Town Council - Regular Meeting

Members, you would please exit either through the door you came, the door that's behind your left shoulder or the one behind Mr. Reese. We'll all go across the street to the school administration building and wait for further instructions from our first responders. If you're all now join me in a pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for our men and women in harm's way. Thank you, everyone. Madam Clerk, roll call, please.

Mr. Gleason?

Here.

Ms. Blank? Here. Ms. McDowell? Here. Ms. Cotton? Here. Mr. Payero?

Here.

Mr. Reese? Here. Mr. Hamilton?

I am here. Thank you. Prior to the meeting this evening, we had, in a quick executive session for about a half hour, we covered some contract language issues collective bargaining for the police union. And we also talked some other potential litigation for another contract. There were no votes taken. I'd also like to congratulate all of the seniors who graduated last Friday from the Portsmouth High School and also the Portsmouth High School boys lacrosse team who went to Division II State Championship on Saturday afternoon. So congratulations to them and all the graduates. First up, we have our public comment. First up, we have Mr. Chris Corbett of 92 Sunrise Drive. Want to talk about speed bumps? Come on up, sir.

Anything. Good evening, town council members. My name is Chris Corbin. I live on Sunrise Drive. I'm here tonight on behalf of my neighbors. First, a genuine thank you. The 15 mile an hour solar speed sign in town installed is a visible, meaningful gesture, and we appreciate that Chief Peters, Lieutenant Francis, and the police department heard our concerns and acted. That matters to our neighborhood. But here's the hard truth. Drivers are still speeding through the stop signs and the warning signs. A stretch of Sea Spray Avenue has earned a nickname nobody asked for, the Sea Spray Speedway. The Linda Terrace and Sunrise driver intersection sits on what I can only call dead man's curve. Blind approaches, no shoulder, and vehicles routinely ignoring both the stop signs and the speed sign. I've sent no less than six videos to the police department showing this. What's at stake isn't abstract. School-age children stand at these stop signs every single morning, waiting for the bus. Families walk these streets. Neighbors pull out of driveways blind to traffic that's already going 35 in a 15 zone. My neighbor came within inches of being hit by a Mack truck last week, literally. The construction truck failed to yield, was blown right through it. My neighbor yielded. Good thing he wasn't hurt. He has kids. He has grandkids. I'll say this plainly. We were even willing to accept a double stop sign configuration if it made this intersection safer. Still are. We're not here to argue with neighbors. I don't even know who the neighbors are. We just want a safe place to walk, to drive and to live. That's it. There were two vocal neighbors in the new development that asked for three, no less than three stop signs to be removed. Concerning. The town has already shown it knows how to fix this. Drive to Macquarie Beach, right at the entrance, there are speed bumps, two speed bumps. They expand the whole side so you can't swerve around them. They work, cars slow down. I talked to the neighbor who asked for them to be installed several years ago. People are protected. That precedent was set because that area demanded physical intervention, not just signage. We're asking for the same treatment here. This is not about two residents who want to stop signs removed. That fight's over. This is about what comes next, what the town does to actually enforce safe behavior on a road where children's lives are at risk daily. Two speed bumps. caused far less than a tragedy. I'm asking the council to approve installation of speed bumps at the Linda Terrace-Sunrise Drive intersection, consistent with what already exists at Macquarie Beach, and to prioritize the safety of every person on this road. Thank you everyone for your time, for your leadership, and serving our great Portsmouth community. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

It'll be looked into. Next up, we have Ansel Fila, 59 Connington Way, returning for his second visit. Already a YouTube star.

I just wanted to say thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you for making the park much better for us.

Okay. On May 26th is when I learned that the Port-A-Pies would be installed. And so I wrote an article hoping to do a letter to the editor for the local newspaper. And I just wanted to read. They didn't print that, obviously. They did a different story off of it. But here's what I wrote to the editor. I said, too often public forums are filled with grievances. Today I want to give a massive shout out and thank you, to the Portsmouth Town Council, Keith, David, Sondra, Mary, Charlene, Juan, Carlos, and David, and the Town Administrator, Rich Renier. You guys showed up for us, and we very much deeply appreciate that. We also wanted to thank Wendy and Ellen from Parks and Rec. I'm guessing they're the ones that made it happen. Yeah, I heard that Wendy and her husband show up on weekends to clean the parks with kids vomiting in places that need to be cleaned up. I know her husband's not in a city employee, but they've showed up on weekends. So really, we're just grateful for all of you. To me, what this says about you guys is that you are genuinely accessible, that you're open, very responsive, empathetic, and that you encourage civic engagement. So truly, I cannot tell you how much it's meant to us. Thank you very, very much.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. So that concludes our public comment for the evening. Next up would be our consent agenda. Do I have a motion to approve as presented?

So moved.

Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes seven to zero. Next, we'll be sitting as our Board of Licensed Commissioners. We have five new peddlers license is. First up, we have Pedro J. Gutierrez doing business as?

Antojitos.

Thank you. ECOMEO is incorporated at 21 Lexington Avenue, Cranston. We have JM Echelon, LLC, doing business as Kona Ice Cream, excuse me, Kona Ice, East Providence, 691 Main Road in Warren. Sorbet Frozen Treats, LLC, of 1353 Purchase Street in New Bedford. Off the Road Barbecue, LLC, doing business as Off the Road Barbecue at 26 Kirkray Drive in Lincoln. and Turner Brothers LLC in doing business as Turner Brothers LLC, 16 Madison Way in Pawtucket.

Motion to approve the five peddlers license.

Second. Second. That I got. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes seven to zero. I didn't get a C out of you. Motion to adjourn as a board of licensed commissioners. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes seven to zero. We have minutes from our 526 meeting and the executive. There are any corrections or changes? Missed it out?

I would just like to ask that if the minutes could reflect that I did not recuse myself from a particular item on the agenda and I, in fact, didn't vote with the majority on the on that variance item. I just like that to be reflected. Thank you.

Ms. McDowell, just say which number it is.

I don't have the number, but it's on the variance for Maplewood Farms.

So, number three.

Motion to approve the minutes with the one change.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 7-2-0. Next up, we have our Town Administrator's Report. Mr. Rayner, good evening.

Good evening, Mr. President, Town Council, ladies and gentlemen. This morning, I attended Raytheon's groundbreaking for a new radar test range at their Portsmouth facility. Raytheon, as everybody knows, has been an important member of our business community for many years, and projects like this help support good jobs and strengthen our local economy. I want to congratulate Raytheon on this milestone and sincerely thank them for their continued investment in Portsmouth. Our fire department has been selected to receive a South Coast Health EMS support grant award of $15,000, which will be used for the purchase of a portable ventilator. Ventilators are a critical piece of equipment for patients who have to be intubated while under paramedic level of care. The police department will hold its youth leadership camp at Portsmouth High School over two sessions occurring July 20th through 24th and July 27th through 31st. There are still open slots for the first session and the department will continue to accept registration until that camp is filled. The Rhode Island Attorney General's 28th Annual Open Government Summit was held on June 4th and provided training on the Access to Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Act. The program was offered both in person and virtually and will be made available online for those who are unable to attend. Our town clerk is asking that completed validation forms be submitted to her office no later than September 30th. If anyone has any questions regarding the training or reporting requirements, please contact the town clerk. The public hearing on the provisionally approved fiscal year 27 budget will be held here in the council chamber this Wednesday starting at 7 p.m. It seems like we just finished this, but work has already begun on the next audit of the town's financial operations. Auditors will be on site June 22nd through June 26th to review our internal financial controls. There are two upcoming recycling events. A hard plastic collection will be collected at the Portsmouth Transfer Station on June 13th from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m., and this event is for Portsmouth residents only. There will also be an electronic waste collection event on July 18th from 9 to 12 at the Portsmouth High School, and this event is open to all Rhode Island residents. There will be a truck station at Prudence Island Transfer Station one week before the event to collect and transport the e-waste to the high school. Town Hall will be closed Friday, June 19th, in observance of the Juneteenth holiday. The transfer station will be closed that day, and curbside pickups for that Friday will be conducted the following day, Saturday the 20th. And as a reminder, the Atlantic hurricane season officially began on June 1st, and that runs through November 30th. So now is a good time for everyone to review their emergency plans, check emergency supplies, and make sure you're prepared that should a storm threaten our area. The Town's Hurricane Preparedness Guide is available on the Emergency Management section of our website, and hard copies are available throughout Town Hall for anyone who would like. Additionally, there will be a car show benefiting the Portsmouth High School Music Department this coming Saturday. The event will be held at the middle school from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. It will include music, food, food trucks, and vendors. Mr. President, that concludes my report.

I have one quick question. Has any progress been made on the financial investment presentations as directed?

Sure. So I've reached out to all three that you had asked for. I am coordinating with them. I'm looking at possibly anticipating the July 27th meeting.

I just was wondering if there was any update with following up with Maplewood as far as their sign with Leah.

There's a notice of violation. Leah can speak to this, but I believe it will now be in the hands of the town prosecutor and municipal court judge, if no action is taken.

Okay, thank you.

Any further questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Rainer. Moving on to old business, we have a request for approval of the curbside contract amendment for fiscal year 2027 and beyond, depending on which option is taken. Mr. Rainer, you want to roll us through the options here? Sure.

As outlined in the memorandum included in the packet, I was directed by the council to explore whether modifications to the existing curbside contract could be negotiated that would reduce costs to participants while maintaining the current level of service. Those discussions occurred over the last several weeks and resulted in the proposed amendment attached to the agenda materials. Following additional council discussion, I was directed to continue discussions with MEGA to determine whether additional flexibility existed regarding the extension term and the associated pricing structure. Those discussions have now concluded. MEGA has confirmed that the concessions reflected in the amendment remain contingent upon the execution of the amendments proposed. As a result, the council now has four options before it. Option one, maintain the current contract structure and recover the entire deficit in fiscal year 27. That subscriber fee would be $604. Option two, maintain the current contract structure and spread the recovery of the deficit over fiscal year 27 and 28. That subscriber fee would be $569. Option three would adopt the proposed amendment and recover the deficit in fiscal year 27. That subscriber fee would be $555. And then option four would adopt the proposed amendment and spread the recovery of the deficit over fiscal year 27 and fiscal year 28. That subscriber fee would be $520. So the proposed amendment includes several negotiated concessions, including elimination of the fiscal year 27 consumer price index increase, a reduction in the annual cart financing costs, the incorporation of private road service costs into the base contract rate, which eliminates the cost of the associated small truck from the budget, Reduction of the participation threshold and reduction of the contractors cure period for missed collections and complaints and other violations of the contract The amendment also provides pricing certainty through June 30th 2033 So I believe negotiations have been exhausted and that the amendment for the council represents the contractors final position Thank You mr. Rainer

One question just popped into my head, I'll ask, I guess maybe Kayla, I don't know which one of you can do the numbers real quick. If we do nothing and it's 604, we don't really know if the deficit is cleaned out, the $250,000 deficit, and everything else stays status quo. Do you have approximation of what the skid curve fee would be this time next year, going into 2028?

give you a couple minutes we'll we'll have any other questions counselors just blank your lights on but okay okay miss mcdowell so just a a couple questions that that i've had to field um and i want to make sure that the answers are the correct ones is um We went into these negotiations and I believe in good faith and it was requested of us because of the working relationship with our company that Mr. Raina go in and negotiate some of the things that we had talked about. And one of the questions, these negotiations were done via phone or in office or via Zoom or what? How did they take place?

