front of me. Yeah. 1.5. Yeah. So that's how we got down Councilman Borgard to the 9 million 139. It's not just changing the pavement from 4 in to 3 in. I'm just using that as an example.

Yeah. No, I understand what you're saying because when they when they presented that to me as a um as a value engineering item, I kind of scratched my head a little bit about that because quite frankly, the the additional savings from doing that. I'm wondering if that's really worth it. I think it was what, $20,000 for that? $15,000. Yeah. So, it's it's really not a lot of right juice. So, I I would argue that we may want to say, "No, you know what? We'll stay with the four inches of pavement." Thank you. Um, yeah. And then last we met, we discussed the elevator,

850,000. I believe ECC said they were going to come back and tell us whether or not the architect provided ADA compliant, like an ADA compliant opinion. Now, we have a letter from the architect confirming the ADA compliance. However, with that being said, when the um when the docu when the plans get filed tomorrow, uh they are going to the um state just, you know, to make sure that they are in agreement with the architect's opinion on ADA compliance. So, we will have

a nod from the state on this. We our architect feels we don't need an elevator. But with that being said, we'd rather deal with that issue now than downstream and have the ADA come back and say, "Hey, uh, you know, we want an elevator in here and now we we have serious issues." So, we are addressing that now. Okay. Glad to hear that. Thank you. All right. So, we're just going to table this to a future meeting when we get some answers and and then the budget committee can do some further investigating and come back. Yeah. So, we don't really have a date certain right now. We're just going to bring it back up, right? Yeah.

I I hope to have most of this information for you at the uh April 6th town council meeting. Okay. And then any counselor who has any questions for bound bound counsel, we can send them to you maybe by next Friday and then you can send her one email [clears throat] and I will have her rep have her her response to that on the April 6 meeting. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Yep. Anyone have anything else before we move on?

I think I just want to make mention that in my defense, Doug, I didn't think about proposing that we hold on this decision until budget. So I would appreciate like the comprehensive budget committee review of this in conjunction with the rest of the budget. I just didn't think of that until this evening. So thank you. All right. Next one is update of charter review committee. Mr. Christopharo.

Yes. So um the charter review committee has been meeting every month. We've had incredibly productive meetings and we're on track for finalization of you know proposed uh language for questions for May. Um, we'd like to meet collectively with the town council in April. Now, I I believe that some of the April meetings are going to be like have some robust agendas. So, we were our preference as the charter review committee would be [clears throat] to have a meeting or be on the April 20th meeting agenda. Um, that way we can review the Sorry, Claire, I didn't mean to put my back to you. We can review the proposed questions with you. um get your opinion on them and then be able to finalize language for those questions for May. So, we're our preference is April 20th if you feel as though that agenda might be a little bit too robust. I know there's some mediation meetings going on um in the month of March. We're open to hosting a joint meeting. So, you guys could always attend one of our um charter review committee meetings or we could host a special meeting to review.

What do you think is I mean, how much information do you have? Would it be best just to have its own meeting or I don't think it needs its own meeting, but if you don't want to use, again, I know that we have some, you know, stuff going on behind the scenes right now that might take up some of the April meeting time. So, if you don't want to use town council meeting time, we're open to using our charter review meeting or having a special meeting. But, I don't think it's like I don't think it's going to be a very lengthy meeting. Tammy, do you happen to know what's on those agenda? Like, do you happen to know how long those agendas are so far or

I don't really recall what's gonna what we have on April specifically. Okay. Yeah. I mean, let's do the 20th and if we have to move stuff around, we can try and do that or we if we find it's too much, we can do a special meeting. Okay. Excellent. I'll circle back up to committee next week. Is that it? That's it. Okay. Discussion by council vote or other action on approval of GZA environmental contract for environmental services. Mr. Gibbs,

I I put this back on the agenda at the request of the uh council president. Um I wanted to clarify something. um because the um the statement was effectively that we should have the internal capabilities to handle this stuff. My answer to that question is no, we don't. And I will argue no city or town does. The issue that we really have and we've we've gone through extensively with the state self-certification program as relates to junkyards, auto salvage yards. There are a lot of provisions within that self-checklist which we're not sure if they really apply to us or not. So our thought was at the request of the council initially we procured a proposal from GZA which is the most qualified of our three engineering firms on call as it relates to environmental work and said we arguably need an independent third party to come in here and give us a very hard opinion as to what rules apply to them and what rules don't without that clarification then I think it's hard to navigate going forward if we have a hard third party engineer coming back said this applies this doesn't this doesn't this applies then our future actions are much clearer so that's the only reason why I put that on the agenda in response once to the council's a request but two is because I think the administration feels much more comfortable with an independent consultant coming in here and telling us this is the rules. That's all. We don't other than that we don't have an opinion

about this other than we're just trying to provide clarity for the council on what has been a not just the council because now this issue is outside the council. The council made its decision regarding the license. Now the issue is an issue regarding zoning. It's an issue regarding other issues that may involve the police department, but we need guidance on this.

