SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING · 2 days ago · powers. § C-1.03 Composition, Selection, Term Chair Costantino explains that this amendment would allow for a five member Town Council

SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

OPEN SESSION

TUESDAY August 4, 2020

.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

A. Convene into Executive Session to consider, discuss, and act upon matters pursuant to Rhode

Island General Laws and Section 42-46-5(a)(2), Existing Litigation: Narragansett Electric vs

Town of Smithfield (PC-2020-02480, PC-2019-0710, PC-2018-2132, PC-2017-1268), to

consider, discuss and act upon a potential settlement agreement.

B. Consider, discuss, and act upon matters pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws Sec. 42-46-

5(a)(5); Real Estate

AGENDA

I. Regular meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.

II. Prayer

III. Salute to the Flag

IV. Presentations: None.

V. Minutes:

A. Move that the minutes of the June 30, 2020 Town Council joint meeting be

approved as recorded.

B. Move that the minutes of the July 7, 2020 Town Council work session

meeting be approved as recorded.

C. Move that the minutes of the July 7, 2020 Town Council open session meeting

be approved as recorded.

D. Move that the minutes of the July 8, 2020 Town Council work session be


E. Move that the minutes of the July 21, 2020 Town Council open session


SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL VIRTUAL MEETING

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2020 6:30 P.M.

Please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://www.gotomeet.me/RandyRossi/smithfield-town-council

You can also dial in using your phone. United States (Toll Free): 1 877 568 4106

United States: +1 (646) 749-3129

Access Code: 342-830-965 For technical support dial: 401-233-1010

F. Move that the minutes of the July 21, 2020 Town Council meeting be


G. Move that the minutes of the July 27, 2020 Town Council open session


VI. Consider, discuss and act upon the following possible appointments and

reappointments: None.

VII. Public Hearings:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new

Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s

Lounge”, 55 Douglas Pike, to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service, with the

hours of operation to be Monday through Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., as

applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, a

copy of their Retail Sales Permit, and a Certificate of Good Standing from the

RI Division of Taxation, final approval by the Building Official and final

approval from the RI Department of Health.

B. Conduct a Public Hearing to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new

Class A Beverage License for Northern RI Liquor Warehouse, Inc. d/b/a

“Northern RI Liquor Warehouse, 970 Douglas Pike, Bldg. B, with the hours

of operation to be Monday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and

Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as applied, subject to compliance with all

State regulations, local ordinances and a copy of their Retail Sales Permit, TIP

Cards and a Certificate of Good Standing from the RI Division of Taxation.

C. Conduct a Public Hearing to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new

Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Ichiraku, LLC d/b/a “Ichiraku

Ramen and Fusion”, 970 Douglas Pike, to include Outdoor Seating/Bar

Service, with the hours of operation to be Monday through Sunday 6:00 a.m.

to 1:00 a.m., as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local

ordinances, final approval by the Building Official and final approval from the

RI Department of Health.

D. Conduct a public hearing to consider a petition for the abandonment of a

portion of Vera Drive.

E. Consider scheduling a public hearing on September 15, 2020 to consider

amending the Comprehensive Community Plan, Land Use Map for property

described as Assessor’s Plat 42, Lot 139 and Assessor’s Plat 40, Lots 1-440

(known as the “Tea Lots”) as submitted by Smithfield Estates, LLC and Earl

Grey Estates, LLC located at 128 Douglas Pike and Ridge Road.

F. Consider scheduling a public hearing on September 15, 2020 to consider an

amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map for property described

as Assessor’s Plat 42, Lot 139 and Assessor’s Plat 40, Lots 1-440 (known as

the “Tea Lots”) as submitted by Smithfield Estates, LLC and Earl Grey

Estates, LLC located at 128 Douglas Pike and Ridge Road.

VIII. Licenses:

A. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Victualling License for

Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, 55 Douglas Pike, as applied,

subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances and final

approval from the RI Department of Health.

B. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Entertainment License for


subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

C. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Special Dance License for


subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

D. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Victualling License for

Ichiraku, LLC d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion”, 970 Douglas Pike, as

applied subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

E. Consider, discuss and act upon approving an application for a Temporary

Extension of a Class D Full Privilege Liquor License for the Portuguese

American Social and Athletic Club, 40 Fenwood Avenue, to hold a Music

Festival on Saturday, September 12, 2020, from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., as

applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

F. Consider, discuss and act upon the annual renewal of one (1) Bingo License,

as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local

ordinances.

1. Raymond C. LaPerche PTA, 11 Limerock Road (fee waived)

G. Consider, discuss and act upon the annual renewal of two (2) Pool Table

Licenses, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations

and local ordinances.

1. Bryant University Fisher Student Center, 1150 Douglas Pike (one pool table).

2. Portuguese American Social & Athletic Club, 40 Fenwood Avenue (one pool table).

H. Consider, discuss and act upon the annual renewal of two (2) Peddler’s

Licenses, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations


1. CALM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a “Del’s of Smithfield”, to sell only frozen lemonade from a truck with RI Reg. #’s 126485, 126485 and 51697, 115 Pleasant View Avenue.

2. CALM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a “Del’s of Smithfield, to sell only frozen lemonade from a pushcart with RI Reg. #55218, 115 Pleasant View Avenue.

I. Consider, discuss and act upon the annual renewal of one (1) Massage

Establishment License, as applied, subject to compliance with all State

regulations and local ordinances.

1. Soothing Touch Spa d/b/a “Soothing Touch Spa”, 180C Pleasant View Ave. J. Consider, discuss and act upon the annual renewal of one (1) Massage

Therapy License, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations


1. Rhonda Rohelia working at “Soothing Touch Spa”, 180C Pleasant View Ave.

IX. Old Business: None.

X. New Business:

A. Consider, discuss, and act upon accepting the USDA Food and Nutrition

Service’s Farm to School Implementation Grant in the amount of $86,793.

B. Consider, discuss, and act upon the school construction/renovation project

change order approval policy and procedures.

C. Consider, discuss, and act upon authorizing a proposal for painting of the front

façade at the East Smithfield Neighborhood Center in an amount not to exceed

$4,878.00.

XII. Public Comment

XIII. Announce any closed session votes required to be disclosed pursuant to Rhode

Island General Laws, Sec. 42-46-4.

XIV. Adjournment.

AGENDA POSTED: FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2020

The public is welcome to any meeting of the Town Council or its sub-committees. If communication assistance (readers/interpreters/captions) or any other accommodation to ensure equal participation is needed, please contact the Smithfield Town Manager’s office at 401-233-1010 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.

SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL JOINT MEETING WITH THE CHARTER

REVIEW COMMISSION VIA TELECONFERENCE TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2020

AT 5:00 P.M. Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Deputy Town Clerk Lyn M. Antonuccio Charter Review Commission: Chair Alfred Costantino Vice Chair Thomas Winfield John Emin, Jr. William J. Hawkins, III Michael P. Iannotti Albert E. Nanni, III Beverly Tobin Trish Williams Secretary Paul Santucci

I. Town Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, June 30, 2020 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting with the Charter Review Commission to order at 5:08 p.m.

II. Consider, discuss and act upon scheduling a public hearing and budget adoption for the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget for Tuesday, July 21, 2020.

Motion is made by Council Member Kilduff, seconded by Council Vice-President Lawton, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby schedules a public hearing and budget adoption on Tuesday, July 21, 2020. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

III. Consider, discuss, and act upon scheduling a public hearing on proposed Charter amendments for Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Motion is made by Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council Member Kilduff, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby schedules a public hearing on proposed Charter amendments on Wednesday, July 22, 2020. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

Page 2 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 Council President Alba explains that she would like everyone to have the opportunity to speak and does not want this process to be rushed. Council President Alba thanks the Charter Review Commission for all their hard work. Chair Costantino gives special thanks to Connor Henderson and Andrew McCotter from Bryant College for all of the research they completed. Chair Costantino states that without their hard work, the CRC would not have completed their charge on time. Chair Costantino also thanks the members of the CRC for all of their hard work and dedication.

IV. Discussion between the Town Council and Charter Review Commission concerning proposed charter amendments.

Chair Costantino reviews each proposed Charter amendment with the Town Council. § C-1.03. Intergovernmental Relations Chair Costantino states that this amendment would state the new structure of Town government. Member Nanni explains that this amendment would be to compose an administrative form of government which will mimic the state and federal levels. Member Nanni further explains that this amendment will provide checks and balances between a Town Administrator and the Town Council. Member Hawkins states that an elected position would give the voters their say. Member Hawkins feels that the language speaks for itself. Chair Costantino explains that the language for this amendment was recommended by Solicitor Gallone, and would emphasize a new form of government with the separation of powers. § C-1.03 Composition, Selection, Term Chair Costantino explains that this amendment would allow for a five member Town Council serving four (4) year staggered terms that are elected by the voters at large. Chair Costantino further explains that the staggered terms are also recommended for the School Committee. Chair Costantino feels that this amendment will allow the voters to be heard. Vice Chair Thomas Winfield explains that this amendment will allow members time to work on issues/projects and will also allow for continuity and continued learning. Member Hawkins states that this amendment was researched thoroughly, and will allow for continuity from election to election. § C-2.07. Vacancies, Forfeitures of Office, Filling of Vacancies Chair Costantino explains this amendment will also apply to the School Committee. Chair

Page 3 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020

Costantino further explains that this amendment will be applicable to a Town Administrator and Town Council, and should there be a vacancy, it may be filled with someone of the same political party or unaffiliated as the prior incumbent. Article III. Town Administrator Chair Costantino states that this amendment contains a great deal of information, therefore, it has been broken down into sections. Member Williams states that she believes in being fair, open, and honest. Member Williams further states that Smithfield needs to be proactive rather than reactive. Member Williams also states that this topic has been spoken about for years, and perhaps the powers that be may not be the right people to be making decisions. Member Williams feels that it is time for the voters to make the decision. Member Iannotti explains that this was a contentious subject, and seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Member Iannotti feels that the current system works well, and an advantage to this system is that the Town Council can replace him/her. Council President Alba states that she would like to why the minority voted the way they did on this particular amendment. Member Nanni states that in 1992 the voters decided they wanted a Town Administrator. Member Iannotti explains that this Charter is designed for our current form of government, and there are potential legal issues as it is complicated to change a form of government. Member Iannotti feels that a new Charter should have been drafted. Member Nanni respectfully disagrees with Member Iannotti that the Charter needs to be redesigned to accommodate a Town Administrator. Member Hawkins states that he has seen Town Managers come and go and feels that the current form of government has not worked out very well, and this is an opportunity to change our form of government for the better. Chair Costantino explains that this was a democratic process with a 6-3 vote. Chair Costantino further explains that the Town does not have a good reputation with regard to the way it is run.

Page 4 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 Member Tobin states that she cannot understand why the past is being brought up. Member Tobin further states that she voted against having an elected Town Administrator because when the voters elect Town Council members, they place their trust and confidence in them to make the right decision by appointing a Town Manager. Member Tobin feels that power should not be given to one person. Chair Costantino states that the Town Council has the veto power. § C-3.01. Election and Term Member Winfield states that the Town Administrator will have a four (4) year term. § C-3.02. Time of Election Self-explanatory. § C-3.03. Qualification Self-explanatory. § C-3.04. Compensation Chair Costantino explains that this amendment will not allow for a salary increase for the Town Administrator until completion of the current term of office for which he/she was elected. § C-3.05. Absences or Disability Chair Costantino states that having researched six other cities, the Acting Town Administrator cannot make appointments. § C-3.06. Vacancy Chair Costantino explains that this amendment will be governed by C-2.07 Vacancies, Forfeiture of Office, Filling of Vacancies. § C-3.07. Removal Chair Costantino explains that the language in this amendment will make it clear to the voters that they will not have to wait for the next election to recall the Town Administrator.

Page 5 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 § C-3.08. Powers and Duties Chair Costantino reviews the powers and duties of the Town Administrator. Council Member Cavanagh asks who enforces the Charter. Chair Costantino explains that the veto provisions are standard language. § C-4.01. Finance Department Chair Costantino explains that the Purchasing Agent will be within the Finance Department. Chair Costantino further explains that Tax Assessor will be removed to add Purchasing Agent. § C-4.02. Assessing Department Chair Costantino reads a description of the Assessing Department’s organization and functions. § C-4.03. Fire Department Chair Costantino explains that the Fire Chief requested additional language to the original Charter. § C-4.06. Town Solicitor Member Nanni explains that additional language has been added for the Town Solicitor to examine bids, contracts, and RFPs. Chair Costantino states that there has been a breakdown of purchasing and contracts. § C-4.07. Town Clerk Chair Costantino explains that for fifty (50) years the Town Clerk has been appointed by the Town Council, and the Town Clerk should be under the direction of the Town Council. § C-4.08. Town Moderator Chair Costantino explains that this appointed position will be eliminated as the Financial Town Meeting will also be eliminated. § C-4.10. Welfare Department Chair Costantino feels that the language for this section was not only archaic; but offensive. § C-4.12. Planning Board

Page 6 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 Member Iannotti explains that other cities/towns were researched and most Planning Boards are comprised of seven (7) members. Member Iannotti further explains that four (4) members will be needed for a quorum. Member Iannotti further explains that there are issues with the Planning Board, and this was very noticeable with the Sand Trace development. Member Iannotti also explains that abutters were not notified of the zone change. Member Iannotti feels that residents need to feel that the process is fair. § C-4.17. Smithfield Emergency Management Agency Chair Costantino explains that this amendment would establish a new department giving Director Manni long-overdue recognition. Member Nanni states that the purpose of this amendment is to codify EMS into the Town Council. Member Nanni further states that Part C of this amendment could be broadened to encompass other positions such as the Police Chief and Fire Chief. § C-4.18. Parks and Recreation Chair Costantino explains that Parks and Recreation would be consolidated with the School Department. Member Emin states that he met with Parks and Recreation Director Robert Kane, and Director Kane gave him a list of what he does. Member Emin further states that the Town is fortunate to have him. Member Emin feels that the Charter should be all inclusive of all departments. Member Tobin explains that Director Kane uses his own vehicle for his job, and he does not ask for mileage. § C-4.18. Land Trust Chair Costantino explains that amendment has been requested by a sponsor to be listed in the Charter. § C-4.20. Department of Town Engineer/Environmental Affairs Officer/Sewer Authority Superintendent Chair Costantino explains that many of the Town Engineer’s duties are in the budget, however, they are not listed in the Charter. Chair Costantino further explains that this amendment was requested by the Town Engineer and will display the importance of the department, duties, and qualifications. § C-4.21 Sewer and Water Supply Authority (S & WSA)

Page 7 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 Secretary Santucci explains that a separate board is necessary to complete research and to be merged with Water Supply Board with Sewer Board. Chair Costantino states that the establishment of a Sewer and Water Authority will relieve the Town Council. Chair Costantino further states that there will be permanent monthly meetings. Chair Costantino feels that there should only be one (1) authority, however, this amendment cannot be placed on the ballot until the General Assembly modifies the RIGL initiated by the Town Council. § C-4.22. Human Resource Department Chair Costantino explains that there shall be a Human Resource Department for the Town and a Human Resource Department for the School Department with a Director for each. Chair Costantino further explains that the Town Council are not precluded from consolidating these services into one department with one Director, with supporting staff. Chair Costantino also explains that the Superintendent currently does HR work. § C-4.23. Management Internal Control Program Chair Costantino explains that some department heads were truthful about how they felt about this proposed program. Chair Costantino further explains that the Town Council is not aware of what is happening in each department. Chair Costantino asked Member Nanni to help establish this program. Member Nanni states that the sole purpose of this program is to promote an exchange of information between the Town Manager/Town Administrator, Department Heads, and the Town Council. Member Nanni further states that this program begins with a conversation between the Town Manager/Town Administrator and the Department Heads in order to draft a list of items to report. Member Nanni also states that there will be a checklist of reportable items followed by an inspection of those items, of which, the Town Manager/Town Administrator will determine the key items to be inspected. Chair Costantino feels that this program is a great “toolkit” for the Town. Chair Costantino states that this program will ensure that all departmental, fiscal, and administrative functions conform to established laws and provisions of the Town Ordinance and Charter. Article V. Financial Procedures Chair Costantino explains that this article will be repealed in its entirety, and the language is the process necessary to eliminate the Financial Town Meeting and create a permanent Budget and Financial Review Board. Chair Costantino states that § C-4.24 will be added and will be regarding contracts. Chair Costantino further states that currently three (3) Department Heads have contracts, however, he is unaware of what the contract contains. Chair Costantino feels that all Department Heads

Page 8 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 should/should not have a contract. Chair Costantino feels that it needs to be consistent, and if a Department Head has a contract, the contract should remain in place until the person retires. § C-5.01. Fiscal Year Self-explanatory. § C-5.01. Budget and Financial Review Board Member Iannotti states that Town Administrator T. Joseph Almond (Town Administrator for the Town of Lincoln), was interviewed for this amendment. Member Iannotti feels that the Financial Town Meeting is does not fit into modern times and is archaic. Member Iannotti further states that the Budget and Financial Review Board will consist of seven (7) voting members who will have a five (5) year term and are appointed by the Town Council. Member Iannotti also states that the budget will be submitted to the Budget Board then to the Town Council. § C-5.03. Preparation of the Budget. Self-explanatory. § C-5.04. Budget Message. No change. § C-5.05. Budget Content. Repealed. § C-5.06. Submission of the Budget. Self-explanatory. § C-5.07. Adoption of the Budget Self-explanatory. § C-5.08. Reserve Funds. Chair Costantino explains that this amendment will be renumbered to reflect changes.

Page 9 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 § C-5.09. Appropriation and Revenue Ordinances. Self-explanatory. § C-5.10. Amendments after Adoption. Self-explanatory. § C-5.11. Lapse of Appropriations. Self-explanatory § C-5.12. Administration of the Budget. Self-explanatory. § C-5.13. Overspending of Appropriations Prohibited. Self-explanatory. § C-5.14. Capital Program. Secretary Santucci explains that a Capital Committee that will be an advisory board to the Town Council and consist of eleven (11) members. Secretary Santucci further explains that this committee will be for the entire Town, including the School Department. Secretary Santucci also explains that this amendment mirrors the Capital Program for the Town of Lincoln, and the Capital Program for the School Department mirrors what is submitted to RIDE. § C-5.15. Town Council Action on Capital Program. Self-explanatory. § C-5.16. Public Records. Self-explanatory. § C-5.17. Borrowing. Self-explanatory. § C-5.18. Banking Self-explanatory.

Page 10 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 § C-5.19. Purchasing. Chair Costantino explains that purchasing has been problematic, and the Town has not followed the Charter. Chair Costantino further explains that currently the Purchasing Agent’s duties have been split with Human Resources. Chair Costantino also explains that contracts have been missing or non-existent and RFP language has been incorrect. Member Williams states that the Town needs to be more mindful of purchasing as millions of dollars have been wasted. Chair Costantino states that businesses make decisions to save money, however, the Town has cut corners, and the right people need to be in the right positions. Chair Costantino feels that purchasing should be a full-time department. Chair Costantino further states that the Town Council is not aware of how much is spent. § C-5.20. Five (5) Year Comprehensive Audit. Vice-Chair Winfield states that while audits have been completed in the past, there are different ways things can be done better. Council President Alba states that audits have completed annually. Vice-Chair Winfield explains that there are varying degrees of audits, and a comprehensive audit can be completed involving all departments. Vice-Chair Winfield will forward the Town Council Members more information. Chair Costantino explains that an annual audit is needed to ensure practices are adhered to, and a comprehensive audit will be similar to a forensic audit. Council President Alba states that the language needs to ensure clarity for the voter. § C-5.21. Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Funds. Secretary Santucci explains that most communities have underfunded OPEB Trusts. The Charter will give direction and highlight growing liability and responsibility for the Town Council to monitor. Chair Costantino states that this needs to be placed into the Charter in order for issues to be addressed as the Town has a fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers. § C-6.05. Vacancies, Forfeiture of Office, Filling of Vacancies. Chair Costantino explains that this proposed amendment provides for filling of unexpired terms of unaffiliated vacancy.

Page 11 Smithfield Town Council Joint Meeting June 30, 2020 § C-6.06. Powers and Duties Chair Costantino explains that the school budget will be submitted to the Budget and Financial Review Board prior to Town Council approval. § C-9.01. General Authority. Chair Costantino explains that the voters need to be made aware that the recall provision applies to the Town Administrator. Council President Alba suggests scheduling another work session before the public hearing takes place. Council Member Cavanagh states that she would like to hear from the minority members as to why they voted the way they did. Council Member Cavanagh asks if these proposed amendments will be afforded by the Town because some residents may be in financial straits due to COVID-19. Secretary Santucci suggests that a list of questions be drafted to be addressed at the next meeting. Vice-President Lawton would like examples of what makes the Town of Lincoln a better run Town than Smithfield. Motion is made by Member Kilduff, seconded by Council Member Cavanagh, to adjourn the meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

Meeting adjourns at 7:55 p.m. ______ ____________________________________

Lyn Antonuccio, MPA, CMC Deputy Town Clerk

SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSION

SMITHFIELD TOWN HALL TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2020

AT 5:00 P.M.

Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Clerk Carol A. Aquilante Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Smithfield Town Council Work Session to order at 5:00 p.m. Town Council President Alba offers a prayer. Town Council President Alba conducts a salute to the flag. The following is the opening remarks of Council President Alba: This year and the budget process has been one of the most challenging in recent history. We are grateful for all the hard work from the Directors and Managers who have continued to work hard through this year’s budget process with a focus on minimizing the impact to taxpayers while working to maintain quality levels of service. A major component that helped in creating the fiscal year 2021 budget was the willingness of our bargaining units and town-wide staff for accepting concessions and pay freezes for the upcoming year. This budget is a true reflection on the community as a whole coming together to help everyone through a difficult time. This funding proposal incorporates NO TAX RATE INCREASE while phasing in the veteran’s tax exemption from $8,000 to $10,000. From an expenditure standpoint the increase in Municipal Funding of $967,613 is due primarily to changes in reporting for enterprise fund expenditures, increased pension contributions and benefit cost. The balance of the increase is associated with the increase in debt service payments ($653,880) for the Elementary School Reconfiguration Project and capital improvements which includes the replacement of the Esmond Mill Bridge and the town-wide Street Light Replacement Program. Revenues projections for the Fiscal Year 2021 budget were very difficult due to the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, but by using a combination of the Governor’s budget and various revenue models we were able to develop a conservative plan without adding any additional burden to the taxpayers.

Page 2 of 6 Work Session July 7, 2020

A community needs to seek and develop innovative ideas for strategic planning and business forecasting. New ideas for consideration and possible adoption need to be at the forefront of a viable municipal and school system. One example of this is the implementation of the town-wide Street Light Replacement program. This program will convert all of the street lights in Town to LED lights providing more efficient lighting and will significantly reduce the Town’s annual street lighting costs. Major municipal highlights of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget include the following:

NO TAX RATE INCREASE!

Debt Service increased by $653,800.

Level Funding of Town’s Appropriation to the School Department’s Budget

Board of Canvassers increased by $32,000 due to account for the upcoming primary and general election.

Post-Employment Benefits Trust Contribution is being maintained at $250,000.

Veteran’s Tax Exemption increasing from $8,000 to $10,000. B. Discussion Item:

1. Discuss Departmental Budget Requests for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. Randy Rossi, Town Manager and the Smithfield Town Council members, review “Town of Smithfield General Fund – Expenditures – Summary by Department – FY 2020 Appropriation to FY 2021 Requested” as of July 7, 2020. Town Manager Rossi explains that the budget was put together so as not to go back to our tax payers once again for an increase in taxes. We understand how difficult this time as been for everyone and continues to be to the residents of Smithfield. Town Manager Rossi further explains that the main part of the budget is that all of the level of services will be maintained. Road improvements, drainage projects and infrastructure needs, numerous capital projects requirements on the bonding aspect minimizing the amount were are looking at issuing the debt in the September time frame. Many things came down to every single director and manager to help get their budgets to a point of not having a tax increase. Town Manager Rossi states that the Town Council members are welcome to ask any questions of the directors that in attendance this evening. Council member Killduff refers to Exhibit – C – Page 3 – Departmental Revenue. Council member Killduff asks about the increase in the Enterprise Fund – Sewer and Water. Town Manager Rossi explains that there are certain components that are rolling up and they had to change the way the reporting for the Enterprise Fund. The additional revenue coming through as well for sewer and water were from different studies about developing the rates and the indirect cost sharing for those two entities. There is an increase on the expenditure side as well as the revenue side.


Council member Killduff also asks what year were are into the grant. Chief Robert Seltzer replies that we are in year two (2) of the grant. Council member Cavanagh asks about number eleven (11), were is the payment to the Town of Lincoln for the animal shelter. Town Manager Rossi replies that it is in the maintenance line item in the roll-up. In the detail budget item #562 building maintenance and supplies for $13,000 (Tri-Community Animal Shelter). Council member Cavanagh also asks about grant money is available for COVID-19. Todd Manni, EMA Director explains that he is in the process of monitoring grant through FEMA with relation to the COVID-19 virus. Council member Cavanagh asks about the legislation help with the sidewalks for the children during the school year. Judy Paolucci, School Superintendent states that she is not sure about future legislation for sidewalks, however, she will be applying for the Walk Zone. Many families were being picked at the Walk Zone by the bus company this year, but, the new contract will not allow it. She further states that she will be looking for volunteers to help with the students during the year when walking to school. Council member Cavanagh asks Town Manager Rossi to request the Town’s grant writer to research any further grants for a children’s Walk Zone to school. Council member Killduff asks if there was a savings from last year’s transportation budget. Superintendent Paolucci explains that although they spent less money this year on transportation, there is an increase in next year’s bus contract. Rose Marie Cipriano, School Committee Chair, states that although we saved money on transportation, they were still under contract with the bus company and had to pay 50%. She would not want people mislead that there a great amount of money saved. Council member Cavanagh asks was the contract reads for this year. Superintendent Paolucci states that it was an overall 7% increase in transportation with fewer days of 180 will be a cost of 50%. Currently working on reduced capacity on the buses in order not to add another bus run.


Council President Alba asks Town Manager Rossi to discuss the commercial real estate in Town. Town Manager Rossi explains that the increase in commercial is very gradual. He will continue get the message out to companies that are considering relocating to the Town of Smithfield. Council President Alba asks Town Manager Rossi to notify the Town Council members of any future business wanting to come into Smithfield. Council President Alba also asks if any business have closed in Town. Town Manager Rossi replies that he is not aware of any, other than the Greenville Inn. Council President Alba inquiries about the tangible taxes and how they compare to other cities and towns. Town Manager Rossi explains that the Town of Smithfield is ranked in the top five (5) highest tangible tax rate in the State. Drew Manlove, Tax Assessor, the number one item the Town needs to do is to attract businesses into the Town, in order to lower the tax rate. The rate of return of on personal property taxes, because the higher the personal property taxes the less business are in Town, compared to surrounding towns. Council member Kilduff asks what money was saved from the school department and the savings and retention amount. Superintendent Paolucci states that there were some savings in the budget due to substitutes and the lunch program. Because of those savings they were able to do repairs to the tennis courts and purchase supplies for next year with the remaining fund balance. Chair Cipriano states that there are supplies needed for next year which have increased in price. Council member Cavanagh asks if the teachers union have agreed to a tax freeze this year. Superintendent Paolucci states that replies that the NEA union body have agreed to no raises. Council Vice-President Lawton has concerns regarding the level of improvement to our roads due to the COVID-19 virus.


Gene Allen, Department of Public Works Director, states that they would need to scale back on some of the major roads and that during some of the construction of the roads the gas company have agreed to do half of the road and the Town would complete the other half, which would reduce the cost as well as maintenance items. Council Vice-President Lawton asks if the Board of Canvass budget needs to be increase more because of this year election and COVID-19. Town Clerk Aquilante explains that her staff has had to put more over time in because of the Presidential Preference Primary mass mailing of absentee ballot applications. At this time she does not know if the Secretary of State’s Office will be doing a mass mailing again for the September Primary or November Election. She explains that she has discuss this with Town Manager Rossi, that if it does occur she reach out to the Town Hall employees to help process the applications, because it is a huge task for her staff. Town Clerk Aquilante further explains that her office processed 3,099 absentee ballot applications for the Presidential Preference Primary. Council Vice-President Lawton asks the status of the libraries in Town. Cynthia Muldach, East Smithfield Library Director, explains that she had to furlough some of her part-time staff, however, she hopes to be able to have them return to work at some point, they are also doing contactless pick-up and use of computers by appointment only and the library will be open on a part-time basis. Dorothy Swain, Greenville Library Director, explains that she had no layoffs they have been open to the public on a part-time basis and curbside pick-up. Director Swain explains that the Strategic Plan of the library is trying to move forward by the board with a re-design. Council President Alba states that in the future the Town Council need to meet with the library directors to discuss the future of the libraries. Council President Alba thanks both directors for all they have done during this trying time as well as their creativity reaching out to our residents. Council member Cavanagh asks about #45 Municipal Debt Service regarding of interest on the school bond. Town Manager Rossi states that net increase in the debt service is $633,000 and budgeted $700,000 based on the best estimate of our financial advisor with issuing with the September time frame. Town Manager Rossi states that based on the General Assembly Legislation and signed by the Governor this year’s budget will be handled completely different with a public


hearing and Town Council adoption which will be held on July 21, 2020 at 7:00 p. m.by virtual meeting. This will be advertised in the Providence Journal on July 10, 2020 and will be on the website as well. Town Council will open the Public Hearing and make any adjustments as needed and approved. Public Comment:

There are no public comments.

A. Adjournment.

Motion is made by Council member Kilduff, seconded by Council Vice-President Lawton, to adjourn the Work Session. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

Meeting Adjourned at 5:47 P.M.

___________________________ Town Clerk

MINUTES OF SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Place: Smithfield Town Hall Time: 5:45 P.M. Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Clerk Carol A. Aquilante Town Manager Rossi explains the Tele-Conference procedure. I. Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, July 7, 2020 Smithfield Town Council

meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. II. Town Council President Alba offers a prayer. III. Salute to the flag. IV. Presentations: None.

V. Minutes:

A. Move that the minutes of the June 23, 2020 Town Council executive session meeting held pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws and Section 42-46-5(a)(5), Real Estate, to consider, discuss and act upon the potential acquisition of property.

Motion made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the minutes of the June 23, 2020 Town Council executive session meeting held pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws and Section 42-46-5(a)(5), Real Estate, to consider, discuss and act upon the potential acquisition of property, be approved as recorded and sealed. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. B. Move that the minutes of the June 23, 2020 Town Council open session meeting be

approved as recorded. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the minutes of the June 23, 2020 Town Council open session meeting be approved as recorded. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. VI. Consider, discuss and act upon the following possible appointments and

reappointments:

A. Fire Department Building Committee Appointments.

Motion is made by Council member Kilduff, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby appoints Building Official Christopher McWhite and Finance

Page 2 Town Council Meeting July 7, 2020

Director Brian Silvia to the Fire Station Building Committee. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. VII. Public Hearings: None.

VIII. Licenses:

A. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Sidewalk Sales License for Blackbird Farm, LLC d/b/a “Blackbird Farm”, to hold a Farmer’s Market every Friday and Sunday through late October, with the hours of operation to be from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., on property located at 122 Limerock Road, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

Motion made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Sidewalk Sales License for Blackbird Farm, LLC d/b/a “Blackbird Farm”, to hold a Farmer’s Market every Friday and Sunday through late October, with the hours of operation to be from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., on property located at 122 Limerock Road, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. B. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Victualling Only License for Jason

Marino d/b/a “Juice Bar & Co.”, located at 266 Putnam Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

Motion made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Kilduff, that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Victualling Only License for Jason Marino d/b/a “Juice Bar & Co.”, located at 266 Putnam Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. C. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Holiday Sales License for Jason

Marino d/b/a “Juice Bar & Co.”, located at 266 Putnam Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

Motion made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the Smithfield Town Council approve a new Holiday Sales License for Jason Marino d/b/a “Juice Bar & Co.”, located at 266 Putnam Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. IX. Old Business: None.

X. New Business:

A. Consider, discuss, and act upon the adoption of Emergency Ordinance 2020-6 pursuant to Section 2.14 of the Smithfield Town Charter declaring the existence of an emergency posed by the novel Coronavirus known as COVID-19.


Town Manager Rossi explains that this ordinance is in effect for sixty (60) days until September 6, 2020. Motion made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby adopts Emergency Ordinance 2020-6 pursuant to Section 2.14 of the Smithfield Town Charter declaring the existence of an emergency posed by the novel Coronavirus known as COVID-19. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. B. Consider, discuss, and act upon authorizing a request from Ocean State Multisport

to reschedule the date of the Sour Apple Road Race event in Smithfield to Sunday, August 9, 2020.

Council Vice-President Lawton states that she is not comfortable approving this event and Council member Cavanagh agrees. Todd Manni, EMA Director explains that this is a unique event as a staggered road race. Gary Minisian, Event Director, explains that this year there will be no registration at the time of the event, it will be all online registrations. There are two (2) start times, 6:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. The racers will have social be far apart from each other. They can have two-hundred fifty (250) runners, but, they are stopping at two hundred forty nine (249). Council Vice-President Lawton asks about the completion time the runners have for the race. Mr. Minisian replies that the runners have four (4) hours. Council President Alba states that the state guidelines could change by the time of the race. Mr. Manni explains that Mr. Minisian has spoken with the state for guidance and they have agreed to this event with the guidelines he has in place. Mr. Manni also states that there will be no social gathering after the race with the runners and the Police and Fire will be present. Mr. Minisian also states that the runners will have a ½ mile between them and there will be no ceremonies at the end of the race. The runners would just get into their cars and leave. Fire Chief Seltzer suggests that the motion should be subject to state and local health approvals. Mr. Minisian states that they have taken many precautions for this race. Council member states that she appreciates the effort to continue with the race, but she is not comfortable moving forward. Council member Cerra also states that hundreds of outdoor events have been cancelled across the state. Joseph Siegel feels that they should cancel the race because it is too risky. Mr. Siegel further states that no big events should be held as long as people are getting COVID-19.


Motion made by Council member Kilduff, seconded by Council Vice-President Lawton, that the Smithfield that the Smithfield Town Council hereby authorize a request from Ocean State Multisport to reschedule the date of the Sour Apple Road Race event in Smithfield to Sunday, August 9, 2020, subject to state guidelines at the time of the race and approval of the local public health official and state official. Motion is approved by a unanimous 3/2 vote. Council President Alba and Council member Cerra vote nay. C. Consider, discuss, and act upon authorizing the Town Manager to enter into a

contract in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) with GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. for managing and administering reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal, state and/or non-governmental funding sources available to the Town for expenses associated with the local response to the 2019–2020 coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID19).

Brian Silvia, Finance Director explains that the Town Administration has performed its due diligence with regards to gathering information pertaining to the Town’s disaster recovery filing for the National Disaster associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. The Town Administration is recommending a 90-day emergency award to GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. This will allow the Town to begin its data collection and filing requirements associated with the Covid-19 Pandemic, which also enabling the Town to go out to bid for this. Finance Director Silvia further states that the recommendation at this time is to award a contract in the amount of not to exceed $10,000 for the 90-day emergency award period. Director Manni explains that the costs associated with this contract and the work performed by the vendor will be reimbursable as well as part of the Town’s disaster recovery submission to FEMA. The National Disaster Declaration will allow for reimbursement of disaster related expenses of the Town, through FEMA, for which this contract be included. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the Town Council authorizes the Town Manager to enter into a 90-day contract in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) with GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. for the purposes of managing and administering reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other Federal, state and/or non-governmental funding sources available to the Town of Smithfield for any and all allowable expenses and associated costs associated with the comprehensive and overall local response to the 2019–2020 coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID19). The Town Manager is further directed to develop and issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for similar services for a period of 36 months. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. D. Consider, discuss, and act upon a bid award for student transportation services for

the School Department. Judy Paolucci, Superintendent explains that a review was conducted of the submitted proposals, where were then forwarded to Solicitor Scungio for negotiations with Durham School Services,


L.P., to reduce the costs of the proposal and agree to contract terms. Council Vice-President Lawton asks about the sanitizing of the buses. Council member Cavanagh asks if the school department has a checklist as to the sanitizing of the buses. Superintendent Paolucci states that are currently working on a plan to submit to the state regarding the buses. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Kilduff, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby awards the proposal and contract agreement submitted by Durham School Services, L.P. for bus transportation services effective July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2023, with the option for two (2) additional terms of one year. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

XI. Public Comment

There are public comments at this time.

XII. Announce any closed session votes required to be disclosed pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws, Sec. 42-46-4. There was no Executive Session meeting scheduled for this evening. XIII. Adjournment.

Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, to adjourn the meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

Meeting adjourns at 6:43 P.M.

Town Clerk

SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION

CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION SMITHFIELD TOWN HALL

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2020 AT 5:00 P.M.

Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Clerk Carol A. Aquilante Charter Review Commission members: Alfred Costantino, Chair Trish Williams Beverly Tobin Michael Iannotti William Hawkins Paul Santucci Thomas Winfield John Emin Albert Nanni Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, July 8, 2020 Smithfield Town Council Work Session to order at 5:00 p.m. II. Discussion between the Town Council and Charter Review Commission concerning

proposed charter amendments. Council President Alba explains that the Town Council held a previous Work Session at which time the Charter Review Commission drafted their proposed amendments to the Charter. This second joint work session is for the purpose of answering questions submitted in writing by the Town Council and members of the Town Administration sent to the Charter Review Commission. These questions will be reviewed individually and asks the chair of the Charter Review Commission only to address the question. If another member of the Commission wishes to address the question asked she asks to raise her hand or use the chat feature. Council President Alba further states that the commission member will be given one (1) minute to respond or add to a question asked. Chair Costantino explains that he would like to read a brief introduction regarding the questions presented this evening. Good evening members of the Council, Charter Review Commission members and Town employees and the Public.

Page 2 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 At the conclusion of last week’s workshop it was agreed that the Council would provide a list of questions for tonight’s meeting. I will begin with a brief introduction and pass on to Charter members in alphabetical order to respond to the questions provided. Following the last charter member’s response. I will close with my response to the written questions and any additional question’s that the Council may have. I will begin with an apology to the Police Chief Richard St. Sauveur: I made the comment that “the Town of Smithfield does not have a good reputation outside of the Town”. I was wrong to say that in a general nature. I am not one to judge the Police Department, I recognize the pride of the Chief and officers of the Department. We all know the manner of professionalism and courtesy that they display. Just to observe their maintenance facility which I have personally stated to the Chief that it is well run Class A maintenance garage and would defend him in any attempt by others to consolidate maintenance services. Other departments, deserve an apology also. John Emin Bill Hawkins Michael Iannotti Albert Nani Paul Santucci Beverly Tobin Trish Williams Tom Winfield Al Costantino Question 1. Did the Charter Commission consider any other forms of municipal government other than that of an elected Town Administrator? If so, what were they? Answer. We considered the existing form of government where the Town Council appoints the Town Manager, who can be removed at the discretion of the majority of the Council with or without a public hearing, as the Council discretion shall determine. There shall be no right of appeal. C.3.04 states. —The Town Manager Shall Be Responsible to the Council Under the Separation of Powers — The Elected Town Administrator Shall Be Responsible To The Voters Presently, The Voters, Who Pay the Bills, Have No Say In Accountability of any Mismanagement of Town Funds and Irresponsible Decisions which I will address. The Council fails to address Mismanagement or ever invoke C 2.09 Investigations into the affairs of the Town and the conduct of any Town Department. Only a tragedy resulted in a dismissal. The voters will not tolerate what the Council’s have tolerated over the years. We will have a voice where the Elected Town Administrator will be accountable to the concerns of people (I will give examples ) Does the Expectations of the Voters and Taxpayers Require the Town of Smithfield To Have a Duty to Work Efficiently? The Answer is Yes, therefore the Town May be Held Responsible for Nonfeasance. The Separation of Powers Will Diminish the Claim of Nonfeasance or Misfeasance. You Have to Answer One

Page 3 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Fundamental Question === Does the Town Council Have a Duty To Act, Once They Have “” Knowledge Of “” Do They Have A Duty to Inform The Voters and Taxpayers of a Wrongful, Reckless, Irresponsible and Detrimental Act. The Answer is Yes to Both Questions. Separation of Powers Creates Checks and Balances, Which We Do Not Have Under the Present Form of Governance. The Minutes of the Interview with Lincoln Town Administrator Joseph Almond (which you have) Speak for itself. Question 2. Did the Charter Commission Review the potential fiscal impact associated with the establishment of an elected executive branch of government. Example separate legal counsel. Answer —- Yes we did. The Town of Lincoln, Does Not Have Separate Legal Counsel for the Town Administrator and Town Council. Furthermore, our Charter in C-4.06 states that “ nor shall anything in this section prohibit the Council from making provision for the hiring of special counsel to assist or act in place of the Town Solicitor , in extraordinary and limited circumstances, when in the judgement of the Council such provision will best serve the interest of the Town. (we presently have 5 law firms engaged by the Town ) Question 3. Will the elected Town Administrator require additional personnel since he/she will be charged with more day to day responsibilities? And will there be any fiscal impact to the Town? Answer, whether the Executive Officer is appointed or elected will not change their duties. I would expect that the elected Town Administrator will pay more attention to the everyday duties and not sit on so many committees and micro manage. This is clearly demonstrated by the drama of the East Smithfield Senior Center. One Town Manager I spoke to about our Building Office told me “I never go in the Building Official’s Office “ Question 4, Did the Charter Review Commission review Veto Provisions within other Communities that had an elected branch? Do all communities require a super majority to override an executive veto? Answer Yes, we looked at other communities as evidenced by the 17 page document you received. Originally, we did not have language of a veto provision for the Town Administrator. In the memo dated June 14, 2020 from our Solicitor, under Item 9, he recommended Veto Powers for the Town Administrator and in turn, the power of the Council to override. The Council’s override of a Veto by the Town/ Administrator is by a 4/5 vote of a 5 member council or 2/3 of a 7 member council for all towns except Lincoln which is 3/5 of a 5 member council. We elected to go with the super majority which is the consensus. It does not make sense to have an ordinance approved by a simple majority, then the power to override the Veto by the same simple majority. It would make the Veto Power useless.

