Town Council - Regular Meeting

Council meeting August 3rd, 2026. Madam Clerk, can you sign it with prayer and pledge, please?

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

Here. Open forum pursuant to 42-46-60, maximum three minutes per person. Did anyone want to sign up for open forum before we start? Anyone else? Paul Soares.

Good evening.

Let me get my glasses on.

All right, wait a minute.

I have a written presentation that should take three minutes or maybe just a bit longer.

All right, Paul, let us restart the clock, one second.

And begin.

Yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

My name's Paul Soares. My wife and I have lived at 171 Sales Hill Road for 40 years. The property next door at 173 Sales Hill Road is owned by the state of Rhode Island and used as a group home. A few years ago, a dumpster was placed on the property, which is being used for household trash, including food waste. It is situated 15 feet from the property line, adjacent to an area of our backyard, where we have a fire pit, picnic table, and chairs, and it's approximately 40 feet from our deck. The unpleasant odor from the dumpster sometimes makes it impossible for us to enjoy our yard and deck. Last fall I acquired a copy of our dumpster ordinance which reads, any person in any residentially zoned district prior to placing a dumpster on private property shall first obtain a permit from the building zoning official. Said permit will allow a dumpster for temporary use by the occupant of the dwelling for or the time period for which there is an active building permit on the property. I met with Mr. Cody to discuss the situation and he told me the state is exempt from our ordinance. When I asked for confirming documentation, he could produce none. I then consulted an attorney who assured me the state is subject to our dumpster ordinance. So on December 2nd, 2025, I filed a complaint with the zoning department. On December 15th, 2025, a notice of violation was issued with a date for compliance of January 14th, 2026. A zoning code section 15.1 procedure states, within 14 days of such notification, the inspector shall notify the complainant of his findings and or determinations in writing, end quote. I never received said findings or determinations, and the dumpster has not been removed. I have inquired many times into the status of my complaint, both in person and by email. In response, I receive excuses and misinformation. Mr. Cody said he cannot enforce the ordinance because the state has a private trash collection contract. I don't believe that has any relevance to the ordinance. Mr. Cody also stated that state property does not qualify for town trash pickup. However, that trash was collected curbside by the town for nearly 40 years before the arrival of the dumpster. And they are currently using a town issued recycle bin. Most recently, Mr. Cody informed me that he would allow the dumpster to remain, but require it be put on a concrete pad and enclosed by a fence. But the ordinance states clearly that dumpsters are allowed in residential zones only on a temporary basis for construction uses. Failing to get any reasonable response or positive action, I went up the chain of command. Article 5, section 6.4 of our home rule charter states, the town administrator shall enforce or cause to be enforced the laws and ordinances of the town of North Smithfield. So I sent an email to Mr. Gibbs explaining the situation in detail and asking that he intervene. I have not received a reply. six months have passed since the notice of violations deadline for compliance while the zoning officer fails to enforce the ordinance and the town administrator appears to be ignoring the issue this matter extends beyond a zoning violation it is a quality of life issue and a potential health hazard i am appealing to you for assistance in resolving this issue i have copies of all the documents emails and photographs for your perusal So who should I give this folder to?

You can give it to me and I'll give it to the clerk.

Sorry?

I can give it to me and I'll pass it on to the clerk. Thank you.

Madam President, I did have an opportunity to go visit Mr. Soares. Unfortunately, it was the day that they just emptied the dumpster. But it seems like just such a simple solution. Why not just give them the barrels back, put the barrels in the enclosed area on the cement, get rid of the dumpster, and give them two town barrels? Problem solved. Who cares if they have the right to do it or not? We can do this just at the sake of, I think, just being a good neighbor.

but it sounds like they don't have the right to a dumpster according to our ordinances. So what are our next steps in ensuring that this gets resolved? Town administrator.

Second of all, um,

We have, I should say, I have relied upon the zoning officers ruling on this who ruled in conjunction with the town planner. And they both basically said it does not apply to this use, that it really applies to construction. With that being said, there is Rhode Island General Law 452431 that says all requirements pertaining to local zoning are waived for community residences. So we're not sure what applies here. The public works director has reached out to the state to get clarification. Their immediate response was, for lack of a better term, a lot of gibberish. We responded back saying, you haven't answered the fundamental question. The fundamental question is number one, do you require your licensees? In this case, the state owns the facility, but it's licensed to Fogarty. We have six of these residences in town, five of them use dumpsters. One uses construction grade or commercial grade trash bins, which are picked up under a state contract with solid waste, which is our same vendor, but we don't pay for that. So we're trying to get clarification from the state, both in terms of the zoning applicability as well as the role that they have with their licensees, in this case Fogarty, with the intent to basically suggest a solution to the problem, if you will. But we're still doing the fact finding on this and we're not getting a lot of clarity from the state. Right now what I have to go with is an ordinance. And the ordinance says our zoning ordinance does not apply.

Administrator, I don't disagree with the thing you said. However, the solution doesn't have to be so complicated. Can't we just ask them if they'd be willing to take a couple of barrels and get rid of the dumpster?

Yes, we can. In fact, our public works director has met with several of the vendors to talk to them about this. They're not all the same, but yes, we can have that. But we still want to make sure we understand where we stand on. That's fundamental. So we're attempting to get clarity on that first, and then we will reach out to them.

It's the Home Rule Charter is what you're talking about under the Constitution, and that's only as the form of government. Okay. Anything that the state exercises jurisdiction over by state legislation supersedes and overrides any local ordinances. We're talking about a local ordinance, not a charter. okay so our local ordinance then are subservient are subservient but our charter being a home rule charter is not subservient to as to form of government okay for instance you want a council with an administrator on the home rule the vote is elected devoted to make that form of government but if you decided to make some rules that were special to education state law would make every one of those rules illegal. Okay. State law exclusively governs education, taxation, court systems, and many other areas that they totally have exclusive clean area authority and jurisdiction over those matters. So many towns pass lots of ordinances. For instance, towns try to regulate wetlands. and the state law is very clear. It's only, Rhode Island DEM is the only authority to regulate wetlands. And towns have tried to make buffer zones bigger and tried to regulate them. All those zoning ordinances are basically-

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

In terms of operations, one of the questions that we asked the state is do you require your facilities to be serviced with a waste management dumpster? We asked that simple question, they couldn't answer the question.

This is the first time I've heard that there's some things going on in the background. No one has kept me up to date on any of this in spite of my many requests by email to be brought up to date.

