Town Council - Regular Meeting

Nussbaumfield Town Council meeting, August 17, 2026. Madam Clerk, can you sign us with prayer in the pledge, please?

thank you for bringing us together today in the 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

Roll call, please.

Mr. Beauregard? Here. Mr. Cristofaro? Here. Mrs. O'Hara? Here. Mr. Punchak? Here. Ms. Alves?

Here. Executive session, closed session. A discussion by council pursuant to Rhode Island general law is 42-46-582, sessions pertain to collective bargaining or litigation or work sessions pertain to collective bargaining or litigation. One, consideration of approval of memorandum of understanding and settlement agreement. Discussion by council vote of other action regarding approval of the memorandum of understanding and settlement agreement that relates to and resolves the litigation captioned Poundhill Realty LLC and Material Sand and Stone Co-op versus Town of Nussma Field. Case number PC1999-1811, which litigation relates to. and was the subject of mediation together with the issues raised in the petition slash application for amendment to the zoning ordinance, including the proposed tax amendment and zoning map amendment filed by Pound Hill Realty, LLC, 618 Greenville Road, Nusperfield, Rhode Island, 02896, owner of certain real property located at 14 Pine Hill Road off Old Oxford Road, pound hill road and pine hill road more particularly identified as town of nusperville tax assessors plat 7 lot 38 consisting of approximately 89.44 acres someone like to make a motion

before i make a motion i just want to explain why this item is back on the agenda so following the meeting two weeks ago there was a pre-trial hearing david a pre-trial hearing between the parties and the new judge the new judge requested that the two parties try to come to an agreement again so that's why it's here again material um change their stance on some of the items in the mou and that is what we are going into executive session to discuss so with that said i will make a motion to enter executive session that's a motion is there a second any further discussion roll call please mr beer god yes mr mr farrow recuse mrs o'hara yes mr punjack yes myself yes I would like to make a motion to exit executive session, re-enter open session, and request that the minutes are sealed. And report that two votes were taken.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Howells?

Yes. approval of memorandum of understanding and settlement agreement discussion by council vote other action to approve the memorandum of understanding and settlement agreement that relates to and resolves the litigation caption pound hill real realty llc and material stand in stone co-op versus town of north smithfield case number pc-1999-1811 which litigation relates to and was a subject of mediation together with the issues raised in the petition slash application for amendment to the zoning ordinance, including the proposed text amendment and zoning map amendment filed by Pound Hill Realty LLC, 618 Greenville Road, North Spurfield, Rhode Island, 02896, owner of certain real property located at 14 Pine Hill Road, off Old Oxford Road, Pound Hill Road, and Pine Hill Road, more particularly identified as Town of Nusserfield Tax Assessor's Plot 7, Lot 38, consisting of approximately 89.44 acres, and further to authorize a town administrator to execute the memorandum of understanding and settlement agreement on behalf of the town and to authorize designated outside council. Timothy Robenheimer. to take all necessary steps to effectuate the same, including submission of the agreed judgment to the Sperry Court for entry and recording of the judgment in the land records for the town.

may i yes thank you so just very brief background we started a mediation process relative to this matter back in march of this year there's been a lot of hard work on both sides culminating in the memorandum of understanding the version of which i sent the council members on august 4th 2026 we discussed that tonight and there are a few I guess I'd like to make to the document before you vote on it. Exhibits to the agreement are a B and C a is the 1957 property or possible, which is a copy of the description of that parcel exhibit B is a description of the 1987 parcel and exhibit C is a. A plan prepared by a solid engineering. The plan, the copy of the plan I presented this evening is going to have some edits made to it before it's finalized which i hope will be tomorrow the latest wednesday the three items that are going to be removed from the current plan is a note that says berm to be installed when excavation reaches 50 foot from buffer and the plan by the way is the july 30th 2026 revision 4. there is also a section which has been referred to as a cross section on this particular plan is going to be removed and the note that explains why that cross-section is there is also going to be removed because that note or the substance of that note is covered by paragraph one of the Memorandum of Understanding. So that is going to be provided to the council members if not tomorrow then Wednesday. That's going to be sent over by Casale Engineering to us shortly. There is one change to be made to the copy of the version of the memory of understanding I sent to the council members of August 4th and that's in paragraph 6 that last sentence is going to be stricken so the final version will not say will not have that final sentence which we discussed. So that would be all the changes that would need to be made. The document itself will not be made public until signed by all parties. It will not be signed by all parties until the council authorizes me to sign it. And it should be made available to the public by, I would think, Thursday, probably the latest. Other than that, thank you.

So at this time, I would like to make a motion to approve the memorandum of understanding between the town of North Smithfield and Pound Hill Realty, dated August 4th, 2026. I would like to, with the exception of taking out the last section of paragraph six, which is highlighted in this version. And also, the three items that the attorney spoke about, According to the map that he has, it shows that the berm will not be put in place until they reach 50 feet of the property line. That note will be removed. There's a cross section in there that will be removed where no work will take place within that cross section. And then there's a little note underneath that cross section which would be obsolete now because we're taking that out of there. So I'm going to also ask that that be removed as well. So that is a motion.

We have a motion.

President, if you're going to move, the motion should also include authorization for the administrator and outside council to execute any necessary documentations to effectuate the council's action.

Okay, I'll also add to that that we authorize the administrator to sign and for the outside council to take any necessary action that is necessary.

So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Ms. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? No. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Open form pursuant to 42-46-6, maximum three minutes per person. Would anyone else like to sign before we- Anyone else? Anyone else want to sign before we open? Mike Clifford, if we could please stay to three minutes. CJ, do you have something that makes noise that we can? You want to use your phone at the same time?

Got it?