We may not necessarily have the resources within the administration to be able to manage these sorts of requests, and it may not even necessarily fall within the scope of any official in the administration, but we should have resources that have an understanding of how to proactively navigate these sorts of questions. And it doesn't seem like we have that today. So, I do appreciate in in retrospect, I know I pushed back about the $17,000 price tag for this 175

175 [laughter] 7 let's say closer to 18 18,000. Um, I bulked at that a little bit, but in hindsight, I've given it some thought. And I feel as though I I feel a lot of things, but um I think that this is also again with the $18,000 price tag, a good exercise for the town. I think that this work can further inform our ordinances. um it will allow us to better understand how to navigate these processes in the future. We seem to have a lot of environmental interests in this town and I think that this is um would be a good exercise to help us to understand that. So, uh, with all of that being said, too, um, we heard a lot from residents about their concerns regarding potential environmental issues with the junkyard. Um, we weren't necessarily able to vote on residents concerns because we were sitting as the board of lenture. I also want to make mention and this didn't get on this week's agenda because the agenda was finalized prior to the Wednesday 12 p.m. deadline, but I don't necessarily think that it's appropriate that the town council sits as the board of lenture. I think that the town council is elected by constituents and we should be able to vote based on constituents concerns. So with that being said, if this will if this effort with GCA supports our constituents concerns, then I vote to approve the GZA resolution.

I just want to make sure we understand too because we kind of went through this as it relates to the peerre material sat in stone. Although we want the third party review on this, that does not necessarily mean that the third party review is going to come back and confirm yes some of the concerns that the that the abuters have made. But that's okay, right? As a town, we just need clarity,

right? and and I understand Councilwoman Christopher Farrell your comments regarding having the internal expertise to to kind of navigate this stuff. I would argue and I'm not going to ask him to give me his thoughts because he'll kill me. Um, but my town planner has worked around government a lot longer than I have and he'll tell you cities and towns don't have that this ability. We just don't. And would it be great to have it? Yeah. But are we prepared to pay for it? No. So generally we can take a look at hot button issues and try to get a gut feel. But I think on this particular issue we have to move past gut fill and we need clarity real hard clarity and that's why we put this in front of you just because I think that's what you as council people want. And just one more point that the funds that would be used to pay for this contract are out of the discretionary budget item which is already in our budget. And that money is if I'm a correct finance director, these are monies that are coming actually out of contingency. They are not monies which the taxpayers were levied for. Can can you uh

explain again what the report what what it does? What?

When when I reached out to GZA, my point was and I looked at the um the document that the state has as it relates to the self-certification program for J auto junkyards. And within that document, there were numerous references to various state regulations and EPA regulations. So what I effectively did is when I reached out to GZA, I said these are the issues under the self-certification program. So these are the issues that the state has identified as issues that this use needs to address. These are the issues we need to have clarity on. for example, uh, soil erosion and sedimentation controls. Now, I've worked 40 plus years in construction. I know what that means as it relates to this use because I usually would, you know, we're going to do a development project and it's easier in this project. There is no development per se. So, how does that regulation apply? It's referenced in the state self self-certification program. How does it apply, if at all, to this use? Since this use has no buildings and they're not building a building, not building a road, they're not doing any of that. Does it apply? It's those kinds of things, Councilman, that I'm asking clarity on. It's just simply a reflection of what the state identifies as important. That's it. We're not concocting any other issues based on public comments. We're using the basic self-certification program as the guideline.

So, it's based on public comments, not the building inspector. Not nothing. It's nothing that the building inspector came up. This is based on public comment. Uh, no. This is actually based on the state self-certification program and their document and all the regs it references. That's what it speaks to because those are the issues that the state has identified as germanine to this use. That's what we're using. In essence, it's a summary of state regulations amongst the three or four governing bodies for this use. That's correct. They are. That's correct. Yeah. They're also completing a site visit.

Uh I know there was a site visit listed. I guess the only way you're going to conduct that site visit is as he allows you on the property, right?