Over the phone.

Over the phone. And was our trash people's attorney present for their negotiations? And it was two conversations, I believe?

There's been a number of conversations, but the conversations, unless somebody else was in the room on the other end, it was just between me and the district manager.

Okay, thanks. And I just wanna make a couple comments before we get into any vote on this. I certainly appreciate the efforts on both parts to try to negotiate a fee that is more reasonable for the citizens of Portsmouth. I KNOW IN LOOKING OVER THIS CONTRACT THOROUGHLY THAT THE CONTRACT WAS BASED ON 4,000 PARTICIPATION RATE WITH AN ADDITIONAL 500 PER HOUSE WITH AN ADDITIONAL 500 AND THE ADDITIONAL PER HOUSEHOLD COST WOULD APPLY. WE HAVE FALLEN SHORT BY APPROXIMATELY 1200 HOUSEHOLDS YET THE CONTRACT WAS BASED ON SERVICING 4500 RESIDENTS BEFORE IT TRIGGERED AN ADDITIONAL COST. And I just want to note that, again, I want people to understand why, whatever my vote is, that the company, I know they based it on our figures. I get that. Unfortunately, we... You know, the figures didn't come into fruition. So the company has, in effect, has been reaping the benefits of not serving those 1,200 residents, yet basically charging us for them. The work isn't being done. It's a reduced workload from the contract, reduced trucks, et cetera, et cetera. Anything else that goes with not servicing 1,200 people. And so that's an important consideration that I have when making decisions as we will be asked to do tonight. I've also feel that that there have been several complaints and I'm just very concerned that we make sure going forward, whatever the case may be, that both the town, and again, I don't know who residents call. I know originally in the contract, it was one number that there was gonna call, but we extended it to either or, the town or the company itself. And I would just ask that going forward, that we have a complete official complaint data spreadsheet that lists the name, the address, the date of the complaint, the type of the complaint, the resolution and the date of resolution going forward. So no matter who takes the complaint, that we have an official record that indicates that and we can refer to going forward. And I got the impression in our meetings that we don't have that official database. Now, again, that could be a wrong idea on my part, but I think going forward, that's what we have to do. The condition of the trucks has been a concern. The labeling of the trucks or not labeling, which was supposed to happen, is not being adhered to like it should be. So I think going forward, whatever the case may be, we have to make sure that these things are in place in order to make sure the operation is smooth and the residents of Portsmouth are satisfied with their trash pickup. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McDonald. I didn't know if you were raising your hands or not. Okay. Mr. Payne.

Thank you, Mr. President. Rich, maybe you can answer this question. Kayla, feel free to chime in. When we're talking about the, if we were to go with options two or three, I mean, three or four, if we were to do, if they eliminate the CPI adjustments, would our next year's, so fiscal year 28 CPI adjustment be based on that updated subscriber fee?

Yeah, that's The subscriber fee has nothing to do with whatever the eliminated. So the operations costs would drop by a third of a percent. The 4.7% anticipated increase this year, both of those would be eliminated. So the CPI for fiscal year 28 would be applied to the reduced operating costs that would go into effect if option three or four would be put into effect now.

And to your point about, and extending the contract and having some stability between now and 2023, would there be any... What's up? 33, I'm sorry. I don't have coffee in this meeting. It's a bad problem. And having contract stability between now and 2033, would there be any long, are there any other projected savings in additional contract years, not past 33, but I mean between now and the end of it, that would sustain a more moderate increase of the rate?

I think there's two big savings that regardless are going to be realized. One, the elimination of the deficit, because as we say for a number of times now that we now have a very accurate database of who's in the program, who's not, and what that anticipated increase is gonna be. So we are seeing an increasing number of people signing up, so that will reduce the sticker price overall, and then the elimination of the deficit. So those two factors will reduce the growth in any sticker prices in the out years after fiscal year 27.

And you and I have had this conversation, but for the public's sake, if we were to go with the 520, considering what the current rate is for the transfer station and what average utilization is for pay-as-you-throw bags, would now the, if we were to go with option four, would that make the total price approximately equal regardless of which option you go for for trash disposal?

Yes, it does. If you just use the logic, about $325, I think, is what the transfer station is. So, you know, if a household, let's just say they're using two bags a week, that comes out to about $200 a year. So you're looking at about $525, $525, depending on your usage. So it makes both programs pretty comparable. But the nuance there is obviously there's more that you can do in the transfer station. So it's easier to get rid of bulky waste, C&D, as much yard waste as you want, so on and so forth.

But those of us that have used curbside for a number of years already factor in that bulky items into something that we want to do and we'll calculate so forth. I think that's safe to say, yes. And for argument's sakes, do we have any new proliferation of disposal companies that are coming to save us? Because I could say from the at least decade that I've been doing it here in town, we went from seven companies to five companies. They're not only having three companies in town. Do we see or any other municipalities contracted with any other companies? No. Thank you. uh i would say long term option four is probably the most advantageous for our residents um i think that yes people are going to complain but for those of us that do do curbside most of us are not going to change. And the 520 is still significant cost savings for those of us that do do it. And going out of this or going back to 604, yes, it's still a savings, but if we could find the savings for our residents that allows for sustainability and budgeting also on top of that, We need to, I would strongly advise on option four. We went to the table and we asked for these concessions. The only thing we have to give up as a municipality is time. And that is the one thing that they are asking for us to do. They are not a municipal service. They are still a for-profit company. And the fact that they came back to us and said, hey, we want to do business with this town, and this is what we're willing to negotiate, and they have long-term budgetary benefits for us, I think it just makes complete sense for us to go with option four. And I would oblige my colleagues to vote in favor of that.

Thank you, Mr. Perot. How'd you make Al Kaler?

So we're looking at a range of, say, 560, 570. Okay.

That's with the 250 deficit taken out.

Correct. Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

If we went with options three or four, I'm just looking for clarification where we have some assistance for those who can't get their barrels down to the end of their driveway. I just want clarification. Is that still in with options three and four?

Correct.

Thank you.

I was just looking for clarification on what you asked Kayla for.

I asked Kayla if we do nothing and charge the 604, and that would remove the deficit next year. So that money is out, that $250,000 is out, and everything else being equal, the sticker fee would be somewhere around $560,000, $570,000 next year. Assuming no further deficit this year.

Sure. I think I can... guess that most people would like to shave the price down from 604 with some of these options. I do not like the comparison between the transfer station and the curbside because it's always going to be the threat that, well, we should just close the transfer station down because everything's equal. But one of the things that I think Portsmouth can be proud of is presenting the options for people that have a choice of both. um albeit we are forced to go with the second choice the curbside because that happened you know because of the previous council that enacted that uh ordinance to make people go around uh whatever they want whatever their choices were um i i for one don't envy Mr. Rainer's position on this. I appreciate the work he put in this, but even beyond that, he has to field all the complaints for... this particular trash haul that we have now. And I would suspect it would be for other trash haulers because they all have the same similar problems. Most of these trucks have hydraulic leaks somewhere. Some, some of them maintain their trucks better than others, but you can see if you're a dog walker, you can tell where the truck has stopped, where they picked up a barrel. If there's a problem with that particular vehicle and all you can do is call it in and all he can do is call it and say, can you fix your truck? Whether that gets done in a timely fashion, I don't follow those details. I do see, as Mrs. McDowell mentioned, that there is lack of identification on the vehicles, and there is not a phone number on there that's part of the contract. And those, we keep saying we're gonna fix that, but those have not been addressed either. The constituents that have contacted me have said they would prefer to have a different vendor pick up their trash. Now, is that vendor going to be more money? At this point, we can't go with a different vendor because we're locked in, and I would hate to lock in for an additional period of time myself to get to the next step. It's been said there are less and less contractors, and I agree with that. When this bid went out, there were three bids, and there's at least one additional contractor that could do this work but probably chooses not to do work here in Portsmouth, in my personal opinion. The way it's set up right now, I think the best options, in my opinion, are just to take advantage of the amortization, if you will, of the deficit over the two-year period and bring down the price that way. Just going from 604 down to 569 would still be a great price for our people and it wouldn't lock us in for any length of time. Personally, I think the small truck should have been included as part of the bid. It's been explained to us that it was negotiated after. although the contract says the vendor will pick up the trash and recyclables from every vendor that signs, every household that signs up with our trash contractor, but yet we are at the point where we're paying for an extra vehicle, which would go away with the options three and four, but personally, I think it should go away with options one and two as well. So a couple of comments from me. Thank you, Mr. Gleason. Ms. Patton?

Sure. Thank you. So I also seen a lot of comments from residents online about the extension on the contract, that they're not in favor for that as well. I just want to clarify to what Ms. Blank said. Options three and four about the truck operating for the side roads, does that mean that option one and two, they wouldn't have?

No, her question was based on there's 75, door side pickups within the contract. Meaning if an elderly person can't bring their bin down to the road, that's still in there. That's in all four of them.

All four of them. Okay.

All right. Thank you. But the truck is still in one and two.

Right. Okay.

Thank you. Correct. Your question was at the 75.

Okay. Yes. Thank you for that. And as far as the transfer station, I agree, you know, keeping it what it's been, you know, they didn't ask for all these changes and for hours to, you know, close. Is that separate?

There's nothing on this, but there's nothing on this docket about the transfer station.

All right, I'll stop there.

Yeah, thank you. Mr. President, if I could just add two things I forgot about. Sure. The service that has been set up for taking care of people that can't wheel their barrel down, I think is an excellent thing that we offer our citizens. But from what I understand, there aren't that many people that take advantage of it. So just let this be a public service announcement that there are other people. If you're in that situation, you have that disability, problems getting your container down, there's still open slots to do that. The other thing I also want to mention is however we go forward with the, you know, we're going to go forward tonight with the curbside, but I've said it before, I just want to say it again. It was originally conceived to have the orange page to throw bags. From my understanding, the Amiga trucks have cameras. They're able to witness the orange bags being used or not being used, etc., But if the recycling rate doesn't come up for this service, and I'm lucky enough to sit on this council again next year, I will be bringing that up again that we consider going to pay as you throw, which would make it fair and equitable with what the people at the transfer station are doing now, which raises the recycling rate and keeps the tipping rate down. Thank you.

Mr. Gleeson? If I can, Mr. President. I just want to clarify something that was asserted. Those of us that are saying things are equal, we're just saying not that we want to close the transfer station, just that things are present in the town. If we can make them as equal as possible, I have no intention of ever closing the transportation if it's something that we need to do. When it comes to a contract amendment, yes, Mr. Gleason, I kind of find it a little hilarious that... You want to talk about not approving the contract extension when you proposed, when the amendments were proposed to the contract, you were a member of this council, unless you want to conveniently forget about that. And at the same time, with the three contractors that we do have in this state that do do business, after the malarkey that has happened in this town over the last year and a half, who's going to want to do business with Portsmouth?