Page 4 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Question 5. Did the Charter Commission review the potential fiscal impact associated with, mandating that all Town Director’s and Department heads be required to have employment contracts? Answer Yes. The Council controls all salaries/compensation. See 4.20 Personnel System (d) It shall be the duty of the Personnel Board to recommend to the Council 1. A pay plan for non-unionized management employees of the Town (excluding employees of the School Department) C - 3.04 (12) present states All contracts for municipal employment shall be approved by the Town Council. C - 3.08 Powers and Duties of Elected Town Administrator. The compensation of said officer, department head or other employee shall be set by the Town Council, as per the Charter. Adding Contracts does not mean raises or additional compensation. This “spirit of fairness “may simply state the duties and notice of termination not salary increases. Look at a sample copy of a school department contract. This has not impacted school department heads in a negative way. Question 6, Did the Town Charter Review Commission review how and why the Town moved from an elected Town Administrator to an appointed Town Manager in 1992. Answer No. That was 28 years ago. Today, Town Survival is about being competitive. Smithfield is surrounded by Towns with strong elected leadership. Companies such as Citizen’s and Corporate Giants look for elected Town Administrators/Mayors to be able to share information to take back to their Board of Director’s. (Citizen’s) !! We were not concerned about what other past Charter Commissions felt about an Elected Town Administrator, only what we observed. Question 7 During the Commission’s research can you provide the Council with structural benefits of an elected Town Administrator? Answer Yes, Separation of Powers as explained in Answer 1.With the Elected Town Administrator the Town Council will no longer be able to control the Town Manager’s position to make decisions on “ not losing a voter base “ verses what is best for the Town and Taxpayers. Example: East Smithfield Neighborhood Center Meetings, Building Official, Non Report, Photos Contract for Design. —— Robert Leach Name on Contract Robert Leach — Waterman Tavern Architectural Preservation Group. Dated 6/16/08 Affidavit of Stephen Tyson to give Robert Leach, the authority to represent me on all matters having to do with the Waterman Tavern. As of June 16, 2008, your office is to recognize and accept Robert Leach as a member of Architectural Preservation Group, and an extension of myself. addressed to Peter Scorpio, Building Official AIA Document , Application and Certification for Payment Certificate For Payment on 6/15/11 by Robert Leach Totally unacceptable and illegal. Building Contractors are not allowed to sign off for payment by a municipality. Letter by Assistant Town Solicitor June 30, 2008 to Edward Sanderson Executive Director Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission “As such the Society’s grant of the Easement is not a valid easement,

Page 5 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 since the Society is not the fee owner of the real estate. There is a 99 year lease. There is another 99 year lease that is illegal, as it is for leasing a “public right of way “ of which is not allowed and MUST BE CORRECTED Immediately. The Town is aware of this. The present council has not acted on it. Why! Waterman Tavern Work Without Building Permits or Inspections Building Official James Cambio August 16th and 28, 2017. How is Robert Leach working on the East Smithfield Neighborhood Center and name listed on the Architects contract. This was the action of the Town Manager. I have this report to the Town Council? The Question to repeat is what are the “structural benefits “? The answer is “to undo the misfeasance and malfeasance acts of “ unstructured benefits “. Undo improper real estate transaction on Preservation easement without “title Insurance” Title Insurance must be obtained to protect the Taxpayers. Questions 8,9,10 and 12 Answers are in the minutes of our meetings on file with the Sec. of State’s office. Council President Alba and Council member Cerra were asking how many Town residents (who work for the Town) attended the Charter Review Commission meetings. Chair Costantino replies that all of the minutes were done by Paul Santucci and they were accurate, upon his review of the minutes. Council President Alba asks what efforts were of the public to add discussion to the meeting. Chair Costantino states that at the end of each meeting they opened it up for public comment. Chair Costantino also states that they held one meeting that was completely open to the public for comments. Question 11 What does the research say around forms of government with a Town this size? Council President Alba asks if research was done across the country as well as local governments. Chair Costantino replies that they did not research across the country, however, many hours were spent by himself and Member Santucci which was included in the report to the Town Council. Council President Alba asks what the population in Lincoln is. Chair Costantino replies that the population in Lincoln is 21,105. Answer, this question is vague, however it is clear that Lincoln, North Providence and Johnston are run with strong leadership, and accountability directly to the Voters by the Elected Administrator/ Mayor’s. Would one of those Town want to trade leadership with us? Question 12 What is the financial impact of these sections: 4.22 Human Resource Department Answer, this was explained last week. I will reiterate: We referenced the 2014 Meeting

Page 6 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Minutes where Commission Member Bernice Butera was assured by the Town Manager that this issue is at the top of the lists to address. That was 6 years ago. Nothing has happened except a current lawsuit that may be a factor of no “ human resource director on the school side. The B & E Report on pages 53-54 highlights this problem. The Charter Review Commission does not tell the schools what to do, we hope that the Town and School Committee work this out. The Town already has a Human Resource Director. It is clear that if there were a consolidation of School and Town, would require a full time assistant. The Town presently has a 1/2 position assistant. Any merger would require the School side to kick in for at least half of the assistant’s salary. Council President Alba cannot speak for the School Department or School Committee. Rose Marie Cipriano, School Committee Chair states that they have looked at this a number of years and having a Human Resource Director is many different that a Human Resource Director for a Municipality. There are many responsibilities that are different with when dealing with the School Department and the State as well. She is hopeful this will happen in the future. Council President Alba states that the Town Council has the authority to form new Town departments and this Charter Revision may not be needed. Chair Costantino states that the reason it was submitted was that in the past this recommendation was never completed. C 5.20 Costs of Audit? Answer, first, since we will be spending at least 30 million per year on the Town side. 150 Million Every Five Years, the audit should bring to the surface questionable expenses and sloppy record keeping where certain expenses may be buried on another category. I have recognized payments that are questionable in the general ledger. As to the costs, depending on the language in the RFP, that will determine the costs. It is simply sound fiscal responsibility to do this. I have researched “wasteful spending” which has been ignored. The mere fact that there will be a comprehensive audit every 5 years should have a positive impact on questionable spending, just think of the costs of the audit being amortized over a five year period. Gary Tikoian worked for the Town for a short period of time and saved the Town money. His name will come up later? To close on this matter, in business there are times, you spend money to save money. Council President Alba has not received any information as to date regarding the Cost of the Audit. Chair Costantino replies that depending on the RFP it will determine the cost of the audit. C 5.21 OPEB When this was presented to us by Paul Santucci, whose business is financial planning, and who spoke to Lincoln Town Administrator Joseph Almond in detail on this matter, we had no alternative than to address this as a “fiduciary duty” regarding dollars.

Page 7 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Paul Santucci speaks further about the OPEB report and recommend having Angell Pension Group making a presentation. Council President Alba states that the Town Council is still very unclear how this audit is different to annual audit that done each year. Chair Costantino states that this is a forensic audit regarding any misappropriations. Council President Alba asks who does these audits and what other cities and town have had them done. Paul Santucci replies that in 2007 the Auditor General came in and did and audit which was much more complete as well as recommendations for the future of the Town. Thomas Winfield feels that these forensic audits evaluates our internal structures and we are conforming to State mandates. The R.I. Auditor General reports on the audit as well as the recommendations in order to operate more efficiently. Council President Alba appointed the Charter Review Commission members and are very pleased with the work that was done by the members of the Commission, however, we want all of the members be allowed to speak if they would like to. Question 14 Where will the money come from if there is added expense in light of today’s added burden’s created by COVID- 19 Answer, where will the money come from if we do not pass the Charter Amendments. I just do not understand how one cannot grasp the central theme of this Charter Commission, tighten our belt, MICP Program, Full time Budget and Financial Review Board. Eliminating the Financial Town Meeting. Separation of Powers which equates to checks and balances. Whoever presented this question, please read the minutes of the interview meeting with Lincoln Town Administrator Joseph Almond. (it has been sent to all Council members ) Article V as presented, I will paraphrase—WE ARE GOING TO STOP KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD Questions by the Police Chief, Richard St. Sauveur: The above stated answers to the Council Questions should apply to some of the Chief’s questions and concerns, with that I will begin: Chief St. Sauveur appreciates Chair Costantino’s words at the onset of the meeting and was not insulted by Chair Costantino at the last meeting. His concerns was with the tone of the last meeting making reference to the Town not be operating right. His has been with the Police Department for thirty-three (33) years and the Town under the current government works very well. A Town where the Chief is not communicating with the Town Manager, etc. is not the case in this Town. He felt it was a totally inaccurate statement.

Page 8 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Chair Costantino states that it was an inaccurate statement Question — If the Elected Town Administrator Charter Amendment is approved by the Voters in November, and should this form of government fail, what is the earliest possible time that the voters would be able to return to a Town Manager form of Government? Answer — Article X1. Charter Amendment C - 11.01. Proposal of Amendment “This Charter may be amended at any time. ”Therefore, there are two answers to this question, It could be on the ballot for the next election or any election thereafter, at no costs to the Taxpayers. It could be presented as a ballot question at a Special Election at any time in between election years, with the Town paying for the costs of the voting booths etc, set up. Both scenarios will require a public hearing, prior to the Charter Amendment being placed on the Ballot. Question — Why is it that the Charter Commission did not ask Administrators if the Town is run well. Answer — it is correct that we did not ask that question. What we did ask, is there any improvements you can think of for your department or do you feel you are adequately staffed. Let me back up to the question and restate. Instead of the statement that the Town is not run well. The statement is that Department Heads and their departments “run well”. If we asked the Administrators if they thought the Town Manager was doing a good job? My position is the question puts pressure on the Administrators at the interview to critique their boss, which we did not want to do. I can say that some employees are concerned about retribution. We spent such an extraordinary amount of time on interviews and research that we were able to come to a conclusion on our own. Council President Alba the question is that is the Town running well, not just the Town Manager. Chief St. Sauveur states that as a Town resident and director he does feel that the Town is running well because of the current form of government. There is a benefit for a department manager to have a layer between the Town Manager and Town Council. Question C 3.03 Qualification of the Elected Town Administrator. Why would we be willing to settle on a popular 19 year old with no life experienced? Answer, our 17 page report on this elected position reflects that all communities have the same qualifications regarding age. (a qualified elector of the Town) There is merit to having a minimum residency requirement. Chief St. Sauveur states that at the last meeting there were questions on qualifications when running for office and shouldn’t a Town Administration have some investment in the Town. Chair Costantino explains that there will be a residency requirement.

Page 9 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Chief St. Sauveur feels that we are setting up the Town for an unqualified person running for election for Town Administrator. Question Are there controls over the Elected Town Administrator residing in Smithfield 12 months out of the year, so as not to be traveling from Narragansett, Jamestown, or Charlestown 3 months out of the year. Answer There will not be controls over residing in summer homes. Chief St. Sauveur even if an elected official has a home in Florida, would that be appropriate. Chair Costantino gives an example of other elected official who have homes out of state. Council President Alba asks if that is acceptable. Council member Cerra not being in Town full time. Chair Costantino states that the Town Administrator would need to be present. Question. Is the Police Department within the Town Administrators Department Answer, no however, no department is a “sovereign entity ‘Since the Town Council sets the compensation of said officer, department head or other employee, the Council will have “say” in any new position. Solicitor Gallone states that the only body to create departments are the Town Council, not the Town Administrator. Chief St. Sauveur asks since the Police Department is not in the Town Administrators department, the language will permit the Town Administrator create a department within the Police Department or Fire Department. Chair Costantino all departments are under the Town Manager or Town Administrator. Solicitor Gallone explains the executive branch system and the proposed language Chief St. Sauveur refers to that as political hires. If there is someone in the Police Department or Fire Department that cannot get themselves promoted can the Town Administrator promote that person? Solicitor Gallone explains the under the proposed language there may be a conflict. Solicitor Gallone states that it seems that even with the new language the Town Council is in charge of any insubordinate officers.

Page 10 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Chair Costantino states that there is a recall section within this charter revision. Chief St. Sauveur question: Section C covers the qualifications of the Emergency Management position. The director must have no less than five (5) years of supervisory and administrative experience. He feels it is not clear. Albert Nanni member, the idea is that individual is a supervisor is first before an administrator and it could have been clarified a little better. Usually you seek candidates from one level lower that the position you are seeking. Chief St. Sauveur how can it be clarified a little better. Solicitor Gallone asks Chair Costantino for more clarification of this revision. Solicitor Gallone explains that when dealing with personnel it has to be done in the proper forum. If there are complaints against personnel the proper disciplinary procedures need to be followed. Council Vice-President Lawton asks Chair Costantino why he stated that the Town of Lincoln is better than the Town of Smithfield. Chair Costantino replies that if he files an APRA request with the Town Hall and requests records it becomes a public document and all he wants to do is read it. Council President Alba states that Chair Costantino will not be reading those public documents on this call, especially when the Town Solicitor confirms that it should not be done. Council President Alba also states that in the past years since she has served on the Town Council she has received no form complaint against a Town Manager in the Town of Smithfield, furthermore, this Town Council has done a thorough review of the Town Manager, which has never been done on the past. Question Do You Have Proof that the Town is Not Run Well? Answer Yes, Proof that there are examples of mismanagement by the Town Manager, the Town Administrators and their Departments are run well. Example One - Source Acting Public Works Director Gary Tikoian. The Town Manager admitted repeated reimbursement to a Town Employee for Credit Card Purchases during his interview. This complaint was brought to his attention in a meeting in his office by the Acting Public Works Director Gary Tikoian. The Town Council was made aware of this Credit Card Issue during their interview with the Charter Commission. This type of transaction went on for many years while the Town Manager was Finance Director and while he was both Town Manager and Finance Director. The disbursements and invoices are public record. Example Building Official Office. Source Public Records Waterman Tavern Affidavit by Stephen Tyson owner of Architectural Preservation Group (contractor for the Waterman Tavern) giving Robert Leach the authority to represent me on all matters having to do with the Waterman Tavern and to recognize and accept Robert Leach as a member of Architectural Preservation Group, and an extension of myself. AIA Document. Application and Certificate for Payment June 10, 2011 On June 15, 2011, Robert Leach signed the Certification for Payment The

Page 11 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Town of Smithfield relied on a signature of a the contractors staff to approve payment to the contractor. Work Performed Without Permits and Inspections Cease/ Stop Work Order On August 16, and 28, 2017 there is detailed documentation of work performed without permits and inspections. There is another affidavit stating that Robert Leach is a consultant and Representative of the Smithfield Preservation Society ( who owns the structure ) to insure that proper procedures are followed to restore the Smithfield Exchange Bank Building as it pertains to Federal, State and Local government regulations. To date (moving on 3 years work to remove installed building materials in order to inspect work performed without a building permit and to insure work was done according to code in order to receive building permits had not been done) THE 2 MAILS WERE COPIED TO RANDY ROSSI TAXPAYERS FUNDS WERE USED ON THIS FAILED PROJECT NOW TRAVEL FORWARD TO THE EAST SMITHFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Public Document of Submittal of RFP and AIA Contract for design services of $ 63,250 for the East Smithfield Neighborhood Center. With the wrongful actions of Robert Leach, known by the Town Manager, his name should not be on any paperwork. Building Official Report on East Smithfield Neighborhood Center Source - Public Records, James Cambio Updated ESNC Findings & Recommendations & Photos Dated Sept.3, 2019 A significant portion of this wood siding & framing is below grade. This has resulted in severe rot to framing members and had diminished the structural integrity of the additions. The existing foundations are inadequate as PHOTOS reveal only 12 inches of below grade bearing for that area of the building. Current code requires 54 inches frost depth foundations for commercial structures. The Building Official was instructed by the TOWN MANAGER NOT TO BRING THIS REPORT AND PHOTOS to the MEETING, as evidenced that the Report and Photos WERE NOT AT THE MEETING and WITHHELD FROM THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS School Reconstruction Committee. —- Source Sec. of State Meeting Minutes Co Chair Town Manager Randy Rossi Meeting Minutes Reflect that the General Contractor Ahlborg & Sons who is signatory to the Town Manager for a $ 33,000,000 Million Dollar School Reconstruction project had not been in attendance at the meetings. (This is construction 101) Sec. of State and Town Website do not have records of the School Reconstruction Steering Committee. (who make important decisions ) The Town has records and public agenda’s for “ The Ad Hoc Dog Park Committee “ but not for the steering committee ! Does the Council Know of the process for approving change orders? Basketball Courts. Source Printed RFP from the Town Manager An RFP with Sole Source Language was submitted to the basketball committee and hastily approved in a reckless manner. Several Thousand Dollars were spent on 3 rd party documentation and not utilized. Is the Council aware of the documentation and report and inspections and the costs? Title Insurance. Public Records The Town has to obtain Title Insurance to protect the Taxpayers from a $ 390,000 Dollar Conservation Easement, 99 Year Land Lease Source Town Hall Records The Town has to undo a 99 year land lease for a “right of way “ which is not legal. The proper procedure is to condemn/undo the right of way and offer it up for sale. Our Town Solicitor is an expert on “real estate “ The Town Manager is cognizant of this issue. Reputation of Town regarding Building Official’s Office Source Peter Scorpio, James Cambio Peter was stressed by political influence in his office. He conveyed this to others, including myself. It is no secret that the building official’s office has had issues. This is a small state. The hidden report by Jim Cambio is one more example. The building official’s office was ordered to site a violation for Bay Crane displaying a small antique crane by a zoning member. The crane was in a landscape area for aesthetics and curb side appeal. In closing, we can debate a Elected Town Administrator vs. an appointed Town Manager for days. This is simply too important of an

Page 12 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 issue to confined to 3 council votes who do not want this to happen. I know a lot more than what I have said tonight. Let us all go into the booth and be able to vote, just like you. Voters in Smithfield should have the same rights as the Voters in East Providence in 2016. The answers to these were verbatim from Chair Costantino. Questions of the School Superintendent: Question – Try to understand the Capital Committee more and what the responsibilities are. Answer – Paul Santucci states that Chair Cipriano was at a meeting with Joseph Almond, Town Manager –Lincoln as he explained his entire capital program. After discussions with Chair Cipriano and Superintendent Paolucci it was very evident they wanted a very collaborative effort and they needed a structure. No way, shape or form is the Commission trying to tell the school department how to spend their money. Mr. Santucci further explains that the Capital Committee is designed to put in place a twenty (20) plan over five (5) year increments, which make a tremendous amount of sense. Mr. Santucci states it is a rolling plan where the Town Capital would in under resolution for further infrastructure repairs. It offers the Town to make that expenditure through the Capital Plan and get reimbursed from the inside. In no way does it interfere with operating budget or capital Question – this year was a significant rebate for LED lighting. Would they have to get permission from the Capital Committee for LED lighting? Answer-Yes - Mr. Santucci replies that if would be approved by the Capital Committee or Resolution of the Town Council. Question – Wrote a Department of Justice Grant for new entrances for the Gallagher, High School and access points for the Elementary. Answer – Yes – but it depends if the school’s money is being used exclusively. Again, we cannot tell them what to use their money on. The Capital Fund is used for long term projects. Question – Tennis Courts were repaired with funds from the school department, would we have to go to the Capital Committee for the repairs. Answer – No – If the repairs are from the operating funds of the school department they have no authority what to tell them to spend their money on. Question – Superintendent Paolucci is concerned on the legality of the Capital Committee and asks if the Commission have spoken with Solicitor Scungio. Answer – Yes - Mr. Santucci explains that Solicitor Gallone and Solicitor Scungio have in communication regarding this Capital Committee charter revision. Solicitor Scungio is very aware how Capital Committee work for municipalities. We would never put the Town at risk.