Yeah. Exactly. And I and I've got to clarify, well, yes and no. Um the and you said it's it's DEM, Department of Administration, EPA, they're all involved in this. We know what's there. So the question would be, for example, to dem um what applies to this use? They don't have to go on the site to look at that. What applies to this use? and then come back and say yes they have to have a ripsies permit. That's what we want to know. Okay, if they need a Ripy's permit then we need to tell in this particular case or anybody you have to get a Ripies permit for use for for your operations on this site. If they come back and say you don't need a RIPES permit, then we're not going to ask for it in spite of the self-certification program identifying it as one of many layers of regulations. So my question is what does the process look like after we have this report? So we get this report and it says he needs a RIPES permit. How who's enforcing that? How are we enforcing that?

I believe that that issue would come before uh and and again I don't want him to hate me, but I'll look at my director of planning. I would believe this comes under the jurisdiction of both zoning and building and the police department. So enforcement would be my concern. Yeah. And that's a concern everywhere in town. It always comes down to enforcement. But if you're going to enforce, you better get clarity as to what you're enforcing. That's the big issue.

Then we do also have to go back and revisit the licensing piece of it too, right? because that's really vague in in how he can obtain or how someone can obtain a license in that area. You mean on the state level? No, for the town. On the town. Yeah. I I historically I can't answer that question because he's had a license for a while and that use had a license since I think 1969. So, one of the things that we need to do, and I think uh Councilwoman Dristopho referenced this, we need to take a hard look at this kind of stuff and circle back with our licensing requirements.

Right. Well, that's and ask for more things. Now, we can't come back to this existing use and start imposing things on them that wasn't originally required from them. However, if this use or any use is in violation of state law, then that's open territory, and that's all we're trying to do is figure out what that is.

So, we need um the I don't want to continue to call them the applicant because they've been approved. Um so, this business would need to provide us and GZA with permission to complete the site visit. If if there is a site visit required in some cases, yes. Meaning I think that would be primarily rel relative to DEM. There's already been site visits as it relates to the um police department, right?

As it relates to the um their documentation requirements under state law. Um we're not going on the site to do an environmental site assessment. So it says site visit. GCA will perform a field inspection to observe the site's compliance with regulations involving storm water and groundwater protection, outdoor storage of hazardous materials, outdoor vehicle crushing, local zoning requirements, wetlands regulations, fire access and property boundaries and site perimeter fencing. And given the current status of this client as it relates to zoning violations

that are already been notified of then I'm I feel very comfortable that they will be more than happy to acquies to our going on site to look at these issues and they have been quite frankly up to now open to that. They've never said we can't come on their site. Okay. Right. Anyone have any other questions? Anyone want to make a motion regarding the resolution? I have a couple of comments on the resolution. Go ahead. So, the state of Rhode Island is now the state of Rhode Island. We are no longer the state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Shouldn't that be eliminated from the heading?

Probably. Okay. uh in the one the first paragraph line 13 environmental is spelled incorrectly and then the are we talking about the resolution? Yes. Okay. And then the the last um paragraph line 41 contracting an amount not to exceed 17,500. So, I thought that 17,500 was the cost of deliverables, but they had hourly charges um in case we wanted them to come and talk to us. So, shouldn't that number really be a little bit higher or I don't have it in front of me, so I could be wrong. What I would do is I would um request

beat him up. [laughter] What I would request from GZA to include in that price to to have one meeting with the town. Hold on. I'm doing the math. Right. It doesn't include the 230 an hour. So Scott's going to beat them up for two hours worth of coming before the town council. I'll use my charm. There you go. Even better. [laughter] He could be in trouble. Okay. I am going to as any sorry any other comments. So you can make a motion just doing his amendments. Yeah.

Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve um the resolution authorizing the town administrator to ex execute the GCA Geo Environmental Incorporated contract to perform an environmental compliance evaluation for the auto salvalage yard located at 955 Iron Mine Hill Road um in the amount of $17,500 along with the amendments to the um grammatical as well as the state title corrections. Second. That's a motion in a second. Any further discussion?

No, I would just like to add one thing. Um, I'm going to I'm going to vote yes on this as uh to because the uh the residents to alleviate a lot of their concerns, but I think we could be heading down a slippery slope because what happens with the next business that the the residents get are not happy with. Are we in Well, you did a you know, you did a report for them. We'd like a report here or and then there's another road happens to people live next to a farm when to a gas station or next to a funeral home. But I'm going to support it, but I just hope that we're not going down a slippery slope. I would just like to reply to that, John, because I think that's a valid concern. But I think this exercise will provide the appropriate officials within our min administration an understanding of how to navigate this, especially as it relates to DBR, EPA, DEM. So hopefully it will not only provide them with an understanding of how to navigate some of these environmental questions, but it will also provide them with the contacts if they do need to engage with those agencies in the future. Well, like I said, I'm going to vote yes on it, but I I just have concerns.