Mr. Cassin.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Paul Kessin, 3241 East Main Road. Did I understand that the deficit currently is $250,000?

That's what these numbers are based off of, yes. Okay. For the fiscal year 2020.

Where would that money come from to pay that deficit?

It gets carried forward into the following years. Two of the options have it being paid for all in one year, which is option one. Option two and four... Two and four? No, two and three. Two and four. Two and four. Thank you. Carry that deficit over two years, so split it 125 for each year.

And what is the current, what is going to be the new participation rate that's expected?

3,000, depending on the contract negotiation. 3,000 people? No, that's unexpected because it's an experience? Well, we're at 3,265. What's the last number? 30-ish? Yeah. Right now.

I'm looking at 604 and we ended up $250,000 in a deficit. I don't know what's operating expenses and what's tipping fees at this point. It was never discussed in the ad hoc committee and none of these options were ever brought up. 3,000 sounds like a reasonable number, but If 400 people move to the transfer station, and I know transfer's not on this agenda, you're gonna run another deficit. And what we learned as this came forward at the end of the year, the annual report, that there was a mistake made in the bookkeeping or there was an error made such that we ended up with an $86,000 deficit at the transfer station because it was added on.

There wasn't a mistake made. It was just the fact that we changed fiscal years from calendar years to fiscal years. And due to the auditing process, it was picked up at a later date. And again, it needs to be corrected and it will not come forward again because we'll have better fiscal numbers at the end of each year.

So did the council, I've been vacant for a while. Did the council adopt, um, Financial reporting, like it does in the police department, says the chief gets this in a month. Deputy chief gets an expense against his cost. Electricity is divided by 12. Water is divided by 12. Heat is divided by 12. Did we get that in the reporting for the three enterprise funds as a change to our reporting system such that we can tell What's going on?

Because that came as a recommendation out of the ad hoc. We can tell what's coming and going and where the deficit might be. It was because of the calendar versus fiscal year. If there is a deficit.

But that's not what happened in the curbside. That was just a lack of participation, correct? Correct. I would ask that the council do option number one. Get the hard numbers and find out where it goes. Just pushing off a deficit and extending a contract that if 300 people leave more than what we've got leaving already, coming down 200, you're going to run another deficit. Make the hard numbers, make the hard decision, then negotiate the contract from firm numbers forward. That would be my recommendation for the council to consider here tonight. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Kessin.

Good evening. Yes, come on up. Just if you could pull the microphone down, you're slightly as tall as Kessin. I know.

Thank you.

And if you just have your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you. My name is Nancy Arrutaneri, and I live on 132 Greenfield Avenue, and I'd like to make some positive comments. I've been a full-time Portsmouth resident since 1980, and I've always been a working mother, retired now, but five children. I never had the opportunity to use the transfer station because of my schedule. There was just no way I could do that. So I have been paying for curbside trash service for decades and I must say I have three points to make Given the several trash recycling companies I've used in the past Myself over the years actually decades this year was the least expensive for me. It was definitely the least expensive for me There are I was paying probably over $600 a year for a curbside pickup going back more than, say, three years ago. And I have that in my tax receipts. So this was really quite cost-effective for me. I would like to say also that I live in a neighborhood that has a lot of children, dogs. It's rather congested. There's a lot of houses, little lots. One day a week, the truck comes through or the trucks come through for mega. Prior to that, there were four providers that came through almost every single day. That's a lot of large vehicles in a small area. It wasn't a problem because the trash pickup was happening. But once you realized it's one day, one company, it was like, an awakening. So that was a real positive aspect as well. Also, the service has been very predictable and very responsive. I've called DPW early on when I had a question or if there was an issue. I always know if there's a delay and why there is a delay. So the responsiveness has been very positive in the service itself and very consistent. The last one is that yard waste. A lot of us do our own gardening. We don't have landscapers or we do our own lawn care. It's very, very easy to secure that yard waste pickup. There's a calendar. It's printed. It has colors. You know what week to put it out and what not to put it out. So I used to have to make a phone call and make an appointment. And sometimes I could get through. Sometimes I could not get through. Other times I'd make the appointment and no one would come. And I'm really easy, so you put it back in the shed and that's it. But I have to say I've had positive results. There's probably at least, I'd say nine families on my street alone that use the service and they have it out there every one particular day. I'm thrilled that we have the transfer station because there are many of my friends that use and utilize it and they love it. But I think given the lay of the land, that everything is so much more expensive for all of us now, costs are higher, diesel, gas, any service we have is higher. I would say that considering I paid $600 years ago, that any of the options are appealing. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Any other comments, questions? Nothing online, right? Okay. What is the council's pleasure? We have four options. We can leave it as is, as we discussed back in March at 6.04, eat the entire deficit over the one year, have no contract negotiations, leave the truck in, eat the CPI adjustment that is in this year or will be in for next year. Option two, no contract extension. We split the deficit over two years, which drops it down to 5.69. Again, no contract extension and or... negotiated savings. Option three, we execute the contract extension and the concessions that were negotiated by Mr. Rayner through MEGA, and we eat the deficit over one year. And option four, we do the same, take the contract in negotiations, but we eat the deficit over two years. My personal opinion is that people are hurting right now. Gasoline is so darn expensive that we should do anything we can as a council to save people money. And if that's the 520, three more years on a trash contract is going to go by in a blink of an eye. I think we have a responsibility to try and save our citizens as much money as possible. It will also potentially lessen whatever exodus, even though we heard there was gonna be a huge exodus because of this contract, the reality is transfer station numbers went down last year, from last year to this year. So there is a good chance that more people sign up if we keep it at the 520 and then there is a better understanding of what the costs are gonna be across certain going forward.

Mr. President, I echo your statements, and I would move to execute option four.

Is there a second?

Second for discussion. Explain. Question, and just to provide clarification, so with options three and four, it would be a total of a three-year contract?

It would be an extension of three years. The current contract would end in the end of fiscal year 2030. I have to make sure I get those right, which would actually be technically in 2031. Correct? So across the board, options... It would be June 30th, 2030. So options one and two would end June 30th of 2030. Correct. And options three and four would end June 30th of 2033.

Correct then.

Ms. Bedell? Yep. I don't know. We were told that MEGA would be here. And so I guess my question is, having heard some of the discussion tonight about various aspects of the contract, would you like to speak to any of them and maybe address any of them and Thanks.

Certainly. Dave Workman, I'm the district manager for Miga Disposal. First and foremost, the town logo magnet on the side of the trucks, I'm sorry. It's the simplest thing in the world. We should have been able to figure that one out. I've got new ones that actually came in this afternoon. The problem we kept running into is it's a two-foot by two-foot magnet. It comes off. When we wash the trucks, it gets washed off. When we drive down the road, it comes off. So we're doing a little bit smaller ones, and I'm hoping we'll stay on the truck a little bit better. If that doesn't work, I already have plan B, or it would be plan C at this point, but we're going to get the logo to stay on the trucks. It shouldn't take a year to figure that one out, so I'm very sorry about that.

Can I just stop you there? Yes. Aren't those trucks dedicated to Portsmouth? Or do you use them in other, they seem like they're tied up every day here in town, so would you use them somewhere else?

Right, so I've got a fleet of 104 trucks. I normally will try and run the same trucks in the town of Portsmouth, but as you guys saw last week, we had a truck breakdown, so we had to put a different truck out in town so that we could keep service on schedule.

Can I just suggest that you get like a placard that fits into a frame? As opposed to a magnet? Do whatever you want. I appreciate you working on the problem and just making a suggestion.

The problem with that is I would have to put placards on all 100 of my trucks at that point. If we have to get to plan D, we'll call that plan D and we'll put metal brackets on the truck. We'll fix that.

The magnets that you were talking about, do they currently have the phone number that our residents call on it? Or does it just say town of Portland?

It's just got the town seal on it right now.

Am I correct in remembering that the phone number is supposed to be on the trucks as well?

Some of my trucks have the phone number. Some of them don't. I can certainly, we can get the phone number onto that magnet. Slowly, as I replace trucks with my fleet, I'm getting the phone number on all the trucks, but I can't go repaint all the trucks either. But we'll make sure that I got to look at what the new magnets look like. I'm hoping I can stencil it onto the bottom of the magnet.

Okay, thank you.

Ms. McDowell?

I don't know whether you're done with what you wanted to talk about.

I can multitask. No, I'm all good. I got phone number on magnets, so we're set.

Okay. I remember back when all this discussion was happening and there was a back and forth on this RFP. And you were going to purchase a truck specifically for Portsmouth. Did you ever purchase a brand new truck specifically for Portsmouth?

Yeah, we purchased that small truck.

No, I'm talking about the regular truck.

We purchased two more trucks because we added routes, so I had to go out and buy more trucks for the town.

So we do have new trucks operating in Portsmouth? Yes.

So I purchased trucks for my fleet. My fleet needs went up by the number of trucks that run in Portsmouth. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to run in Portsmouth.

Okay. So, all right. All right. I was under the impression that in the RFP, I know I asked it a couple of times and I asked it of lawyers that, you know, one of the reasons not to get out is because you had already ordered a brand new truck, not the small truck for Portsmouth. But that's.

That's correct. I purchased two new trucks because I needed two more trucks. In your fleet? Yes, which supports your town.

So we have two new trucks operating in Portsmouth. That's not what I said. For pickup. No. Clarify it for me.

In order to service Portsmouth, in order to service all of his customers, he has.

Oh, okay. So that doesn't necessarily mean we get the new truck. Correct. Got it.

Some weeks we might, some weeks we might not.

Okay.

Is I think what you're saying. Correct. Okay. We would prefer it every week. That's what she's saying. Yes. Agreed.

Well, it was a big selling point. If you remember, you know, or not a selling point, it was a big bone of contention because we can't get, couldn't get out of the RFP because they were purchasing a brand new truck for a operation in Portsmouth. It didn't say to add to their fleet. I remember that specifically. So that's why I'm asking the question. And given the whole discussion tonight, is there any way we can work with this whole small truck situation?

So that is what's spelled out in options three and four. No, I know.

Is there any other way? Like... can you pick up these people without us having to bear the cost of the truck, given that you have a contract that was based on X amount of people, which you don't have to service because we don't have the numbers. So I guess I need to ask the question to you, I'm sure it's been asked in negotiations, given the fact that you are not servicing the amount of people you thought you'd be servicing, isn't there any concession for this small truck?

So that'll go back to the original discussion I had with the town, and I'm happy to pick them up at the nearest public roadway, but I can't safely service them in a full-size truck at their residence. And then to answer, yes, I am not servicing 4,000 customers. There is some savings there, but... With the number of customers that have signed up, I still have to drive down almost every street. And so the savings isn't as large as you would think it would be because I don't have those customers. I'm still driving down every street. It's just a little bit less dense with what we're picking up.