Yeah, and that, Mr. Soros, I apologize for. This issue got raised up the totem pole, if you will, in the past ten days, in part because you were here. And we knew that you obviously were not happy. I knew that you weren't going to pay the appeal fee. And that's when I talked to the zoning office and said, we need clarity on this thing. We need to get resolution. That's when I turned to the public works director to start researching it.

Regarding the appeal to the zoning board, which was my next step before I decided to come here. I at first was told there was no fee in my case because, as Rebecca just said, there was never a written determination. At first, Barbara Horton said there would be a $450 fee, and I said, that's excessive. And then she said, hold on, and she did some research, and she said, no, there's no fee in your case because Mr. Cody never issued a determination. So I filed the appeal. And a month went by, and I contacted you asking what happened to my appeal. And the next thing you know, I'm being told, there is a $450 fee, plus you gotta pay for advertising and notifying neighbors. So which is it? I'm getting different stories here.

I went to the zoning officer after your call to get clarification. I was told that there was an appeal fee. That was not from Barbara, it was from the zoning officer. So that's where I fought it still, that rusted. Again, I try to navigate this relationship very carefully because the zoning officer and his decisions are of a regulatory nature, and if I intervene too much, I become politicizing the event. So I'm very, very careful to do that. So I can only go on the information that's being given to me. This is the first time I heard that Barbara had told you there was no fee and then you were told otherwise. I never heard that before.

That's what I was told. Mr. Administrator, can you and Mr. Soares just keep in contact? Absolutely. Thank you.

And we will keep you, as I'm hoping, I met with the public works director today who was very frustrated by the lack of clarity he was getting from the state. He's still working on it. I will keep you in the loop on that. We're not going to continue to do this forever with the state. I sent them an email on Thursday referencing the state law and said, could you please explain, do we have authority or don't we? Still haven't gotten a response.

Thank you.

So I'll be kept in the loop from now on. Yeah. Before you leave, I will give you my personal cell phone number. And you can call me and text me whenever you want on that. I'll keep you in the loop.

All right, but I just have to say, I think the ordinance is clear. It's unambiguous. It says dumpsters are allowed only. On a temporary basis in a residential zone with a permit for construction purposes. We shouldn't have to live next to a garbage dump.

David Punchak for resident Jason Richard.

questions to be read on behalf of jason a richard town council meeting consideration of memorandum of understanding pound hill realty llc material sand and stone corp one does this mou acknowledge that no certificate of zoning compliance was ever issued under the 1979 earth removal ordinance as confirmed by the town's own apra responses two the 2006 court stay left the 2004 cease and desist unresolved for 16 years while the quarry continued and expanded does this mou finally resolve the legality of the 32-acre expansion or does it simply paper over it Three, under RICO Corp v. Town of Exeter, the existence of a valid non-conforming use is a superior court question. Has this MOU been reviewed to ensure it does not grant rights that the company never legally obtained? Four, if the company never obtained the required certificate of zoning compliance, What specific language in this MOU prevents future claims that the entire operation is now fully legalized by settlement? Five, the company withdrew its zoning overlay petition. Is the town receiving any meaningful restriction on blasting, hours, dust, or further expansion in exchange for settling the litigation, or is this primarily a release of the town's enforcement rights? Six, does this MOU address the ongoing road washing that violates the no discharge permit and what enforceable limits does it place on that activity? Seven, what specific enforceable protections does this MOU require to control fugitive dust containing respirable crystalline silica, a known carcinogen, so that it no longer leaves the property and impacts the neighborhood? Eight, the quarry blasts over naturally fractured bedrock that sits above a major sole source aquifer. What protection does this MOU provide against further contamination of that aquifer? And what has the town considered the potential liability to Massachusetts and Connecticut if pollution migrates across state lines? Nine, this is the last one. my private well has tested positive for chlorinated pfast compounds that are consistent with contamination from the nearby superfund sites what enforceable measure in this mou protect the aquifer and surrounding private wells from additional industrial impacts respectfully submitted jason a richer thank you sandra sauce

171 Sales Hill Road. I know we probably don't want to talk about the trash anymore, but one thing I would like to say, two things. The town administrator commented that there were other houses in this town that have dumpsters. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that they're not 15 feet from their buddy properties. Maybe it's just a female part of me here, but I had family here from Georgia this summer. We could not be out in my yard because it smelled so badly. They deliver or they remove our trash on a weekly basis, but they're only emptying that dumpster once a month now. It's every four weeks. In addition to the smell, I'm concerned about rodents. Haven't seen any, but we don't know until you do. So, that's just, thank you.

Council President, can I ask a question?

You said that they only dumped it once a month? Yeah. Cuz then a state contractor's supposed to be dumping it every week. Okay, thank you. Every four weeks.

Thank you.

They were doing- Mr. Soares, you have to go to that.

For the several years that it was there, every Thursday morning, Between 6.30 and quarter to 7, which even if the dumpster were legal, that's not a legal hour to come and take it. They would come with that giant truck and make all kinds of noise, and they would dump it weekly. Once I filed my complaint in December, they stopped coming weekly, and now they only come monthly. Okay. So that gives more time for the smell to ferment, and I'll tell you, we can't go in our yard sometimes. We can't sit on our deck. This is not right.

Thank you for the clarification, in terms of the monthly.

Tony Sully.