Page 13 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Solicitor Gallone explains that this is a good idea and if there are any other concerns they can address it at the Public Hearing. Question – It could end up being overly constricting and it is not clear what purchases are instructional. Mr. Santucci replies that purchasing was a key component in one of the Charter Revision. Answer- Chair Costantino – Purchasing should be under the direction of the Finance Director. If the school department is purchasing something confidential it would be an obligation to honor that request. Health services for students is no instructional services. Chair Costantino further states that the Town Auditor establish the threshold. Trish Williams, member, states that this revision was voted on in 2014 and approved and it clearly defines instructional, but not be implemented. Mr. Santucci states that it would be wise to speak offline with a little more clarity with the school superintendent. Solicitor Gallone states that is still time to act upon this revision. Chair Cipirano states that she did meet with the Charter Commission and Mr. Almond was present. The superintendent is looking for clarity regarding the wording to be understood by the voters. She appreciates further conversations regarding this charter revision. Chair Cipriano refers to clarity on the Capital Programs regarding the structure of participants. She feels the twenty (20) year plan is too long. C-5 should have some clarity as well. C-6 After $10,000 (should be funded through Capital Funds). Supported the questions of the superintendent. Virginia Harnois, School Committee member, states that the capital program should be shorter than twenty (20) years, because you never know what can go wrong yearly. Mr. Santucci states that the twenty (20) year plan will be looking out to 2040, but capital not just for the schools but for the entire Town. It is a collaboration to be reviewed each year. Ms. Harnois explains that at one time there was a purchasing agent used for the school and Town, but the Town could not handle the needs of the school department. Michael Iannotti, member, explains that the intent to have the school department a greater role in long term planning for large items, such as roofs, and better coordination between the Town and school. It is already in the charter and much of the language is the same. Chair Cipriano states that the COVID-19 changes and clarifications need to be done on the school side and many areas are still not clear. Council President Alba states that the miss-spoke previously regarding a previous complaint of

Page 14 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 the former building official. There was one complaint in her eight (8) year tenure. Chief Robert Seltzer states that he mirrors the comments of Chief St. Sauveur regarding the Charter Revision for an elected Town Administrator. Our management team work very well with the department managers and there is a concern about bringing a political level to the Town. This Town is really well run and has a very good reputation. Chair Costantino replies that an Administrator and a Mayor have the same duties and the charters they reviewed had the same language, the difference is the title in name only. There was positive discussion regarding the title of Mayor, but we are more rural. Chair Costantino replies on a non-binding referendum suggestions. Chair Costantino explains that Charter Commission members voted 6/3 to put it on the ballot in its entirety and they feel it should go on the ballot for voters to consider. The Charter Review Commission have worked countless hours on this charter revision. Solicitor Gallone states that is this relates to a personnel performance it needs to go into an Executive Session of the Town Council. He suggests to formulate a complaint and request to have an Executive Session with the Town Council for hearing. The Town Council will have labor counsel present at that time as well. Solicitor Gallone explains that when dealing with employees’ rights we need to tread very carefully. A job performance evaluation must be spoken during and Executive Session. Solicitor Gallone during talks of the Charter Review Commissions he was asked why only some department managers have employee’s contracts and others, however, labor Attorney Ragosta was not able to meet with the Commission. Attorney Ragosta does not feel that all the department managers would be able to have a contract, because they have answer to the Town Council and not the Town Manager. The Town should may have future conflicts. Council President Alba states that any personnel issues will be heard by the Town Council in Executive Session. The Town Council have not heard any personnel issues as of yet to date. Council Kilduff states that he is grateful for the work the Charter Review Commission have done and wishes to work in the right direction. A consider is that the Town of Smithfield is not the Town of Lincoln. The Town of Lincoln have move revenue sources. Council Kilduff also states that there is a zero percent increase in the budget this year, does that show to the commission that there is a need for a change in leadership. Council member Cerrra states that there needs more clarification regarding the Human Resource Director and contracts. There is not enough evidence to take this to the voters. Charter Member discussion: Michael Iannotti feels that it is not appropriate for the commission to get into personnel issues. The commission’s goals are to address the structure of Town government. He feels the structure we currently have works quite well and the commission did not look in depth of an elected position.

Page 15 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 He feels it is not a good idea and the Town cannot do this at this time, because it will create all conflicts and problems. Trish Williams states that each employee or tax payer this commission reviewed every aspect made available who served on a previous commission. Previous items were never brought into fruition. The cost of a Town Administration was never brought up at previous meetings by Michael Iannotti. Ms. Williams states that she was very happy when Chief St. Sauveur was appointed, because he came up through the ranks. Our Charter is not being implemented and we are using tax payers’ money. There are people in this Town making poor money decisions. The Town should have contracts for their department managers. They save the Town money. Chief Seltzer states that it is another political level in government. Chief St. Sauveur states that he not accusing anyone about politically interfering with the Police Department. This system of government works well and he does not want to turn the Town political. Beverly Tobin explains she voted against a Town Administrator because we are not the Town of Lincoln and there is no need for a Town Administrator. There is no need for that form of government because right now we have an open door policy and she believe we should leave everything as is. William Hawkins states that nobody has been more consistent since 1992 as to what form of government the Town should hold. Mr. Hawkins has been in favor of an elected position from the beginning. He believes more can be accomplished with and elected position with the State level as well. This issue should not be suppressed it should be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide. This is not personal to him it is financially responsible for the Town. Mr. Hawkins feels any move to suppress the voters is right out a of Republican play book. Council President Alba states that a point of order, that speaking of a political party is not appropriate by a commission member during this meeting. Council President Alba asks Solicitor Gallone is there is anything in the Charter that mandates that the proposed charter amendments be sent to every voter. Solicitor Gallone explains that under the Charter the Charter Commission’s proposed amendments require a public hearing and the Town Council does not have the ability to alter any of the recommendations of the revised language. Solicitor Gallone further explains that he has been working with Chair Costantino on the revised language for presentation to the Town Council to either accept or reject for the November Ballot. Solicitor Gallone explains some of the Charter Revisions he has worked on with Chair Costantino and how they would affect the Charter. The Charter Review Commission has put in a lot of work into these Charter Revisions and the ultimate decision for any of these questions to be placed on the ballot would the Town Council members.’ Council President Alba asks for Solicitor Gallone to explain to the Town Council members the procedures for approval of these Charter Revisions.

Page 16 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Solicitor Gallone explains that once the final draft of the questions are complete a public hearing will be held and the condensed concise questions, are the questions before the Town Council members to either accept or reject as they will appear on the ballot. Chair Costantino states that the commission will hold another meeting to discuss and review the language of the revised questions. Council member Kilduff states that he is not comfortable whether it is the best interest of the tax payers by changing the whole government system at this time. He does appreciate all the work the Charter Commission have done on these charter revisions. Chair Costantino states that the will requesting a closed session with the Town Council members on acts of wrong doing of an employee. Solicitor Gallone if personnel matters are held in Executive Session is has to formulated and brought to the Town Council members. Council President Alba states that she has no idea what has to be presented to the Town Council and she wished it was brought before them sooner. Council President Alba also asks how it changes the form of government and what the issues are with the Town Manager. She feels that it should be a non-binding referendum on the ballot instead of a Charter Revision. Council President Alba states that she respects Chair Costantino’s work and opinions. Council member Kilduff urges the Charter Commission to continue to work with Solicitor Gallone and asks for transparency. Public Comment: Kenneth Sousa, Town resident, states that there is no correlation between and elected and an appointed official. Mr. Sousa compliments the Charter Review Commission members and all the work they have done. Mr. Sousa feels that they must look at data and good economic development. He does not agree with the separation of powers and agrees with Chief St. Sauveur. Mr. Sousa also does not agree with employment contracts. Mr. Sousa further explains that the Financial Review Commission have made recommendations in the past for a twenty (20) year plan for a Capital Fund, but nothing was done about it. Mirek Kula, Town resident, believes there is parallel government in this Town with regards to the School Committee. Mr. Kula also states that in government there needs proper checks and balances and there is definitely a strong correlation. He is against a Town Administration, but why not the School Committee. Council President Alba thanks all the members of the Charter Review Commission for all their hard work and furthermore thanks Chair Costantino and all the Town directors for all their hard work as well.

Page 17 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 The following are comments through the chat room on the Zoom Meeting as exactly as they appeared: Chief Richard St. Sauveur: Thanks, Al Joe Siegel: I Support Randy 100% Joe Siegel: Randy is doing a wonderful job. Leave him alone! Joe Siegel: Electing a Town Administrator: HUGE mistake. Let the TC make the appointment. That’s why we elect them – to make these decisions. Joe Siegel: Our form of government is working fine. Don’t change it. Chief St. Sauveur: I just want to thank Al and members of the Commission for answering my questions. I’m very concerned about politics invading the police department and other departments when, under the current form of govt, this does not take place…at least from my perspective. Dina Cerra: Thank you President Alba Dina Cerra: And thank you Chief for contributing to this workshop. Council Vice-President Lawton: My camera on the surface is not coming in. I apologize. Mirek Kula: The discussion is about the form of the government, not personal. Mirek Kula: Why are we turning this into a discussion on personal performance? Mirek Kula: The question is what is the problem that we are fixing, and if this is the right solution. Chief Richard St. Sauveur: All noted that the title of “Mayor” was discussed. Pardon my recollection if it is a little off, but I believe he said the term Mayor was too strong or powerful. That’s concerning. I know our residents are intelligent people, but they may not fully realize that the “Town Administrator” is nothing more than a Mayor in disguise…which is why a non-binding vote makes a lot of sense. Have a significant notification/information campaign on this Town Administrator issue and let the people vote on whether this is something they’re interested in. Mirek Kula: What does it have to do with the topic? Dina Cerra: I completely understood what the Chief was saying. Mirek Kula: Why is that we vote for school committee and not have it appointed by the Town Council.

Page 18 of 18 Work Session July 8, 2020 Kenneth J. Sousa: Mirek. That’s not what I said. I said that there is no correlation between population size (which was discussed in comparison w/Lincoln). And there is no correlation to “getting things” done in the town. Motion made by Council member Cerra, seconded by Council member Kilduff to adjourn. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. Meeting adjourns at 8:12 P.M.

________________________________ Smithfield Town Clerk

MINUTES OF SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE – VIRTUAL MEETING Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 Place: Smithfield Town Hall Time: 6:30 P.M. Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Clerk Carol A. Aquilante Town Manager Rossi explains the Tele-Conference procedure. I. Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, July 21, 2020 Smithfield Town Council

meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. Town Council President Alba offers a prayer. III. Salute to the flag. IV. New Business:

A. Consider, discuss and act upon approving five (5) project change orders for the elementary reconfiguration project in the amount of $228,424 as recommended by the School Building Committee.

Derek Osterman, Colliers Project Leaders, explains that the Smithfield School Building Committee is requesting that the Town Council consider, discuss and act upon the approval of Change Order 1 to Ahlborg Construction for necessary construction in support of the Smithfield capital improvement projects at McCabe, LaPerche and Old County Road Elementary Schools. This change reflects negotiation with the contractor to provide the best value to the Town and has been reviewed and recommended for approval by Colliers Project Leaders and DBVW Architects. This change order is recommended in the amount of $228,424. This change order includes the following scope:

McCabe RIDEM Revisions $189.00 Additional Plantings at LaPerche $4,931.00 Venting at the McCabe Roof $116,698.00 New Fiber Optic Line at McCabe $99,294.00 Additional of New Wall Crash Pads at LaPerche Gym $7,321.00

Thomas Hodgkins, Town resident asks why this items were not included in to the original contract. Mr. Osterman replies that there will be a change in orders over the life of the contract in order to get fair pricing as the project moves forward on a fairly regular basis, which allows for change


orders, for various reasons including owner change items previously added in and that now fits well with the contingency. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Kilduff, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby approves Change Order Number 1 to Ahlborg Construction in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Four Dollars. (228,424.00). Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. B. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a Construction Change Directive for a

new domestic water service line at Anna McCabe Elementary School for an amount not to exceed $55,000 as recommended by the School Building Committee.

Mr. Osterman explains that the Smithfield School Building Committee is requesting that the Town Council consider, discuss, and act upon the approval of Construction Change Directive 1 to Ahlborg Construction for the necessary replacement of the existing domestic water service, per the Greenville Water District. The directive allows the contractor to immediately begin this work and this directive has been reviewed and recommended by Colliers Project Leaders and DBVW Architects. Mr. Osterman further explains that this Construction Change Directive is recommended for approval with a Not to Exceed Value of $55,000 and this figure is based on preliminary estimates to complete this work. Town Manager Rossi explains that the Greenville Water District suggested that a replacement of the waterline while the ground is disturbed. Council Vice-President Lawton asks if these changes will slow down the project at all. Mr. Osterman replies that these changes will not delay the project in anyway. Council member Cavanagh asks what the difference is between a change order and a change directive. Mr. Osterman explains that a change order (an issue is identified or problem) have the solution full priced and vetted and then approve a specific cost that becomes part of the contract. In this case a construction change directive (typically done when the work needs to be begin as quickly as possible), but the total cost is not fully understood. So typically it is a not to exceed amount estimate is offered and we will track the labor and material and Ahlborg Construction will eventually turn this into an official change order, because we want that work to proceed and negotiate the final number down. Council member Cavanagh asks if the money will come back to the contract sum. Ms. Osterman confirms that it will. Council member Cavanagh asks if there will be many change orders coming forward and asks Town Manager Rossi if there will be a bottom line amount.


Town Manager Rossi replies that the idea of the change order will not change the contingency amount. Council member Kilduff ask if there is a borderline estimate amount and will more of these projects need to be done with a re-evaluation in the future. Mr. Osterman explains that the budget is set for $45M and the goal will be to spend no more than the $45M and maybe less than the allotted money available. Mr. Osterman further states that the Town is in a very good position regarding this project. Council member Cavanagh asks which contingency fund that $228,000 was taken from. Mr. Osterman states that some of the items were taken from the construction line item and based on the contract the Town owns the construction line item not the contractor. Motion is made by Council member Kilduff, seconded by Council Vice-President Lawton, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby approves Construction Change Directive Number 1 to Ahlborg Construction in the amount Not to Exceed Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars. ($55,000.00) Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. C. Consider, discuss and act upon approving a proposal from Pare Engineering to

provide engineering design hydraulic calculations for LaPerche Elementary for an amount not to exceed $19,000 as recommended by the School Building Committee.

Mr. Osterman is seeking approval from the Town Council of Additional Services for PARE Corporation for the necessary engineering design to provide the appropriate water pressure for the fire protection system that supports LaPerche Elementary School. This service is required to provide a design that will meet life safety code requirements and has been reviewed and recommended for approval by Colliers Project Leaders and DBVW Architects. The additional serve to PARE Corporation is in the amount of $19,000.00. Gene Allen, DPW Director explains there needs a replacement to the domestic line from 5’ outside the building to inside with new valves and a backflow preventer if required. We may need two pressure valves and new relief valves as well. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cerra, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby approves additional services for PARE Corporation with the Smithfield Water Supply Board in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Dollars. ($19,999.00). Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. D. Consider, discuss and act upon approving the purchase of Network Phase 1

Technology Equipment for the elementary reconfiguration project in the amount of $145,697.75 as recommended by the School Building Committee.

Mr. Osterman is seeking Town Council approval of a technology equipment purchase in support


of the Smithfield capital improvement projects at McCabe, LaPerche and Old County Road Elementary Schools. This purchase provides the necessary phase l network technology equipment and enables the Town to take advantage of the E-Rate program, providing substantial savings to the Town. This purchase was developed by the School Department’s Technology Director and is recommended for approval by Colliers Project Leaders and DBVW Architects. Mr. Osterman further states that this purchase is for technology and equipment in the amount of $145,697.75. Scott Barnett, IT Director, Smithfield School Department explains that this purchase is for networking equipment which is eligible for the E-Rate Rebate (40%) reimbursement to the Town of Smithfield for the first five-year period ending this year. We split it in half to purchase in the summer and then in the following spring as a follow up for the second half of the project in order to be eligible for reimbursement. Motion is made by Council member Cerra, seconded by Council member Cavanagh, that the Smithfield Town Council hereby approves the purchase of technology equipment through the E-Rate program in the amount of One Hundred Forty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Ninety-Seven Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents. ($145,697.75) Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. V. Adjournment.

Motion is made by Council member Kilduff, seconded by Council member Cerra, to adjourn the meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.


Town Clerk

MINUTES OF SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE – VIRTUAL MEETING Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 Place: Smithfield Town Hall Time: 7:00 P.M. Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Clerk Carol A. Aquilante Town Manager Rossi explains the Tele-Conference procedure. I. Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, July 21, 2020 Smithfield Town Council

meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Town Council President Alba offers a prayer. III. Salute to the flag. Council President Alba opening remarks: This year and the budget process has been one of the most challenging in recent history. We are grateful for all the hard work from the Directors and Managers who have continued to work hard through this year’s budget process with a focus on minimizing the impact to taxpayers while working to maintain quality levels of service. A major component that helped in creating the fiscal year 2021 budget was the willingness of our bargaining units and town-wide staff for accepting concessions and pay freezes for the upcoming year. This budget is a true reflection on the community as a whole coming together to help everyone through a difficult time. This funding proposal incorporates NO TAX RATE INCREASE while phasing in the veteran’s tax exemption from $8,000 to $10,000. From an expenditure standpoint the increase in Municipal Funding of $967,613 is due primarily to changes in reporting for enterprise fund expenditures, increased pension contributions and benefit cost. The balance of the increase is associated with the increase in debt service payments ($653,880) for the Elementary School Reconfiguration Project and capital improvements which includes the replacement of the Esmond Mill Bridge and the town-wide Street Light Replacement Program. Revenues projections for the Fiscal Year 2021 budget were very difficult due to the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, but by using a combination of the Governor’s budget and various revenue models we were able to develop a conservative plan without adding any additional burden to the taxpayers. A community needs to seek and develop innovative ideas for strategic planning and business forecasting. New ideas for consideration and possible adoption need to be at the forefront of a viable municipal and school system. One example of this is the implementation of the town-


wide Street Light Replacement program. This program will convert all of the street lights in Town to LED lights providing more efficient lighting and will significantly reduce the Town’s annual street lighting costs. Major municipal highlights of the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget include the following:

NO TAX RATE INCREASE!

Debt Service increased by $653,800.

Level Funding of Town’s Appropriation to the School Department’s Budget

Board of Canvassers increased by $32,000 due to account for the upcoming primary and general election.

Post-Employment Benefits Trust Contribution is being maintained at $250,000.

Veteran’s Tax Exemption increasing from $8,000 to $10,000. The Town will be sending out letters to each taxpayer with their bills explaining that there is no tax increase this year, however, there would be increases to residents who have made improvements to their property and have had new evaluations to their property. The Town will continue to make significant improvements to the infrastructure of the Town, which includes allocating funds for paving and road repair. IV. Conduct a Public Hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2021 budget.

Council President Alba opens the Public Hearing.

Council President Alba asks Town Manager Rossi to start this Public Hearing this evening by addressing each department’s budget. Town Manager Rossi expresses his thanks to everyone present tonight as well as all of the directors for their cooperation and help with the budget.

BUILDING OFFICIAL’S OFFICE

The recommendation is $452,894 is appropriated for the Building Official’s Office, which is a reduction of $139.00.

There is no discussion regarding this department.

TREASUER – TAX COLLECTOR

The recommendation of $703,825 is appropriated for the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office, including an amount sufficient estimated at $45,000 for Tax Sale and Expenses, which is an increase of $12,819.00 based on the reallocation of staff from the Town Manager’s department regarding the purchasing agent.



TAX ASSESSOR’S OFFICE

The recommendation of $310,380 is appropriated for the Tax Assessor’s Office, which is a reduction of $18,055.00.


FIRE DEPARTMENT

The recommendation of $8,997,815 is appropriated for the Fire Department, which is an increase of $343,673, due to the increase in pension, healthcare costs and other contractual obligations within that department.


SMITHFIELD LIBRARIES

The sum of $6,465 is appropriated for the Smithfield Public Libraries

The recommendation of $575,849 is currently allocated for the operation of the East Smithfield Library, which is a level-funded budget for the upcoming year. The recommendation of $878,159 is currently allocated for the operation of the Greenville Public Library, which is a level-funded budget for the upcoming year.


SENIOR CENTER

The recommendation of $478,321 is currently allocated for the operation of the Smithfield Senior Center, which is an increase of $3,364.00. Council member Cerra asks if monies have been put aside for improvements and maintenance on the Senior Center building. Town Manager Rossi states that in the operating budget there are funds set aside for improvements throughout the year. Karen Armstrong, Senior Center Director, states that they are still working on the exterior of the building and painting as well.


EAST SMITHFIELD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER

The recommendation of $6,465 is currently allocated for the East Smithfield Neighborhood Center, which is a level-funded budget for the upcoming year.


PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The recommendation of $227,663 is currently allocated for Planning and Economic Development with an increase of $1,790.00.


POLICE DEPARTMENT

The recommendation of $9,555,074 is currently allocated for the Police Department with an increase of $317,372 due to the increase of contributions to the private pension, state pension plan and healthcare benefits.


ANIMAL CONTROL

The recommendation of $221,731 is currently allocated for the Animal Control Division, which is an increase of $8,149.00.


PUBLIC WORKS – Operations

The recommendation of $5,004,160 is appropriated for the Operations Budget of the Public Works Department, which is an increase of $161,558, with the larger amount of that associated change of indirect cost that are billed through the enterprise and reporting the full expenses to the general fund. There is a new Trash Hauler as well. Council President Alba asks what the saving would be. Director Allen replies that the savings would be approximately $200,000.


PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

The recommendation of $753,419 is appropriated for the Parks and Recreation Department with a reduction of $30,949, due in part to the closing the beaches for this current year due to COVID-19. Council member Cerra asks about the maintenance line item of the Animal Control budget. Town Manager Rossi states that the amount is the annual stipend (rent) to the Town of Lincoln for the Tri-Community Animal Shelter. Town Manager Rossi further states that the amount will remain in the budget until they are certain that the Town will close our current shelter (approximately one (1) year). If the shelter is closed completely then we need to find office space.

TOWN ENGINEER’S OFFICE

The recommendation of $382,065 is appropriated for the Town Engineer’s Office with an increase of $123,698 specifically due to the change in the indirect cost of the enterprise fund. Council member Cerra asks the difference in salaries from 2020/2021. Town Manager Rossi replies that difference is the salaries were netted down by the enterprise fund. The total expenditures are now being shown in the general fund.

SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

The recommendation of $39,307,843 is appropriated for the Smithfield Public Schools being made up of $32,538,175 in and Anticipated Revenues in the amount of $6,769,668, including the Town’s proportionate share of Retirement Fund for the School Department, with a reduction of $25,297.00 which comes from the State Aide appropriation reduction. Town Manager Rossi thanks Superintendent Paolucci, Lisa Cournoyer, Finance and the School Committee for all their hard work with the budget this year and providing a level-funded budget this year. Council President Alba ask Superintendent Paolucci is she has any additional information regarding State aide this year. Superintendent Paolucci replies that she has not heard anything as of yet regarding State aide. She is, however, using strategies for a potential shortfall including future open positions. Council President Alba asks if Superintendent Paolucci is planning for the upcoming year and any savings for next year. Superintendent Paolucci replies that if there may be long distance learning, which would save on


the cost of busses and she will know hopefully by August 17th, by the State. She has nothing further to report at this time.

TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE

The recommendation is $412,300 is appropriated for the Town Clerk’s Office with a reduction of $3,496.00.


TOWN MANAGER’S OFFICE

The recommendation is $396,428 is appropriated for the Town Manager’s Office with a reduction of $24,090, which the position moving into the Tax Collector’s Office as well as a reduction from a full-time IT Director to part-time.


TOWN HALL

The recommendation of $172,893 is appropriated for the Town Hall with a reduction of $2,174.


HUMAN RESOURCES

The recommendation of $10,825 is appropriated for Human Resources, which is level-funded. Council President Alba asks if we have seen an increase in needs during this time. Director Armstrong states this appropriation is still being held for a permanent position. She further explains that at this time they are using contributions received in by various businesses in Town and grants to meet the needs of the residents. Council President Alba asks when we will be hiring for this position. Director Armstrong replies that at this time they hard handling all the needs. Town Manager Rossi states that they budgeted in order to keep the department open and running and if not expended the funds would revert back to the Town. Council President Alba asks if there were no pandemic would we have hired someone for this position. Town Manager Rossi replies that the position would have been filled.


EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

The recommendation of $35,118 is appropriated for the Emergency Management Agency, with an increase of $440.00.


LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY DIRECTION

The recommendation of $521,348 is appropriated for Legislative and Policy Directive including amount sufficient estimated at $35,000 for Advertising, $400,000 for Legal Fees, and $27,000 for Miscellaneous, with a decrease of $3,412.

TOWN-AIDED PROGRAMS

The recommendation of $59,550 is appropriated for Town-Aided Programs as indicated and further MOVE that Well One, Tri-Community Action Agency and any other agency that the Town deem appropriate shall fine with the Town Finance Director on or before November 30, 2020 a complete financial statement for the period beginning July 1, 2019 or the date of the last such statement whichever is later, and ending one (1) year later, with an increase of $3,800. Council President Alba comments that in past years some agencies were awarded funds they did not claim. She urges Town Manager Rossi to contact these agencies to make sure they use the allocated money awarded by the Town. Town Manager Rossi states that is has happened previously, however he has been diligent about contacting these agencies regarding the funding from the Town.

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

The recommendation of $91,330 is appropriated for Board and Commissions including an amount sufficient estimated at $49,250 for the Board of Canvassers.


SYSTEM-WIDE MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS

The recommendation of $2,739,653 is appropriated for System-Wide Municipal Obligations, with a total increase of $66,012.



MUNICIPAL DEBT SERVICE

The recommendation of $2,960,584 is appropriated for Municipal Debt Service, Principal, with an increase of $653,880, specifically for the payment on the new debt, the first payment on the Elementary Configuration Bond.


MUNICIPAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

The recommendation of $1,444,803 is appropriated for Municipal Capital Improvement Projects, with an increase of $270,005 for projects such as, town-wide street lights, Esmond Mill Bridge.


ENTERPRISE FUNDS

SMITHFIELD SEWER AUTHORITY

The recommendation of $4,056,819 is appropriated for Smithfield Sewer Authority, including the amount of $691,000 for capital improvement expenditures, with a reduction of $314,265, due to the reallocation of how expenditures are accounted for in the Enterprise Fund.


SMITHFIELD WATER DEPARTMENT

The recommendation of $2,117,101 is appropriated for the Town of Smithfield Water Department, including the amount of $235,500 for capital improvement expenditures, with an increase of $400,794 that has to do with a combination of debt service for the new bonds for the water tank as well as accounting changes based on the Water Rate Study.


SMITHFIELD ICE RINK The recommendation of $706,585 is appropriated for the Smithfield Ice Rink including the amount of $-0- for capital improvement expenditures, with a decrease of $123,822, the main difference with operations closed for COVID-19 revenue is not coming in from the rentals and did not budget any capital for improvements at the Ice Rink for the next year.



Public Comment: Richard Iannitelli, School Committee member, explains that a great deal of the revenue comes in from state aide and supposedly everything has been put on hold from General Assembly. It could be early to late August for any answer from the State. Mr. Iannitelli asks if the Town has any future plans for this budget regarding the re-opening of the current budget. Town Manager Rossi states that based on certain actions of the General Assembly they may have to do a supplementary budget. Town Manager Rossi gives an example of the motor vehicle phase-out tax. It is not set in stone, therefore, residents will not be sent Motor Vehicle tax bills until the General Assembly votes on that. Again, due to the many moving parts they may have to re-address the budget at some time. Mr. Iannitelli asks if there is a Town building runs into a major issue which form of contingency could be used for repairs. Town Manager Rossi states that if it is COVID-19 related they can seek reimbursement through the Federal Government, EMA and FEMA funds. There is no rainy day money for these purposes, however, the Town Council would need to look into the fund balance for contingency issues. Hearing no further comments Council President Alba closes the Public Hearing. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Kilduff, to accept the Fiscal Year 2021 budget as presented this evening. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.

V. Consider, discuss, and act upon an appropriation and tax levy resolution for fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.

Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Kilduff, to adopt the appropriation and Tax Levy Resolution for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 as vetted. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote. XI. Adjournment.

Motion is made by Council member Kilduff, seconded by Council Vice-President Lawton, to adjourn the meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 5/0 vote.


Town Clerk

MINUTES OF SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING VIA TELECONFERENCE – VIRTUAL MEETING Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2020 Place: Smithfield Town Hall Time: 2:00 P.M. Present: Town Council President Suzanna L. Alba Town Council Vice-President T. Michael Lawton Town Council Member Dina T. Cerra Town Council Member Sean M. Kilduff (excused) Town Council Member Maxine A. Cavanagh Town Manager Randy R. Rossi Town Solicitor Anthony Gallone, Esq. Town Clerk Carol A. Aquilante Town Manager Rossi explains the Tele-Conference procedure. I. Council President Alba calls the Tuesday, July 27, 2020 Smithfield Town Council

meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. II. Town Council President Alba offers a prayer. III. Salute to the flag. IV. Consider, discuss and act upon the adoption of a council resolution approving the

wording of proposed charter amendment ballot questions for the November 3, 2020 General Election.

Council President Alba reads the twenty-one (21) Charter Revision questions. *See supporting documentation attached. Council member Cavanagh asks Solicitor Gallone why he stated that there are nineteen (19) questions, rather than twenty-one (21) questions. Solicitor Gallone replies that it was originally twenty-one (21) questions with the consolidation of a few questions and these questions were reviewed by Chair Costantino and member Santucci. Council member Cerra believes that question number twenty-one (21) was rejected by the Town Council members. Council President Alba states that if question twenty-one (21) was rejected, there are twenty (20) questions being certified for the ballot. Solicitor Gallone instructs Town Clerk Aquilante and Town Manager Rossi to research that further and it can be reflected in the vote of the Town Council today. Council President Alba wishes to thank the members of the Charter Review Commission for all of their hard work on the commission. Council President Alba states that she is proud of the work the Town Council members have done in conjunction with the Charter Review


Commission. Once again, thanks to all who participated. Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cerra, to approve the resolution of proposed charter amendment ballot questions for the November 3, 2020 General Election codifying the language accepted by the Town Council at the Public Hearing which was held on July 22, 2020. Motion is approved by a unanimous 4/0 vote. Public Comment: Council President Alba reads a letter sent to William Hawkins, Charter Review Commission member regarding his comments during the last Charter Revision meeting. Trish Williams, Charter Review Commission member, states that it was a pleasure serving on the commission and although it was challenging, difficult at times and frustrating with nine (9) people from different demographics, it was a wonderful experience. Ms. Williams apologizes on behalf of the commission for any misunderstanding and wishes Council member Cavanagh well after her many years of service on the Town Council and further states that Council member Cavanagh was a big help to the commission. Beverly Tobin, Charter Review Commission member, states that it was a pleasure serving on the commission, and she has no complaints. Ms. Tobin agrees that everyone did a great job and wishes the Town Council members the best of luck and thanks everyone who has served on the commission. Michael Iannotti, Charter Review Commission member, thanks the Town Council members for appointing him to the commission and there were many good proposals for voters on the ballot and the process works very well. He thanks everyone who served on the commission and this very successful project. Ms. Williams states that it was challenging and thanks Paul Santucci for serving as secretary of the commission and wishes everyone to stay healthy. Solicitor Gallone states that although it was a little chaotic the last two (2) weeks he thanks everyone on the Town Council as well as the commission members, including Chair Costantino and member Paul Santucci (Secretary), for working with him and achieving this goal. Ms. Williams states that it was difficult at times especially when reaching out the Town Council members for a meeting and not getting a response. Council President Alba replies that she does not recall being invited to a Charter Review Commission meeting and the Town Council members not attending or responding to the commission. The Town Council did offer a clerk to take note, however, the commission members decided it would be best to have Paul Santucci act as secretary of the commission. Council President Alba is very proud of the Town Council and for the work they have done.


Council President Alba feels proud the members of the Town Council because they voted what was best for the Town of Smithfield with a fair conscious and integrity.

Council member Cavanagh thanks Ms. Williams for her kind words. Ms. Williams states that her comments were never made to be malicious and she has no ill feelings toward the Town Council members, Town Manager and commission members. She was glad they were able to work together. The following are comments through the chat room on the Zoom Meeting as exactly as they appeared: Joe Siegel: The Town Manager should NOT be an elected position. Joe Siegel: I support Randy! Dina Cerra: Thank you all for your service. Joe Siegel: Pray for a vaccine for coronavirus. Joe Siegel: Praise for our first responders and health care workers. They are true HEROES. Joe Siegel: I said what I wanted to say. Joe Siegel: Stay cool everyone. Its 95 degrees. XI. Adjournment.

Motion is made by Council Vice-President Lawton, seconded by Council member Cerra, to adjourn the meeting. Motion is approved by a unanimous 4/0 vote.


Town Clerk

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020

TO: Smithfield Town Council

FROM: Carol Banville – License Coordinator

SUBJECT: Public Hearing for a new Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Lola’s Lounge,

LLC, d/b/a “ Lola’s Lounge” to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service for the

August 4th Town Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

Conduct a Public Hearing to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC, d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, located at 55 Douglas Pike to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service.

TOWN REVENUE:

Fee for Liquor License is $600 per year

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:

Copy of application Copy of BCI – No Record Notice of Public Hearing Copy of Notice to abutters Copy of radius map and abutters list TIP Cards Diagram of outdoor seating area

Notice of Public Hearing that appeared in the Valley Breeze (run dates were July 23, 2020 and

July 30, 2020)

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC, d/b/a “ Lola’s Lounge”, located at 55 Douglas Pike, to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service, with the hours of operation to be Monday through Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, a copy of their Retail Sales Permit, a Certificate of Good Standing from the RI Division of Taxation, final approval from the Building Official and final approval from the Department of Health.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Public Hearing for a new application for a Class A Beverage License for Northern

RI Liquor Warehouse, Inc. d/b/a “Northern RI Liquor Warehouse” for the August

4th Town Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

Conduct a Public Hearing to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Class A Beverage License for Northern RI Liquor Warehouse, Inc. d/b/a “Northern RI Liquor Warehouse”, located at 970 Douglas Pike, Bldg. B.

TOWN REVENUE:

Fee for Liquor License is $1,000


Copy of application Copy of BCI – No Record Notice of Public Hearing Copy of Notice to Abutters Copy of radius map and abutters list Proof of Insurance Notice of Public Hearing that appeared in the Valley Breeze (run dates were July 23, 2020 and July 30, 2020)

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Class A Beverage License for Northern RI Liquor Warehouse, Inc. d/b/a “Northern RI Liquor Warehouse”, 970 Douglas Pike, Bldg. B, with the hours of operation to be Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, a copy of TIP Cards, a copy of the Retail Sales Permit and a Certificate of Good Standing from the RI Division of Taxation.

970 DOUGLAS PIKE - SMITHFIELD, RILIQUOR STORE

JULY 28, 2020

PROGRESS CONCEPTUAL PACKAGE

JULY 28, 2020

3D CONCEPT VIEW970 DOUGLAS PIKE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET TITLE

ISSUED DATE:

THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT LISTED ABOVE AND ARE NOT TO BE COPIED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ZDS, INC.

THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR MEASUREMENTS, BUT SHALL VERIFY AT THE SITE ALL LEVELS AND MEASUREMENTS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE FABRICATION, ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLATION OF THE WORK. MINOR DETAILS OF THE WORK NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE ASCERTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT THE SITE OF THE WORK, AND SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT.

REVISIONS

PLO

T CREA

TED

:

CONSULTANTS

CLIENT

ARCHITECT

ZDS inc.2 CHARLES ST, SUITE A1

PROVIDENCE, RI 02904

+1.401.680.6699www.z-ds.com

STAMP

7/28

/202

0 6:

01:0

8 PM

PROJECT TITLE

Unnamed

A 1.02

MONTH YEAR

PROJECTSTATUS

XXXXX

PROJECT ADDRESS

NO DATE DESCRIPTION

1 RENDERING VIEW Copy 1

JULY 28, 2020

FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/16”=1’

970 DOUGLAS PIKE

UP

UP

-

-

--

A 1.01

1

- -

2 3 4 5 6

7

8

158 SF

VESTIBULE

01CARTS

WC

JAN

DELIVERY/TRASH

OFFICE/BREAK RM

LIQUOR SHELVING

CASH OUT

REFRIGRERATED COOLERS

REF

RIG

RER

ATE

D

CO

OLE

RS

WC

GROUND FLOOR0"

EXST ROOF LINE17' - 4"

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT NO.

DRAWING NO.

SHEET TITLE

ISSUED DATE:

THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT LISTEDABOVE AND ARE NOT TO BE COPIED INANY FORM WITHOUT THE EXPRESSWRITTEN PERMISSION OF ZDS, INC.

THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR MEASUREMENTS,BUT SHALL VERIFY AT THE SITE ALLLEVELS AND MEASUREMENTS NECESSARYFOR COMPLETE FABRICATION, ASSEMBLYAND INSTALLATION OF THE WORK.MINOR DETAILS OF THE WORK NOTSPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THEDRAWINGS SHALL BE ASCERTAINED BYTHE CONTRACTOR AT THE SITE OF THE WORK, AND SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHEDWITH THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT.

REVISIONS

PLO

TCREA

TED

:

CONSULTANTS

CLIENT

ARCHITECT

ZDS inc.2 CHARLES ST, SUITE A1

PROVIDENCE, RI 02904

+1.401.680.6699www.z-ds.com

STAMP

7/28

/202

0 5:

25:4

1 PM

PROJECT TITLE

Unnamed

A 1.01

MONTH YEAR

PROJECTSTATUS

XXXXX

PROJECT ADDRESS

NO DATE DESCRIPTION

1/8" = 1'-0"2 GROUND FLOOR

1/8" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION

N

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Public Hearing for a new Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Ichiraku, LLC,

d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion” to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service for

the August 4th Town Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

Conduct a Public Hearing to consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Class B-Victualler Beverage License for Ichiraku, LLC, d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion”, located at 970 Douglas Pike to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service.

TOWN REVENUE:



Copy of application Copy of BCI – No Record Notice of Public Hearing Copy of Notice to abutters Copy of radius map and abutters list Drawing of outdoor seating area TIP Cards Certificate of Good Standing Copy of menu

Retail Sales Permit

Notice of Public Hearing that appeared in the Valley Breeze (run dates were July 23, 2020 and

July 30, 2020)

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Class B-Victualler Beverage License from Ichiraku, LLC, d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion”, located at 970 Douglas Pike, to include Outdoor Seating/Bar Service, with the hours of operation to be Monday through Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, final approval from the Building Official and final approval from the RI Department of Health.

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 28, 2020

TO: Town Council

FROM: Michael Phillips, Town Planner

RE: Request to Abandon Portions of Vera Drive

The enclosed petition to abandon portions of the Vera Drive right of way has been reviewed by the Planning Department and is submitted to the Town Council for consideration. The petition is submitted on behalf of JORICA DEVELOPMENT LLC and DAHLIA BONZAGNI, the land owners that abut the two small areas of the right of way to be abandoned.

The Planning Board recently approved a subdivision that included the extension and reshaping of the Vera Drive cul de sac. The extension of the right of way left two small portions of the old right of way that are no longer necessary for roadway purposes given the new configuration.

Pursuant to Rhode Island General Law Title 24 Highways Chapter 24-6, Abandonment By Towns, the Town Council of a community is authorized to abandon a roadway that no longer serves a public purpose. The law also requires notice of the abandonment be provided in a newspaper once a week for three (3) successive weeks prior to the meeting and, that those abutting the roadway to be abandoned receive personal notice.

Ownership of the roadway right of way areas that are abandoned revert to the abutting owners.

Recommended Motion: That the Smithfield Town Council hereby approves the abandonment of portions of Vera Drive and provide notice as required by R.I.G.L.

Attachments: Petition to the Honorable Town Council to Abandon portions of Vera Drive Abandonment Plan Exhibit A – Deed Descriptions

Town of Smithfield 64 FARNUM PIKE

SMITHFIELD, RHODE ISLAND 02917

Telephone (401) 233-1017 Fax (401) 233-1091

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

SMITHFIELD SCITUATE FOSTER GLOCESTER EDITION | VALLEY BREEZE & OBSERVER | JULY 16-22, 2020 NORTH COUNTY 7

7

SMITHFIELD – Officials say they’re proud to present a 2020-2021 budget with no tax increase during one of the most challenging financial years in recent memory.

It wouldn’t have happened, said Council President Suzy Alba, if employees with various town bar-gaining units hadn’t come to the table to give money back to taxpayers.

Alba has been insistent that resi-dents who are already struggling with the impacts of the pandemic should not have the added burden of a tax increase.

The $83.6 million budget plan calls for a 2.2 percent increase in overall spending but no tax increase and no increase in funding to local schools.

Town Manager Randy Rossi said the town is grateful to all directors and managers who have continued to work hard through the budget pro-cess with a focus on minimizing the impact on taxpayers while maintain-ing quality services.

“A major component that helped in creating the fiscal year 2021 budget was the willingness of our bargaining units and townwide staff for accept-

ing concessions and pay freezes for the upcoming year,” he said, agree-ing with Alba. “This budget is a true reflection on the community as a whole coming together to help every-one through a difficult time.”

In addition to no tax rate increase, the funding proposal phases in an increased tax exemption for veterans from $8,000 to $10,000.

With legislative approval from the state, the town is switching up its budget approval process this year, said Rossi, planning a virtual public budget hearing and council adoption of the plan for Tuesday, July 21, at 7 p.m.

All information on how to con-nect to that meeting online will be on the town website. Also an option is to call 877-568-4106 or 646-749-3129 and enter access code 342-830-965.

After hearing feedback from residents, councilors will make their amendments and the budget will go into effect.

From an expenditure standpoint, the increase in municipal funding of $967,613 is due primarily to changes in reporting for enterprise fund expenditures and increased pension contributions and benefit costs. The balance of the increase is associated with the increase in debt service

payments for the elementary school reconfiguration project and capital improvements, including the replace-ment of the Esmond Mill Bridge and the townwide streetlight replacement program.

Revenues projections for the 2021 budget were very difficult due to the impact of the pandemic, said Rossi, but by using a combination of the governor’s budget and various rev-enue models, officials were able to develop a conservative plan without adding any additional burden to tax-payers.

“A community needs to seek and develop innovative ideas for strategic planning and business forecasting,” he said. “New ideas for consideration and possible adoption need to be at the forefront of a viable municipal and school system.”

One example of this is the imple-mentation of the streetlight replace-ment program, reducing costs through conversion to LED lights.

The savings from various local employee unions will be felt into the future, say officials.

Town workers will continue to try to stretch infrastructure dollars, the council learned last week, doing more jobs to prolong the life of local roads instead of doing full-depth reconstruction.

No tax increase in SmithfieldBy ETHAN SHOREYValley Breeze Editor

[email protected]

Graniteville WWII Veterans Memorial

Foundation hosts 20th anniversary celebrationJOHNSTON – The Graniteville

WWII Veterans Memorial Foundation will hold its 20th anniver-sary celebration at its annual Victory Day event on Saturday, Aug. 15.

The memorial service begins at 10 a.m. at the Graniteville war monuments site, located on Putnam Avenue, Johnston, next to the fire sta-tion.

For more information, call Laura at 401-658-2234. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there will be social distancing and limited seating under the tent. Attendees are encouraged to bring their own chairs and umbrellas. Organizers ask that attendees please remember to wear a mask.

North Scituate Library offers adult

summer readingSCITUATE – North Scituate Public

Library will offer an online adult summer reading program.

Every book you read and review earns a free raffle ticket for prize bas-kets. Visit scituatelibrary.beanstack.org to sign up.