Okay. I'm Mike Clifford, 489 Black Lane Road. I want to talk about the charter amendments that are on the ballot for this fall. I'm hoping, well, let me go back. The last time we had charter revisions, the council decided which ones would go on the ballot and which ones wouldn't. And during the discussion, it was quite clear that some people on the council didn't support the question going on the ballot. but somebody came up with the phrase of well let's let the people decide and tommy mcgee was on at that time and i think some of you were on at that time as well and tommy made a very good point he said you know folks i don't like doing this because i don't really support these things and the people in this town think that if we put this on the ballot it's because we're endorsing it and we're supportive of it And lo and behold, they all voted the way Tommy said they were gonna vote because, and he didn't even want those things to pass. So at the time he said, there was somebody suggested and said, oh, we'll send out a letter explaining our positions as a council and who supports and who doesn't support. Never went out. That's how Tommy thought it was gonna happen, but it never went out. So I would encourage you, do not, please, I know you already voted what's on the ballot, ask the ballot questions. Some of them I think are absolutely terrible. And if you felt that way too, I hope that you, I wish one of you would put it on the agenda so that each of you can voice your opinion. favor to you know your support of or or opposition to those charter proposals and make it a publication that he can send out in the newsletter multiple times because everybody in town does tommy was absolutely right they all assume or they want us to vote yes on this so that's the first thing and the second thing is i know at times you you people come up and speak and i'm one of them um and start criticizing the actions of some council members and kim i know you always try to quiet it down and move people out of water and everything, but it's a hot topic in the state now, and I'd suggest that before we get into a lawsuit with any individual coming before you and speaking and being silenced and denied their First Amendment rights, Pay attention to the cases that are happening right now in the state courts and the judicial system. And maybe it would be a good idea for you to, if you feel there's a question, to have him give you a signal, yes or no, or you can't shut them up, or you've got to let them go on. Because you are entitled to speak whatever you want here. We're all adults. They're adults. Whoever comes up to this podium is an adult. If they're comfortable saying it, they should be allowed to say it. It is First Amendment right of free speech. So I just caution you on that. Third thing, last thing, real quick. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTIES IN THIS TOWN THAT ARE NEGLECTED AND AN EYESORE AND ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING TO EVEN DRIVE BY AND LOOK AT BUT I DO WANT TO I DO THINK THAT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE ALL THE ORDINANCES MAYBE WE SHOULD START PRAISING PEOPLE WHO DO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTIES AND I WANT TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THOSE THREE APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON GREAT ROAD ON VICTORY HIGHWAY They used to be called. They were white with black shutters. That guy is putting a ton of money into that thing, and every time I drive by, I think, how could it get any nicer? The next drive I drive by, he's got the shrubs in front of the building. That stays a sidewalk. When somebody puts that kind of money into their property and makes it look better, maybe the council should give them some type of recognition for it, and maybe that would encourage people more. Thank you.

Thank you. Tony Sully.

Anthony Sully, Iron Mine Hill Road, North Smithfield. Good evening, Councillors. I ask who has the legal authority to provide municipal approval sought by Rhode Island State Police? On November 5th, 2025, the Rhode Island State Police told Chief Lafferty in writing, as a requirement of the permitting process, it needs a municipal letter of approval acknowledging and approving the installation of flock cameras within North Smithfield. This was not simply a courtesy as stated on August 3rd by Administrator Gibbs, rather state police specifically requested municipal approval. On November 10th, Chief Lafferty sent that request to Administrator Gibbs stating he was all for the flock cameras, then asked who had the authority to give permission and preemptively stated, I believe it to be you. In the same letter, the chief already proposed the outcome. I can send the letter from me to the state police if you prefer granting the permission. There is nothing in the exchange indicating a denial would even be considered. Administrator Gibbs responded, I concur as the town administrator and public safety director, I have the authority to grant approval and please draft an approval letter and forward for finalization. That raises an important need for charter clarification. As Article 11 creates the Office of the Director of Public Safety and places the Police Department within it, it does not give the Public Safety Director any independent power to issue municipal approval or establish municipal policy simply because an issue is perceived as a public safety issue. I want to be clear. I'm not asking anyone to accept interpretation. I am asking the solicitor to identify specific charter provisions, ordinances, or laws that granted this authority to Administrator Gibbs. Excuse me. There is another significant problem. The Administrator instructed the Chief to draft the approval and forward for finalization. based upon the records produced that never occurred chief lafferty signed the approval himself stating in the first person i i approve and acknowledge the installation and i fully support the permit application we also learned on the august 3rd meeting that the council was never formed of this approval this matters because even with administrators gibbs attempt to characterize this as an unenumerated administrative function the town charter still provides the mechanism of council oversight once it is formed Even if subsection 516 is determined to apply, it expressly contemplates the council being informed that the administrator assigned a function, and because of that, the council has a 60-day right to overrule. So I ask, how can the council exercise oversight over an action that it was never told occurred? There is also a direct conflict concerning more cameras. On August 3rd, the administrator adamantly assured this council and residents no further cameras would be deployed. However, the November approval letter states something very different. Chief Lafferty expressly asked for more cameras, stating, should other cities or municipalities choose not to authorize the installation of cameras, we respectfully request you consider adding those to our jurisdiction. This is an affirmative written request. for additional cameras within our town so which position represents our town more importantly what continuing authority does this approval letter now give the state police it is limited to camera is it limited to cameras contemplated in 25 could the state police now rely upon that approval you want me to stop literally like two paragraphs Is it limited to the cameras contemplated in 25, or could the state police now reply upon that approval and the chief's explicit request for the additional cameras to deploy even more without municipal approval? If the answer is no, I ask the solicitor to identify the legality that prevents this from happening. There are also discrepancies between the documents and what this council was told. The administrator characterized the interaction with the chief as saying it was passive, with stating he generally didn't have a problem with the cameras. However, his written statement was, I have the authority to grant approval please draft the approval letter. Those are material different descriptions. The council was told South Kingston already asked the state police to remove the cameras and had been told no. However, the documented timeline does not support that statement. South Kingston did not vote to demand removal from the Rhode Island State Police until August 11th, which was eight days after our August 3rd meeting. nor have any records been produced to confirm these statements. I am not asking the council to speculate. I am asking you to one identify the authority to explain the process three reconcile the contradictions presented by Administrator Gibbs and for determine exactly what authority that approval gave the Rhode Island State Police then and now going forward. I respectfully request that the solicitor provide answers to all the questions within the statement, and I ask that they be in writing and placed on the public record to be to be preserved in the event of litigation on this topic. Thank you. Could I submit this to the town, please?

This is more of a procedural question. So now that the memorandum of understanding has been approved, what happens next? So is it then publicized so the public will have an understanding of what the memorandum entails and can react to that and provide feedback and ask questions. Any feedback or concerns that the public has are those then taken into consideration and maybe the memorandum of understanding could be tailored to accommodate. So it's more of a procedural question now. Like how is the public factored into the memorandum of understanding?

Solicitor, can you? Elaborate on that.

The public document will be, according to Tim Robenheimer, will be public by Thursday once it's finalized.

But is it baked? So is it finalized? Is there still the opportunity to change it based on the public's concerns or feedback or request?

So it would be final now, right? Yeah, it's final. Okay. Claire, are you gonna stay there? Yes, is that okay? All set, CJ? Okay. One second, Claire.

Wait a minute, I'm sorry. Greenville Road is used by students more often than you think. But I'm afraid, sooner or later, there's going to be some serious accidents. We have setbacks, so setbacks for people to walk on. But what's happening now, people park their cars there in front of the houses. And that's both going down towards the high school and coming back. We've had accidents before, but we've been lucky so far. There's one place in particular Pound Hill Road at the entrance to Smithfield Road. These cars do not park in their driveway. They're out halfway into the opposite lane. Got there one night. People couldn't get out. It was unbelievable. They have driveways, but they park out. I would say at least three to four feet at times at the end where you enter the highway and then another thing we have setbacks some of you have nice driveways but they should stop at the end of your property line not the end of the setbacks so if you're they have beautiful displays as well as six feet i salute you but when people are walking sometimes you think it's a short way i'm going to go there should they have carriages or they're walking And the grass isn't even cut, so they're forced to do that. That was not the purpose. Setbacks are setbacks. They're not an area to beautify your driveway. They're not an area to elongate your driveway, if need be. You know, there's rules. We've got to enforce them before some heavy duty damage is done. And I say Pound Hill Road, there's some intersections. The setbacks are taken over by beautiful flowers. God bless you. But I'd rather have live people than beautiful flowers. So I wish the town would take appraisal of this and make it safe. Because in a rural town without the sidewalks, you just pray and sometimes people don't realize they're using the setbacks are not their property it's the state's property thank you may i ask a clarifying question probably of the administration setbacks fall under the authority of which of which department for what purpose i'm trying to think the issue

and then if people are are planting or putting or extending their yards into the setback who manages the authority of that

Yeah, all of Smithfield, Union Village all the way up. You'll see, it should be, there's one even going up to Woonsocket Hill Road, he put rocks there, a fence, and I guess he can't put even three cars, and he parks on that setback. He's been doing it for years. It's right at the end, you can see it. And I'm sorry that he doesn't have space, but he doesn't have the right to take an area. I've seen a woman with a carriage. And guess what? Her mother was up the street. She had to go in the road to go. And another beautiful driveway, beautiful flowers, the setbacks of a new life for the wrong purpose.