Anthony Soli, 1435 Iron Mine Hill Road. Dear council members, I'm here tonight to urge you to reject any ALPR technology within town limits. We are a safe town, yet ALPRs represent permanent digital dragnets treating every resident as a suspect. Both WJAR and Providence Journal ran stories in recent days showing that someone within our town government has already quietly approved a Rhode Island State Police request to install these tracking devices. Clearly, this was done behind closed doors lacking transparency under secrecy with zero public discussion, absolutely no input from this council. Any thought of a democratic process was bypassed, leaving residents in the dark about intrusive mass surveillance networks being deployed within our town. The standard defense for these cameras is always if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. You can trust the police with the data. However, history shows we must look critically at how technology and authority are managed. There is no need to look around the nation at countless officers, departments, and departments facing scrutiny, arrest, and even prison time for malicious utilization of ALPRs, as our department alone has its own well-documented track record of system misuse, constitutional right violations, and internal misconduct that should make anyone highly reluctant to hand over a massive unregulated database to them. Looking at the facts, The town of North Smithfield has faced software misuse via NAPA request. The Rhode Island State Police provided that North Smithfield Police face scrutiny multiple times for improperly using commercial vehicle software, bypassing standard protocols facing a lack of results from initial correspondence. The Rhode Island State Police then sent an email notifying that the officer would be locked out of the software after complaints by companies were filed with the State Police. Violation of constitutional rights. A federal court ruled that North Smithfield Police Department's policy of withholding seized property until an owner files a formal state lawsuit was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment to due process in Mr. Richards' ACLU lawsuit. Abuse of facility. We watched embarrassing fallout when the I-Team investigated Officer Eric Rondo, who weaponized the department facilities, effectively using a police jail cell as a personal dating website. starting a relationship with a prisoner while she was in the department's custody. Internal hostility, your very town council settled the lawsuit with dispatchers detailing a hostile and toxic work environment showing at a minimum a willingness of officers still employed by this department to stand by and allow physical, verbal, and mental abuse of civilian employees within their department. Unregulated surveillance tools require absolute transparency with flawless integrity. Our local department has proven time and time again that it struggles at best with both. When you combine internal misconduct and constitutional right violations with the secret of approval that cut out the public, it becomes clear that these cameras can be a massive liability. Excuse me. If we haven't heard it already, someone will say along the lines of, but if one Amber Alert is solved, it's worth it. Many of us are parents, and I can sympathize with that stance. However, I ask you to ask yourself, if one of our town's offices or another community's offices searches the database to stalk, harass, abuse, assault, or God forbid, kill one of our neighbors, are these cameras still worth being a public safety tool? Should we barter one victim for another? i ask this council to stand up for the residents of north smithfield reject any alpr or surveillance drone requests that come before you to be placed within town limits in closing i beg of you to not let unauthorized backdoor backdoor agreements dictate the privacy of the citizens please pass a formal resolution to override this over to override this overreach reject the state police alpr rollout demand the immediate removal of any tracking cameras within our town

immediately remove any tracking cameras already installed without our consent and demand whoever did give consent without this body's approval be held accountable and explain themselves thank you thank you may i ask a clarifying question i did and thank you mr solely for bringing this up and i know that this is on the agenda later but to his point in the projo article which i also read it did state that north spitfield has approved for the state police to install these Who made that determination?

It's on the agenda. When we get to the agenda, we'll talk about that.

Well, in the event that Mr. Soley doesn't want to stay through the executive session for the last- Are you going to say Mr. Soley?

That's up to my prerogative. Why won't you answer the question?

I'm just trying to keep the thing going for everybody else. Don't get adversarial with me.

Bottom line is- I'm asking a question. I'm the resident. You're an elected official.

Yeah, and I'm a resident too.

I was just asking for clarification in the event that some people do not want to stay for the agenda item. The Projo article mentioned that North Smithfield did approve that the state police install cameras. Can you just simply and very plainly say who allowed for that installation?

I allowed it. And I didn't know, the chief of police reached out to me in November of last year, said he was approached by the state police. They were looking to deploy Phlox cameras throughout the state. The chief asked me, do you have a problem with that? And I said, generally no. And at that point in time, I did not have a problem with Phlox cameras. I do have a serious problem with Phlox cameras as they have evolved. That being said, two flock cameras have been deployed in North Smithfield. They are both on 146. 146 North and 146 South. That is the only flock cameras that the state police will ever deploy in this town again. As it relates to us demanding them to withdraw them, It's not going to work. East Greenwich has already, South Kingstown, I'm sorry, which approved it. 37 out of 39 communities have approved this. South Kingstown approved it. South Kingstown ended up reversing its stand and asked the state police to withdraw them, and the state police said no.

May I?

You do not make the decisions of the towns. You're the day-to-day operator. They make the decisions for the town.

I am the public safety director. This is a public safety issue. It's not a public policy issue. And again, when the chief reached out to me on this issue, to be honest with you, I thought it was more of a general inquiry. I never thought, can I finish?

Excuse me.

I thought it was a general- How come my APRA request today stated that there has been no conversations about ALPRs from town?

Can I have a point of order that we're not going to go back and forth? Please, thank you. Can we wait until this comes up on the agenda and ask questions?

I appreciate that.

Thank you. Executive session, closed session, discussion by council pursuant to Rhode Island general laws. Oh, yeah, we're going to do, there's been questions about another executive, I'm sorry, open forum after executive session, so we will hold another open forum after.

Do you, go ahead.

Do you want to see if anyone else wants to sign up? Yeah, after we do it, yeah. Should we sign up for the forum?

While we're in there?

Yeah, we'll leave it out. You can sign up.

Richard Grubb, Follett Street. As David was reading Jason's carefully worded and thought out list of concerns, I was watching you on the panel. And I can't blame you, but there were people looking at their phones and their computers and looking down at the desk. And it was complicated with nine specific detailed points. I'm in favor of what Jason says in this case, and I couldn't follow them all. So even with that personal interest, I had to believe that you were unable to follow them all just based on that reading. So I sure as heck hope if you take any vote in that room, that you read through Jason's things carefully. Thank you.

Thank you. Executive session, closed session, discussion by council vote, I'm sorry, discussion by council pursuant to Maryland general law is subsection 42-46-582, sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation or work sessions pertaining to collective bargaining or litigation. One, consideration of approval of memorandum of understanding. Discussion by council vote of other action regarding approval of the memorandum of understanding that relates to and resolves the litigation captioned Poundhill Realty LLC and material sand and stone court versus Town of North Smithvale 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 text amendment and zoning map amendment filed by Poundhill Realty LLC 618 Greenville Road, North Smithfield, 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 is town of North Smithfield, Texas, Texas was plot 7, lot 38, consisting of approximately 89.44 acres. And B, discussion by council about other action on Crown Castle lease agreement for Monopole. I make the motion to go into executive session.

Motion to enter executive session.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Birrigan?

Yes. Mr. Cristofaro?

I will have to recuse myself from the Pine Hill Quarry conversation, but not recuse myself from the other items. So can somebody just let me know when they're done with that? Thank you.

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

Yes.

Ms. House? Yes.

i would like to make a motion to exit executive session re-enter open session and indicate that one vote was taken on item a and one vote was taken on item b and the minutes to be sealed that's a motion is there a second

Any further discussion? Roll call.

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

Mr. .

Yes. Ms. .

Yes. Disclosure of Executive Session. Announcement and disclosure of any votes taken in Executive Session pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 42-46-4B and vote or other action on whether to seal the minutes of the Executive Session pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws 42-46-7C.

so we were unable to come to an agreement on the mediation so we have instructed attorney robin heimer to cease all mediation discussions and move forward with the court case that's for item a correct okay I didn't hear it.

What was that?

Can I poll the council?

Yeah, well, you can do it in open forum.

Oh, we can do it in open forum at the end.

Actually, weren't we going to do an open forum after the session? Yeah.