For people without consistent internet access, an offline reading tracker is also available for curbside pickup. Call 401-647-5133 to request a pickup.

The library will also host a Classic Fantasy Book Club for the sum-mer. The group will be reading “Frankenstein,” “The Hobbit,” and “The Last Unicorn,” and discussing them on Zoom. Sign up at https://tinyurl.com/ydyudxfo .

The library will be starting a new Dungeons and Dragons campaign for adults and teens. Sign up at https://tinyurl.com/y8nrcwdd .

IN BRIEF

Smithfield summer food program beginsSMITHFIELD – Smithfield

Public Schools will be providing free meals to children throughout the summer.

Meals will be served Monday through Friday, from 11 a.m. to noon, at Smithfield High School, 90 Pleasant View Ave., until Aug. 21. There are no income requirements and registration is not required. Any child younger than age 18 will

receive a meal.Contact Jessie MacDonald at 401-

231-6606, ext. 8121, or email [email protected] with ques-tions. For more information about the National Summer Food Service Program, visit www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/summer . For more information on summer meal sites around the state, contact the United Way by dialing 211.

IN BRIEFCraft bags for kids at East Smithfield Library

SMITHFIELD – East Smithfield Public Library is offer-ing craft bags for children ages 3 and older.

Pick-up day is Wednesday, July 22, from 4 to 6 p.m. The crafts will be left on the front steps of the library, at 50 Esmond St.

For more information, call the library at 401-231-5150.

TOWN OF SMITHFIELDNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS

Please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.https://www.gotomeet.me/RandyRossi/smithfield-town-council

You can also dial in using your phone.United States (Toll Free): 1 877 568 4106

United States: +1 (646) 749-3129Access Code: 342-830-965

For technical support dial: 401-233-1010

Public Hearing Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2020Time: 7:00 p.m.Place: Smithfield Town Hall, 64 Farnum Pike, 2nd Floor

Notice is hereby given that a Joint Public Hearing of the Charter Review Commission and the Smithfield Town Council will be convened at the Smithfield Town Hall on July 22, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. for the purpose of reviewing the Proposed Charter Amendments and approving the Proposed Charter Amendments that will appear on the November 3, 2020 Election Ballot.

The public is welcome to any meeting of the Town Council or its subcommittees. If communication assistance (readers/interpreters/captions) or any other accommodation to ensure equal participation is needed, please contact the Smithfield Town Manager’s office at 401-233-1010 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.

To view the full text of the Proposed Charter Amendments, please visit the office of the Smithfield Town Clerk during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) or visit the Town’s Web Site at: www.smithfieldri.com.

By order of the Town Council: Carol A. Aquilante, MMC Town Clerk

TOWN OF SMITHFIELDNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF VERA DRIVEThe following Resolution was adopted by the Town Council on Tuesday,

July 7, 2020. RESOLVED that Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor, Town Hall, 64 Farnum Pike, Smithfield, on Tuesday, August 4, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. on a petition of Jorica Development, LLC, and Dahlia Bonzagni are requesting that to abandon portions of Vera Drive. Jorica Development LLC owns Lots 1, 2, & 3 as shown on a Minor Subdivision for Jorica Development, LLC, approved by the Smithfield Planning Board on October 17, 2019, and Dahlia Bonzagni owns lot 184 on Assessor’s Plat 45. The above mentioned subdivision pro-posed by Jorica Development LLC involves the extension of Vera Drive.

The Abandonment Petition and subdivision plan are on file with the Town Clerk of said Town Council.

That Notice be given to the owners of the land abutting upon the exten-sion of Vera Drive; to appear at the aforesaid Public Hearing, if they see fit, to be heard for against such abandonment and, as to the damage if any, which they shall sustain thereby.

Such Notice shall be given by advertisement in the Valley Breeze Observer, and further, a personal Notice shall be served upon every person known to reside within this State, who is an owner of land abutting upon said exten-sion of Vera Drive; which is proposed to be abandoned.

That the Smithfield Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause Notice to be given in accordance with the provision hereof. This Resolution shall take effect upon its passage.

By order of the Smithfield Town Council:

ATTEST: Carol A. Aquilante, MMC, Town Clerk

MEMORANDUM

DATE

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 24, 2020 TO: Smithfield Town Council FROM: Michael Phillips, Town Planner RE: Smithfield Estates, LLC, Earl Grey Estates –Comprehensive Plan

Amendment INTRODUCTION The enclosed petition to amend the zoning ordinance and zoning map was submitted to the Town for consideration on August 5, 2019. Pursuant to Section III, Article J, of the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations, an applicant proposing a Land Development Project that also requires zoning map and or ordinance amendments, “shall first obtain an advisory recommendation on the zoning change from the Planning Board as well as conditional Planning Board approval for the first approval stage for the proposed project. Accordingly, the Planning Board began reviewing the project at the Pre-application/Concept level in October of 2019. Several iterations of the plan were reviewed and commented on by the Board. The most recent concept was reviewed by the Board in February of this year. The Master Plan submission was made in April and reviewed by the Planning Board at the June 18th Informational Meeting, during which a number of abutters commented on the project. The Board conducted a site walk on July 15th and a number of abutters walked the perimeter of the project along Ridge Road and along the water line easement near the southern end of the lot. The Applicant revised the plans based on comments from the Board, the public and this office and the Board subsequently approved the revised Master Plan on July 16th. The Board also recommended in favor of the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and zoning map amendments. BACKGROUND The area that is subject of the Comprehensive Plan amendment is located in the south eastern part of Town between Douglas Pike and Ridge Road on lots that have become known as the “Tea Lots”. These lots were part of the so called “Lake View Park” plat recorded in 1902 (See Attached). The controversy before this Court is preceded by an extensive history originating at the turn of the Nineteenth Century with John M.



Telephone (401) 233-1017 Fax (401) 233-1091

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Hathaway, tea merchant with, a large plat of land, prepared and recorded a plat of land situated primarily on the westerly side of Douglas Pike in Smithfield. This plat of land, designated as "Lake View Park," consisted of nine hundred and eighty-seven (987) small lots, the majority of which were sixty (60) feet by twenty-five (25) feet in dimension. The lots were deliberately divided in such a manner to enable the purchase of the lots to occur in conjunction with the sale of tea. Specifically, John M. Hathaway provided each tea purchaser the opportunity to buy one lot within Lake View Park per one pound of tea, in exchange for a $2.00 fee to cover the cost of executing the warranty deed. Accordingly, such land parcels are referenced as "tea lots." While the vast majority of the tea lots were ultimately conveyed, very few purchases resulted in any significant unification of adjoining parcels. Consequently, Lake View Park remained undeveloped. Proposed streets were never laid out, and the topography remained as wooded land Overtime, many tea lot purchasers passed away, and heirs to the undeveloped tea lots ceased paying property taxes. This extensive tax delinquency and virtual abandonment prompted the Town of Smithfield to conduct a tax sale in June of 1950 concerning nearly three hundred and thirty (330) of the tea lots scattered throughout Lake View Park. After receiving no bids for the real estate, the Town's Tax Collector conveyed these lots to the Town by virtue of a tax deed executed on July 18, 1950. There ensued from this point a number of conveyances by various parties associated with the plats over many decades leading to an overlapping and complicated ownership trail that led to numerous suits starting in 1975, counter claims and claims of adverse possession. Ultimately, the Filippi’s/ Smithfield Estates, LLC prevailed. A Final Judgement was entered on August 3, 2017 whereby fee simple title to the lots were quieted in two entities; Smithfield Estates, LLC with a total of 380 lots and Paul Filippi, Steven Filippi and Blake Filippi with a total of 493 lots. The Town’s merger provisions require substandard lots of record in contiguous ownership to be merged to create lots that conform to zoning or, come closer to adhering to the dimensional standards of the zoning district. After applying the merger provisions to the lots as configured in the judgement, it was determined that there were 228 discrete lots between the two owners. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map was submitted to the Town for consideration on August 5, 2019 for the “Tea Lots” as submitted by Smithfield Estates, LLC and Earl Grey Estates, LLC located at 128 Douglas Pike and Ridge Road. Prior to considering this petition for zone change, the Town Council must first consider amending the Comprehensive Community Plan. The Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Community Plan does not anticipate a change in the zoning of the above mentioned lots. Therefore, in order to comply with Rhode Island General Law R.I.G.L. 45-22.2-5, (c) which requires a municipality’s zoning ordinance and map be consistent with its Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map would first need to be amended to reflect the proposed change to the Planned Development (PD) district. The proposed amendment involves changing the land use designation of the entire property from Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and

Commercial to Planned Development (See Future Land Use Map showing current land use designations). Additionally, it is proposed that the land use designation of AP 40 / Lots 239, 240, 274, 275, 364, 386-388 and a portion of lot 452 be changed from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial to correspond with the current land use of these parcels. These lots are adjacent to the Earl Grey Estates project. It should also be noted that the Tea Lots are listed as Map ID #6 in Table H-25 Selected Properties for the Construction of Low and Moderate Income Housing which is in the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan (See below). The lots listed include about 10 acres of land on the east side of Douglas Pike which brings the total area of the Map ID# 6 to approximately 52 acres.

Map

ID#

Plat

Lot

Loca

tion/

Ow

ner

Zoni

ng

Gro

ss L

and

Area

Build

able

Are

a

Publ

ic W

ater

1

Publ

ic S

ewer

Projected # Units at Buildout

Mar

ket R

ate/

LMI U

nits

Pr

opos

ed/A

ppro

ved

5 un

its /

acr

e2

25%

-34%

LM

I 8

units

/ a

cre

35

% -4

9% L

MI

12

uni

ts /

acr

e

50

% -

100%

LM

I

6 41, 42 1 - 450 Tea Lots-

Ridge Road/Rte7

R-MED 52 50.1 Yes No 251 401 601

Recommended Motion: That the Smithfield Town Council schedule a public hearing on September 15th to consider an amendment to Comprehensive Community Plan that involves changing the land use designation of the subject property from Low-Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and Commercial to Planned Development as described in the petition for the “Tea Lots” and changes the land use designation of lots adjoining the project from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Commercial as shown on the attached map. Attachments: Portion of Figure LU-11: Future Land Use – Showing Land Use designations in the area of the “Tea Lots”.

Portion of Figure LU-11: Future Land Use – Showing Land Use Designations in the area of the “Tea Lots”.

MEMORANDUM

DATE

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 24, 2020


FROM: Michael Phillips, Town Planner

RE: Smithfield Estates, LLC, Earl Grey Estates –Zoning Ordinance, and Zoning Map Amendment

INTRODUCTION

The enclosed petition to amend the zoning ordinance and zoning map was submitted to the Town for consideration on August 5, 2019. Pursuant to Section III, Article J, of the Land Development and Subdivision Regulations, an applicant proposing a Land Development Project that also requires zoning map and or ordinance amendments, “shall first obtain an advisory recommendation on the zoning change from the Planning Board as well as conditional Planning Board approval for the first approval stage for the proposed project".

Accordingly, the Planning Board began reviewing the project at the Pre-application/Concept level in October of 2019. Several iterations of the plan were reviewed and commented on by the Board. The most recent concept was reviewed by the Board in February of this year. The Master Plan submission was made in April and reviewed by the Planning Board at the June 18th Informational Meeting, during which a number of abutters commented on the project. The Board conducted a site walk on July 15th and a number of abutters walked the perimeter of the project along Ridge Road and along the water line easement near the southern end of the lot. The Applicant revised the plans based on comments from the Board, the public and this office and the Board subsequently approved the revised Master Plan on July 16th. The Board also recommended in favor of the proposed comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and zoning map amendments.

BACKGROUND

The area that is subject of the project is located in the south eastern part of Town between Douglas Pike and Ridge Road on lots that have become known as the “Tea Lots”. These lots were part of the so called “Lake View Park” plat recorded in 1902 (See Attached). The controversy before this Court is preceded by an extensive history originating at the turn of the Nineteenth Century with John M. Hathaway, tea merchant with, a large plat of land, prepared and recorded a plat of land situated primarily on the westerly side of



Telephone (401) 233-1017 Fax (401) 233-1091

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Douglas Pike in Smithfield. This plat of land, designated as "Lake View Park," consisted of nine hundred and eighty-seven (987) small lots, the majority of which were sixty (60) feet by twenty-five (25) feet in dimension. The lots were deliberately divided in such a manner to enable the purchase of the lots to occur in conjunction with the sale of tea. Specifically, John M. Hathaway provided each tea purchaser the opportunity to buy one lot within Lake View Park per one pound of tea, in exchange for a $2.00 fee to cover the cost of executing the warranty deed. Accordingly, such land parcels are referenced as "tea lots."

While the vast majority of the tea lots were ultimately conveyed, very few purchases resulted in any significant unification of adjoining parcels. Consequently, Lake View Park remained undeveloped. Proposed streets were never laid out, and the topography remained as wooded land. Overtime, many tea lot purchasers passed away, and heirs to the undeveloped tea lots ceased paying property taxes. This extensive tax delinquency and virtual abandonment prompted the Town of Smithfield to conduct a tax sale in June of 1950 concerning nearly three hundred and thirty (330) of the tea lots scattered throughout Lake View Park. After receiving no bids for the real estate, the Town's Tax Collector conveyed these lots to the Town by virtue of a tax deed executed on July 18, 1950. There ensued from this point a number of conveyances by various parties associated with the plats over many decades leading to an overlapping and complicated ownership trail that led to numerous suits starting in 1975, counter claims and claims of adverse possession. Ultimately, the Filippi’s/ Smithfield Estates, LLC prevailed.

A Final Judgement was entered on August 3, 2017 whereby fee simple title to the lots were quieted in two entities; Smithfield Estates, LLC with a total of 380 lots and Paul Filippi, Steven Filippi and Blake Filippi with a total of 493 lots.

The Town’s merger provisions require substandard lots of record in contiguous ownership to be merged to create lots that conform to zoning or, come closer to adhering to the dimensional standards of the zoning district. After applying the merger provisions to the lots as configured in the judgement, it was determined that there were 228 discrete lots between the two owners.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

The Master Plan approved by the Planning Board includes 25-duplex and 30 tri-plex buildings with a total of 140 units. There are 125 two bedroom units and 15 three bedroom units. There are 23 LMI units proposed primarily in the tri-plex units (3 LMI end units are proposed in tri-plex buildings and 1 LMI unit is proposed in a duplex). The LMI units represent 16.5 percent of the total project.

Based on input from abutting residents and the Board, the Applicant agreed to reduce the number of units that back up to Ridge Road from 12 to 10 units to try and match the spacing of exiting units on Ridge Road, shifted units along Ridge Road to the east 10’ increasing the distance from the road and included a landscape berm along Ridge Road to screen units from existing homes on Ridge Road.

The proposal also includes a 3-story commercial building with 35,000 square feet of area and parking for 178 vehicles.

The project entrance is on Douglas Pike at the signalized intersection of Twin River Road. The roadway is designed as a divided boulevard style road until it reaches the residential portion of the project. The residential roadway system as shown on the Master Plan includes a 24’ paved width with asphalt berms and a 5’ sidewalk on one side of the street. There is a proposed emergency access only roadway opposite Hunters Knoll that will provide access to the project from Ridge Road. It is understood that this roadway would be gated and locked and would only be used by emergency personnel. The units would all be served onsite waste water systems (OWTS) and will have access to the Smithfield municipal water system via an existing water line that traverses the site.

The three soil groups represented on the site are CeC, ChB and ChC all of which are considered generally suitable for community development with fairly gentle slopes ranging from 3 to 15 percent. Soil test data was provided on the Site Context Map (rev. 5.28.2020). Of the six soil test pits dug, 4 had groundwater (GW) at 5’, one test hole GW at 2’-7” water table and another had GW at 4’-6”. No ledge was encountered in the 6 test holes.

Land uses in the vicinity of the property vary from a nursing facility on the south eastern line of the property a commercial/ light industrial building on the eastern frontage of Douglas Pike. The Hunters Knoll subdivision across Ridge Road abuts the project to the west and has single family lots ranging in size from just over and acre to 3.5 acres. A vacant lot (17 ac) abuts the project along a portion of the north western property line and single family lots generally around 2 acres in area abut the remainder of the property perimeter.

The applicant provided fiscal impact analyses for the project which examine the potential revenues and expenses from the residential and commercial components of the project at buildout. The study estimates Municipal Costs of $388,294, School Costs of $242,265 (15 students) and Revenues from increased taxes on the new units and commercial building of $1.13 million for a Net Revenue increase of $313,969.

The applicant also provided a traffic impact study prepared by BETA Group, Inc. for the project which examines existing conditions, safety, trip generation, future traffic volumes and operational analysis. The study concludes that minor increase in traffic during peak periods should have a negligible effect on the overall traffic operations of Douglas Pike and Twin River Road.

Thomas O. Sweeney, SIOR of Sweeney Real Estate Appraisal conducted a neighborhood survey for the project which concluded that the proposed project would not adversely impact the surrounding area and “will allow for an orderly development of the property and will not have any negative impact on the use, enjoyment or diminish the value of the surrounding properties”.

ZONE CHANGE AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

The majority of the project is located in the Single Family Residential – Medium (R-MED) zoning district which has a minimum lot area requirement of 40,000 sq.ft. A small section of the project area in the northeast portion of the property is located in the Low Density Residential District (R-80) which has a minimum lot area requirement of 80,000 sq.ft. There is also a portion of the project area along Douglas Pike opposite Twin River Road that is within the Commercial (C) district.

The proposal is to change the zone of the entire property to the Planned Development (PD) district. The PD district allows for multi- family development at a density of 2 units per acre (40,000 sq.ft.). The PD District also allows for the development of commercial uses, by right” or by special use permit.

The proposed amendment to the PD district includes a number of exemptions from the provisions found in Section 5.7 Planned Development of the Zoning Ordinance and other sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Code of Ordinances (See Sections 2-12 of the proposed ordinance). Some notable deviations from the requirements include:

1. Section 5.7.1 B. which limits the total land are devoted to any one land use type tono more than 70 % of the total land area. The residential component of theproject represents about 91% of the proposed development.

2. Section 5.7.1 D which requires that two family structures have an associated landarea of 40,000 square feet. Based on an estimated buildable land area of 40 acresthe development density would be approximately 90 units with the proposedduplex configuration.

3. Section 5.7.1 F which requires buildings to be no closer than 100 feet to a publicway or 75 feet from an interior street. It appears that many of the units alongRidge Road would be less than 100 feet from the roadway and all of the unitswould be closer than 75 feet to the interior roadway system.

4. Section 5.7.1 V., W. and X. which requires a 100,000 area to left in a natural stateand owned in common by the owners or a non-profit whose principal purpose isthe preservation of natural areas.

Recommended Motion: That the Smithfield Town Council schedule a public hearing on September 15th to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map associated with a Major Land Development Project known as “Earl Grey Estates” as submitted by Smithfield Estates, LLC and Earl Grey Estates, LLC located at 128 Douglas Pike and Ridge Road.

Attachments: Application for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Map including: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Exhibit B Superior Court Final Judgement – Smithfield Estates, LLC v. The Heirs of John M. Hathaway, C.A. No. PC03-4157, entered on August 3, 2017 Plan of Lake View Park, Recorded in Smithfield Land Evidence records on 1/1/ l902 Master Plan drawing set, Prepared by Millstone Engineering dated 1.20, Rev. 7.16.2020 Site Context Map, Rev. 4.2020 Master Plan Narrative and Proposed Zone Change, Timothy F. Kane, Esq., April 2020 Smithfield Estates -Traffic Impact Study, Prepared by BETA, 2.2019, Rev. 7.2019 Real Estate Survey for Ridge Road & Douglas Pike- Tea Lots Prepared by Sweeney Real estate & Appraisal, 6.2020 Fiscal Impact Study, JDL Enterprises, 4.2020 Notice of Public Hearing on Proposed – Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments – to be published in the Valley Breeze – 8.27.2020, 9.3.2020 and 9.10.2020 Abutters List

ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT EXHIBIT “B” It is hereby ordained by the Town of Smithfield as follows: That the Property owned by SMITHFIELD ESTATES, LLC and EARL GREY ESTATES, LLC, being described as Assessor's Plat 42, Lot 139 and Assessor’s Plat 40, Lots as listed on Exhibit “A”(known as the “tea lots”) be zoned Planned Development (PD) subject to the following limitations, conditions, and restrictions:

1. The development of the subject property and the uses set forth below shall be allowed but limited to the following:

a) No more than one hundred forty (140) residential dwelling units to be housed

in no more than fifty-eight (58) buildings with twenty-three (23) units (16.5%) qualifying as affordable housing under Rhode Island Law (affordable units) with a sales price affordable to a household earning no more than one hundred twenty (120%) percent of the average median income as defined by HUD. Said units shall be integrated with the market rate units. There shall be a total of 125 two bedroom units and 15 three bedroom units. The density relief provided with this zone change shall be considered a municipal subsidy which qualifies said units as affordable housing.

b) A commercial building comprising of no more than 34,800 square feet with

uses allowed by right and by special use permit in the PD Zone as provided in the Zoning Ordinance;

2. a). The following provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 5.7.1 shall not apply to the development of the subject property: Sections 5.7.1.B, D, F, G, H, I (provided that the separation between the buildings must meet all applicable building and fire codes), J, M, R, T, U, V, W and X.

b). Section 5.10 of the Smithfield Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to the

development of the subject property. 3. The development of the property shall conform to the following limitations and

conditions:

a) More than one building may be allowed on a lot. Building separation shall comply with all applicable building and fire codes.

b) More than one use may be allowed in the commercial building. c) For structures on the same lot or on commonly owned land, the dimensional

standards in Table 1 below shall apply. Residential buildings may be 2 stories in height and contain a maximum of 4 units. The commercial building may be 3 stories in height.