So I'll give you my concern. I think it's been placed forward before. I've asked Mr. Rainer to at least forward it on to you based on majority of complaints by a minority of consumers you have over the past year lived down to your previous reputation unfortunately by missing pickups I mean one week you missed an entire neighborhood that wasn't good I would ask you all to do a lot better coming forward in the next year I know trucks are expensive. I know they're hard to maintain. I watched your poor repair guy try and change a tire at the top of our hill a few weeks ago. I thought he was going to have a heart attack. He was beating the living daylights out of that tire trying to get it off to get the new one on. I'm just asking as a plea to our residents, please do better. That's all. I can do that. Thank you.

And I think just to follow up on what Mr. Hamilton has said, I DON'T GO ON SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT IT'S BEEN REPORTED TO ME THAT THERE'S BEEN AN ONSLAW OF COMMENTS ABOUT THIS MOST RECENTLY ON SOCIAL MEDIA. AND THE COMMENTS ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE DO NOT, PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE THREE-YEAR EXTENSION ON MEGA. When Mr. Reyna went into these negotiations, I think in the first meeting where it wasn't the actual meeting where negotiations came to be, but came back and talked about an extension, and I can't be in favor of an extension. I want to save our citizens money, 569 is certainly saving them money, but given the comments and the I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW IN YOUR MIND THERE'S BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF FLEXIBILITY THAT YOU'VE SHOWN IN THESE THREE, OPTION THREE AND FOUR. BUT IN MY MIND, I JUST FEEL THERE COULD BE MORE FLEXIBILITY GIVEN THAT THE CONTRACT AND RFP THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND AGREED UPON, YOU'RE SERVICING MUCH LESS. I just feel that the concessions, especially in the area of this damn small truck could happen, but I guess not. Thanks.

And I do attend social media. Don't comment a lot, but I do look at it and talk to a lot of people around town. And I apologize, I can't remember what your last name was, but her comments are right in line with a lot of people in town. They were paying six, seven, eight, $900. So this contract is a savings for them. I would like to see it to be the biggest savings we could get them, which is why I'm in favor of 520. We're at 460 this year. Even just the normal 5%-ish CPI would bring us to about 510. So we're at a point, even though there is a three-year extension on there, when we get to If we don't take the three year extension in 2028 or nine, we're going to have to go out to bid, to do the contract, to do a new contract. That could be much more. It could be less, but I doubt it would be less. Um, it might be less because we have a history and they know exactly what they're getting into, especially on the mega side. They might say, all right, we know exactly what we're getting into where a competitor doesn't, but The vocal minority doesn't speak for the silent majority who are saving a lot of money. And those who want to go back and say, all right, end of five years, pound, get out of contract, let me go pick my own thing, you're going to be at $900 to $1,000. That's just what the going rate is. So I think we do, again, I think we owe it to our residents to find them the cheapest rate that we can, which is the 520. There is a motion on the floor and a second. Ms. Blank?

Yes. Certainly in favor of finding a way to save for our residents and on first take looking to find the most reasonable cost option seems absolutely to be the path forward. Where I have heard people concerned about tagging on three more years is where there is some concern for me. But I think across the board, we all agree cost savings to the citizens is important.

Thank you. Any other further comments or questions done online? Motion and a second to accept option four, which is to execute a contract extension through June 2033, not 2023, with a contract to negotiate settlements, concessions that are in there, no CPI adjustment for this coming fiscal year, and elimination of the deficit over a course of two years, which would be $125,000 each year. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

Motion fails three to four with Ms. Blank, Mr. Perriero and Mr. Hamilton in the positive and Mr. Gleeson and Ms. McDowell, Ms. Patton and Mr. Reese in the negative.

Motion to approve option two. and just uh well if anybody wants a second for comment i'll second proof discussion thank you um again we came into this uh with 604 and um we brought it down 35 but we've we've avoided the three-year extension there would have been a additional savings of about fifty dollars roughly Technically $60, I guess. No, $50 is right. $50, okay. I think even taking this position, I think people are getting a great deal on the curbside price. And if they choose that option, I think that's great. Again, like I say, I think it's good that we have both options. They're getting an affordable price. This doesn't lock us in. I'll say it in front of the folks from MIGA. I was the person that put Mr. Rayner through the headache of asking for a shorter extension. If you had agreed to that, I would have been a little bit more flexible. But three years, I just, you didn't bend at all. And I think we're protecting our people in another respect. So that's just my viewpoint.

Any other comments? Ms. Vidal?

Yeah, I do think though that no matter what this vote is, that I think that we have as a town to seriously come up with plans starting now to try to look at putting this over time into the tax base. I think that's what people want. And I think that we should be coming up with viable options or options ways in which we could do that and not wait till we're under the gun or wait till the contract is up. But I think we should do that now. We should start working on that now. Thank you.

I have to make a point. First and foremost, again, I'm going to make the point that we asked for these changes to be able to bring down the cost. The only thing we had to give this company was time and the contract extension was there. They did not. Thank you. Did you get it? Sorry, we've had a fly that's been bothering us the entire time. Thank you. I appreciate it. And the only thing we as a town had was to give them time. It was the only negotiating tool we have to go into a negotiation thinking that we are going to get something for nothing is just completely like my children understand that. And secondly, we put ourselves under the gun to do this. I would love to do the tax base. You and I agree with it wholeheartedly on that. But we're the ones who put ourselves in this situation and asking for it when a contract is already being executed that clearly delineates how rates go up year by year. We're the ones who asked for this. And they came back and told us, hey, we'll do this, that, and the other, but we want this in return. So I'm not sure how I'm going to go on any of this, but to say that we are not getting a fair deal, we have a deal. It's called a contract. We're the ones that want something better.

Any other comments? Just like this.

I think option two is reasonable with bringing down the cost from that 604. I think that helps our residents. And then without tying in the three additional years, which is what we had heard. Okay.

Anyone else? Motion on the table is to accept option two, which is no contract amendments or extensions and putting the deficit over two years, which would be 125 over the two years, as opposed to 250 all at once. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay. Motion passes five to two with Mr. Payero and Mr. Hamilton in the negative. You can do the rest of the math for me, right, Madam Clerk? Thank you. All right. Now we're on to old business number two, which is a, actually, I will say this now on behalf of Mr. Rayner and Mr. Heflin, who is going to have to deal with this tomorrow. Sticker sales for both Transfer Station and Curbside will go on sale tomorrow or Wednesday.

Yeah, we'll ask you to be patient. Now that we know the numbers, we have to do all the programming and make sure that the online system is viable and up and running. So just please be patient, but it will be within the next two days.

Okay. But if somebody wants to come in and give a check, is that okay? We'll take anybody's check.

Okay.

Shouldn't we wait until we get to new business number five before you?

No. All right. All business number two requests approval to realize resolution requests in the state of general assembly to exempt portion from sales tax. Um, Ms. Patton for our beach stickers, uh, I'll reiterate this again. Last year, the city of Providence put forth a resolution or a request for a law change that would allow them to collect sales tax on parking fees. And those sales tax numbers would be collected by the state, but returned to each municipality that collected them initially. The General Assembly decided that was a great idea, except we're not giving you the money back. So what Ms. Patton has put forward and other communities have put forward is exempt us from this. I will caution you that they like their money. So I don't think we'll get our money back. But we're going to get the resolution passed.

Thank you. If I could just make a procedural thing. I'm all in favor, so this is not a criticism on this. The General Assembly does adjourn on Friday or it will recess on Friday. We should probably make it a practice for this council that we should try to get them in before June 1st or something like that.

Yeah, well, this is...

It's just a scheduled thing, but...

This is more of a thing that they did back in November in last year's budget. They passed it, but they didn't really say until later on that they were going to keep the money.

Yeah. I just don't want like resolutions to end up in the general assembly.

I agree with you. So next year, this will be on the list of resolutions for next year. And the general assembly that folks that I have spoken to have asked us to try and get this around because the more municipalities that ask the better chance there is, but. Again, they're getting whatever the millions of dollars they're getting from parking fees on 7%. Now there's... Anyway. Is there a motion to approve the resolution?

So moved. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, Ms. Patton, for bringing that forward. All right. Option. Oh, option. Old business, too. Great. All right. I'm going home. It's been a long weekend. All right. Old business number three, review and update the existing MOU with the Prudence Island School Foundation to reflect present day circumstances. Ms. McDowell, this is a continuation from our last meeting and we have our, we have the backup and invoices now.

Yep. Thank you. Um, I want to thank Kathy for providing the additional requested information. I think all of us appreciate it. I want to begin the discussion, however, by reiterating again, before I discuss this agenda item, I have said it several times, this is not a criticism of the work of the Portsmouth of the Prudence Island School Foundation organization or is it a shot at them. Their work is important, their dedication and contributions to the quality of life on the island is appreciated and I want us to continue to work with them. Unfortunately, though, I am a detailed person, and when I have MOUs for the town that we are following that is obsolete and no longer applicable in its present state, I want us to update it or suspend it. Yes, I am all for helping the foundation to maintain this building so that when and if it is needed to educate our students on Prudence Island, that building is able to do so. We have been doing just that for the last several years by granting them 50,000 plus a year without really asking any questions as to what and how this money is being spent. That is not good oversight on our part, I believe. For instance, of the $50,000 that Civic Support gave last year, it appears, and again, I'm hoping you're on here, Kathy, and you can clarify anything that I say if it's incorrect. Of the 50,000 that Civic Support gave last year, it appears that the Prudence Island School Foundation used $23,041, leaving approximately $26,000 of those funds. They are estimating approximately $43,000 for expenses this year. I suggest that, and again, we're looking, this will be budget night, but it's all part of this discussion tonight. I suggest that we give the Prudence Island Foundation for Civic Support $25,000 in this proposed budget and see where things stand in the actual costs of the proposed work. The excess of this year and the $25,000 in civic support for the upcoming budget should cover the proposed work for 2027. Going forward, however, I suggest that we officially dissolve the MOU as the school department basically did back, I think, in 2019, and deal with the foundation through civic support each year. i would also suggest that going forward we request a listing and official invoices of work done during the year and their proposed request through civic support must include official estimates of proposed work for the year I think this type of accountability is important for all parties. It holds the foundation accountable to us and we accountable to our constituents, a win-win for all of us. So tonight I would be looking, I want to present a motion to dissolve the MOU and revisit a new MOU if and when the island houses students again. And I would like to also propose a motion to request from the Prudence Island Schoolhouse Foundation to provide all official documentation in their civic support requests going forward, including but not limited to invoices for work done in the previous year, official estimates of work to be done in the upcoming budget year related to building maintenance. And again, I wholeheartedly respect and thank you for the work you're doing in keeping that building going. And I want you to know that any of this is no reflection on putting you into civic responsibility request and taking the MOU off is no reflection of the work that you do. Thank you.

Okay, so we'll start. Kathy, do you want to respond to any of that? There we go. There's the hand. Thank you, Kathy and Kathy.