All right, [snorts] so we have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod, yes. Mr. Christopharo, yes. Mrs. O'Hara, yes. Mr. Punchek, yes. Miss,

yes. New business, discussion by council vote, other action on TA, appointment of interim emergency management director, Mr. Shottia. Uh the the EMA director is an appointment of the town administrator. As you know, the position has been filled for a very long time by Mr. Bran Conier who had retired. And in circling back and taking a look at the EMA operation, I um felt that there was a need for a very seasoned leadership to help transition the EMA to a different place. So I reached out to Chief Shardier. Um told him that he was going to hate me for asking this, but he he agreed to serve on an interim basis as the EMA director. Um he was very helpful during the snowstorm. He was our point person. Um so we'll continue to use him until we get through organizational issues with the EMA and some clarity as to what the real role of the EMA is relative to our first responders and then at that point we could make a determination as to who the permanent EMA director is. But for now as the town administrator I've appointed uh David Chardier. So, have you agreed on a time frame that he knows he's serving that or?

No, we have not. Other than he knows this is not permanent and it's just a matter of transitioning through. My gut feel is council president, I can't see it lasting more than six months and this doesn't violate anything with his board. No, he's already got clear clearing clearance from his board to do this. Okay, perfect. All right, so you don't need any. You're just bringing it to us. No, I do not. I just for information purposes. Thank you. Discussion by council vote other action on abatements and supplementals. Miss St. George.

Um, good evening. I this on maybe. Can you hear me? Yeah, it's on. It's on. Um, I have abatements in the amount of 9,73.94. [snorts] So, the ones that say tax appeal assessor decision, is that just someone that came in and discussed their what they received for their tax bill or they didn't go through the actual process or what does that mean?

No, they went through the process. Um, just I I So, what happens is they apply to appeal their assessed value. Um, I make my decision and then if they feel they want to go to the board, they can go to the board. But these two didn't. So that's why it's going through as an abatement. [snorts] Not everyone that appeals goes to the board. Okay. [snorts] And then the first one in the bottom one is just on the wrong one. It's under supplemental. Yeah.

Okay. [snorts] Anyone have any other questions? Anyone want to make a motion? I'll make them. Are we doing both? Supplementals and abatements. I just did abatements for right now. All right. Next is supplementals. I'll make a motion to approve the abatements for March 16th, 2026 in the amount of 9,733.94. Second. That's a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Baragod, yes. Mr. Christopharro,

yes. Mrs. O'Hara, yes. Mr. Punchek, yes. Miss, yes. And the supplemental. And the next is supplementals in the amount of $1,968.78. Anyone [snorts] have any questions? [clears throat] Anyone make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the supplemental taxes for March 16, 2026 in the amount of $1,968.78. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Baragon? Yes. Mr. Christopharo?

Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchek? Yes. Miss House? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Discussion by council vote other action on repurpose of heritage association reserves. Wafer assigns Mr. Stage. Hi. Come on up, Rich. Um, so this is just to um repurpose some of the reserves. Right now there's $2,000 set aside for the NSHA history book. We want to repurpose some of that for uh some of the wayfinder signs. If you want to talk to about the the signs, Mr. Keane.

Oh, thank you. Rich Rich Keane 7 Bamford Street, North Smithfield Heritage Association. So the the uh association acting as the town's um 250th anniversary um committee applied for a $5,000 grant to to uh create two Wayfair signs that uh explain the history um of a particular landmark or place. and we um were successful [clears throat] in getting the grant from the from the state and uh it uh I believe it came in this week. The um [clears throat] the the type of sign that we want to use is um the same one that we put up at the Mammoth Mill Park over on Mill Street in Waterford. And that was that was that was designed by the former Rivers Edge Arts program in one sake. They received the grant. They paid for everything, but it's a it's a very nice, durable um sign. It's it's been there a couple of years now and it's it's uh still in very good shape. So, we'd like to replicate that with these other other two signs. one one will go one of the signs will go in Union Village and the other one will go down in Primrose. Uh the signs [clears throat] cost about $3,500. So um um the $2,000 that was that remains from the appropriation for the history book um with that history book has just uh been dead in the water quite quite frankly. It's it's hard to get people motivated uh to to do that kind of thing within our group. But um [clears throat] anyway, would like to repurpose that the remaining $2,000 to help pay for the balance of the two signs.