I'll bring you on a tour if you want.

What's that? I said I'd bring them on the tour if you'd like. All set, clear? Yes, thank you very much.

Nusserfield Town Council sitting as a Board of Licensing, Public Hearing, Automobile Junkyard slash Junk and Second Hand Dealer License, Chapter 204. Public hearing on the application of D&D Auto Recycling LLC for a license to operate and maintain an automobile junkyard located at 1859 Pound Hill Road, Platte 10, Lot 121. Anyone like to make a motion to open the public hearing?

I will make a motion to open the public hearing on item 6A.

Second. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punjack? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Anyone like to speak in the public hearing? Anyone?

Does it make sense to include the public hearing prior to hearing?

Yeah, what it's about. Yeah.

Well, we don't close it until after, so we don't listen to everyone else, right? Okay, so let's go to our report of the zoning inspector approval slash disapproval per 204-3B.

leo cody building zoning 83 green street don't have anything to report there's no current open violations at this property it's pre-existing non-conforming and permitted to continue as it is any questions

Presentation by applicant. Is the applicant here? Okay, do you want to go up please? Could you state your name and address and then give us some information on this?

Donnie Nunez, 1 Beaver Creek Court, and pretty much all it is is a pre-existing auto recycling that the owner wants to step down and I want to lease the place.

May we ask questions? Yeah. You said that you'd like to lease the place? Yes. And how long have you currently been operating the auto recycling?

I've been in the business 32 years.

This location?

In this location, I've been today three years. So you- Just an employee.

Okay.

Yeah, I've been a manager there for three years.

Okay.

Yeah.

You making a move?

He's trying to step down, so.

Big move.

I will say all of the drivers are always very respectful on the road. within the hours of operation, so I appreciate that. Thank you.

Just so that I'm clear on this. So the license was originally North Smithfield Auto Recycling Inc. And it looks like that was owned by Norman Cardinal, Arthur A. Art, Mark Cardinal, and those three people. So that's North Smithfield Auto Recycling. Then they changed the name, it appears, I'm just trying is it as simple as a license renewal because the name of the business is changing. That's what I'm getting at.

I think I think they required a new license because it's a new operator.

That says renewal. On the application. Or am I reading that wrong?

So it was- I think that they put renewal thinking that the license could be carried, like transferred from the old business to the new. I apologize if I don't have everything correct, cuz I just came back. But it looked to me that that's what they were doing. They filled it out as renewal, but it's not a renewal, it's an actual new one transferring to a new owner. that's the way i would interpret the documentation that was presented to us so how can we act on something that's a renewal that's not a renewal so they did just check off the wrong box we could have them complete the front page again and put new application because all the information on it on this account is now new information

I don't really.

Yeah, and all the requirements are still the same. It's just they checked off the wrong box. It's as if they checked off holiday instead of peddler. Sometimes people don't really know what they're supposed to be checking. But I believe the previous owner was trying to get this through for D&D and helped him complete the first page.

And what experience does this new owner have?

Well, he just said he worked there for three years.

Yeah, well.

Well, he's been in the business for 30 something years. 32 years. Yeah.

Well, let's see the background. How good were the businesses? Did he work with the city or town that he had his place at? It's a tough area to keep everybody happy. We know that in North Carolina.

And the hours of operation won't be changing, correct? So can you just for the public relay what your hours of operation are?

Monday through Friday 8 to 5 and on Saturday 8 to 1.

8 to 1, okay. And then how many cars would you say on a monthly basis you receive and then you ship out?

like and then could you provide an understanding of like the scope of your operation okay she needs to ship out when we're crushing we do it so we pretty much hold back we do it every three to four months okay and when we do it it's 20 20 car load at a time okay so it ain't like trucks coming every week we do it every three to four months okay what carrier do you use so it depends we could use snitzer is different depending who's paying the most at the time okay

Okay, so you would say every three or four months you have a truck come in and pick up about 20 cars that you've crushed?

Yes.

On property?

On property, yes.

And then on your property, do you crush your cars on a cement surface?

And I don't own the crusher. They come in and crush it for us. Okay. Then they take it back out.

Okay, interesting.

Nothing changed, everything's going to stay the same thing.

I just would like to better understand the business, especially since you've been there for a few years and you've done this for three decades. So in addition to that process, when you receive vehicles, can you tell us a little bit about how you dispose of oil?

Do they come with the liquids in the- So they do come with the liquids, and what we do is every car that comes in, we take all the liquid and all the fuel right out. Okay. That way we don't put nothing outside.

Okay, and then how do you dispose of that?

So we got a oil waste burner, which we use when it's good oil.

Okay.

And bad oil, we got a company that comes and takes it from us.

Okay, on a weekly basis or a monthly basis, depending upon?

No, we do 100 gallons. Okay. That's stored underneath like a shed type thing.

Okay.

Yeah, the fire department was there and they saw exactly our setup and he didn't have problems.

Yeah, the fire marshal signed off and everything. Yeah. It sounds like we have precedent in our town for a good junkyard.

we try anyways you know thank you thank you for providing us with that information does anyone have any other questions for um anyone else thank you so public comment receipt of any written objections filed so Mr. Cody said there's nothing. So do we continue that on the agenda?

As far as when you say continue, if there's no nothing filed, just note that nothing's been filed.

Did anyone want to speak one more time before we close the public hearing?

before you do that, before you close the public hearing, you should address Councilman Punjack's concern and either confirm that it was advertised and publicized as if it was, anybody would know it's, like if you're concerned about it being a renewal, you either make a motion to amend the documents to reflect that it's a transfer, and require the applicant to produce that corrected document. And I would do that in the public hearing section.

Okay.

Because it was brought up during the public hearing by Councilman Punchak.

Joanne, can you confirm? I mean, we have a copy of how it was advertised. Was that correct?

It doesn't say transfer.

It's not a transfer, really. It's a new license. It's advertised as D&D with the address 1859 Conehill Road.

So if it was advertised as a new license, that further confirms that the technicality of the paperwork can be easily modified by a motion.