Kathy Homan, 0369 Narragansett Avenue, Prudence Island, Rhode Island. Good evening, everybody. Miss Marianne, I would respectfully request that you reconsider the amount of money that you are taking away in quotes this year from our support request. We're already over six months into our budget year. And by doing so, you would seriously damage our ability to live up to our budget. However, I would like to say we would be more than happy, I said it the last time, we would be more than happy to sit down with town council, with Mr. Rainer, and obviously someone representing the foundation to come up with an MOU that your specific requests would be included. Whatever else we wanted included would be included and it would be an MOU that we could all live under and be living with at the same time.

Okay, Kathy. That's it. Thank you. Don't go anywhere. We might have another question for you. So just hang on a quick second.

I'm not. I'll be listening.

Thank you, Kathy.

Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a question. Are we going to be asking this information from everyone receiving civic support?

Are you asking me that question?

I think we ask for audits from all those people.

I think that this... Are you going to be asking for audits or do we ask for audits?

We do.

We ask for audits. Basic financial information.

Yeah, we ask for basic, all that financial, yeah.

Okay. Ms. Blank, you have a question first?

Question to Kathy. What amount would you be comfortable with for this fiscal year? Had you stated an amount?

Well, we had requested the same amount that we got last year, but I certainly understand why in looking at what we spent this year, that that is almost an unreasonable request. But if we could lower it or drop it by 10 grand, which you did last year, and if you the board felt like that was the proper thing to do, that would be comfortable. We could maintain our budget and continue on with that.

Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, we do.

So, Kathy, you did the work this year. I mean, we're coming to the end of our fiscal year in a couple weeks. And of that $50,000, you've spent $2341, correct? And so you're done with the projects from this year, correct? That you had talked about. No. No. Could you elaborate?

No. I'm sorry. But our year begins on September 1st, our budget year, and goes until August the 30th.

Okay.

So, I mean... It doesn't correspond with yours, unfortunately.

No, right. Right. But with the money that we gave you last year, you have used already, I believe, 23,000, correct?

That's correct. But we still have until August 30th. Right. In our minds.

So in what's coming up, you also gave us a plan of what you want to work on for the upcoming budget, correct? Isn't that with the water heater and the HVAC and the roof insulation?

Yes, that was, yes, 42, yeah.

Right, and isn't that what you're going to be working on in the next fiscal year? Well, yes, but... What was the answer?

It's what we're working on now and through the next fiscal year. I would remind you that I did put in under these estimates that these are very rough estimates. For instance, the wall insulation of the original building, that's the insulation. But in order to do that, we have to rip off the outside of the building, which means that then we have to replace it. And we don't even have any idea of what we want to replace it with. We have a few people who want historical look and a few people who want it to be something that we don't ever have to deal with again. So that is just the insulation. I'm sorry. I know I'm probably confusing things, but that's what I could give you at the time.

Kathy, maybe we can all meet halfway. So you're okay with renegotiating the MOU, correct? Absolutely. So that's an easy one. So if you want to make a motion to start the process of renegotiating the MOU or repealing the current MOU and renegotiating a new one, we'll do that as one motion.

Okay, fine. So moved.

Thank you.

Second.

There's repealing and renegotiating.

I think the way I heard it was that the motion is to repeal the current MOU and enter negotiations for a replacement MOU. Correct.

That's right. I mean, we may not even need an MOU right now. Don't you think? I mean, the school department kind of dissolved their part, right?

There's a completely different reason why.

Well, because there's no students, right?

No, it's because they didn't qualify as a school building under right guidance.

Right, okay. They dissolved their part, their share, correct? And if things have changed so much, then why right now do we need Another MOU. And maybe we do. I just need an explanation.

I would say an MOU is needed because we do not know and we need to foresee that students will be coming back to the school eventually. Because that's an option for any resident who gets out at any point in time.

So the MOU really would be directed towards if and when a student comes back.

At any point. Yeah. It should just be.

I can deal with that. Yep. Thank you.

So to reiterate what Gio said. Repeal the current and replace it with a new MOU. That is Ms. McDowell's motion and Ms. Patton's seconded it. Correct? Okay. Let's deal with that first. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 7-0. Now, as far as the allocated money, you want to cut it to $25,000.

Only because of what I'm reading that we got.

Understood. Understood. Kathy thinks she needs more so my request would be that we you can cut the 25 000 put it into the town's contingency fund and if therefore it comes if their expenses become more we don't have to drag it out of another budget to pick to cover it if they come back and say that $16,500 HVAC repair we expected was really 24, which is quite a reality, unfortunately.

Would the council be made aware when those distributions would be made out of that account?

We would release the money. Mr. Rayner would come back to the council and say, prudence has gone over, especially since it won't happen until after September 1st when their fiscal year is and all that fun stuff. But he would come back and say, They actually, we gave them $25,000. Their expenses were $27,000. We would like to move $22,000 from the contingency to cover the prudent sale.

That makes sure their work gets done. We're not jamming their schedule up or anything. But we're trying to keep track of how much they're getting.

And it leaves us with the money in the budget so we don't have to go steal it from another department.

It would be budget neutral. We're just kind of...

The budget wouldn't change. It would just slide out of the page. The civic support in... Just want to make sure. ...school would drop by whatever the number is, $30,000 or whatever. I forget what their exact number is, 54-something this year, right? It's $50,571.

Okay. So you would get $25,571 and we'd put $25,000 aside.

It's a tracking mechanism. That's it.

All right. And I think that's a fair compromise because their budget year is calendar, not fiscal. So I think that at least puts it over and allows us to be able to negotiate with the terms of the MOU. I would support something like that.

So then each year, would we get like a, or even extended further? I mean, could they provide us with, let's say, a five-year plan on what they expect to do with in the building or what the needs are in the building and the prices associated with those needs. It's just like I have before me this year's kind of request on what they want to do, and it's $43,000. Now, granted, prices can go up, but when you look at what, you know, the items bought worked on improvements for this up until now, you know, it only came to 23,000. I don't know, I think there should be a better plan, a better mechanism for selling out things, that's all.

That portion for this particular item can be put forth in the MOU, that an itemized request, just like similar to our capital improvement plan, where we know that we can ask for that process. But for now, in order to make Wednesday potentially go smoother. If we make the changes tonight to these two line items, they can be incorporated into Wednesday night by our finance director. If that's okay with everybody. So we're looking at $50,576. Did I get that one right? Okay. 71. 571.

Okay. Would you consider the 40 that was being requested going from 50 to 40?

Again, we're going to leave it in the overall budget. So it's there if Kathy comes back and says, whoa, it was really $32,000 for the HVAC. It'll be there, and the council can make that decision to release that money. We will still have the total $50,571, but $25,000 of that will be tucked away in our council contingency fund for use there. or God forbid we have another snowstorm like we did last year. I don't want that. Sorry.

So would that contingency fund be ongoing? Is that what you're saying as well?

No.

All right. Just for this year?

Just for this year. Just to get through the budget on Wednesday night.

So if they didn't spend that, it would go back into the general fund? Correct. Okay. Correct. Thank you.

And I just make a correction. If we do not spend the $25,000, that gets rolled over into a special revenue town contingency fund. So it does not roll into our general fund balance.

Okay.

It does move over to special revenue. Okay.

Thank you for the clarification. So it does roll over to a special account, right?

Special contingency fund.

That is correct. Which is... Yeah.

Okay. It's not continuously allocated for Bruton's Island. is what your concern is.

Or you add to it, or if they don't spend it, it goes into that special revenue. I mean, I don't, I'm not crazy about those kind of ideas, but that's just me. I think it's a lot cleaner and better if we deal with what we have and get, you know, and the other question is, what, is it our sole responsibility for the maintenance of this building? Is that?

No. No. Kathy also goes out and tries to find grants, which they're,

Yeah, but I'm saying if the grants aren't there, is it so nothing comes out of their operating budget for maintenance?

Kathy, do you want to answer that, please?

No, that is not the case. Your money's account for about 40% of our budget, at least the $50,000. And the rest of it is comes from donations and fundraising, etc. And all of that money is lumped into going towards the building and fundraisers, which obviously civic support does not pay for. But it isn't something that in our minds we say, well, this is for this. And civic support has to be for that. That isn't exactly the way we do things.

Right.

Question, if there was a large expense, like a total roof replacement or something above and beyond 50, where would that funding come from? Would civic support then be required to go higher in future years?

Potentially. But again, if we maintain the money in the budget, And the money's there for next year, whether it's in line item A or line item B. It just, if we strip it, if we say, let's cut the allocation for the budget this year by $25,000 and take it completely out, then it would not be there for future years if we needed it. And it also would mean if there did go over, we would have to find it someplace else in the budget to move it to.

I have a question. Is the goal of this to bring this building up to modern day school standards? And is it a finite and achievable goal with this building?

I would say no. I would say we're never going to get it to modern day standards. I don't think. Kathy, is that your goal? Well, they must have an acceptable standard that they use. I think our biggest goal is to keep it standing. Warm, safe, and dry. Warm, safe, and dry sound good, Kathy?

Make it healthy. Pardon?

Warm, safe, and dry.

Am I muted?

Nope, you're not muted. There's a delay in the internet on Prudence Island. You there, Kathy?

I am. I am. I'm sorry. I thought I was unmuting. Two fangled things. No, the object is not. It can never be brought up to mainland standards. Number one, we have a bathroom. So if you have multiple kids, then that's off the charts. So we are just trying to maintain it in a semi-historical manner. where it is, as Keith said, healthy and safe and beautiful.

Thank you, Kathy. So I would entertain a motion to move $25,000 from the Civic Support Line, Prudence Island Civic Support Line, to the Town Contingency line item in the budget. So moved. Do you want to do a second, and then we'll talk about it? Second for discussion. Thank you.

Second. Second for discussion.

I would just ask that to consider reducing the amount slightly. If you're not... If you don't want to do the... 25, reducing it slightly this year and not using a special revenue fund that is going to be there. That's just my opinion.

The reserve fund is there for any town-wide issue.

So, Kathy had mentioned 40. I know you had said 25.

Are you... Well, I based the 25 on what the figures were, the proposed work that's going to be done this year, the money that was left over from the money you gave. I mean, I'm just using figures and coming up with this. I can live with something else. It's just I think everybody gets the gist of what I'm looking for going forward.

You're looking for more accountability.

And not that I think they're doing anything wrong. It's just we're expending money from our budget that we have to be able to have people accountable for. That's all. And I just haven't seen that. And then when I do see it, I'm thinking that last year you didn't spend, or the money's haven't been spent. I know you're on a different calendar fiscal year than we are, but you've also proposed for next year, and it's in the $50,000 range, I would think. And You got money left over from this year, and I just don't like the idea that it's going into a contingency fund. I'd rather use what they've given us, which is they seem like they've got a handle on what they want to do and what they've done, and reduce the amount this year. And next year, if they come with... added stuff we increase it i mean it's not that i don't want to help them it's just i think we should do it on a yearly basis and not not do that that's all and just kathy while i have you here you know i'm going forward with this HVAC system and all the insulation and stuff, did you guys get an energy audit? Is that how you know that you got to do all those things? Or is it a contractor on the island looking at that and saying, because I know that, I don't know if it helps with nonprofit, but when you get an energy audit and you have to do certain things, you can sometimes get incentives on pricing for your heating system. So I'm just mentioning that.