Where in Primrose do you do you plan to install it? Uh, we hope to put it I haven't approached the school committee yet because we just found out that that we got the approval on the grant, but u the Andrew school right at Sheldon Four Corners. It's a nice very walkable area though. I guess it it's very walkable actually. Um they've got a parking lot there if people want to come and and park and walk over to the um to the where the playground you wouldn't remember the playground but [laughter] it's they've got a nice lawn there and be a nice spot. As a matter of fact so it's closer to the building not at the intersection.

Yeah [snorts] anywhere in that lawn would be nice. As a matter of fact, it might be uh a place where we might play place another one or two signs if uh in the future, but that's that's what we're looking at right now. Yeah. So Tony, we just have to authorize the are we moving it? Do we have are we moving it from one code to another or No, it's just going to say under the same code. It's just basically changing the changing the description. Yep. Yep. and [snorts] we figure we might as well use it again because the reserves are being taken away at the end of this year. So, we might as well use it. So, we're just going to repurpose the history book funds to this way to the wayfinder science. Correct.

All right. Anyone want to make a motion? I will make a motion to approve the repurposing of funds from the history book to the wayfairing signs. Second. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Beerod? Yes. Mr. Christopharo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchek? Yes. Miss? Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Discussion may council vote other action on prism lights. Mr. Pendigas, I've been waiting with baited breath. Pray. You better be ready. [laughter]

You saved the bath to last, right? Thank you, councelor. Ray Pendigast, director of public works. So, I'd like an understanding of the scope of the contract that essentially costs the town $3,400 a month. Like, what what does that maintenance actually entail since the process is that residents need to essentially self-report outages and then Prism addresses them? Correct. So, um, the administration is going to have a meeting with the executive director. Uh, this contract's been in place since 2016.

Um, there was another, uh, part of the contract that was looked at in 2018. Um, [clears throat] some things were brought to light today. I had a short meeting with the administrator and the planner. Um, so as of right now, the contract is still in place for a lot of things.

Mhm. Um, I spoke with the executive director of Prism. They're still our maintenance provider for our smart light program. Uh, there's a lot that goes into this contract. There's a lot of money that's been saved over the years. Um, as for a street light out, I look at that as not an issue because I get an email every day about a street light out and I forward that information to Prism and Prism has their subcontractors go out and replace the light or fix it or whatever they have to do. With that also is a lot that goes into the smart light program where they can brighten lights, dim lights, know what lights are out. There's also an arm to this that DOT is involved. Rhode Island Energy is involved. Contracts are involved. So, for me to sit here and go through this whole contract, I think that after our short meeting today, the administration is going to sit down with the finance director. We're going to sit down and go through this.

I think this it's time that we have to put our hands on this where the state takes over this the the lights on the state highways. Okay. Um there's just a lot to this and um I think that once we have this meeting and we bring in the executive director of Prism, I think we'd be able to sit down and have a meeting with the council and and [clears throat] discuss it in more depth. Yes. A as for a street light out on one main street, they were reported. I've never there's there's never been an issue with street lights out in town that are not taken care of.

So two a few things. I didn't necessarily ask that this be an agenda item to discuss the contract. I asked to see the contract. So, I appreciate you coming and providing a bit of an understanding of what that contract entails. Looks pretty lengthy. Yep. I've got lots of time. I'm sitting at home with an 8week old, so I got time. But it's also 10 years old, right? Okay. So, we're saying that the contract entails the smart lights which identify which lights that are out. it increases them, decreases the the but also can identify lights that are out. But then we still have to self-report as residents when lights are out. So, how is the smart light solving for when lights are out? And that would be a question for that executive director. Okay. Um

although if I could jump in on that and and please director tell me I'm wrong which you usually do. I would never do that. But I think that when that question, it's not about an individual light. It's about a section of lights. Okay. And two is that the contract's very specific. It's the town's responsibility under the contract to notify Prism of light out outage. So it's in that contract. Now, as the director said, it's a 10-year-old contract and there are quite a few issues and a lot of them actually involve DOT and outstanding issues that we have with DOT on these lights in terms of payment. So,

okay, we we it's a very complicated issue. Um, quite frankly, the contract that we have is technically no longer in effect. However, Prism has continued to provide the services to us without any changes in cost.