The number that generated in the license, there's a certain number and what happened was probably the previous owner, well, went into his license number and checked off renewal where he should have just gone in and put new. Okay. So we can change that. That's not a problem. I can change that tomorrow.

Yeah.

So as long as we take care of that and, um, okay.

Yeah. Okay.

All right. So now we can make a motion to close public hearing.

All right.

Is everyone satisfied with handling it that way? Or do we want to continue? Okay. Anyone want to make a motion to close public hearing?

I will make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Ms. Zahara? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. South?

Yes. And discussion by council vote. Other action on the license application including conditions exhibit six foot screening fencing acceptable to a council per subsection 204-5.

I guess I just have questions on this the six foot screening fencing acceptable to the council per sections 204-5 we don't necessarily know what the screening is we don't know if it's acceptable yeah why was that note put there seems kind of a specific note is this maybe was this a lift and shift from a different item or is this something that you would like us to discuss

Unfortunately, I was not the one who prepared the section of the agenda that was given to the deputy prior to me coming back, so I'm not sure where that was from.

I guess it's on the agenda, so you can certainly ask the applicant.

I guess what is the condition or what is the status of fencing or screening at the junkyard currently?

Mr. Nunes, would you mind going back up and answering the question?

We should do field trips to these places. I know.

Could you explain the screening that is around the property?

That junkyard been in business for 52 years and it's been like that with no problem.

But is there any fencing or screening? There is fencing all around the- Can you explain the type of fencing and how high?

It's about six feet, I wanna say. And it's just metal chain fencing.

And it goes around the whole perimeter?

Around the whole perimeter, yes.

So there is, you can see inside?

Yes. So the only, you can only see one side to the other is where the sand pit is in the back. Everything else is all trees around there, so.

So it's covered?

It's covered, yeah. On both sides, it's just the back where the sand pit is at.

So would that cover our requirements?

Well, I think the code says screening. It doesn't require fencing.

Okay, so as long as there's no view, right, from your neighbors, correct?

No, there's no view from the neighbors. Okay.

I mean, there is view. Excuse me? I live a few lots over. You can see it? I can see when the trees are, like in the winter and in the fall. In the winter, I'm sure. Yeah, you can see through to the cars. But I mean, I think it's only like one or two, and Lucien Lamoureux is actually your neighbor, so I think there's only like one or two levels of cars.

um when the trees are blue there's leaves you can't see them but in the winter we can certainly see them i can still see them in summer yeah can you yeah chain link defense that's the only thing around it okay all right thank you thank you anyone have any other questions or like to make a motion i think my only

concern is if we establish a requirement for one junkyard does it need to apply to all junkyards so in our dealings with other junkyards in the area we're requiring that they have a certain type of fence around a certain perimeter and i know that this junkyard has a fence Not screening, but is it a one size fits all? I don't know if it's fair for us to say one thing for one junkyard and another thing for another junkyard.

I was saying the same thing. I feel like we just keep going down rabbit holes. And so nobody's complaining about this. Our zoning official went there and said it's okay, but technically we have an abutter saying, well, I can still see into it, so it's technically not okay. So it's kind of like, what do you do? Where do you go with this? like i get we're talking about a license you know a new license is this the opportunity to say well hey we need to enforce all of our zoning regulations and you know you gotta make a a fence that's not visible

Now is that gentleman here tonight to represent what he doesn't like that's going on?

I don't think there's anybody that doesn't like going on, but it's a catch 22. If we say yes to this license now, knowing that, okay, there is a potential zoning infraction, we just keep going down the same rabbit holes of insanity. Sorry.

Is that a zoning? Is that a zoning that has to be a non-transparent?

Mr. Igliosi said it has to be screening, correct?

It does, but I believe the zoning officials indicated this was a pre-existing non-conforming use. So the question is how long it's been there. If it's been there before your zoning code was adopted- Then we can't do anything. You can't do anything.

Even though it is a new license, a new licensee.

Again, no, new license doesn't change. Pre-existing non-conforming use runs with the land, not with the license, not with the owner, runs with the land. That's Supreme Court law. That's not our decision. That's the Rhode Island Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court. What you have to rely on is your building inspector. He is indicating, your zoning official said there's no violation. If you question his veracity, that's your decision, but that's his opinion. That's what he put on the record.

I guess that's where we go with this. I will make a motion to approve the license of D&D Auto Recycling LLC at 1859 Pound Hill Road, North Smithfield.

That's a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristobaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchock? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Discussion by council vote or other action on payment of bills. Anyone have any questions on the packet?

Surprisingly no.

Anyone else, any questions? Anyone like to make a motion to approve? David, I don't have the numbers in front of me right now.

I already reviewed this.

I will make a motion to approve the payment of bills for August 17th, 2026 for the years 2025, 2026 in the amount of $15,252.10. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion?

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes.

I will also make a motion for August 17th, 2026 to approve the payment of bills for the years 2026, 2027 in the amount of $2,945,254.17. That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Custafaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Hull?

Yes. Discussion by council vote, 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 requests. In which event, the item will be removed from the consent agenda. A, town council minutes of July 20th. Communications of animal control monthly report for July. No Smithfield Fire and Rescue Monthly Report for July 2026, No Smithfield Municipal Court Monthly Report for July 2026, and No Smithfield Police Department Monthly Report for July 2026. Would anyone like to remove anything?

I'd like to remove the minutes, and we also didn't get the fire report. Correct, yep. So we can't really approve that.

Okay. Can I make one request before we jump into the minutes? CJ, I don't know if I can approve another motion because I might be frozen. Can we please turn the air down? If you don't mind. Thank you, CJ.

So on the minutes, all business, the first item, ballot question to be included for the 2026 election regarding amendments to the North Smithfield Home Rule Charter. The first sentence says, Councilor O'Hara, who had cast the sole dissenting vote when this ballot question previously failed, that can't be right. She couldn't have been the sole vote and it failed. So I think that needs to be looked at.

I think it needs to read that she cast the dissenting vote because only a person who cast the dissenting vote could put it back on the agenda.

That's all I had.

No.

The person who voted for the motion The successful motion has to be the person. In this case, the successful motion was to deny. So you needed someone who voted to deny to approve it under your council rule number 10 in order to at the next meeting. I believe that's what Councilwoman O'Hara did. Does that make sense?

We just have to specify that in old business.

It just needs to be clarified.

Go to the minutes and check it.

Thank you. uh with that said i will make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the changes to the council minutes as i had indicated and also identifying that there is no north smithfield fire and rescue monthly report for july 2026.

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Biergaard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Salve?

Yes. Old business discussion by council about other action on salary and wage ordinance. Mr. Sainaj, this is the second reading.

I had left on each one of your spots the small revisions, $17 for the new fiscal year for seasonal and the assistant tax assessor. So those are reflective, and I just didn't provide them to the town clerk, but those are reflective in the final version that will be accepted.

Can I ask a question about Camp Phoenix? Yes. The employees are paid by the town. Camp Phoenix reimburses the town for the employees?

All the employees paid through Camp Phoenix are paid by all of the camper's parents who pay to have their kids go there. There's no money from the town that's given to any of the employees as of.