Yeah, we can do it in open forum. All right, so we're gonna have one more open forum just because there was one, people weren't sure if they had to come for executive session or after, so we'll do one quick open forum pursuant to 42-46-60, maximum three minutes per person. I have one more person who signed up. Anyone else who is interested? Anyone else interested in speaking?

It's not a public hearing, so technically, no. I think we could probably poll amongst us to determine if we wanna open it for public comment, but I don't think, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Yeah, okay. So let's do this open forum. The first person is Patrick Toohey. Thank you for doing that. Thank you.

My name is Patrick Tui. I'm a resident of 305 Douglas Pike in North Smithfield. I've owned the property for 45 years and lived there for 40. I'm here to present a petition with Mr. Bureau Guide, who instructed me that the committee has to request this proposal for the State Department of Transportation to remove the passing zone from the section of rankin path to Mattity Road on Route 7. And that's what I'm going to present in writing to Mr. Bureau Guide for your considerations. And I'll cut it short there because it's all in the letter and you can read it. But basically, it's very hazardous, very unsafe for the speeds for the residents and any travelers on that section of road with the amount of speeders and people passing for no reason at all in that area so i'm requesting that that zone be changed to no passing that's all thank you

Please state your name and address and try and keep it to three minutes, please.

I will. Thomas Plunkett. My office address is 146 Westminster Street in Providence. I have to say I'm a little taken aback by the decision of the town council tonight. We've been working on this since January. We've been through many, many sessions and we have been presented with proposals from the town that apparently were acceptable to the town and we have agreed with 80 or 90% of it. I just don't understand what, what I'm asking is what more can we do to get this matter resolved after putting so much effort into it? The last proposal was presented to us. I think there were only two or three items that needed more clarification we thought, and now it seems nothing is acceptable, so I suppose if your decision is to resolve it through litigation, we'll do that, but I think an awful lot of time and effort has been put into this on both sides, and honest back and forth, and now we have nothing after all this time, all the expert testimony. I just have to say I'm taken aback by it. So thank you for your consideration so far and we'll have to see what happens.

New business appointment of legal counsel, appeal of HT Auto LLC, 955 Iron Mine Hill Road, AP 016, lot 008. Discussion by council about other action on the appointment of legal counsel to represent the building slash zoning official before the zoning board of review and any appeal there from in connection with the notice of appeal filed by HT Auto LLC, 955 Iron Mine Hill Road, North Swiftville Road on 02896. Appealing the decision of building slash zoning official dated June 18, 2026, finding the property in violation of 340-4.8.1 of the town of Nusperfield zoning ordinance.

Madam President, councillors, the zoning official issued a violation against the property and the owner that was appealed to the zoning board. When that happens, the zoning board acts like a judge. And the person who appeals has to present their appeal in writing, and in this case, they're doing it with their lawyer. And the town solicitor represents the zoning board. So the town needs to retain legal counsel to represent the building official in their claim. So this is very common, it's just you don't see a lot of it. But whenever there's an appeal before the board, that person, that decision being appealed need to be represented. So I'm asking the council to appoint Timothy Robenheimer as the municipal rate. I spoke with him and he was willing to do it.

Any questions? I'll make a motion.

I will make a motion to authorize the solicitor and the administrator to retain the services of Timothy Robenheimer at the municipal rate to represent the zoning official before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Any appeal. It might go to the Superior Court after that.

And plus any subsequent appeals.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Birrigan? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro? Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Alves? Yes. Discussion by council vote or other action on payment of bills. Anyone have any questions? Okay, anyone like to make a motion? I'm sorry, did you have a motion? No. Two motions, right? Two motions, yep.

Are you doing it?

I'll make a motion. I will make a motion to approve payment of bills for August 3rd, 2026, specific to 2025-2026 invoices in the amount of $298,387.12. That's a motion, is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Roll call. Mr. Reardon? Yes. Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Punchak? Yes. Ms. Howells? Yes. I will make a motion to approve payment of bills for August 3rd, 2026, specific to 2026-2027 invoices in the amount of $1,188,941.45. Second. That's the motion and a second.

Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. Birrigan?

Yes.

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

Yes. Old business discussion by council vote or other action on status slash progress report items, North Smithfield police station renovation.

Yeah, there's two items that I'm requesting action on. First, there were two requisitions submitted to us, one for the architect. These are May requisitions.

I love the big header that says memorandum on every page. I did that for you. I knew you did.

The May requisition for the architect is $7,215 and the May requisition for the owner's rep in the amount of $13,000. These May recs were not paid. I submitted the last time the June recs, not the May recs, so that was an oversight on my part. That's why they're being submitted now for $20,215.

Okay.

The second item is this is a change to the contract with Signal Works and this is in the amount of, excuse me, I'm going to get to it. in the amount of $4,775. In the process of reviewing the buyouts, there was a decision made that we could change the equipment, the HVAC equipment to perform at the same level, but we would save $25,000 on that equipment. In order to adopt the new equipment, BER, which is our electrical engineer on this project, would have to be engaged to review the plans to accommodate the new equipment. That's the $4,775. So in effect, this change will result in a savings to the project of about $20,000. but i still need authorization from the council to amend the signal works contract the architect through which this will be done in the amount of four thousand seven hundred and seventy five dollars

Anyone have any questions?

I don't have any questions specific to those two items, but in reading your memorandum, the federal air mark for 800,000, when will we have an understanding of when that may be appropriated?

It's been authorized and through a joint House and Senate Appropriations Committee. Okay. So it's effectively in the pipeline to be approved, but it does not get approved until the latter part of this year where it has to be signed by the White House. Okay. So that's our status. It's not going to be for that amount. The amount that we got through was a half a million dollars, not the 800 some odd thousand dollars. Okay. We're still waiting for that. The only other issue that we really have right now, which is, as the contractor likes to call it, a hot issue. that means time sensitive, is the communication dispatch system, which we received a federal grant for. We have filed all the paperwork for that federal grant. We're just waiting for the final, okay, we've got our final approval. Until we get that, we can't commit the money. If we commit the money, if we sign the contract for the dispatch equipment at that point, we lose the half a million dollars. So we're tracking that. Our grants writer is dealing with the Congressman's office trying to get a different time frame as to when the Department of Justice will approve that. It's critical because that's a time critical path issue for the overall project. I think we were given to Labor Day as the period of which we really have to have this resolved or else it could impact project completion date. So that's the one issue that we're trying to focus on right now.

Anyone have any other questions? I didn't want to make a motion to approve that. Two motions.

Two motions, please.

I would like to make a motion to approve the payment of $20,215. That is consisting of $7,215 to the Architect Signal Works and $13,000 to the OPM ECC Corporation for the services of May 2026.