And if I do recall correctly, director, prior to Prism taking on this pursuant to a state initiative, we were spending close to $140,000 on lights. So, we are this this program has been fairly cost effective, but there still is a need to take a look at it cleanly. and it's so complicated that we need to have face tof face meeting with their director. Okay. Well, I'm glad that that my concern about this contract brought that to light. But with all of that being said, too, you get emails all the time. You've received emails from me about lights being out. I don't know if enough residents have an understanding of how to report.

They do. They do. Okay. Because it's like a pothole. I mean, I didn't know until I bothered you about it and then you told me what the process was. I get two today. I also see a lot of lights out on Poundill Road and nobody brought it to your attention until I reported all of the lights that were out on Poundill Road. So, obviously the residents on Poundill Road didn't know how to report it. And we can and we can probably address that. We can put something out there similar to what we do for any uh in the winter pothole damage uh claims against uh people's mailboxes and things like that. We can it's Yeah. So, I think if there's just more communication on how to do this, then we could actually really be getting the our dollars worth on the $3,400 a month if residents were truly unaware of the process and could actually self-report the lights that are out. I

I think we're getting quite the deal for the 3,400 once [clears throat] this all comes to fruition. Okay. Said the more lights we start reporting, the higher the contract price is going to go. So, double-edged sword. Start to mitigate some liability because we can actually see while we're driving on roads. It's going to launch automatic. Are they turning back lights everywhere in town? We were all shut down at one time.

And and that's that's a good question, council, I'm not 100% sure that the whole program has been converted to LED. So there's and as the administrator has alluded to, there's a lot of questions that I have. Um I was kind of like not part of this for a few years. Um not really sure why, but um we're going to get our arms around this and move forward to get this program back. The program is a great program. We've saved a lot of money in the 10 years that this program's been in place. Sounds like they're peeling an onion.

Well, it's just that they shut them off. They only kept one on because she was convinced they want to steal all the precious things or whatever, but she's with God now and moved. So, uh, but it's very, very dark at night. Well, you have to self-report, Claire. So, if the lights are out, you got to self-report to DPW. So, get out at night and go check your light. Let me let me know what the address is. I think I was referring to is when they used was Didn't they shut off some lights before I think before we moved to prison? Wasn't there a time that not all the street lights were on? They Oh, yeah, there was. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that was supposed to be temporary. So, they're still out. They're still out. Yeah, they haven't.

So, they didn't know how to report, right? I guess only one site is on because this We'll do a sidebar, counsel. So, you can let me know the address and we'll look for you. Yeah. When my kid can't sleep at night, I'm just going to drive through North Smithfield and I'm going to make a list. There's no lights. Unless Oh, you shouldn't be making a list while you're driving around with No, I'll get out. Don't get out of your car. Don't do that. Just tell us the specific air general area and we'll go out and confirm. Jokes aside, I'm glad that we're looking into it. Yep, we will. I'll let you know. All right. We all set on that one? Yes. All right. Discussion by council voter. Other action on retainage release. Mr. Pending,

this is um the retainage that we uh hold on to when we have a a contract that this contract was with T-Mozi. Uh we are no longer in that contract. Uh that work has been completed. So they are requesting their I believe it's $168,29025 be returned to them. So these are all the issues that you had on the last paving job, right? Is that what this goes back to?

In this case, the contract calls for a percentage of a U retainage. This is the percentage of the retainage that we held back in the event that we needed to exercise that which we almost had to, but they uh they were more than generous to come back and do the work that we asked them to. Uh and that's the reason for the retainers to hold it back in case we're not happy with certain parts of the job that they do. So everything's been completed to satisfaction to this date. Yes.

Anyone have any other questions? Anyone make a motion to approve? I will make a motion to approve the release of $168,000 $168,290.25 25 cents in retainage to team LLC. That's [snorts] a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Peragod. I'm going to have to recuse. Okay. U Miss Mr. Christopharo. Uh, yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punchek. Yes. Missiles.

Yes. Discussion by council voter. Other action on 500galon fuel tank bids. Mr. Pentagon,

um, you should have in front of you, uh, a sealed bid. Uh, we went out for a bid on two 500gallon fuel tanks, uh, to be used at the, uh, public works facility at 281 Quaker Highway. Uh, there was one bid received from the John W. Kennedy, I shouldn't say that. There were two bids received. Uh after reviewing the two bids, I did not take the lowest bid who was Technology International out of Florida um for $7,040. The second bid, the second lowest bid was from John Kennedy Company in East Providence, who we've uh also done some business with uh with that type of uh fuel tanks and stuff. and that bid was $7,510 for the two 500 500gallon tanks. The reason for my recommendation going to the second lowest is there's a 14 plus um delivery to get the tanks from Florida. I'm not comfortable with that at all. Um I spoke with the finance director. We would rather go with the local company. It's not going to be a 14week wait or more. Um I'd like to use this money up. It's been in reserves for a year or so. It was approved in last year's contract uh in capital. So, um plus we'd like to get this work completed. So, that's the reason for my recommendation for John Kennedy.