But the paychecks come from the town, don't they?

Sure, it comes from the same one big account that every bill comes from. But no tax dollars spent on any of the salaries of the camp counselors.

Who pays workers' comp?

Very true. So yeah, the only thing I guess as a package as a whole for the town, including schools and everything else, the insurance aspect of it is yes, paid by the taxpayers. But the salaries is paid by the admissions for the kids.

Does that make sense?

I can request that the trust separates out the insurance for Camp Phoenix. well if it's a separate account might be just as a writer I'd have to pull it up and pull up the profile but I think if I remember correctly the because it's held on school grounds it's part of just the school's operations as a whole but I'd have to I don't want to speak out of turn I'd have to research it for you can you do some more research into that and please get back to us because if it's a separate account to me that's a separate business yeah it's a separate fund basically its own self-operating business so then why should the taxpayers pay workers comp for a separate business do you want me to look into the cost of having them break it off and provide that back I don't think the taxpayers should be paying for it so whatever you got to do yeah yeah I can do that anything else

All right, so we don't need to vote on this, right? We're just accepted as a second reading?

I think it got continued for these two changes. It's the last, yeah, last changes.

Do you want to make a motion to approve the two changes and the second reading of the wage ordinance?

I will make a motion to approve the two changes. One was to the assistant tax assessor. The second was to minimum wage. Looks like it just impacted the counselors for Camp Phoenix.

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Discussion by council about other actions.

Madam President, wasn't that just a motion to amend? Did you say amend and accept second reading? I didn't hear that.

I did not say second reading. I just said the changes to it.

Right, so now it should be a motion to move approval of the second reading of the wage ordinance as amended. Okay.

Motion to approve the second reading of the wage ordinance as amended.

Second. Motion is second. Any discussion? Roll call.

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

Ms. Elve? Yes. Discussion by council vote on other action on status slash progress report items. One, Nussbaum Field Police Station renovations update. a project financial update recommendation for FF&E and a change order number two.

Good evening, everyone. Okay. So my name is Inga Knox. I'm the owner's project manager for the project with ECC. Just a quick update on the project first and then we can dive into the few financials. I think I'll do the update and then possibly we can Maybe go into the financial memo, and then when we get to the FF&E and the change order, I can just go over those as well. Okay, next. All right, so phase one is progressing well. Framing, exterior protection, And reference coordination underway and operations are maintained. So we're well underway for abatement, selective demolition. Parasol is on site. We've kind of completed, not kind of, we completed the moves, the temporary moves, and also the operation is now operating in the temporary arrangements while we're doing the work. Continuing off the buyout, I have some images of what the building is right now on the interior. The buyout of the GMP is at about 70%. I forgot my glasses, I think it's about 70%. And all is tracking in terms of buyout of each trade is almost all of them are either on or under budget. There is a couple of overages that they're very minor and mostly for allowances and holds in those line items. We have a log that we're maintaining, but all the contracts that have been awarded are on budget or under. With contingency, there is about 600,000 that's in the GMP, 400 in contingency and 200 in buyout savings at that 70% mark. However, we will present a change order for discussion. One of them is for approval, one of them is for discussion. That came to our attention that we've added and we wanted to bring to this council. Any questions on progress? Okay. Should we do the update? Or should I just dive into the changes? Okay, perfect. So we can go to the next slide. Actually, let's go to the next one. We'll do the FF&E first. Okay, so we have procured the fixture furniture and equipment package. So this is anything that's loose in the building, like if you turn the building upside down and it falls, that's your FF&E. We had an allowance for that in the budget that's outside of the GMP, but it's in the total project budget. The allowance was $419,653. That came on a cost per square foot assumption. We received quotes from W.B. Mason, and you should have it in your packet. from WB Mason and from Sheehan's. Sheehan's also qualifies for women-owned business, WBE, which we have to hit certain numbers in the project, which we are on track for overall right now relative to buyout. They came in very close in terms of their bids and all under budget. Sheehan came a little bit lower relative to the cost. And their package was a little bit more complete. So both vendors had to provide the selections that they carry. Both were in line. We did do reference checks, and at the end of the day, we recommend Sheehan for this project as a fixture and furniture supplier. So they are a dealer, just like WB Mason. They will be providing furniture of different manufacturers and vendors. That's all under their umbrella, which also Mason could provide, but because they're different dealers, the cost could be slightly different. Overall, we also recommended a couple of allowances. So the base bid was 329.106.62. We are proposing an owner allowance, a hold for the two-station dispatch center console, which we may need, will need, but we're still figuring some of that out. And also the evidence drying equipment, which is 10,000. And then overall, there is a savings of 34,000 and $796.38. Any questions?

Are you looking for an approval?

We are looking for approval for their contract and for their submittal.

I've worked with Sheehan's in the past, and they are a very good company to work from in East Providence, right? Yes. So they're local, so I fully support this recommendation. So I will make a motion to accept ECC's recommendation that we award the furniture, fixtures, and equipment package to Sheehan's Office Interiors in the amount of WHAT IS THE TOTAL?

is it right there 329 105. so their contract will be for 329 106. okay and 20 and 62 cents but we're also asking for those two holds because we do know that we will need those items we're just figuring out what exactly they are so it will be um oh that's for the console that they're still waiting for the shop drawings on yeah okay for in the amount of 329 thousand um 106 dollars and 62 cents

That's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Howell?

Yes. So do we need to approve the owner holds, too, in the amount of $55,000?

No, because they're just budgets, right? They're just.

Yeah. Once we know exactly the cost, we can come back and let you know exactly what these holds are and costs are. The next item that I have is we received the first two change requests from Parasol Builders. One of them, so it's also in your packet. one of them is a credit it has been in the mix for a while and that is a credit for a GA permit fee so they had it in their GMP but the town painted to expedite the process so it basically gets credited back and So Parasol is returning that by reducing the GMP by the $5,125. ADA permit is a state permit, so it's not waived by the local administration. The second item is we had an allowance of $500,000 in the GMP. And that item is for discussion. So first one, ECC recommends for approval. And the second one, we can discuss and decide if it gets approved or gets tabled. The second item is we had an allowance for 500,000 which was for abatement and for demolition and everything that sort of has to do with that. The demolition and abatement came in under and that has been already allocated in the GMP. But then with the demolition and abatement, it was discovered that additional insulation is required on the exterior wall of the building. So not on the outside, from the inside, but on the exterior masonry wall, on the perimeter wall. The reason why this insulation was not included previously, It is, whether it was a miss on the architect's end or, I don't think it was necessarily a miss, it was more of a coordination item. Originally we thought that we can, the way the drawings were bid and presented and drawn is that the walls will be, sort of, they'll be, Openings in the walls and those openings would be abated When we need to run piping through or anything through But then when we started looking in that it would be more expensive to abate it would be more cumbersome to coordinate so it was decided to actually take all the walls out that needed to be abated and put new walls in and And with that, we had to take some of that drywall from the perimeter wall. And then as we started looking into it, we discovered that it would be best to insulate those walls as well and achieve better A better thermal control for the building and B because we're disturbing those walls, we should do the right thing. With all of that together, the overage came at $21,778.41. So over that $500,000 allowance. So there is abatement, demolition, and additional installation. Now, the reason why I brought this for discussion, and I know that Councilman Ponchak participated in some of those conversations as well, is because right now there is savings within the GMP that technically we could apply towards this very minor overage. The total net's at 16,654. 16,653.41 if we take the credit into account. But parasol is not comfortable currently. Reducing any of these, like applying any of the savings in the GMP towards this item because it is a true add to the project. It was not necessarily built into the project. It was not, it is an add and that's not, we're not arguing it's an add. But also they did not finish buying out the GMP. So they're saying, well, we're at 67%. What if something happens in the next 23% of the buyouts, although they, I could argue that they bought out most of the trades. So I don't foresee any major overages. And they're saying, okay, well, if we are, not over and we still have savings, then we can move the money around to apply the items to those changes. But for now, we are not comfortable, and there is true add to the project scope. So we would like to ask the council to approve this as an add to the GMP by the amount, by the net amount, which is $16,653.41. Will they hold the entire package for this value? I don't believe so. If we wanted to table that and discuss it, say, at the next meeting or once the GMP is fully bought out. At the end of the day, all the savings and all the money that's not applied or spent will be going back to the town. I guess I am more of the opinion that we should, this particular item could have been funded through the GMP within it. So I guess I'd like to open it up maybe for discussion or questions and then we can decide what's.