Second. That's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Mr. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Mrs. O'Hara.

Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes.

i will also like to make a motion to approve the change order request from signal works in the amount of four thousand seven hundred seventy five dollars for design services required to integrate a mechanical substitution proposed by the contract the contractor and authorize the ton of administrator to sign

Second. How much did you say?

$1,775.

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

Yes.

Mr. . Yes. Mrs. . Yes. Mr. . Yes. Ms. . Yes. Could you tell me who seconded that, please?

I seconded it. Okay, thank you. New business discussion by council about other action on salary and wage ordinance. Mr. for freedom.

So this is the yearly wage ordinance that the council approves post budget adoption. So this is just the first reading to make sure everyone's on the same page. Every position that the town holds, whether it's filled or not, allowing the administration to pay whatever rate is given.

Tony, I just had a clarifying question on the Deputy Tax Assessor. Yes. For 2027 and 2026, it reads both 53,560.94. We agreed to keep it the same. I thought that there was, oh, we agreed to keep it the same because, okay.

Yep. And technically, I have to talk to the solicitor, but the position that we're hiring for is the assistant. It was the deputy tax assessor. I think we're changing the title to assistant tax assessor. I have to talk to him on clarification on whether we need to change it or not, because we might take it back to deputy or not. So I just want to clarify that.

So we didn't have the 3% increase for that?

Correct.

Okay.

just one notation that um i think we did this last year too on the second page the seasonal personnel for 2027 minimum wage goes up to 17. january 1st on page two yeah the second from the bottom you're right yeah so if you can just change that yeah that's effective july or january 1st of 2027 right yeah you're right i'll have that change right now Thank you. So no action, right? She's the first one.

Sometimes the council will accept first reading, but it's not a motion to approve technically because you can only approve it after the second reading.

Okay. So do we just need to make a motion on the record?

It's be accepted or that's what I would do just so you acknowledge it.

I'll make a motion to accept the first reading for the salary and wage ordinance. Second.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Alice?

Yes. Discussion by council vote. Other action on flock cameras in North Smithfield? Mr. Birrigan, Mrs. O'Hara?

All right, there you go.

So this agenda item and the next agenda item indicate, it shows you that we're paying attention to what people are saying and what's important to people. There was a discussion that started off on, I'll stick with this one right now. There was a discussion on social media that started off about the flock cameras and it looked like it was going to get really heated and There was going to be a lot of people coming into open forum at the beginning of the council meeting. So to try to, I wouldn't say rein it all in, but to try to make it a little more organized, I asked for an agenda. I asked for the discussion to be put on the agenda. I wasn't looking to make a vote, let the town vote and take a position on this. I just wanted to give what at the time looked like a lot of people had interest. I just wanted to give them an opportunity on the agenda to be heard properly, because it is a serious situation. It is a serious concern of a lot of people. And there's a lot of motions on both sides. So that's the reason why it's on the agenda. As it turns out, I don't think we don't have nearly the amount of people here that I thought we were going to. And we could have handled this during open forum, but nevertheless, it's on the agenda. And if there's anybody here that would like to be heard on it, I'll make a motion to open up this agenda item only to public comment.

Well, before we, and I'm all for opening up to public comment, but I just have a few clarifying questions before we get in.

A motion, it can be second, and it can be discussion, or withdraw your motion, but there's a motion on the floor. Okay.

Second for discussion.

Second for discussion. Okay. Okay, so now we can discuss. Okay. I think that given the recent Projo article, it now has to be discussed. I know that you were saying that it may not have necessarily had to be discussed, but I think it does because I have, as a counselor, received a lot of questions about how that happened and what does the future of flock cameras look like in North Smithfield. I'm glad to see this agenda item on the agenda this evening. I would just like to have a better understanding because I do believe that with this budget, we initially saw that the North Smithfield Police Department requested $125,000 for license plate readers. The administration, the budget committee, nor the town council approved that budget. Do we know if those were for flock cameras?

No, I don't, but I do know that I communicated to the chief of police that I do not support the purchase of flock cameras by the police department. Okay. But I don't know if that budget item was specifically for that or not. I would have to ask the chief.

I thought at the time he said it was something that was mounted to the patrol cars.

I don't remember him saying anything because we didn't ask him about that.

I thought like, wow, this is such a crit. But I'm almost positive it was something that was going to be on the patrol car. If you pulled up behind somebody, it was able to read their license plate and whatever. But I don't think it was flock. I know he said it was on the cars.

Okay, that's what it was. Okay, so it wasn't on flock cameras. So thank you for that clarification. So it doesn't sound then that... aside from approving the two flock cameras that were that were put in place by the state police that this town has really any interest in putting in flock cameras as i said in the beginning um and you look at the word approval somewhat loose because i responded to an email from the chief

about whether or not I would have a problem with it. And at that point in time, I said, not really. But there was no letter of approval or anything of sort provided to the state police. In hindsight, knowing what I know now and given my feelings about flock cameras and how it's sort of evolved, I would have said no, because I just don't find them to be a suitable technology until the time that we are We feel assured that the technology will stay in the lane It's supposed to stay in and quite frankly anymore. I don't believe that's true anywhere I think once the genie is out of the bottle it's out of the bottle so I would not have approved I would have not Responded the chief's email at that point saying I don't have a problem with I would have said no I don't want it But I made it very clear to the chief. I do not want flock cameras in this town As it relates to our police department

Okay, I would agree with that.

Do I have a motion in a second?

Well, do we need to take a stance on the cameras that were installed by the state police?

Well, I think that we should have to. We can't really. We have a motion on the floor right now.

It's to open it up, right? Correct. So we have a motion to second. Then we can close it and discuss. Any further discussion? One second. We'll schedule a vote. Roll call, please. Mr. Birigod? Yes. Mr. Cristofaro?

Yes. Mrs. O'Hara? Yes. Mr. Ponchak? Yes. Ms. House?

Yes. Okay. Anyone who would like to get up to speak? I just make it that there's not going to be any back and forth between administrator or town council. You can just do your point.