Use

Area Min.

Width Min.

Front Yard (to Pub ROW) Min.

Rear Yard (to abutting property)

Min.

Side Yard (to abutting property)

Min.

Max

Height

All Permitted

Uses

n/a

n/a

20 ft.

25 ft.

10 ft.

39ft. for residential structure 48 ft. commercial structure

4. No retaining wall, masonry wall, or ornamental wall which is not part of a building -

on the Property shall be considered a structure as defined in Section 2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.

5. The buffers set forth and as defined by RIGL Section 2-1-20, as amended, shall apply

in lieu of the buffers set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 5.3.4. 6. Section 6.3 M of the Smithfield Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to the development

of the subject property. The proposed residential and commercial structures may be served by RIDEM approved Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. 7. Landscaping shall conform to Chapter 231: Landscaping Requirements (333-1;

Woodland Conservation Ordinance shall not apply). The property owners shall obtain approval for a landscaping plan from the Town Engineer in accordance with the Town's Landscaping Ordinance prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan shall be implemented as directed by the Town Engineer. The Woodland Conservation Ordinance (333- 1) shall not apply.

8. Any off-site traffic improvements shall be in conformance with Town or RIDOT

approval and shall require approval by the Town, RIDOT and Federal agencies, if applicable.

9. The project must be developed in conformance with the parameters set forth in this

Ordinance. The development shall also comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, except that the relief granted from density, wetlands setback and all other requirements as set forth herein as approved by the Town Council as a condition of the zone change shall control in the event of conflict.

10. The property owners must obtain preliminary and final plan approval from the

Planning Board for a major land development project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Plans submitted to the Planning Board shall comply with the Town’s Subdivision and Land Development Regulations provided that the provisions of this Ordinance shall control in the event of conflict.

TABLE 1 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS

11. In accordance with Chapter 193 Article III, any residential impact fees which may be due as a result of development of the Property pursuant to Article III may be reduced by the amount expended by the Applicant for onsite or offsite traffic, roadway, utility and fire safety improvements not solely benefitting the Applicant. No impact fees shall be assessed on any affordable housing units.

12. Unless specifically modified by this Ordinance, all applicable Town ordinances and

the Town Subdivision Regulations shall apply to the subject property and the subject development plan; and

13. The Smithfield Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is amended to show the

subject property as Planned Development (PD), to conform with the zone change.

4144i^.Paê 1 of 11

Bk

> • INSTsBk = 11.23 Ps = 12-4.

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURTPROVIDENCE, SC.

SMITHFIELD ESTATES, LLC,Plaintiff

V.

THE HEIRS OF JOHN M.

HATHAWAY, et al..Defendants

C.A.NO. PC03-4157

FINAL JUDGMENT

This matter came to be heard before Mr. Justice Stem on the day of August, 2017 on

the Joint Motion of Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC and Defendants Paul Filippi, Steven Filippi

and Blake Filippi for Entry of Final Judgment and, after hearing thereon and consideration

thereof, it is hereby:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows;

1. All Defendants in this action have been duly served either personally or by

publication pursuant to various orders of notice entered by the Court in accordance with

applicable law, and this Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and their heirs, executors,

administrators, successors and assigns, known and unknown, and also all other persons unknown

and unascertained, claiming, or who may claim, any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real

estate at issue in this action, namely, that land consisting of approximately nine hundred eighty-

seven (987) lots and abutting land located west of Douglas Pike in the Town of Smithfield,

County of Providence, State of Rhode Island, which property was originally lawfully platted by

John Hathaway in that January 1902 plan known as "Plan of Lake View Park" recorded in the

Town of Smithfield Land Evidence Records, a copy of which plan is attached hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit A (the "Lake View Park Plat"). . -TRUE: CpPY ATTEST

NANCY STRIULI. CLERK

KENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

41443 Page 2 of 11

INSTs 0004-14-4-3Bks 1123 Pas 125

2. This Court has jurisdiction to enter this Judgment.

3. Default Judgment as set forth herein is hereby entered against all Defendants

named in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC's most recent Amended Complaint who have failed

to plead or otherwise defend in this action.

4. The interests and claims of all known parties who otherwise have or may have an

interest or claim herein who have not been defaulted or are not signatories to this Consent

Judgment have been previously resolved by Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC.

5. Fee simple title is hereby quieted, effective as of August 7, 2003, the date of the

filing of this action (the "Filing Date"), in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC in the following lots

located on Lake View Park Plat, which lots are bounded and described as follows:

The following lots of land as set forth in the Plan entitled "Smithfield Estates,LLC V. The Estate of John M. Hathaway, et al., C.A. No. PC03-4157; Tea LotLitigation - Final Judgment, prepared by Millstone Engineering, P.C. dated May2017," a copy of which Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein as ExhibitB:

Lots 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 34, 35, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60,61, 76, 77, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94.95, 96, 97, 98, 99,103, 111,112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 150, 151, 152,153, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 201, 218,219,220, 221, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 245, 246, 247,248, 249, 254, 255, 262, 263, 266, 267, 281, 282, 283, 305, 306, 307, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 350, 351, 353,358, 359, 378, 379, 382, 383, 384, 385, 395, 396, 401, 402, 403, 407, 408, 420,425, 426, 429, 451, 452, 453, 454, 459, 465, 466, 474, 475, 478, 479, 484, 485,486, 493, 494, 497, 498, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 530, 531, 535, 536, 537, 538,547, 548, 553, 554, 558, 562, 566, 570, 571, 594, 599, 600, 606, 607, 608, 609,610, 616, 617, 618, 619, 621, 625, 626, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637,638, 639, 640, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 662, 672, 673, 674, 676, 677, 679, 680,681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 694, 695, 700, 710, 721,728, 729, 733, 734, 744, 747, 749, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 779, 784, 785,788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 814, 826, 827, 828, 829, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842,843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 856, 857, 858, 859, 864, 865, 866, 869,871, 881, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 904,905, 910, 911, 918, 919, 920, 929, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940,

TRUE COPY ATTEST

NANCY STRIULI, CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

41443 Page 3 of 11, ; INSTs 000'414-'43' • Bks 1123 Pas 126

941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956,957,958, 959, 960,961,966,971,980,982,983, 984,985, 986,987, A, B and C.

6. Title to the property described in Paragraph 5 above and Paragraph 11 below is

hereby quieted, effective as of the Filing Date, in fee simple, in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC

against all persons and parties hereto and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and

assigns, known and unknown, and also all other persons unknown and unascertained, claiming,

or who may claim, any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real estate involved, which is, or

might become, adverse to Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC's right, title, or interest therein as

alleged or which does or may constitute any cloud upon Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC's title

thereto, which cloud or clouds are hereby removed.

7. Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC is hereby further declared, effective as of the

Filing Date, to be the absolute owner in fee simple of the real property described in Paragraph 5

above and Paragraph 11 below pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 9-30-1, et seq. free

from all liens, encumbrances and clouds thereon.

8. Fee simple title is hereby quieted, effective as of the Filing Date, in Defendants

Paul Filippi, Steven Filippi and Blake Filippi (hereinafter the "Filippis") in the following lots

located on Douglas Pike, Town of Smithfield, County of Providence, State of Rhode Island,

which lots are bounded and described as follows:

The following lots of land as set forth in the Plan entitled "Smithfield Estates,LLC v. The Estate of John M. Hathaway, et al., C.A. No. PC03-4157; Tea LotLitigation - Final Judgment, prepared by Millstone Engineering, P.C. dated May2017," a copy of which Plan is attached hereto and incorporated herein as ExhibitB:

Lots 6, 7,8. 9, 10. 11, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30, 31, 32,33,36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,48,49, 50, 51, 62, 63, 64,65,66, 67, 68,69,70,71,72, 73, 74, 75. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 100,101,102,104, 105, 106,107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138,139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,

3

NANCY STRIULI. CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

41443 Page 4 of 11f .

INSTs 0004^1-4'43Bks 1123 Pas 127

164, 170, 171, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203,204, 205, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 222, 223, 224, 225,226, 227, 229, 230, 241, 242, 243, 244, 250, 251, 252, 253, 256, 257, 258, 259,260, 261, 264, 265, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279,280, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 310, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324,325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 337, 338, 339, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 352,354, 355, 356, 357, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 376, 377,380, 381, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 397, 398, 399, 400, 404,405, 406, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 421, 422, 423,424, 427, 428, 456, 457, 458, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471,472, 473, 476, 477, 480, 481, 482, 483, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 495, 496,499, 521, 527, 528, 529, 532, 533, 534, 539, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546,549. 550, 551, 552, 555, 556, 557, 559, 560, 561, 563, 564, 565, 567, 568, 569,572, 595, 596, 597, 598, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 620,622, 623, 624, 627, 628, 629, 641, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 663, 664,665, 666, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671, 675, 678, 686, 693, 696, 697, 698, 699, 701,711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727,730, 731, 732, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 743, 745, 746, 748, 750,751, 752, 753, 754, 755, 756, 757, 766, 767, 768, 775, 776, 777, 778, 780, 781,782, 783, 786, 787, 793, 794, 795, 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804,805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 815, 816, 817, 830, 831, 832, 833,834, 835, 836, 851, 852, 853, 854, 855, 860, 861, 862, 863, 867, 868, 870, 872,882, 883, 884, 885, 886, 887, 888, 902, 903, 906, 907, 908, 909, 912, 913, 914,915, 916, 917, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 930, 962, 963, 964, 965,967,968, 969,970, 972, 973,974,975,976,977, 978, 979, and 981.

9. Title to the property described in Paragraph 8 is hereby quieted, effective as of the

Filing Date, in fee simple, in the Filippis as tenants in common and not as joint tenants against all

persons and parties hereto and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,

known and unknown, and also all other persons unknown and unascertained, claiming, or who

may claim, any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real estate involved, which is, or might

become, adverse to the Filippis* right, title, or interest therein as alleged or which does or may

constitute any cloud upon the Filippis' title thereto, which cloud or clouds are hereby removed.

10. The Filippis are hereby further declared, effective as of the Filing Date, to be the

absolute owners in fee simple as tenants in common and not as Joint tenants of the real property

TRUE COPY ATTEST

4

NANCY STRIULl, CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

41443 Page 5 of 11; INSTS 0004-14-4-3

• • Bks 1123 Ps= 12S

described in Paragraph 8 above pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 9-30-1, et seq. free


11. Any land, lots, or portions of lots on said Lake View Park Plat which are located

on the westerly side of Douglas Pike and which are not listed in either Paragraph 5 or Paragraph

8 of this Judgment by inadvertence, mistake or otherwise are hereby, effective as of the Filing

Date, quieted in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC and Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC is hereby

declared, effective as of the Filing Date, to be the absolute owner thereof in fee simple free of all

liens, encumbrances and clouds thereon.

12. This Judgment is entered pursuant to that certain Settlement Agreement entered

into by and between Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC and Defendants Paul Filippi, Steven

Filippi and Blake Filippi, and others, which Settlement Agreement is dated as of April 28,2017.

13. This Honorable Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over the parties to this

Judgment and the real property which is the subject hereof and continuing jurisdiction over said

Settlement Agreement described in Paragraph 12 above to enforce the same according to their

terms by specific performance or otherwise and the parties hereby consent to said continuing

jurisdiction of this Court and to the remedy of specific performance provided for herein.

TRUE COPY ATTEST

NANCY STRIULl, CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

41443 Page 6 of 11

INSTs 0004'14-4-3B-k's 1123 Pas 12S>

ENTER: PERO

SUBSTANCE:ASSENTED TO A&TO FORM AND

Justin T.Shay,.(^27844ilameron & Mittleman LLP

jikorneys for Plaintiff,Smmfield Estates, LLC"hm Promenade Street

'rovidence, Rhode Island 02908Tel. (401)331-5700Fax (401)331-5787E-mail: jshay(§cm-law.comDate: August 3,2017

Brian LaPlante (1^5861)LaPlante Sowa Goldman

Attorneys for Defendants, Paul Filippi,Steven Filippi and Blake Filippini West Exchange StreetProvidence, Rhode Island 02903Tel. (401)273-0200Fax (401) 273-0250E-mail: blaplante(^lsglaw.comDate: August 3,2017

TRUE COPY ATTEST


41443 Page 7 of 11

INSTs OOOA-±4-A-^Bks 1123 Pas 130

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of August, 2017, I filed and served this documentthrough the electronic filing system on the follovwng parties. The document electronically filedand served is available for viewing and/or downloading from the Rhode Island Judiciary'sElectronic Filing System:

Brian LaPlante, Esq.LaPlante Sowa Goldman

272 West Exchange StreetProvidence, RJ 02903E-mail: [email protected]

John C. Rcvens, Jr., Esq.Revens, Revens, & St. Pierre946 Centreville RoadWarwick, Rhode Island 02886Email: [email protected]

/s/ Justin T. Shav

TRUE COPY ATTEST

7


41443 Page 8 of 11

INSTS 0004-14-4-3Bk= 1123 Pa= 1^1

Exhibit A

TRUE COPY ATTEST


ii

ii

as

»..

• If. j5ft

pi 4 ii< M

|ig I

■4i:;l

:a};>H

nfaS'}

i v;*

^.

sv u

fftT

rvM

«4

^t w

**?>

. k''-

''

fOTE

ST

NANC

Y ST

RIUU

. CLE

RKKE

NT C

OUNT

Y SU

PERI

OR C

OURT

ilKvp

ucfo

BY

C.6.

Uov

BY.C

&, A

^Bib

fflS.

60

pi ■

1*uT

"« '

»i«»

e»

nt

Lar»

?^

'«6C

- Tu

eun

-j T

"f P

lat

«»e6

<T ^

miT

"«iS

lp E

e»o

/A

ve-

a4C

W

IOB'

.

^«(2

»£AW

U ^ A

ai&^

CAU

A^

BOLiA

TE*!.

ZOQ

MT

PllA

<A>J

T A

vt.F

eo^,

l?.

l. M

ay,

I«18

.

Pla

w

of

LAiie

Vi6

w P

azh.

T1

ÎTU

BIiP

. lU

(Bû

iTnM

tLO

.e-l.

II

Ol/U

IP 6

r H

aTH

AMLT

htu

jt M

.Mit'

aia

, c.

t..

Uev

Bco

tpbs

, hU

tfc >

ijuA

aT

,r

41443 Page 10 of 11. . s

INST= OOO^-m-'tS

Bk= X123 Pas 133

Exhibits

TRUE COPY ATTEST


41443 Page 11 of 11

INSTs 0Q04-1-44-3

Is, ,11

in

II! i iiSI

TRUE COPY ATTEST TOUN OF StllTHFIELOCarol Aauilanbef CLERK

\ Au9 21»2017


. KENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Narrative for Master Plan Approval and Proposed Zone Change toPlanned Development - "Tea Lots"

EARL GREY ESTATES

T TNTRODUCTION

This narrative is being submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, Smithfield Estates, LLC, in supportof its Master Plan Submission and Petition for Zone Change and Comprehensive Plan Amendment asdescribed below. The subject property consists of hundreds of nonconforming lots of record known asthe "tea lots" along with a 3 acre parcel identified as AP 42 Lot 239. The Town recognizes the tea lotsas several hundred lots on Assessor's Plat 40. The total project area comprises approximately 43 acres ofland located between Douglas Pike and Ridge Road. The genesis of the tea lots was aptly described bySuperior Court Justice Brian Stern in the case of Smithfield Estates, LLC v. The heirs of John M.Hathaway as follows:

The controversy before this Court is preceded by an extensive history originating at the turn oftheNineteenth Century with a man possessing a hefty amount oftea, a large plat ofland, and a contemplatedvision. It was in 1902 that this man, tea merchant John M. Hathaway, prepared and recorded a plat ofland situated primarily on the westerly side of the thoroughfare known as Douglas Pike in the Town ofSmithfield, Rhode Island. This plat of land, designated as "Lake View Park, " consisted of nine hundredand eighty-seven (987) small lots, the majority of which were sixty (60) feet by twenty-five (25) feet indimension. The Lake View Park lots were deliberately divided in such a manner to enable the purchaseof the lots to occur in conjunction with the sale of tea. Specifically, John M. Hathaway and his agentsprovided each tea purchaser the opportunity to procure one lot Mnthin Lake View Park per one pound oftea, in exchange for a $2.00 fee to cover the cost of executing the warranty deed. Accordingly, such landparcels are referenced as "tea lots ". See Smithfield Estates vs. The heirs of John Hathaway et al PC-2003-4157, citations omitted.

Although the majority of tea lots were conveyed out by John Hathaway to third parties, the tea lotswere never developed given the lack of common ownership of adjoining parcels. From the 1950's to therecent past there were a multitude of parties that claimed an interest in the tea lots and a multitude oflawsuits between the parties claiming ownership. On August 3, 2017 ownership was finally andconclusively resolved by Judgment of the Superior Court which vested title to the tea lots in SmithfieldEstates, LLC and Blake, Paul and Steven Filippi. (See Exhibit 1). The Filippis have since conveyed theirrespective tea lots to Earl Grey Estates, LLC.

II VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS

The tea lots are what are commonly referred to as non-conforming lots of record. While the tealots certainly do not comply with present day zoning requirements, they enjoy vested rights meaning thatthey are grandfathered in and can be developed as single family house lots. Developing the property assingle family house lots would involve combining tea lots for a uniform

development. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a conceptual subdivision plan involving a reconfiguration oftea lots resulting in 144 single family house lots.

TTT PROPOSAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE

While recognizing its right to develop the property as single family house lots, the Petitioner isdesirous of obtaining approvals for a residential condominium development to be known as Earl GreyEstates with a commercial component off Douglas Pike. The Petitioner is also cognizant of the tremendousimpact that a single family housing development would have on Town resources especially the publicschool system. As such the Petitioner believes an alternative development approach would be mutuallybeneficial to the Town and Petitioner. Accordingly, the applicant is proposing the property be rezoned toPlanned Development Zone (PD Zone) which would allow 139 condominium units along with acommercial building comprising 34,800 square feet fronting on Douglas Pike. (See Conceptual SiteDevelopment Plan provided herewith). Petitioner is proposing a total of 58 buildings with 124 two-bedroom units and 15 three bedroom units with 20 units (approximately 14.5%) being affordable housing.This proposal would have a minimal impact upon the school system and result in positive revenue flowfor the Town as described below.

TV FISCAL IMPACT

Smithfield Estates has submitted a Fiscal Impact Study (PIS) prepared by Joseph D. LombardoAICP in support of its petition for a PD zone. The PIS projects that a total of 298 people, including 15school age children, will be residents of the condominium development. The PIS is supported by harddata demonstrating the number of school age children spread out over 1053 condominium units in theTown of Smithfield. The PIS concludes that the residential condominiums will result in a net positiverevenue gain of $226,623.00 for the Town. In addition, the PIS concludes that the commercial buildingwould generate additional net positive revenue of $87,946.00. As such the total net positive revenue tothe Town is projected at $315,969.00.

V. TRAFFIC

The proposed development would be accessed via entrance on Douglas Pike at the intersection ofTwin River Road. Emergency access only is shown off Ridge Road. As such there will be no negativetraffic impact to the residents of Ridge Road and surrounding area. With respect to Douglas Pike, thetraffic study performed by Beta Engineering estimates a minor increase in traffic during peak periodswhich would have a negligible effect on traffic operations. The Beta study further concludes that ''futuretraffic conditions resulting from the proposed mixed use development with the recommended mitigation,M'ill provide for adequate and safe access to a public street, and will not have a detrimental effect onpublic safety and welfare in the study area^\ See Beta report page 14.

VT. PHYSICAL CHARAACTERISITCS OF THE PROPERTY

The property is comprised of approximately 43 acres and is located between Route 7 and RidgeRoad. The property currently sits as a wooded project site sloping from south to north. Slopes range from3 to 15% throughout the majority of the site with some isolated areas greater than 15%. The soils are finesandy loams, stoney and well-draining, considered suitable for community development by the SoilSurvey of Rhode Island. Where the site slopes toward its lowest points (i.e. in the northwest and northerncomers), areas of freshwater wetland exists. These are areas that collect site run-off during stormevents. Municipal drinking water is available and although there is no readily available means toconnect to a municipal sewer system, the applicant continues to explore a feasible means to accomplishthe same. If a viable connection cannot be obtained then the applicant will propose advanced OnsiteWaste Water Treatment Systems (OWTS) in accordance with applicable Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management (RIDEM) policies and procedures.