so it really boils down to a question of is the money coming from your left pocket or your right pocket here so i would say in going back two weeks ago i think we had a discussion you weren't here inga from what i recall about um no i wasn't here at the last meeting the hvac changes so what i would say to parasalt is i think that number is around twenty thousand dollars I would say if they're willing to put that $20,000 towards the GMP, we're willing to put this $16,000 towards the GMP, and we net with a $4,000 less GMP. Because it's an out of scope change either way. So if they're willing to do that, I don't think I would have a problem reducing the GMP by $4,000.

Correct, I do agree with you. I don't have all the paperwork for all the other items. I did request that we receive, I know the next meeting is on the 21st of September, I believe, because there is no meeting in the beginning, it's a holiday. I did ask that all open items that are currently circulating as a potential change or credit are submitted to us so that we can kind of look at packages more holistically than piecemealing them. Some piecemeal will happen, but just so we have a bigger picture. But this is the one that is on the table, and I am in agreement.

So we're waiting until the next one?

So I think we need to ask for that paperwork and then just. That's what I would do.

Because if they're saying this is out of scope, which I agree it's out of scope, I would also make the argument that changing the equipment is out of scope. You didn't save us $20,000 by good negotiating. You changed equipment to something that was purchased for $20,000 less. So I would look at it that way.

Yep. So in terms of motion, I think we can, I don't know, can it be formulated that way, that this item is agreed upon to be an out of scope? We did vet the item for the PC03 for accuracy. We did vet it for like the markups and for it being a true change. so in terms of what it is it's recommended that acknowledging that that's what it is but I think we need to look at it with the HVAC PCO I don't have a number assigned to it um and then whatever that net is will will obviously look at to approving in the next meeting

I don't have the degree of insight that obviously David does because he's been involved in these conversations. But I guess I would defer if that's what you both believe is the best route to go, then I'm in agreement.

Makes sense to me.

Do you want to make a motion based on that acceptance from Parasol?

Sure. i will make a motion to accept parasolts pco002 and pco003 with a cumulative sum of sixteen thousand six hundred fifty three forty one contingent upon them agreeing that The proposed credit for the HVAC equipment change is also applied to the GMP, which should ultimately result in a net credit of $3,000 to $4,000.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr Beard, God, yes, Mr Christopher. Yes, Mrs O'Hara. Yes, Mr Punch. Yes, yes.

This is all I have and then there's the financial update. I can stay if there's any questions.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and kick in now. The memorandum is in your package. Effectively, we're asking for council approval to pay for, I think it's seven invoices. We have one, two, three, four, five invoices as it relates to soft costs and one invoice from Parasol for construction. The soft cost requisitions are ECC Corporation, the OPM for $17,300. Emory, which is asbestos abatement for 4,325. National on security for 4,440. And two invoices from J&S office installers for 3,323 and 4,840. And then one requisition from Parasol for construction services, CM services for $383,255.58. The total is for $417,483.58.

So the total that we're looking to approve tonight is where?

417, 483, 58. Under the balance due? Yeah, page one, two, three, page four. The memo from Inga to Scott dated 8-7-2026. It lists everything Scott just listed.

Mm-hmm.

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve the total due in the amount of $417,483.58. Second. We have a motion to second.

Any further discussion? I actually have a question for Tony.

When we approve this through the, so this goes on, after we approve, then you gotta send out the check, right?

As the bill gets paid, yeah, the invoices go out, correct.

And then, so once we approve it, then you have to send it out, and then we have to approve that, right? So it can take quite some time for these contractors to get their money, right?

Correct. I think we've been paid pretty regularly within the 30, net 30.

Everybody's been getting paid?

No one has been- Why would we be approving it twice, though? If we're approving- That's what I'm asking, because- Yeah, no, we're only approving it once.

Scott has been, because he's had separate approvals through the method he's been doing it, it doesn't, I want to say, go past the payment of bills. But it's a separate item that he puts in front of you guys to expedite that process a little bit. But normally, yeah, there were some invoices in the beginning of the phase where they weren't separated out, caused a few delays, a few mix ups, and thankfully Scott's been taking care of that.

So when we submit this to you, this is the one approval we're asking for.

Okay, so all right, that's my question, thank you.

All right, so we have a motion and a second, right?

Yeah.

Roll call.

Mr. Biergaard? Yes. Mr. Quistifaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Discussion by council vote, other action on communications from town administrator Scott Gibbs, update on grants.

Yeah, I didn't include anything in the package. The complete listing of the status of grants is on the website. The only thing that we have a change on is we did receive approval last week from the state of Rhode Island under the Commerce Corporation under the Main Street Beautification Program for $148,000. That's put into the pool for the Pacheco Park Main Street improvements. We're waiting for the next 60 days. We should hear definitively on the two federal grant requests as well as the DEM request that we have for resiliency. So hopefully in about 60 days we'll have a hard set as to how much money we have for the Pacheco Park project.

What grant is covering the playground?

That's the EM grant. That's the $500,000 grant, which is for the walking path, for the play facility, and some infrastructure in the parking lot. So that was one of the state grants. This grant has to do with sort of the Main Street entrance road improvements. And then we have a grant request, a DEM under the resiliency program, which is going to deal with stormwater management systems. Then we have two federal grant requests. One is out of the, it hasn't been assigned yet. It's through Senator Reid's office. That's for, I believe it's $940,000, something to that effect, which is basically infrastructure for Pacheco Park. And then we have another request through Senator Whitehouse's office under USDA. I think that's for another $650,000, $700,000.

So a good chunk of money going there.