Yes.

Did you get the energy on it?

RISE came over. Yep.

Great. And so that's, that you're basing all that on like the insulation on what the report that RISE gave you, right?

RISE came over.

In January.

And they gave you a report, correct?

They gave us a report of what needed to be upgraded and needed to be done. I have, at the time, we were not in a position to do those things. I have been in contact with them since January of this year, and they did respond to me once, but they have not responded since. So I could not put there any kind of an estimate of assistance from them down on this report. This is being done without any assistance, those estimates.

Well, Kathy, we will make a phone call for you to make sure that they respond to you. We have somebody on speed dial from Rhode Island Energy who will help us.

Wonderful. Question for Kathy. Oh, good. I appreciate it.

Kathy, one more question.

Thank you.

Hang on.

One more question, Kathy. In the future, could you bring it to your committee to consider going to the fiscal calendar that the town is on for uniformity and ease between the two groups?

Could you just bring that up? I'd be more than happy to. The reason that it's set up this way is Just a minute. I'm trying. We can hear you. Oh, good. Okay. We have ours set up that way because it coordinates with school. School begins in September, and that's why we have it set up that way.

Understood. I'm sorry? Understood. Understood.

Oh, okay.

Thank you, Kathy. Now I'm lost. We do have a motion on the table, correct? To provide $25,571 to Bruins Island School Foundation and move $25,000 into contingency so that it's in the budget if it is needed. Otherwise, it goes into the special contingency river. Mr. Reese, you had another question, and Ms. Patton, you had a question.

Yeah, so I just wanted to check, see what Mary feels. Would you, as I was saying, you said 25, Kathy said 40, would you rather see 35 just a one-time line item this year? Is that what you're looking at?

I would rather see civic support reduced somewhat and deal with it that way, yes. That's what I would rather see rather than do the whole amount and put it in a contingency.

It's not the whole amount. It's half the amount.

But you would be doing the 50 and putting half of it, $25,000 into another.

Are you looking to cut the budget by $25,000 or $10,000? I mean, that's the only difference. It's just placing in a different line item in the budget. That's all it is.

But it's my understanding, again, set me straight. From my understanding, it sets up a new fund. No, it's an existing fund.

It's an existing fund, so it's a restricted account. So if the $25,000 is not spent in the contingency fund that is budgeted through the general fund, it then moves into a restricted fund at year end.

But it moves. Correct. If they don't use it. Correct. It moves into a restricted fund. Correct.

Not for their use. Right. It's a generic restricted fund that the town already has. It's not a new.

Yeah, but does that restricted fund go under a name that we can't take money from that restricted fund? No.

Well, it would be presented to the town council for approval to use the funds, but there is already money there.

Right. So it would come to us to use that restricted. That is correct.

Any other questions, motion and a second to report to reduce. I'm going to mess up cause I think I'm going to get it backwards now, but reduce it, reduce it to 25, five 71 and put 25 into contingency. I'm paraphrasing with that was the motion. All of those in favor opposed motion passes seven to zero. Thank you all. And we will get working. Kathy, I'm going to say that it's going to start. We won't start that MOU negotiation until after the new fiscal year, so probably sometime in July and August. That's okay. Yeah. Okay. Let us finish off this year first. Thank you, Kathy. Have a good night.

Thanks, Kathy.

New business number one, request to advertise a public hearing for a sound variance. To allow for live amplified music at Sunset Cove for their annual concerts at July 1st and 2nd from 5 to 8 p.m.

Right.

A motion to approve for June 22nd, obviously.

Yes.

Because we don't have a meeting before June, July 1st and 2nd after that. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The motion passes seven to zero. Next, to request permission to hold the annual Sakana Coastal Bike and Stroll September 19th, 2026. Mr. Vikevich, you do not have 10 minutes. As listed, you have three.

Or less. Mr. Vikevich, 119 Hummock Avenue, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. I'll do it in two and a half.

Beautiful.

September 19th, We're going to shut down Park Avenue, Point Road, Hummock Avenue, Railroad Avenue. We're going to connect Comfence Point and the bridge to Island Park. This is going to be the fourth year doing it. Last year was a little bit of a misstep only because Pike Newport could not afford a date in September. And then by the time October got here, we selected November 1st. There's still a good turnout, but we'll have a better turnout in September 19th. uh we're gonna we're gonna i'm gonna work with the chief of police in the police department uh we're gonna see if we can move it up to 8 30 to give us that little extra time because nine o'clock everybody just shows up and it gets very busy so possibly 8 30 uh the center of the universe looks like it's going to be graziano's 501 cafe i spoke with mike graziano yesterday and he's wants to do it there and um We're looking for volunteers, and we'll put that word out there. We have three and a half months to get this done, and we'll be parking on Boyd's Lane. Oh, and I don't know if anybody watches Channel 6, ABC 6. That new meteorologist, Julia Blanchett, has agreed to come down and be a hostess, and that's going to give us a little bit more horsepower. when she's talking for the week ahead of it, you know, on the news. I also do want to suggest that we put a rain date together, and that would be the following Saturday, I think it's the 26th. Just in case, because, you know, we're due for a hurricane. Sorry. It's either. Why? Okay, we'll talk about that seawall when that happens. But anyway, so that's it. Same program. And it's been just, if anybody's been down to the previous three, my biggest thing is the kids. They have such a good time like that. And to shut down Park Avenue, and thank you to the police department for putting up the no parking signs and making sure everybody's out of there on that Saturday morning. You know, it's a good thing. So I hope the council could say, let's do it, John.

Can the council say, let's do it, Sean?

I'm going to do it. It's based on the old Dominican adjective. If someone dies in your dreams, you've got to tell them so that they live a long, prosperous life. I'm assuming that's what you were going for. Please tell me that's what you were going for. So I would move that. We approve September 19th with the alternative rain date of September 26th.

Second.

Any further discussion? And they have nice new pavement down in the homonomics road. That's pretty nice. i didn't i didn't realize that there was on that was on their paving list this year all right thank you all those in favor aye opposed motion passes seven to zero thank you john thank you new business number three just an update on the lmi housing resolution mr gleason

Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to let Mr. Gio start here and maybe I can contribute as well.

Thank you. So as everyone will recall, we have talked at a couple of meetings about the resolution and the potential for some reforms achieved either through litigation and or legislative support. The plan, as we had last discussed it, was to work with the cities and towns, the dozen or so cities and towns that had signed on to our your resolution generally talking about the need for reform and the difficulties of implementing the 2025 legal changes to low and moderate income housing that came out of the General Assembly and the difficulty in dealing with those from the planning and zoning and administrative side when we don't have clarity on how the courts are going to interpret those The goal was to try to get something filed in terms of litigation quickly, and then at the same time approach the General Assembly to try to obviate the need for that litigation by getting some reforms through. Two things have happened since that plan was set in motion. One is that the process for getting the financial support from the other cities and towns has been much slower than I think we anticipated or had hoped. Not surprisingly, every city and town has their town council meetings and agendas to be set within certain deadlines. And then they also have other priorities. And then many of the towns came back to us with questions when we sent out the letter asking for the financial support. We answered those questions promptly, but the wheels ground a little slowly in getting that back and forth between all of the solicitors and myself and getting those answers and then getting back on second agendas or what have you for further consideration. At this point, there's only one town that is signed on officially. I think Attorney Larissa, my co-solicitor, is in front of charleston tonight to answer any questions they might have i think that will be number two but this this council you all gave us pretty clear direction that unless we had a level of support that was adequate to not leave you on the hook for the entire thing that we shouldn't you know be pressing the gas so we didn't press the gas on the complaint and and we are still able and capable to do that But then the second intervening factor has been the General Assembly's decision to, as Council Priority just pointed out, get the heck out of Dodge by Friday. So even if we got the litigation drafted, circulated to the other cities and towns and filed, we'll have long missed the chance to get in front of the General Assembly before they go home for the summer. So the conversations I've had with other town solicitors, we actually had a great meeting with the League of Cities and Towns last week. They are more than willing to be supportive of this. They saw the dozen communities who are their members who are very irate about this situation. And so they understand that that's in their mandate to help those cities and towns as best they can. They hosted a call. We had a number of people involved. Interestingly, the Rhode Island Leah, if I get this wrong, the Rhode Island Planning Association, a couple members of their legislative team were on the call. They have volunteered to help draft specific legislation, which can also help guide our litigation plan. So I think what we've gained in the last couple months has been a good level of support, still more pending and hopefully coming, but at the pace that the other citizen towns can can accommodate. And then we've gotten some offers of valuable support that will lower the overall budget on this project. So I think the downside is that we don't get to do something so prompt and aggressive as we had hoped. The upside is that I think we'll have a better project going forward with a broader swath of support than even I expected or anticipated, not just cities and towns, but now national, sorry, now statewide organizations that have their own sort of leverage and weight who are getting behind this. So I think it's been time well spent. We haven't really done much on the drafting, but I talked to Attorney Larissa today and And I have been talking to him regularly. Our suggestion is that we target summertime for the completion of the complaint submission to the supporting cities and towns for their solicitors review comment. And then we can get it finalized over the summer. And then that would lead to that would give us plenty of time to get all the other towns more engaged on board. and funding that effort. And I think we can do that within the, you know, within the budget that you already sort of set as a ceiling for us in a prior meeting so that we're not, you know, Portsmouth's not carrying the full weight of this. I think the first check should be coming in this week from supporting towns. So Kayla will have those in a reserve account, you know, but we won't, you know, really start pressing the gas until we have a, feeling that we've got enough support at least for the litigation piece from other cities and towns so that Portsmouth is not over its skis.

Or over budgeted.

No, no, that was my metaphor. That's exactly what I meant.

That's the big one. I mean, I don't know what the number is right now, but it's getting up there. So we don't want to go over budget on what was allocated, nor do we want to go down a path that is unrecoverable.

Yeah. We won't get near that allocation, anywhere near that, as far as I can tell. And if we do, we'll have other towns' money in the kitty and we'll come back to you for further authorization.

I'm hopeful, we'll see, that the new Speaker and some others who are with him kind of pull some of these things back. Obviously, we know the previous speaker was a land attorney, so he crafted a lot of this to service other land attorneys.

I will leave that to other brighter minds at the Statehouse to determine, but I would add that the only downside is that we might have him in the Supreme Court deciding our case in three years. But yeah, you are not wrong. There is a very different feeling from the legislators and the lobbyists that I've talked to, including many of the solicitors who are also Statehouse lobbyists. Um, there there seems to be an openness to this conversation that didn't exist 6 months ago. Right.