Yeah, I'll read my thing, then I'm going to go home. I'm kind of tired. But first, you should check out the flock.org sometime. There's a map of all flock cameras, and it's just kind of crazy how many there are, actually. Just in our earring with Sock, when Sock gets kind of littered with them. But as far as my thing goes, my name's Jim Aubin. I live in town for 35 years, and I started a group called North Nuffield Freedom Club. We fight tyranny in North Nuffield. So in the year 2001, if anyone would have discussed the future 25 years later, would any of us believe where we are now? My guess is probably not. We had private lives with a smaller government, friendly neighbors, and much more trust for each other. Life was good. When those planes flew into those buildings in the fall of that year, however, everything changed. We got scared. We allowed the government to step in and pass new laws in the name of protecting us. We allowed them to monitor us, listen to our communications, watch our internet browsing, and build a surveillance network all based on the simple idea of if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. That is a favored line in countries such as North Korea and China to keep their citizens content and in check. Now, 25 years later, I'm not sure the 2001 versions of us would even recognize where we are now, and I believe they'd be outraged. Perhaps you've heard of the frog and boiling water parable. If you have a pot of boiling water and put a frog into it, the frog will instantly recognize the danger and jump out. However, if you put a frog in water and slowly heat it up to boiling, the frog will stay in and be boiled alive. We are that second frog. And I need to ask, how much more will we allow the government to turn up the heat before we are cooked? Look at where we were in the summer of 2001 and look at how far removed we are from that now. Now use your brains and think about where we will be another 25 years from now at this rate. What world will our children live in? Perhaps something like this. They will wake up in their government-issued housing. All their services, including banking, communications, bill pay, are all on their government-monitored phone. They go to their government industry job, passing through subways and entrances monitored by cameras, equipped with facial recognition software that IDs every individual, opens doors for them, and knows exactly where everyone is at all times. One day after work, while meeting up with friends, they say, I don't like how the government handled that issue. They go home or their friends got uncomfortable. The conversation shifts. The next day they wake up. Their banking is shut off. Their subway pass is disabled. That promotion at work that's been coming is canceled. It seems someone heard the second of dissent and punishment is now imposed. Don't do it again and maybe you'll get some of those benefits back. If this sounds crazy, this is exactly how life is in communist China and their social credit score system today. Is this the system we want to live in? When do we say enough is enough? All it takes is one authoritarian leader to seize control in the US, and this could easily be implemented here. We already have most of the infrastructure built. Will we just allow this to happen? I say no. Not now, not ever. We are free Americans, not subjugates or slaves. Let's start acting like it. Let's ban any and all mass surveillance technology from a town, including ALPR like Flock or their competition Axon, and any future similar tech that can harvest our data and report it to a centralized database. We deserve better. According to recent polling conducted amongst our town's residents, 90% support a full ban on flock cameras in town, including on private property like the three mounted at Lowe's. This is a nonpartisan issue across the board. Few things in life are really this unanimous. As Ben Franklin said, those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. Which do you feel we deserve, freedom or slavery?

Good job, Jim.

Anyone else? Can I make a clarifying statement?

I just want to make a clarifying statement that I did file an APRA request yesterday, which was the answer today with the town. And Administrator Gibbs had noted that he emailed. However, as of today, there are no documents for anything regarding your APRA request. So again, are we hiding it? if i think mr gibbs just said that he talked to the chief and there was nothing well no if we play back the meeting he actually said it was via email okay so in that vein because again we can't trust what's being said i would like the council to ask the administrator what the length of the contract with the round state police is with flock Who has access to the database besides the Rhode Island State Police? How long are the records kept by the Rhode Island State Police and Flock? What capabilities do the existing cameras have on the back end that are currently disabled? He is the one who let the genie out of the bottle he's talking about. we have multiple state roads yes today there's two cameras 146 north 146 south but granting that approval could lead to cameras on greenville road providence pike victory highway 102 146a that's all tony can you send me that these questions thank you uh council president just his background i did talk to the chief today he was going to put the full response to the app request tomorrow thank you he's not in right now okay

right just keep me advised but if you could send me those questions thank you and i'll thank you anyone else want to speak before we close the public hearing or open forum on this topic anyone else going once going twice motion to close public comment Second, we have a motion a second. Any further discussion? Roll call please. Mr.

Yes, Mr. God, Mr. Christopher. Oh yes, Mrs. O'Hara, Mr. Punch. Yes, Miss Alice.

Yes, discussion by Council about other action on petition. On to petition DOT to add no passing signs in areas on Route 7 and increased signage. Mr. Barragan, Mrs. O'Hara.

Actually, did you want to elaborate more? Did you want to have a discussion about that you were saying, or no? The previous?

Well, I just don't know if we need to take a stance on that right now.

I agree, okay.

I mean I think it's made it so I agree with that and I think it might be important to like even if we take a stance as this town council it doesn't really do anything we can you know we it needs to go to a vote before it becomes anything because the next town council could just change it anyway right Am I right? So we can sit here and say, okay, we're against it, but in December, everyone could be changed and they could all be for it.

Well, unless we establish an ordinance.

But that would still need to be voted on.

That's correct.

So that vote's not going to happen in November because- You'd have to have a public hearing on it.

I think my request would be, If the question to install more cameras makes its way to the administration, can we please discuss it as a council?

Well, what I was planning on doing after my conversation with the chief today, and quite frankly I was, a little taken back when the chief said yeah he responded with an email back a year ago my thought was that i was going to through the chief establish written communication to the rhode island state police and effectively say Whatever you think that you have in terms of approvals from the town, there is no further expansion of state police flock cameras in North Smithfield without officially notifying the town in writing of which the town could then respond to. Quite frankly, I'm a little bit surprised and I'm wondering, and maybe John, you could respond to this a little bit better since you were a retired state trooper. And that is, there's a side of me that says this is just optics from the state police standpoint because I don't think the state police needs the approval of the town or any town to put cameras on a state highway which is state property. I don't think they need our nod for that, but maybe because of the sensitivity, they reached out to the 39 cities and towns and 37 towns gave them nods and said, yes, I don't know. But I think it's clearly warranted given the sensitivity in this issue to let the state police know that's it. There's gotta be an official process and it can't be just an email to the chief who sends an email to the administrator saying, hey, what do you think? It's gotta be a more formal process.

Well, I see the, and I guess I'm in the minority here because I see the value in these things. I have a very good friend of mine whose daughter was killed last November in a road rage incident. And only because of the flat cameras, they had a very little, very minor description of the car. And it was only because of the flat cameras would they be able to track this person down and arrest them for causing the death of Casey Bazzignani. The technology has always existed. There's always been technology and it could always be abused. For instance, right now, a police officer can drive by your house and run your license plates and do a credit check on you. So are we gonna all of a sudden say, they can do a credit check, they can check your PCI, they can see if you've ever been arrested. If you have an ex and your police officer is your ex-partner, he could drive by or she could drive by your house and check every plate in your driveway to see who's at your house on that night. That technology exists and has existed for a long time. Technology can always be abused. What's important is that we have laws that keep up with the technology. Not deny the technology, but we keep up with the technology. For instance, look at, like I said, oh, I'm sorry, I thought the other guys were coming back in. But the point is, is technology can always be abused. It doesn't matter what the technology is. And to deny this, for instance, if there was a crime and all you had was somebody said, it was a white car that had a scratch on the side. Believe it or not, that would be all you need. That's all you need. Then the flock cameras can look for a white car with a scratch on the side and they would find that person for you. That is an amazing technology. And to deny that ability, the ability for us to solve crimes that way and to apprehend suspects that way is really kind of crazy to turn your back on that technology.