That's a big chunk of money. If we're able, we're now out for requests for proposals, engineering and design services. We're going to try to structure that. Obviously, that's got to come back to the council to actually deal with the various elements of the Pachuca Park project and segment out those. So once we get a total counting of the federal money and state money that we have, then we can start assigning it. to the various components ideally if we get all the money we can do all the components if we don't get all the money then we're going to have to extra extra extricate a couple things out of it but the one hard line the hum baked in right now is the dem grant which is for the play structure walking path and parking infrastructure and that was the 500 000 that is there and there's a match on that from the town correct okay and did our planning department apply to that one

uh yeah uh mark karula took the lead on that yes and then can i make a request and i don't know if we'll be ready to provide any sort of like information but could we have an agenda item in the near future about pacheco park and scouters hall and what that vision is there and some next steps i think that would be helpful for the community to

Yeah and and in fact it's written into the RFP that we have to have a series of public input processes we will work obviously with the Parks and Rec Commission as one source of input we're going to have to have a public hearing with the council that's going to have public input and we'll provide other mechanisms for the public to provide input to that as well as for hollow well

Okay. What's the status on the grant over at Hallowell, that recreational?

The grant has been approved. We are right now for both the Hallowell grant and for the Scouters Hall grant. We are currently going through what's called an environmental review. That's required. regulations before we can pull down any money. We just got an update from the consultant on that. We're hoping to have that done in about two weeks. Okay. So once that's done, and it's not a complicated environmental review for these two projects, but once we have that, we will file that with the federal government. And then at that point, we can start pulling money from the grants.

OK. Are we using any of the grant money for Hallowell to pursue like an RFP for like or visioning? I'm hearing some.

No, the RFP for Scouters Hall is going to include public input on a master plan.

OK. And then so what's the status of the grant at Hallowell? How are we applying that to any work that we're doing? Are we doing any work over at Hallowell right now? No. Are we coming up with some sort of visioning? No, we're not.

We are out to RFP right now. OK. Yeah, we haven't done anything. So the whole idea is that once, we get the proposals in and select a firm, which is basically a civil engineering and landscape design firm. Once we have them in place upon approval from the council, then the first step is public input. And that's when they start creating a vision within the budget parameters that we have on this project. What we don't want to do is to go out and say, well, what do you want? And end up having a project that's three times more than we can afford. We'll actually define what the grant will fund and then what our budget is. And then they'll go out and work with the public to start to come up with a master plan. Once that master plan is approved, then we go into engineering design. And that ends up becoming documents for the project going out to bid.

Okay, I'm really excited to hear that we'll be pursuing public input for those projects.

It's required under all funding sources. We don't have a choice anyways.

I know that this is pennies in comparison to some of our other grants, but that $2,000 grant for town beautification.

Yeah, it's there. I actually talked to Ray about this. We've been hyper conservative, and we went out to do the right thing, talked to Rhode Island Energy as it relates to putting the flags on the polls. And Rhode Island Energy said, well, you can't actually screw in to the poll. You have to have a special thing. And then we look around the state. They are everywhere. So I have an opinion on this, but I'm not going to say it publicly.

But can we just can we just pivot?

We can or we can do what we want. If we do pivot, I've got to go back to the state and ask for a modification. I'm not sure the hoops I have to jump through for $2,000 that's really worth it. I wouldn't mind getting the flags on the polls, quite frankly, but it's an issue we've been having to deal with. We were trying to do it the right way and the bureaucracy got thrown at us.

Sounds like an ask for forgiveness later situation to me.

That's kind of what I don't want to say publicly.

Well, yeah, but until they take it down and then we're out the $2,000, we could just theoretically pivot and put the money somewhere where we know that it's not going to be undone.

Drive through Exeter, drive through West Greenwich, drive down. It's everywhere.

Okay, well, I'll defer to you guys. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. But also, too, are any of those poles scheduled to be replaced? Because once they're replaced, Rhode Island Energy's not going to put them back up.

Not that I know of, but I can have Ray research that.

I mean, I know that they're doing a lot of work around here, so poles are being replaced over on Route 7. I get it, it's only $2,000, but I know Parks and Rec could probably identify other areas in town for town beautification.

I mean, we could pivot on that. I'm not going to die on the sword. What I have to go through just to do that. I'll do it if that's what the council wants.

I'll defer to the council. I would rather pivot than have the money go to waste. But again, it's probably small peanuts in comparison, but $2,000 could go a long way for Parks and Rec.

We can have Public Works do it at night time. Just make sure that there's not a full moon.

Maybe you can check out the street lights while you guys are out over there and make sure that they're working.

At least you have some.

Okay. Thank you, Scott. And I appreciate you putting it up on the website. This is hugely helpful.

I also, at Councilwoman Cristofaro's request, I also put in, as a second document under that, an overview as to what procedure we follow to identify and respond to certain grant opportunities so you can get a better sense of the methodology we follow. And there is one other grant opportunity, but I got to circle back with the council. I could talk about this because we're talking about grants. So this is not breaking rank. The town is, we are designated as a rural community. because we have less than 25,000 people. There is 18 communities in Rhode Island who are designated as rural. We have received or will receive upon request an appropriation in year one of $150,000. This is part of what they call the Rural Health Network. And what it is, it's through federal money. They're trying to set up systems and collaborations in rural communities to provide better, seamless healthcare services to people, seniors, youth, many of them who are uninsured or underinsured. i have got to submit the application by the 28th of next week and i will submit it it's a very simple application at this stage however with that being said we are not equipped as a community to manage this grant there is a significant amount of work that we have to undergo with what our strategic partners like EMS, senior program, the school department. So with that being said, in fact, I'm meeting with all of them this week just to talk to and tell them the program. The first year is effectively a year where we start to get the network together, the stakeholders, to facilitate a conversation and come up with a plan of action. These are the things that we would like to do as a community based on the defined healthcare needs. Once that's vetted through the state in the first year, then we are eligible for ongoing funding, and there's $150 million out there to fund these programs for the 18 rural communities in Rhode Island. The reason I'm outlining this is I will be submitting, just so that we are in the pipeline, I've had three conference calls with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services over the last two weeks on this. What I'm going to come back to the council is a recommendation as to in bringing in a third party to actually run this program. This third party is already here. and they're already providing healthcare services to North Smithfield people, as well as people with other communities in our region. So four other communities in our region also are gonna work with this organization to basically do phase one, which is the planning phase. It doesn't entitle them to any money. They're just doing the planning. Can they submit under the second phase for funding for a project that's identified in phase one? Yes. just as senior services can just as ems can just as the north spitfield public school system can those can all be requests on individual basis as long as they are in alignment with the plan that we would be putting together in year one We don't have the in-house capabilities to pull that off, nor do any other communities in our region, and they're all doing the same thing. Let's bring in somebody who knows what the heck they're doing and let them, on behalf of, in this case, five communities, put it together. Communities from the southern part of the state are doing the same thing. I did not want to make them the applicant for this money because it hasn't been vetted through the council. So I told Executive Office Health and Human Services, we would apply, which we are totally eligible to do that. But I said, we may be coming back and asking you to identify the firm upon council approval as a subrecipient. and let them manage the project but they said you can absolutely do that so we're working on that now i would come back to you in the september 21st council meeting to talk about that but i will be submitting the request next friday to make sure that we are in line for our money so it's 120 is for planning and 30 is actually for the purchase of things um that are identified in the needs for example one community they're putting in their application they're buying some additional things for their ems One community is putting into their program purchasing first aid kits for all their sports programs. So it's very loose in terms of what you can use that money for. But we really need to go through sort of that needs assessment and engage the stakeholders, get feedback from them. But then we can ask for $30,000 that they can actually get money for doing, purchasing certain things. in the first year the 120th soft cost and this third party that would be helping with this assessment to understand the needs they would run the whole planning assessment process we would be part of it because we're going to be the primary grant recipient yeah they would be the sub-recipient but will be part of that process but they are the facilitators and and doing all the administrative work all the documentation all the things that have to be done both on the state and federal levels yeah i would just want to be sure that we're casting a pretty wide net on who could use like where there is the health care gap within north smithfield yeah um