If I just might add a couple of things, um. We know we have some support a small amount at this point, but I guess I'd like to make the point that we haven't given up at this point. We have 12 towns that have signed on. You know, at least one said we're not going to commit financially from day one. And we expected that. But we don't need all 12 to meet our financial goals, which are meager, if you will, to be able to start this process. But we do have a ceiling that we have to hit to go forward. And at this point, I'm not ready to bypass that in any way because we do have a budget, as you say. One town is set to vote on this on June 16th, and hopefully there's hope there, and who knows what happens over in Charlestown tonight. But the point is that we don't want to lose any of your potential support if you're listening as another town, and we think we're doing this for... the town of Portsmouth, as well as other small rural cities, towns, I should say, that are in the same boat as us that have been dictated a new policy without any consent on our part or any participation. And, you know, I think there was a feeling amongst our representatives that you don't cross the previous head of the House. Whether that changes in the future, I have the same hopes you do. But we have received very little support on that side to start with. So thank you very much for bringing us up to date, Gio.

No motions or anything like that. Any questions from any of the councils?

Great.

Thank you. New business number four is our annual request to abate delinquent taxes that have been deemed uncollectible in the amount of $32,876.78. Mr. Heflin, how are you doing? Do we have a motion to approve? There's a second.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes seven to zero. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you for getting down for such a low number. Next up, new business number five, request approval of the FY 2027 Headley Street Transfer Station sticker application and revised operating procedures. Mr. Rainer, you're going to take over for Mr. Lopes as it's listed?

I'll be able to jump in. I'll tee it up. So what we're doing is we're asking for council approval of the fiscal year 27 Headlee Street Transfer Station sticker application and operating rules. So for the most part, the rules remain unchanged from prior years. The primary changes are operational and result from the council's budget decision to reduce the transfer station staffing from two operators to one. So following that decision, Waste Connections reviewed the operation of the facility and identified several changes necessary to safely operate the station with a single employee. So the District Manager for Waste Connections is here tonight and can answer any specific questions regarding those recommendations. The changes include a daily lunch closure, revised entry cutoff times to allow the operator time to secure and clean the facility before closing, temporary gate closures when the operators engage in equipment operations or working elsewhere on a site, and limits on the number of vehicles permitted inside the facility at any one time. These changes are intended to address safety concerns associated with operating a facility with just a single employee and are necessary to maintain a safe operating environment for both the public and the operator. And obviously, we will continue to work with the contractor to mitigate any impact on users of the facility. So the recommended action is to approve the fiscal year 27 transfer station sticker application operating rules effective July 1st.

I know I don't have to ask this, but I will. Questions? None?

Question.

Ms. Blank, thank you.

I'm not sure if it was in this one or in the other one. I would like to see the closing time remain at 4pm and 7pm with the request of them using overtime so that we maintain consistency, at least on that end to what we have now. Is that possible?

Good evening. We're trying to operate within our current time frame, which we're going to close at 7, but the last vehicle needs to be in by 640. We have to do a lot of things that weren't required of us five years ago. We got to cover the dumpsters every night and stuff like that, which is required by Rhode Island DEM. So to extend our time now to 715, 730, and that is going to add more overtime to our operations. We're trying to work within the confines that we have.

help me better understand what the confines are that you can't

Well, we'd be adding 20, 30 minutes of overtime for those two days to our payroll without being compensated for it. So that's what we're trying to do is operate and not keep the gentleman there by himself because we'd have one staff member on site by themselves. Whereas I believe the guard for this town leaves around seven o'clock. So we're trying to wrap up and finish our timeframe the same time as the town. So we don't have a gentleman trip, fall, get hurt on site by himself without anybody else around.

Could we keep our town person there for the extra 20 minutes? Is that plausible?

Yeah, I'm sure it's possible. I don't see why not, but let me put it this way. Obviously, the extra cost gets put into the sticker price.

So if we ran it that way at the current 325, it's already been approved. there potentially could be a deficit unless more people signed up than last year.

Exactly.

Okay.

And then help me understand where one spot, so a limit of five cars at a time, how is that determined?

It's not necessarily. We didn't set the limit, I don't believe, at 5, but it depends on how the traffic flow is on the site because if the one attendant has to help other vehicles, he might not be able to see what's being dropped off. So if we have 10 vehicles in there, you could have somebody illegally dumping demo they didn't pay for, somebody not using pay as you throw bags, somebody throwing away something unacceptable in the recycling, or somebody that needs assistance and pulling us in other directions. So it's to help maintain and control what's being dropped for waste.

Okay. So depending on where people are dropping off, it's not a hard and fast hold at five cars. If everyone was just going to drop off trash and recycling and a person could be there.

supervising that yes it would be us radioing to the guard track hey there's too many people on site or there's too many people dropping off across the site that we can't help everyone or monitor what's being dropped okay so am i hearing correct that it's not a hard and fast rule of five cars no we said that we were going to visit that and monitor that as ongoing was okay thank you anybody else

so that be changed in this because it does say maximum of five vehicles on site at one time number three and we stayed a different way that uh

due to the reduced staffing levels of facility may limit occupancy based on the needs of the occupants rather than just a hard fast five vehicles that would cover you and us. Yeah, we can make that better.

Okay.

I'm not a wordsmith, so.

And I had another question. It says that they're going to be closed now from 12 to 1245. What were the hours for lunch?

One guy would eat and the other guy would be working.

Okay.

No, that's the problem. One guy would be sitting in the shack eating his lunch or sitting out by the...

Does the guard take lunch at the same time?

No, because they have split shifts, right? Guard just six and six or something like that or whatever.

But the guard couldn't let people in during that because of that person.

It's not letting people in. It's monitoring. The guard stays in the shed. This is to make sure nobody falls down the chute. I know what you're saying. Worst case scenario, nobody falls down the chute. Other questions? Yes, sir. You're waiting patiently for me. How are you?

How are you doing? Chris Matthews, 35 Athena Terrace. I just had some comments. Some of them I think we kind of already ran over. It's I question the safety, you know, just having one guy, you know, if something happens, God forbid he dies, you know, by the shoot, you wouldn't see it for a while. Also, what happens if his car breaks down on the way in? Transfer station not open that day? He wants to go on vacation. Transfer station not open for those two weeks?

They would have a different person. Okay. They have the facility. So if... In both case scenarios, vacation, obviously they would cover it with a different person. And if his car breaks down, then they would be obligated to send somebody else. Unfortunately, probably the district manager.

But there would be a delay. And then it would be like nobody knows because the gate's locked, right, until somebody shows up. And also, I know they do say that lunch, but when you add the lunch and you add the 20 minutes for the five cars to get through, so it's really going to be an hour for lunch every day. And then the facility will be closed whenever they have to move heavy operations around, you know, move into new stuff like that. So we're actually getting less time open than we were previously in previous years. Correct. but we're paying more.

They're paying the cost to run the station based on the fact that it's an enterprise fund and all the people who do it pay for it. So, but yes.

Okay.

There's also, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Gleason, there's how much money you put aside for the maintenance fund? $20 per user. Yeah. It's being placed aside for long-term capital needs.

Sure. But this previous year, it actually ran a profit, right? There was a memo that Rich had written that says it should be a $13,700 profit this year, which equates to really, you kind of charged everybody $10 too much, but it was the first year.

But there's also what was factored in an $86,000 previous year's deficit. So potentially going forward in fiscal 2028, some of these changes could be mitigated and the price would be about the same. So this may be only a one-year experiment where we could bring both people back because that deficit is now gone. Is that the plan? No, I'm just saying it's a potential. Okay.

All right, I just see paying more and getting less time.

There may be seven people sitting up here in 12 months, so I can't tell you what to plan next year. All right.

Before you leave, I just want to comment that I think all of us were a little surprised when we saw these rules. Going back in time when waste management ran the facility, there was twice as many vehicles and it was still run by one person. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that's the way it's been run in the past and the option was the town's option to supply the second, uh, employee. Um, and basically we considered him to, it was shown as their job was to monitor station access. Okay. They do much more beyond that sometimes. I mean, our experience, my experience I'll say is often to see the two gentlemen that are there not doing anything. I, you know, if I needed help, we still have the option of stopping at the guard shack and asking for help. So, you know, I have not needed that at this point. And that option is still available. So they are there for that purpose. And it brings you down to one person. But we essentially signed a contract that says that they are responsible for running the station with one person. it was our option to add the second and that's the problem i have with these new rules and i hope we can come to some kind of compromise on this there is a truck driver that comes down from your facility i i don't know if he goes there every day but that may be a way to cover the lunches there um And also, it was brought to our attention that on the extended days of Tuesdays and Thursdays, there's an overlap where the employees can actually serve the partial shifts without running into overtime. So if there was some overtime, it would be strictly Monday, Friday, and Saturday, as opposed to the Tuesdays and Thursdays. But these are the things that I think that the contractor that we have given this contract to, are responsible to figure out. We want you to run it in a safe way, but we're also asking to do it with one person. And you could, so, we're trying.

Thank you, Chris. Mr. Fitzmaurice.

Thank you, Mr. President. Larry Fitzmaurice, 50 Christian Court. My mathematics is that this is about a 12% increase year over year in the costs. My understanding is that last year or the current year, when we're in now, it was $290,000. I'm sorry, $290. Now it's another $35. So a good rule of thumb, if your operating costs are going up at 12% per year, you need to take a look as to why. And I would suggest respectfully to the council that you need to exercise your oversight here and try and do a good, solid financial estimate of actual costs here. I don't like the idea of reducing services, because that's what this sounds like, is an authorization to reduce services if we remove a person from the office. from the staff. And, you know, that's going to get into a process where we're going to have the every year it shrinks a little bit until it disappears type approach. So I would like the service to be maintained as it is. I use the transfer station and I find the service to be good. So I'm not criticizing the service as it is. But I think that we need to have a little bit better look at the finances before we start reducing services. Thank you.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, the primary driver of the increase is the $86,000 deficit that has to be made up in the fund. Removing that next year.

I thought that wasn't a real deficit.

It is a real deficit. It's a real deficit over the course of a couple of fiscal years.

But we actually did get the money, right? In the following fiscal year?

No. It is a real deficit that was not caught because of the overlap of fiscal year versus calendar year. Being that that deficit will not be in there next year, there is the possibility, as I just stated, that for the same price we may get the second person back or we can charge more to get that second person or we can potentially defer the $20. I don't know if that's enough to cover the extra person.

All right.

So in like fashion that we've done for curbside, the first thing I want to suggest is that we consider regaining that deficit over a two-year period as we've done for curbside. Mr. Rain has given me a number of that would reduce the price by $20 by spreading it out over two years.

To make it 305. 305. But if you leave it at $325, does that cover the cost of the second person? I don't know. That would be my question.

I think before we say we need the second person, we need a justification of how we can't do it. How can we do this with just one person? Is it totally impossible? Because it was done in the past. I've mentioned some overtime costs that may be involved here. And that may affect the gate guards as well, if you want to have them stay over 20 minutes.