So, do we know if this quote is still valid because it was only good for 20 days. So, is this still are they still standing by this quote? They are. Couldn't [snorts] get them to match the low bidder. Excuse me. couldn't get them to match the low bidder. I don't want to violate any uh use Scots charm. Yeah. Didn't I didn't want theensive I didn't want the finance director to, you know, get me in trouble here.

All right. Anyone want to have any questions or make a motion? What's the lead time to have them in stock? Um, it's it's they told us uh hopefully a couple weeks. So, if I can get this thing audited, I'm hoping a couple weeks. And we really wanted to get this in in the springtime anyway before the summer. So, what's the motion? You just need us to approve your decision on the bid. [clears throat] Yes.

Okay. I will make a motion to approve DPW's recommendation on um John W. Kennedy Company for [snorts] 500galon fuel tanks in the amount of $7,510. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod, yes. Mr. Christopharo, yes. Mrs. O'Hara, yes. Mr. Punchek, yes. Miss Alves, yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, next item, discussion by council other action on Axon taser contract and IT support. Uh, we're going to actually move this to the April 6th meeting per the uh, chief's recommendation. Discussion by council vote other action on updated zoning regulations. Mr. Kulo, we have a continuation of public hearing the second reading and discussion by council vote to other action. Good evening, council members. Uh I'm Mark Curulo, town planner. I was here last month uh with our consultant in his associates and we made a presentation uh to the council with regard to the zoning update. In the interim, I did um send to the council members uh detailed changes uh of some of the comments that I had received from some council in particular one council member. Um I hope you had time to review those uh changes. I provided uh also uh a response to the email as well as the track changes uh for the particular pages that required the update. I'm here to answer any questions or any questions from the public with regard to the changes in zoning. We did give a brief overview last time that the majority of the changes are required as part of the uh general assembly's uh changes to the land use legislation. Those have all been implemented in this new zoning ordinance as well as some other changes. Um I could highlight some of those if you'd like. Uh but we did go over them at the last meeting. We did uh update um solar in combining the two ordinances

and making that an overlay. We reviewed and updated the uh the medical marijuana as well as the recreational marijuana as that was uh something that was voted on by uh the general public with regard to a referendum that the town had never updated that section of the ordinance. And uh I think we eliminated a couple of elements in the zoning ordinance that are now um prohibited for communities to review. That would be wetlands and uh septic systems. Uh I didn't know if there are any questions from the council with regard to any of the particulars. I I do apologize for uh including uh and plantations in the ordinance and we will amend that.

Anybody have any questions for Mr. Kurulo? Were all your questions all set? Yeah, that was Yes, that was good. So, we need to open the public hearing, right? [snorts] Yes, please. I would like to make a motion to uh open the public hearing on the updated zoning regulations. Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Baragon. Yes. Mr. Christopharo? Yes. Mr. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Miss?

Yes. Anyone like to speak in the public hearing? Just for the council's information, um [clears throat] we did go through a public process over the last couple of years with regard to updating the zoning ordinance. I think Miss Inis went over that at the last meeting, but we did have two public workshops. One on August 21st of 24 and one mayor 22nd of 25. We also hosted a booth at the 2024 pumpkin festival where there was information handed out and and and provided to residents who were interested. We also completed an online survey. We received 170 responses with regard to uh zoning engagement and zoning questions. So, you know, throughout the process, there was there was outreach to the community, uh, ads in the paper, and we did have, uh, some individuals come in and attend, uh, our two public workshops. [clears throat]

All right. Y, Mr. Kulo, again, I'm I'm unfortunately I'm trying to follow on the computer. Um, do you have a document identifying the differences between what was originally filed for first reading and what's now before the council for them to amend before they act on it as second reading? So, I did provide through the clerk's office and directly to the council members a series of pages. Um, those are all highlighted with the red changes. They are all Yeah, they are all highlighted. Okay. I just want to make sure I was following the right thing on the computer. So they all have track changes

but this this small package are the only differences between the first reading and the second reading. That is correct. So it would be there pages in the existing ordinance 11 12 28 30 58 and then in the use table um 340 attachment 2.8 use number 20. So just those are all that have been provided.