then how this grant could maybe even thinking outside of the box fill some of those gaps.

And that's exactly what it's supposed to do. Okay. So after that first 12 months, it will come back and say, based on facilitating the discussions with stakeholders, the following are the needs and the gaps. these are the programs and strategies we're recommending going forward. So once that's codified, then the town can request funding or and or EMS can request funding or the school department request funding or anybody else that comes in through that needs assessment that has need. They can request funding support as well. But if we don't have a plan, we have no basis to ask for anything. And that's what we're doing for year one.

OK, I think it may be a good opportunity to to see if we could survey the larger town. Right. I know that there are stakeholder groups that have been identified, but how do we connect with everybody? Is there a survey that could potentially go out in the newsletter and then this firm could take that information and identify where some gaps may exist outside of what's

Once I submit, I've sent an email to the CEO of the organization that I'm going to suggest that we partner with and ask some questions for clarification. Once we submit and get awarded, which is going to happen fairly quick, Then if we bring them in, the state then sits down with us and that third party to put together a scope of work. Okay. If this is what we're paying for, they'll actually define all those. So things such as reaching out to the public and surveying people and stuff, that could be part of that process.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for the update, Scott.

Should they?

I said thank you for the update.

You're welcome.

A new business discussion by council about other action on appointments to town board slash commissions appointment to the public safety commission. Appointed by the town council for a completion of a three year term from 12-1-2025 to 1-30-2028. Anyone have any, make any appointments?

We're going to have to do a significant revamp of that commission. I attempted to get the commission together about six months ago through Richard Severia because he's on that commission to really sit down and say, okay, you guys aren't meeting. What do you want to do? Nobody showed up. Well, there's only three people, except Richard. So I think there's a need to take a look at that commission and do a complete revamp on it to include people who have the time to get involved. And I do not have any recommendations.

Yeah, we got one, don't we? Mm-hm. We got an application.

I didn't know you put one in there.

Yeah.

It was.

Well, it's town council appointment, right?

Yeah.

I don't know, but that's fine.

It indicates he's retired.

That meaning he has time? I didn't say that.

If he submitted, that's what's up. Anyone like to make a motion?

i will make a motion to nominate daniel taylor to the public safety commission for the term ending january 30th 2028. that's a motion is there a second second any further discussion roll call please mr bureau guide yes mr christopher yes mrs o'hara yes mr panchak yes miss alves yes

Discussion by Council Voter, other action on Department of Public Works request for award of bid, Pacheco Park Field Lighting bid. Mr. Pendergast.

Good evening, Ray Pennegas, Director of Public Works. Excuse me. You should have a proposal for Pacheco Park Field Lighting on the Boys Major League Field. We received this proposal from Moscow Lighting. They're going to relamp 20 Moscow 1500 watt fixtures, replace them, dispose of, and this and this. This went before capital. The total price is $7,750. At the time that I went to capital, the price was $7,250. So we're going to use the $7,250 out of capital funds, which was already approved by you, and $500 out of my operating budget in Parks and Recreation. This is the first time I think in 25 years that a lamp has to be replaced, one light's out. These LEDs probably, right? No. No? Nope. I had my supervisor in Parks and Rec sit down with Moscow in January. We had two proposals. This proposal to replace the lights with these Moscow 1500 watts and the LEDs were 105 to 110,000. Okay. So we decided, let's go with this other price seeing that the same lights lasted 25 years.

So you're replacing all of them?

Yeah. We figure if one's going, they're all going to start. Probably jinxing myself with the 25-year thing here.

And any future work that we do around Pacheco, those lights will stay. So it's not like if we do any work, those lights will go, and then they'll be OK. No, no, no.

These are on one field. There's two lighted fields there, the girls' softball field and the boys' major field. And we used Moscow lighting. To do the girls field, I would think back, I don't know, 2012 or 13, and that was about a $90,000 project. Moscow's a big time company. They do great work, so we feel comfortable with this quote.

Okay. Well, it does say in the parking lot, but it's not in the parking lot. It says athletic fields slash court and parking lot lighting system.

no that's the uh that's the um the purchasing network keystone purchasing network and that's their how they describe the work you could use them for lighting and tennis courts you can use them for parking lot lighting for whatever so that that's section right there athletic field slash court and parking lot leading systems all right anyone have any other questions

All right, I will make a motion to approve the award of the Pacheco Park lighting replacement in the amount of $7,750 and authorize the administrator to sign the agreement.

Second. That's a motion to second. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Beauregard? Yes. Mr. Cristobaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

Open form pursuant to 42-46-60, maximum three minutes per person. Did anyone want to speak? CJ, can we do the same thing with me alone? Thank you. Mr. Graham, go ahead.

I wanted to wait and hear what Rebecca said before I spoke. But I guess the main impression I have after you've accepted the MOU is why the sudden rush? The judge declared our right to enforce the ordinance in December 2023. The Quarry didn't even bother to approach what the judge said until December 2024. Then we, as a town, kicked it around all of 2025 and decided we would invoke or participate in a negotiation that would be secret, and that was in January 2025. We didn't even get that going until March of 2026, and then we had various reasons for delays, and we finally come up with a memorandum of understanding on August 3rd, which we promptly rejected. Thank you, council. And suddenly, there's another memorandum, which we have approved, even before the actual changes are documented to the drawings. I don't understand that. I don't understand the legality of it. I don't understand the practicality of it. All of a sudden there's a rush to get this thing documented and approved when we've kicked around nearly three years. I'd like to really think about that. And then the second thing I thought of, I was extremely disappointed when I found out the response to Tony Soli's upper request that the town administrator knew full well what was happening and Tony was kind enough to call it a contradiction. I call it a lie, he told. all of us that he didn't know what was happening, and he darn well sure did, unless the documentation is incorrect. I wrote Rebecca this morning saying, I never liked that code of conduct, but I asked her a question and she didn't respond. Does the code of conduct cover when an elected official lies to his constituents? Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak? Anyone else? One more time, anyone else? Anyone like to make a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.