The biggest thing to me is that the new schedule is that people are going to be, if you want to go I'll take me, for instance. If I want to go at lunchtime, because I work from home, I can't.

You can't under this. If we agree to that, you can't do that. I'm saying we should not agree to this.

Then we need to find the money to cover the cost of somebody being there. We can't take somebody's contractual lunch hour away from them. Who do you want to be down there from 12 to 1245 when this person has a contractual lunch hour? I think I can speak to anybody who's worked

Everybody should have a lunch hour. I agree with you.

There you go.

And I would be willing to bet right now the lunch hour is you take it when you can. So I don't know if it's a defined period. They can fill us in on that. My suggestion is they use a truck driver that's there now to help. But there isn't a truck driver there every day. I don't know what his schedule is. He's there every time I go through there.

I have a question. The second person was an option, right?

Yes. That we were funding.

Right. We were funding.

Correct.

But it was an option to have them there or not. And it was going to be ran by one person if we wanted to fund it or not. Correct?

So we have the choice of 325 or 305, if Mr. Green's numbers are correct, and one person and being closed every day from 12 to 1245.

That's not what I asked.

Sorry. I know what you asked. I'm answering the question. These are the options that there's one person working there.

Mr. President, can I just ask while the discussion takes place whether Kayla and Mr. Rayner can put the second man back in and do the two-year on the deficit and see who that brings the number to? Sure. But I would agree, and we can have our solicitor weigh in whether we have signed a contract that requires us to have two men in there.

Yeah, I would like that too. 326.

26. With? Terry, with the?

carry the deficit over two years, put the second employee back in, the price goes to $3.26. Okay.

Is that second employee full-time or just to cover? It's full-time.

It has to be full-time. Okay. Thank you. You can't have somebody just drive down to cover a lunch break.

I wasn't sure. For a part-time person just to cover these changes or not. $3.45.

Well, they're looking at that I can I can say, you know, this is the same question that that I think I've looked at previously. No, there's not a requirement. It's your option. The second employee is the option. But I would also suggest that that there's no reason you couldn't talk about the idea of a part time employee or or some other way to fill that gap, right? And I would assume the contractor would be happy to discuss half a loaf as opposed to losing the full loaf of the additional revenue. So maybe there is a way to fill that with something short of the $84,400 a year that's in the contract for the alternate egg. If you're only trying to cover two hours at a lunch break or some other breaks. Part-time person.

So I just want to clarify, the 326 number still includes the $20 per household.

That was based off of $2,200. I believe our original estimate was $2,100. So it'll bring the cost up to about $346. $346.

Correct. And that includes $20 for the equipment and maintenance charge? That is correct. Okay.

And a full-time person.

Correct. Yeah, that's not the direction we want to go. I want to go. Ms. McDowell.

Yeah, I think I just have to fall back on our legal counsel's look at this contract, saying that this was our option. We put it in. Had we not put it in, that contract would be operating with one person. And they would have to figure it out. If that's my understanding of a contract, how to do it, right? So we opted for another person. And I have notes somewhere, and I thought it was from Brian Woodhead, that said the option was exercised primarily to look and watch what's going into the bins, if they're using the bags, et cetera, et cetera. That was the purpose of it in these notes that I have. And so it was a town option. The town's now deciding to withdraw that option to save money for our citizens. So I don't understand where the contract was made and they would have had to deal with it if we didn't put that option in. It's kind of simple to me, but... Yeah, and maybe I just wasn't clear.

I should have been more clear about my response. I think you're absolutely correct, right? This is... I've got the language in front of me now, so I can be more specific. They've agreed without the second employee, without the alternate A, they've agreed to staff the station during its normal hours at a level and in a manner sufficient to ensure the efficient operation, etc. The normal hours shall be from 7.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday, Friday, Saturday, 7.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Thursday. Staffing shall include at least one full-time employee at the station. goes on. So there's no except for lunch break language in here. Exactly. So they have an obligation to staff that with however many employees they need to adequately do that for the entirety of those shifts.

That's my understanding.

If we want things to be quicker, faster, something more convenient for citizens, then yes, we can put another person there at the cost of $85,000 a year, give or take. But no, they still have the obligation to keep that open. And if I don't see anything that would divert from that.

And if they are concerned with safety and other things, they have to figure out how to deal with it, I would think, according to the contract, as I read it, correct?

Yeah, I don't see any exceptions for breaks or whatever. It says at least one full-time employee, which in my mind means that I wasn't here when this was written, but it must have anticipated the idea that at some times you're going to need a second employee there to cover breaks or to cover whatever it is.

And I would just, I wanna be clear on one thing, and that is, I don't even think we would be having this discussion tonight if we weren't working with an $86,000 deficit that we realized, you know, just recently. And if we weren't dealing with continual stops at the transfer station where the people who are working there are not doing what was intended for them to do, I really don't think we'd be having this conversation. Because if they were, I know I wouldn't be looking to get, you know, to cut down on one person if I felt that people were doing their job. It's not happening. Please believe me. For the most part, many times, it's not happening. You can put a camera there to determine it yourself if you'd like. So, you know, I got to refer to legal counsel. It's part of the contract.

Mr. Grebe? Tom Grebe, 110 Thayer Drive. To try and get you a solution to some of this, Mr. Gleason's idea of a capital fund for a break in compact or whatever is an excellent one and I Suggested a similar thing for the boat and motor fund for the Harbor Commission. So I truly believe in it however in this particular case what you might want to do is Take the two years to pay off the eighty six thousand dollars at forty three a year and then install the $20 on the sticker fee once that $43 was out of the system, then install the $20 two years from now for that capital fund that might get you a smoother transition.

Would you take the number down to 326? If I heard that correctly. I don't suppose you want to come up and argue the finer points of the contract that say that you're required to have it no matter how many people you have there open all those hours.

We'd like the opportunity to go back and review the RFP and the original bid and the proposal. But when we bid it, we've had two laborers for X years now. We've had that ability to do the staffing. That's what the hours of the operation were in the RFP with the two people that I can remember offhand. So that's why going down the one person, we need to reduce those hours. It's not a 45-minute lunch break. It's 15 minutes to get all the residents that are on site off the site so then we can then take our half hour break that we're mandated by state law to take the trailer driver that's there five days a week is dumping your roll-off bins your yard waste bins which we're dumping two to three a week we're dumping the trailers twice a week for the trash and for the recycling twice a week so if we count on him to cover the lunches the issue is it's four and a half hours to the johnson landfill The bridge, George Washington, I spent an hour going over it the other day. So if we're counting on him to come back to cover the lunches, we can't count on that every day because if we hit traffic or there's a truck breakdown, we might inabruptly have to close the facility to cover our mandated lunch by the state that we have to take. Thank you.

But I'm going to go back to the reading of the contract by our solicitor. So I would ask that You have your folks also read the contract that states that no matter what, you're required to have it open the operating hours.

Yep, we're going to go back and review it.

Thank you. Which doesn't do us any good tonight about setting up the rules. So we have a few options. We can once again change the cost of the transfer station and make it $346 and keep the $20 in. I'm going to keep looking at Kayla because she's got the numbers. We can... leave it at 325 and potentially have a deficit of $2,000 at the end of the year, roughly, right? Because we're taking a dollar out, 2,100 people, that we can make that up, which is doing $43,000 each year over two years. We can leave the 86 in, take out the 20, And does that put us at 326 as well?

Is that with or without the second employee? Without.

With.

May you just repeat the ramifications? Sorry.

For me, I think we need both employees, but leave it without the second employee and the fact that they're going to have to cover no matter what. And it's open 7.30 to 4 and 7 to 7.

So no second employee, no maintenance budget, and carrying the deficit for two years. Okay, we'll start with that one. All right, that's 280.

Okay. So putting back in the maintenance fund makes it 300. That was a simple one.

301, but 300.

So, and then... No, so with doing 86, puts it at 326.

That was with the second employee, the 301, right?

No, nothing has a second employee yet. I'm sorry. No. Second employee would bring it up to, would add $25 to the cost.

Is that a two-year MSA? Yeah.

All right. What's next?

I'm going to take a stab at making a motion here, because I know we need to have a dollar number for advertising for the sticker. So I'm going to make a motion that we issue the transfer station stickers for $300, and it's with one employee. And that has the payoff in two years.

We already have a transfer station sticker of $325. We have it at $325.

Correct.

It is not on the agenda to set this. We would have to do it another day.

Oh, okay.

Only thing is on here is setting the rules. Request approval of the rules, not any application. So sticker stays at 325. It's just how we allocate these rules.

Okay. Let's make a different motion then. So to table the new sticker rules pending the the contractor looking at the contract, see if he has any exceptions to our assumption that he can run the station with one employee. For the contract, correct. Push the button. Thank you.

Second.

So that gets us able to sell stickers for a certain price, but the rules, you can't hand any rules out, correct?

Mr. President, can we ask them whether or not they could be ready for June 22nd?

I would assume that they could be ready.

If they can have a response by June 22nd.

They'll have a response by then, correct? You'll be able to review the contract before June 22nd. That's our next meeting. Thank you.

So I understand that part. The council had voted previously to set a sticker price for 325. Correct. What I'm hearing tonight is you want to hold that in abeyance to the 22nd.

It's going to stay 325.

The price will stay the same. So you can sell the stickers, but we don't have the rule. We're not going to approve. If the motion passes, we don't pass the rules, the new rules. We're going to decide whether or not.

No, I'm just going to leave it at 325.

If I could just suggest what you might be able to do, and Kayla's going to have an aneurysm and punch me at the same time. What you could do is... If you decide to remove the second employee, and that's the rule change that gets approved on the 22nd, that's going to create a savings that your enterprise fund will be in a surplus.

The second employee is not in the 325. The only thing that would create a surplus is if we do the 86 over two years or take out the $20. Okay.

Well, I guess what I was going to suggest then with the $20, for example, what I was going to suggest is you could... tweak the amortization of the debt in a way that gets you to exactly 325 so your enterprise fund is not out of balance either way. It might not be exactly over two years. It might be over one and a half years or 18 months or whatever. But you can work that math so that you're not violating the tenants of the enterprise fund to hit it right on the nose, depending on what you do at the next meeting. It's a math problem that way beyond my pay grade, and that's why I turned to Kayla. But I can see the vein in her forehead, you know.

Let's let her decide that.

Matt still. Okay. So the sticker price is going to stay at $325. We don't have any set rules. Table the discussion until the 22nd. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion passes seven to zero. One of these days, we'll not talk about trash at a meeting. One of these days.

First meeting in December.

Yeah. No. That's why we do this. Actually, we don't do that anymore. We have correspondence. Is there anything on there that anybody would like to pull off? Hearing none, do I have a motion?

Motion to receive and place on file.

Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes seven to zero. Wednesday night, 48 wonderful hours from now, or sorry, 45 and a half wonderful hours from now. I think I did that math right? Can you factor pi into that for me? We have our public hearing here at the town council chambers, June 22nd. Our 13th of July meeting has been canceled for summer break, and we'll be back on the 27th. I have a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.