Yeah. So, just as a matter of housekeeping, so that we have the the proper ordinance in front of you, make a motion to um amend the pending ordinance to include these changes from the first reading till tonight. Is that correct, Mr. That's correct. That would be correct. If you do that, then you have the the full ordinance as amended in front of you. You've got those pages if you're willing to do that. We're in public hearing at the Do we want to close? Yeah. At the close of the public hearing if that's something I would want you to do. Unless the council and if the council has any other potential changes, we should talk about them now before you come on public hearing.

I don't anyone and would anyone like to speak during public hearing? Anyone? No. Good. Okay. All right. So, you want to make a motion to close? I will make a motion to close the public hearing on the zoning regulation updates. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Veragod. Yes. Mr. Christopharo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchek? Yes. Miss Al?

Yes. So, I would like to make a motion to incorporate the revised pages of the zoning ordinance um to the prior uh amendment proposals. Right. And for the record, as changes on page 11. Okay. 30

30 58 and change the table.

That's correct. Yes. Second. So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Berod. Yes, Mr. Christopharo. Yes, Mrs. O'Hara. Yes, Mr. Punchek. Yes, Miss South. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. We now have the entire ordinance as amended in front of you. Entire revised ordinance as amended in front of you for action. So, do we have to make another motion? Oh, if you want to pass the entire Okay. entire ordinance. Do we have to do anything for the second reading or it's considered?

It's just the second reading of the document has been amended to add these two pages. We now have that revised ordinance as amended in front of you for action. Okay. So, we want to pass. Okay. So, I would like to make a motion to approve the up the second reading of the updated zoning zoning regulations as amended previously. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Baragod? Yes. Mr. Christopharo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Miss House? Yes. We're all set on that now.

Congratulations. Yeah, I just council I just want to again it's not my role but you all should be aware of how much work the planner Yeah and the system planner and other people have put in far much more work than I have uh that they put in on this project uh going over a couple of years Mark two years two years so thank you thank you a lot of work a lot of time doing it and a lot of work what are you gonna do with all your spare time now I was just thinking about how to fill it. Mark. [laughter] Okay. Thank you so much. Hey, maybe we can tap into our reserves and give you a bonus. [laughter]

Discussion by council vote other action on resignation from the public art advisory committee. You have a resignation in your packet. Um can we just ask that this person is sent um a thank you as usual? Thank you. All right. [snorts] Executive session close session discussion by council vote. Other action a rallen general law 42-46-52 sessions pertaining to lit litigation. Anthony Sage as finance director for the town of Nusfield versus Liz Development Group LLC case number PC 2025-06886. Someone make you want to make a motion to [snorts] go into executive session? I'll make a motion to move into executive session.

Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Well, actually, um, may I make a suggestion? I don't know if anybody wanted to be heard in open form. Maybe we can get that out of the way and then so they don't have to wait around for us. No. Okay. Disregard. Can can I make a comment under open form? I'd like to wish my little girl a happy birthday. A a happy birthday, Angela. Oh, your daughter. your youngest. All right, we we're in a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. [laughter] Okay. Uh I think you have to do roll call, right? You do go to roll call. Yeah. I'm just trying to remember where we left off. So, we had a motion second. Yes. [snorts]

There's a lot of conversation in between. Yes, there was. Yeah, there was. Yes, Rebecca and Claire. Um Okay. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Baragon. Yes. Mr. Christopharo. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara. Yes. Mr. Punch. Yes. Miss Alves. Yes.

I would like to make a motion to come out of executive session indicate that no votes were taken in request that the minutes are sealed. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Beragod? Yes. Mr. Christopharo? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Miss Als? Yes. And then open session discussion by council vote other action. A uh one consideration consider retaining attorney Francis A. Gashion to represent and defend the town in the counter claim filed in Anthony Sage as finance director for the town of Nuspail versus Liz Development Group Group LLC case number PC-2025-06886

at the rate of $150 an hour. at the rate of $150 per hour. That's a motion. That's the motion. Then on this is the second. Okay, we have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Burgod, yes. Mr. Christopharo. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punch? Yes. Miss? Yes. Open firm pursuant to 42-46-6D. Maximum three minutes per person. Just to make a note there's no one in the audience so we will skip this one. And the next one is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. All in favor say I. I. I. Meeting adjourn.