If I could add something on that, not to belabor this, but it is a sensitive issue. I tend to lean toward you, John. However, I'm not yet at the point where I trust the overseers of the technology, but I will say that there was a lot of criticism that was being levied at Brown University at the shootings and the lack of surveillance. And they were villainizing Brown University for not having enough cameras. But now we're turning around and saying cameras are the evil empire. It's a real hard line to walk. We all want safety, but we also want privacy. There's always a trade-off between the two. It's tough. It's a tough question.

Well, when cell phones first came out, we had the ability to ping somebody's cell phone to find out where they are, what direction, where exactly they were. That could have been abused, so should we have said, you know what, we're going to get rid of all cell phone technology. We're not going to get rid of the ability to ping. No, we made laws that if you violate public trust, you violate your position as a police officer, you will get fired. You will face criminal charges. This is no different. This technology exists. There should be laws around this technology. protecting people, protecting people's civil rights. But at the same time, it's a tool that would be a shame to turn our backs on.

Well, I think that's the issue, John, is that it's not necessarily that we want to deny the technology. I think technology is moving much faster than we can control it right now. And there are not sufficient laws in place at the state level to regulate this technology. I believe in reading the Projo article and in doing some research, because I like to remain neutral and then inform myself and make a decision. But in reading the Projo article, I believe of all the state police, there were only like three state police officers that could actually access this flock technology because they need, or the surveillance, because they need to be certified. So I think the state police are establishing certification and regulations around how to use this. But aside from that, it sounds like there are very minimal laws in place at the state level in order to manage the data. So I think until we can really trust how the data is going to be used, I was reading an ACLU article the other day and there have been cases of misuse and cases where this information has been handed over to agencies and misused. And I just don't necessarily trust how this technology and data is being used at this time, once there are regulations in place that we can ensure that it's being used in the right way, I think everybody's position might change on that. But technology is moving much faster than we can control it at this point.

In five years, flock camera technology will be obsolete. So what are we going to do? We're just going to turn our backs on the next one? And in 10 years, whatever replaced flock cameras is going to be obsolete. We can't keep turning our backs on this technology. We have to learn how to live with the technology and keep laws that maintain the pace of the technology, not turn our backs on it. This is a great law enforcement tool. If there was a terrorist attack, there would be no chance of people getting away. That's how good this technology is.

Can I just interrupt you for a minute, because we seem to have gone back on the agenda, because we're talking about Route 7, and now we're back on camera.

There shouldn't be cameras on Route 7 then, right?

So I'm just wondering how we got back on. Well, he asked if I wanted to, and then we determined whether or not we needed to make a decision, and we said no.

So we're not doing anything on, what is? I am. You are, so what is this picture?

Okay, so this is a picture from my car today, it was raining out. And this is Route 7 looking north. Right about Rankin, right about Rankin Path, and you can see that do not pass sign right there. However, there's skip lines in the road. So it says the residents, I mean, the motorists are getting mixed messages. There's a sign that says do not pass, but the traffic markings indicate it's a passing zone. This whole area from Rankin to Matady, it is maybe about 100 yards before Matady. It's indicated as a passing zone. It's very dangerous. There's a lot of houses on the street. And as you can see, there's a hill right there. And the signs are very, they kind of just kind of throw you off. They kind of go against what you know, what's on the road. So what I would like to do is I would like to petition D. O. T. To make and we've done this before and they have responded very positively. I would like to petition D. O. T. To make Route seven from Rankin to Mattity and no passing zone.

Now is there passing on the other side? Yes. As you come over to the top of that hill, I mean, like when you pass Mattity, is there

Yes, after you pass maddening heading into barville is a long straightaway I personally would like to see all of the 7 that I was just I don't think that that that fly really but baby steps right so we take care of this problem for us will address the next one. But yet it there is a no passing zone from maddening heading into barville but is there a sign.

Is it confusing like this on the other side? No, it's just on this side.

And even if that sign wasn't there, I think it's just a dangerous area to have passing. It's already about 40 miles an hour, right?

40 is posted, and it's non-existent. They go about 60 miles an hour.

Yeah. So I think having a having passing in that area, I would like to ask the council that we petitioned D. O. T. to at least do a study to see if it would be a good idea to make that into a no passing zone from Mattity to Rankin.

Because I mean, there's always plenty of accidents at the intersection going the other way, especially since they changed it to that.

I don't know if that was supposed to help. That's a stretch of road.

and here's the problem when you pull out if there's a if you're if you live in a passing zone when you pull out of your driveway and you're going to go right you look left to see if you can go there could be somebody passing coming right at you and you don't even see it so that whole area uh i would like to see uh no passing but we have to we can't do it ourselves so i'd like to ask dot if they could look into doing that run us do a study and see if they can do that

I think Route 7 needs a lot more help than just that. And I don't know if there's a more comprehensive study that DOT can do, but people speed. We have massive trucks on that road. It's a problem. And I actually had a call this morning with the regional director of the coalition against bigger trucks. And it sounds like they are not this coalition, but a bill is being pursued to allow for weight limit increases on trucks from, I think it's like 80. I don't know what it is. I don't want to speak out on not speaking correctly in the numbers, but an increase in weight limits as well as an increase on how many trailers. So moving from one trailer to two trailers. We have a ton of trucks that use that road. Okay. So you have passing people pass trucks all the time on that road. Um, we have a ton of trucks on this road. And then in hearing now that we may be enabling. The trucking tolls on the highway. We're going to see even more truck traffic on this road because people are going to be avoiding the tolls and they're going to use Route 7. This road needs a lot of help, especially if we don't try to get ahead of this bill that's being pursued for bigger trucks. And because we know, regardless of whether or not the bill passes, that we're going to see a lot more trucks on this road. So I think it's not just no passing. It's definitely no passing. We need to see more speed limit signs on this road. We also need to see signs that say, don't use your J brakes because the amount of noise off of Route seven, because truckers are using this road and using their J brakes to manage their trucks. It's just obscene. I hear trucks coming from Route seven, turning onto Pine Hill Road. You can hear them from a mile away. It's distressing. So I would actually petition DOT to do a more comprehensive study on this road to ensure that we are making this road as safe as possible, especially if we're going to enable truck tolls. So I don't know how to go about that. But I think DOT needs to do a more comprehensive study. And I don't think any of it should be passing, especially if we have large trucks. This is a unique road. So especially that we have very large trucks on this road, nobody should be passing on this road.

Well, the fact that it's freshly, it's, it's paved. It was paved not that long ago. It's like a, it's a drag strap. Oh yeah. It's easy. It's easy to go fast on that road. Yes.

And people aren't paying attention, especially with large vehicles. So I'm all for it for making this no passing. But I also think that we need to ask DOT for a more comprehensive study.

Well, I know the DOT did with the US Department of Transportation Safe Street Study Program. I'm not sure whether or not this road was included in that. We'll do some research and see what kind of recent studies they've done on Route 7. And if they haven't done anything, well, there's your answer.

Well actually in 2022 when they paved that road, we had a very similar situation and we got it to be, we did the same thing, same motion, DOT made it a no passing zone at our request. So it can be done, it's easy.

For what section of the road?

I forget, what was it? That was up more, closer towards, that was up south of this.

It was between, but I don't know, between where Route 104 joined Route 7 towards Ramping Back. Yeah. There's three hilly sections.

And they were passing, and we got them to change it. Yeah. And they painted it, and they signed it. So that's really... That's really what we've got to do is just petition DOT to look into it and see if they can take care of it.

So maybe short-term petition that they change this to no passing, and then long-term request a more comprehensive study of this road.

Or see if they've already done it, and we're just not aware of it. I know they did a recent study with U.S.

DOT.

Do you mind going up to the... Could you go up to the...

first of all i agree to speak to the top department of transportation who has spoken to before about this situation and how dangerous it is for myself who are who is familiar with the road and a lot of visitors who are not right but the police have very little that they can do because this road is Very narrow. There is nowhere they can pull it aside and set up speed cameras. They cannot stop anybody without creating a larger hazard. And as John has mentioned, when we either turn in or pull out of our driveway, someone could be passing. And they might not be passing another vehicle. They are just speeding. And typically, I've timed it. It takes approximately eight seconds to pass through the speed zone, the allowed passing zone on that area. Vehicles have passed that in three seconds in the same amount of time. Something I'd like you to look, a state to look into and possibly fix. I'm not vouching for all of Route 7, which I think should be under control. And I only live on a short section.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'll make the motion that we petition DOT to do a study with the intention of making the area between Rankin Path and Manatee Road a no passing zone.

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

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

Discussion by council vote other action on sewer commission presenting update on sewer pump stations improvement project including proposal from right peers for additional design items from Bill Dory, sewer commission chairman and Bill Dakota, sewer superintendent.

He's already retired. So.

Provide you guys an update. Nothing for you guys to vote on tonight. We've been working with our with right pairs to finalize the 30% plan. 30% plan right now is coming in around $5.5 million. Originally, we were coming in just below $4 million when we initially put this together in 2022. Obviously, four years have gone by inflation, a war, more inflation. um so we're coming in at 5.5 and what we've decided to do is kind of go to a base bid and add in some uh alternates switch switch some of our things that we wanted to do to add alternates so as we actually start to put this out the bid we can add things in to bring us in line with the four million dollars we're also gonna start culling stuff out that we think we can just do ourselves and don't have to do right away But if we put everything together, including some of the technical stuff where we've gone from just around $4 million to 6.3. So I'm thinking we're going to come in around five, 5.5. We got $4 million loan that you guys have already approved. We're looking at a town review sometime in November for our 90% plan and going to the DEM probably in December or January. That means that we'll be submitting the plans and advertising around March or April with awards sometime in May or June of 2027. Construction starts around August of 2027 and all the plans done around August of 2028. So, you know, you're looking at like a six year timeline for something that we started in 2022. But at that point, we should be done. There was also some issues with the DM changed its rules around flood zones. So two of our facilities have to be redesigned to accommodate 100 year flood because it's above the above where the doors are and you flood out the entire system. So I think we're in a really good spot. I just kind of wanted to give you guys an update, kind of let you know where we are. We are going to be coming next month for an additional, to pull out of our own funds, $4,400 because of some of these design changes. It increased the cost of the preliminary designs. So we're going to come back to you guys, but I just want to give you guys a heads up. I also want to know when you guys want to come out as a group and look at the sewers. I mean, we've offered you guys one time before. Somebody took it the day of.

I did. That was me.

But I want to get in front of this because I want you guys to see how bad it actually is. Seeing is believing.

Preferably not when it's 90 degrees and 100% humidity.

That is the time you want to do it. You want to see how bad it is. We replaced some of this already because the smell was bad for the neighbors and stuff like that. uh so we've got ahead of some of the project already but at the end of the day i want you guys to see what you're voting on what you're spending the money on uh to kind of assure you that we're being as good as stewards of the town's money as possible or the ratepayers money as possible and i think sometimes seeing what bill and and the town workers are dealing with i mean you're talking about 30 40 years of You know, no plan. It just was put in the ground and everybody forgot about it. And over the last maybe 10 years, we've kind of come up with a comprehensive plan, come up with a contingency fund. We're going to fund most of the major improvements at these stations. But I want you guys to see where it's at and where it's going to be, because I think that kind of gives you a big selling point for, you know, whatever you guys have to do on your end, because ultimately you're selling this to the ratepayers and the voters there. I'm not ultimately the leader here, you guys are. I'll take you up on that. I'm down for a field trip. I'll have more, send you guys an email and just get a time that works for all you guys. But I think having that personal kind of walk around all the stations is kind of important. So I don't know if you guys have any questions. I don't have anything to show you guys.

I think you do a great job. Every time you come up here. It's like I'm educated. I learned something new. But I think you're really doing a great job over there.

I just try to give you guys options. Ultimately, you guys make the decisions. So I got no ego in this. So it's like you guys make the decision to try to find some options. Now, ultimately, you guys have to explain it. I don't. So any other questions?

Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, open forum pursuant to 42-46-16, maximum three minutes per person. Did anyone else want to speak in open forum? Anyone? Last time, no? And just before I adjourn, I just want to thank Tammy. I know you've been stepping in for many months for as a town clerk, and I just want to thank you for everything you've done. And I know it's been a lot and plus you're down another person besides. So thank you for everything you've done. Thank you.

however we will be and i talked to uh joanne today um we will be easing her in though she can't come in you know hot um which is typically how she likes to work so i'm not letting tammy completely off the hook yet well thank you tammy we appreciate it um anyone like to make a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn all in favor say aye aye aye