VII. THE APPROVAL PROCESS

Smithfield Estates is availing itself of the approval process for a major land development inconjunction with the zone change process pursuant to RI General Laws §45-24-51 and Smithfield ZoningOrdinance Article 11. By doing so Petitioner is not requesting Town Council, approval of the conceptualplan submitted in conjunction with the zone change request, as the jurisdiction to approve the conceptualplan lies with the Planning Board. Rather, Smithfield Estates is requesting that the Town Council set forthparameters under which Petitioner can continue with full major land development review before thePlanning Board. Petitioner is well aware that the exact layout, location of residential units and internalroadways may change based on local and state regulations as well as input from the Planning Board andTown Officials.

The Petitioner could also avail itself of the Comprehensive Permit process which would allow thepetitioner to override local zoning regulations on the condition that a minimum of 25% of housing unitsprovided be dedicated as affordable housing. Such an application typically results in very high density inorder for a for-profit developer to subsidize the affordable component. In fact, the SmithfieldComprehensive Plan's table H-25 identifies the tea lots as a selected property for constmction of low andmoderate income housing with density ranging from 251 to 601 units based on the percentage ofaffordable units. (See Exhibit 3). At this point Petitioner is not desirous of pursuing a comprehensivepermit. Smithfield Estates respectfully suggests that the proposed density of 3.5 units per acre isappropriate for the site. Petitioner is also cognizant of numerous other affordable housing projects eitherpending or developed which result in a limited revenue stream while placing a demand on Town services.Petitioner respectfully suggests that a large scale development with a significant affordable housingcomponent via table H-25 may not be in the best interests of the Town at this time.

CONCLUSION

There has been much anticipation over the eventual fate of the tea lots. The proposed zone changewill allow the Petitioner to continue with major land development approval process under the parametersset forth by the Town Council. The PD zone as proposed will not impose undue burden on the Town'sresources especially the school system. In fact the PD zone as proposed would allow for orderlydevelopment while creating approximately $315,969.00 in net positive revenue to the Town. Furthermore,the proposal would allow for the creation of 20 affordable housing units and would result in minimaltraffic impact to Ridge Road and the surrounding neighborhoods. As such, Smithfield Estates respectfullyrequests that the Town Council and Planning Board afford the proposal due consideration.

Smithfield Estates, LLC

Tinfothy P. Kane, Esquire627 Putnam Pike

Greenville, Rhode Island 02828

(401) 949-2228

Date: April 20.2020

A

EXHIBIT 1

STATE OF RHODE ISLANDPROVIDENCE, SC.

SMITHFIELD ESTATES, LLC,Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT

C.A.NO. PC03-4157V.

THE HEIRS OF JOHN M.HATHAWAY, et al..

Defendants

FINAL JUDGMENT

This matter came to be heard before Mr. Justice Stem on the day of August, 2017 on

the Joint Motion of Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC and Defendants Paul Filippi, Steven Filippi

and Blake Filippi for Entry of Final Judgment and, after hearing thereon and consideration

thereof, it is hereby:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:

1. All Defendants in this action have been duly served either personally or by

publication pursuant to various orders of notice entered by the Court in accordance with

applicable law, and this Court has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and their heirs, executors,

administrators, successors and assigns, known and unknown, and also all other persons unknown

and unascertained, claiming, or who may claim, any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real

estate at issue in this action, namely, that land consisting of approximately nine hundred eighty-

seven (987) lots and abutting land located west of Douglas Pike in the Town of Smithfield,

County of Providence, State of Rhode Island, which property was originally lawfully platted by

John Hathaway in that January 1902 plan known as "Plan of Lake View Park" recorded in the

Town of Smithfield Land Evidence Records, a copy of which plan is attached hereto and

incorporated herein as Exhibit A (the "Lake View Park Plat"). • .TRUE: COPY ATTEST

NANCY STRIULl. CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

INSTS 000^14^4-3

Bks 1123 Pss 12S

2. This Court has jurisdiction to enter this Judgment.

3. Default judgment as set forth herein is hereby entered against all Defendants

named in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC's most recent Amended Complaint who have failed

to plead or otherwise defend in this action.

4. The interests and claims of all known parties who otherwise have or may have an

interest or claim herein who have not been defaulted or are not signatories to this Consent

Judgment have been previously resolved by Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC.

5. Fee simple title is hereby quieted, effective as of August 7, 2003, the date of the

filing of this action (the "Filing Date"), in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC in the following lots

located on Lake View Park Plat, which lots are bounded and described as follows:


Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14,15,16, 17, 34, 35, 46, 47, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59, 60, 61, 76, 77, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 111,112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 150, 151, 152,153, 156, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,177, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 201, 218, 219,220, 221, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 245, 246, 247,248, 249, 254, 255, 262, 263, 266, 267, 281, 282, 283, 305, 306, 307, 311, 312,313, 314, 315, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 350, 351, 353,358, 359, 378, 379, 382, 383, 384, 385, 395, 396, 401, 402, 403, 407, 408, 420,425, 426, 429, 451, 452, 453, 454, 459, 465, 466, 474, 475, 478, 479, 484, 485,486, 493, 494, 497, 498, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 530, 531, 535, 536, 537, 538,547, 548, 553, 554, 558, 562, 566, 570, 571, 594, 599, 600, 606, 607, 608, 609,610, 616, 617, 618, 619, 621, 625, 626, 630, 631, 632, 633, 634, 635, 636, 637,638, 639, 640, 650, 651, 652, 653, 654, 662, 672, 673, 674, 676, 677, 679, 680,681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 687, 688, 689, 690, 691, 692, 694, 695, 700, 710, 721,728, 729, 733, 734, 744, 747, 749, 769, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 779, 784, 785,788, 789, 790, 791, 792, 814, 826, 827, 828, 829, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842,843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 856, 857, 858, 859, 864, 865, 866, 869,871, 881, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900, 901, 904,905, 910, 911, 918, 919, 920, 929, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940,

TRUE COPY ATTEST

2

TNANCY STRIULI, CLERK


INSTs OOCI4-14-4-3Bk= 1123 Pa= 127

164, 170,204, 205,226, 227,

260, 261,280, 302,325, 326,354, 355,

380, 381,

405, 406,424, 427,472, 473,499, 521,

549, 550,572, 595,622, 623,665, 666,

711, 712,730, 731,

751, 752,782, 783,

805, 806,834, 835,882, 883,

915, 916,967, 968,

171, 178, 179,206, 207, 210,229, 230, 241,264, 265, 268,303, 304, 308,327, 328, 329,356, 357, 360,386, 387, 388,409,410,411,428, 456, 457,476, 477, 480,527, 528, 529,

551, 552, 555,

596, 597, 598,624, 627, 628,667, 668, 669,713, 714, 715,732, 735, 736,753, 754, 755,

786, 787, 793,807, 808, 809,836, 851, 852,

884, 885, 886,917, 921, 922,

180, 181,211, 212,242, 243,

269, 270,

309, 310,330, 331,361, 362,

389, 390,412, 413,

458, 460,481, 482,532, 533,

556, 557,601, 602,

629, 641,670, 671,

716, 717,737, 738,756, 757,

794, 795,

810, 811,853, 854,

887, 888,

923, 924,

182, 183, 184213, 214, 215244, 250, 251

271, 272, 273316, 317, 318337, 338, 339363, 364, 365391, 392, 393414, 415, 416461, 462, 463483, 487, 488534, 539, 540559, 560, 561603, 604, 605655, 656, 657675, 678, 686718, 719, 720739, 740, 741766, 767, 768796, 797, 798812, 813, 815855, 860, 861902, 903, 906925, 926, 927

, 185, 198,, 216, 217,, 252, 253,

, 274, 275,, 319, 320,, 345, 346,, 366, 367,394, 397,

417, 418,

464, 467,489, 490,541, 542,

563, 564,611, 612,

658, 659,693, 696,722, 723,742, 743,

775, 776,

799, 800,

816, 817,862, 863,907, 908,

928, 930,

199, 200,222, 223,256, 257,276, 277,321, 322,

347, 348,

368, 369,398, 399,419, 421,468, 469,491, 492,543, 544,

565, 567,613, 614,

660, 661,697, 698,724, 725,

745, 746,777, 778,

801, 802,

830, 831,867, 868,909, 912,962, 963,

202, 203,224, 225,

258, 259,278, 279,323, 324,

349, 352,376, 377,

400, 404,422, 423,

470, 471,495, 496,545, 546,568, 569,615, 620,

663, 664,699, 701,

726, 727,748, 750,780, 781,

803, 804,832, 833,870, 872,913, 914,964, 965,

969, 970, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, and 981.

9. Title to the property described in Paragraph 8 is hereby quieted, effective as of the

Filing Date, in fee simple, in the Filippis as tenants in common and not as joint tenants against all

persons and parties hereto and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,

known and unknown, and also all other persons unknown and unascertained, claiming, or who

may claim,'any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real estate involved, which is, or might

become, adverse to the Filippis' right, title, or interest therein as alleged or which does or may

constitute any cloud upon the Filippis' title thereto, which cloud or clouds are hereby removed.

10. The Filippis are hereby further declared, effective as of the Filing Date, to be the

absolute owners in fee simple as tenants in common and not as joint tenants of the real property

TRUE COPY ATTEST

L_NANCY STRIULI, CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

X t*l ■>-> I

Bks 1123 Ps= 126

941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953, 954, 955, 956,957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 966, 971, 980, 982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, A, B and C.

6. Title to the property described in Paragraph 5 above and Paragraph 11 below is

hereby quieted, effective as of the Filing Date, in fee simple, in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC

against all persons and parties hereto and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and

assigns, known and unknown, and also all other persons unknown and unascertained, claiming,

or who may claim, any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the real estate involved, which is, or

might become, adverse to Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC's right, title, or interest therein as

alleged or which does or may constitute any cloud upon Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC's title

thereto, which cloud or clouds are hereby removed.

7. Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC is hereby further declared, effective as of the

Filing Date, to be the absolute owner in fee simple of the real property described in Paragraph 5

above and Paragraph 11 below pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 9-30-1, et seq. free


8. Fee simple title is hereby quieted, effective as of the Filing Date, in Defendants

Paul Filippi, Steven Filippi and Blake Filippi (hereinafter the "Filippis") in the following lots

located on Douglas Pike, Town of Smithfield, County of Providence, State of Rhode Island,

which lots are bounded and described as follows:


Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,36, 37, 38, 39,40,41, 42, 43,44, 45,48, 49, 50, 51, 62, 63,64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,100,101,102,104, 105, 106,107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138,139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, H9^^54^1^5^,^]^^^ 159,


INST= 0004-1^^3B.k s 1123 Ps = 12S

described in Paragraph 8 above pursuant to Rhode Island General Laws § 9-30-1, et seq. free


11. Any land, lots, or portions of lots on said Lake View Park Plat which are located

on the westerly side of Douglas Pike and which are not listed in either Paragraph 5 or Paragraph

8 of this Judgment by inadvertence, mistake or otherwise are hereby, effective as of the Filing

Date, quieted in Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC and Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC is hereby

declared, effective as of the Filing Date, to be the absolute owner thereof in fee simple free of all

liens, encumbrances and clouds thereon.

12. This Judgment is entered pursuant to that certain Settlement Agreement entered

into by and between Plaintiff Smithfield Estates, LLC and Defendants Paul Filippi, Steven

Filippi and Blake Filippi, and others, which Settlement Agreement is dated as of April 28,2017.

13. This Honorable Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over the parties to this

Judgment and the real property which is the subject hereof and continuing jurisdiction over said

Settlement Agreement described in Paragraph 12 above to enforce the same according to their

terms by specific performance or otherwise and the parties hereby consent to said continuing

jurisdiction of this Court and to the remedy of specific performance provided for herein.

TRUE COPY ATTEST

TNANCY STRIULI, CLERKKENT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

INST= 0CI04-14-4-3Bk s 1123 Ps = 12<P

ENTER: PER ORDER:

ASSENTED TO AÔ FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

Justin T. Shay,.(3(||2.7.8.1-)Cameron & Mittleman LLP

Akomeys for Plaintiff,Simmfield Estates, LLC

Promenade Street

Providence, Rhode Island 02908Tel. (401)331-5700Fax (401)331-5787E-mail: [email protected]: August 3, 2017

Brian LaPlante (#5861)LaPlante Sowa Goldman

Attorneys for Defendants, Paul Filippi,Steven Filippi and Blake Filippi272 West Exchange StreetProvidence, Rhode Island 02903

Tel. (401)273-0200Fax (401) 273-0250E-mail: [email protected]: August 3,2017

TRUE COPY ATTEST

NANCY STRIULI, CLERK


ThISTS OOO1. 4-4-Bkt 1123 P3= 130

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of August, 2017, I filed and served this documentthrough the electronic filing system on the following parties. The document electronically filedand served is available for viewing and/or downloading from the Rhode Island Judiciary'sElectronic Filing System:

Brian LaPlante, Esq.LaPlante Sowa Goldman

272 West Exchange StreetProvidence, RI 02903E-mail: [email protected]

John C. Revens, Jr., Esq.Revens, Revens, & St. Pierre946 Centreville Road

Warwick, Rhode Island 02886Email: [email protected]

/s/ Justin T. Shav

TRUE COPY ATTEST


Exhibit A

TKIST2 i~i O O ■4-1 ■4--4-Bkt 1123 P3= 131

TRUE COPY ATTEST


S .

KB 6^ we « 6^

tsi i

it Krt

<«" '

O ' 6M

t:'. V . ,'

-^ .tl ^ £;

■■ v

j- ^

i. I

•;• ;

•—

^~

^'-r~

rr^~

~~

iT--

—,,t

.'-t.

•-• :

,v .i

. nt!

I.,

' •

-.-.

.li.

:> I.

.. ^

•It

: 110

iiv

He

iia i

h U

S nu

ui

hb in

i«

iti

• M

S-'.

•••; ''

jr ■-..

i.

: r.,

4'iy,

iv

: •

V- Vr

'^v^^

i' ■«' "

3 "• v

« m f(i

nt us

>4l«i

I «i

,<1 M

x« Mt

ei^ jI'b A

'W

!-:,[; 1

.U;:.

'.;|.4

. m

i»u

41 M

S M

/ » n

j si>

ns-

aÛ

; .

^ EE

^

ill S

1-:

',

•• ■

' m

i-î t

u in

K< ifi

ni l

ie 't

i ijfl

t})-

'-:';1»

:'1

•liii

'lal-"

! I.

fe

.-'ê

-Be)

TE-'i

i

w B« ^

wi

Oe

pp

ee

ôki

Tn

um

.

'ijep»

lns|^h

^ ip ils

iw 140

i^;,. ia

^ us w

jw i«i >

« hi jn

|

Mill

wsffs lo

iw s

a B

7)S

««l

i :'■' •

/. i|<

Iti i

k\B: j

llg

^^6e

T^

^ n>

Ml in

vi iM

»« I '

y[ 1

1!

mm

m

in §1^

104Iti

, ro

IBS

»» M

WTt

na

ns )

t« u

ai -j

lu

ua

im

SiTKe

-e-T

3i3>

e4W

S au

'K

9E

err.

m B

" sb

mi ^ n

t m

es*

tea

ieK

-vrS

feir

.-•

sT

:•-

:- W

:

^ j?

[i

liiC

1

[&

ree&

T

Oa^

'Clp

-HP

^ rn

Tie

»M W

»'■

-' -

11

I' '

I -j

fa t

j5-

\'(-fe

^ '•••

.'1:

'L'J'•

■?;; '■

• ■'• -•

.■I'

\v.v

'^ ?(

m}V.o

iS^^

nii

n* li

»•« 11

-1

Ê

ST

___

NAN

CY

STR

iULI

. CLE

RK

KENT

CO

UNTY

SUP

ERIO

R CO

URT

Ue

m a Rs

ootE

O ey

£-5

, Mo

vit.

C.f.

, A

pbil

WI3

. ^C

Ate;

80

ft.

■ 1*

«T"E

OB

TKt

ReA

Uu-

i L<

7x-e

Afe

e^tie

26'

«60'

. Th

&OP

O'J

T«E

PtAT

eiic

ePT

Zoao

fPo

lJ^L>

■^ A

ve.

A.ee

Ô

' wi

pe-.

siR

tPB

Aw

u BY

A

Aie

eic£

.u

AB

ôttA

-Ye*

. 20

9 M

y.

PtE

Aî

JT

Av6

. ?e

.oyi,

f2.

l. ,

1916

.

Plau

of

qLa

i<i£-

View

Par

ia -n

QîT

uxTt

p. lU

Ul

^^M

lTM

PIfL

D. R

.l.

11 l"

AOw

uEp

BY .

ioHU

Mat

hawa

y ^

frvxi

dt M

. Wet^

AwP,

C. f

.. Ue

w Be

pwao

. Mxe

e. Â

Uuxft

Y. I9

JJSh

W U

INSTs 0Ci04-X4^4-35 X123 P*3 2 X33

Exhibit B

TRUE COPY ATTEST


m 3

i 1»){ s

li init I

1 liHilf

i!S

!il

TRUE COPY ATTEST TOWN OF SniTHFIELDCarol Aquilante* CLERK

Aus 21»2017 11



Btwj

iiiaeiiiEiinjj

Sti Qrni£<£

□

^JJEL^l

n«?vVvh

JLLSTONEEngineering. P.C.

WKVKHWOtn > UmfVWtQ4

MMviv fT«% ii«« M*!

^trnitnrtU KU-itMnn .^ mi/}p

EXHIBIT 3

Smithfield Comprehensive Community Plan

Table H-25: Selected Properties for the Construction of Low and Moderate Income Housing

paM#DI

1 I i

talP1

*•> oj-

renwO/noitacoLgninoZ ssorG dnaL

aerA elbadliuBaerA cilbuP*retaW cilbuPreweS

Proje*

S5

U

1—re

1

ni niM«

det:#

Ui

Bulldout

£i

Z

^ it•Tc 3

„ni w nr

^21 stinu/

erca„ %05 %001-

IML tekraM IML/etaR

stinU devorppA/desoporP

151

831

Samowitz-

Post Office, dlO

County

Rd/Rte. 104

02-R11

SWP

txE/wYes txE/w5821

264,15125,

541

Conti- Farnum

dlO/ekiP

County daoR

R-MED89.3131

SWP

txE/wYes txE/w65

104651

364

67

Par!- Between

662/462Old

County daoR

deM-R8.48.4

PWS

txE/wYes txE/w2467

101

442

227,

228 &

229

Dean Estates

Affordable

9-5Dlillon Ln.

MOS-R5.9556.4PWSYes32

37

65

22/9

524

241,

242 &

243

Dean Pines

Affordable

4

Dillon Lane

M02-R6.1929.4PWSYes25

39

59

/91

15

641, 24054-1

Tea Lots-

Ridge7etR/daoR

R-MED52

1.05YesNo251401601

725

45

Anthony /isiL

Caito- 2

dnomsEStreet

LI

3.88.3SWPYes19

30

64

8 25

64,

66B

dleifhtimS

/Chapman-

20

dnomsE&

7 kaOStreet

02-R1.654.1PWSYes711

71

924

89,91

Pezzelli, TOS-

40

Farnum

Pike

02-R0.7777.0SWPYes469

1023

71

Georgiaville

Village Green

29 Whipple

daoR

R-206.46SWYes30

84

27

0/42

1123

91

Interchange

Realty-

15 Higgins St.

PD

5.45.4

GW

txE/wYes txE/w2743

65

12

24

801

Lebeau-

51Whipple

Rd.

R-203.63SWPYes15

2463

3123

61

Whipple

Creek-13 lliH

02-R5.15.1SWPYes82181

61/0

HOUSING-90

Smithfield, Rhode Island

Smithfield Estates

February, 2019Revised July, 2019

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

Smithfield EstatesSmithfield, Rhode Island

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

Prepared by: BETA GROUP, INC.

Prepared for: Mr. Benjamin J. Caito, P.E.Millstone Engineering, P.C.250 Centerville RoadWarwick, Rhode Island 02886

February, 2019Revised July, 2019

BETA GROUP, INC.701 George Washington Highway, Lincoln, RI 02865P: 401.333.2382 | F: 401.333.9225 | W: www.BETA-Inc.com

February 15, 2019Revised July 15, 2019

Mr. Benjamin J. Caito, P.E.Millstone Engineering, P.C.250 Centerville RoadWarwick, Rhode Island 02886

Re: Proposed Land Development ProjectSmithfield EstatesDouglas Pike (Route 7)Smithfield, Rhode Island

Dear Mr. Caito:

BETA Group, Inc., in accordance with our scope of services, has completed a traffic impact study for aproposed mixed-use development project in the Town of Smithfield, Rhode Island. The site is locatedbetween Douglas Pike (Route 7) and Ridge Road just north of Webster Street. The parcel is defined asAssessor’s Plat 40, with multiple lots containing approximately 43.4 acres of undeveloped and woodedland.

Based upon a review of the proposed site plan prepared by your office, it is our understanding that thedevelopment project includes construction of 76 duplex buildings for a total of 152 residential unitswithin a new neighborhood that will extend between Douglas Pike and Ridge Road. Additionally, athree-story, 34,800 square foot commercial building for medical office use will be constructed along thefrontage of Route 7. The site access is proposed at the Douglas Pike intersection with Twin River Roadthat will be modified to create a conventional four-way junction. Secondary access to the site foremergency vehicles only is proposed on Ridge Road across from Hunters Knoll.

The study included herein, was conducted to determine the adequacy of the existing servicing roadwaysto accommodate anticipated traffic to be generated by the mixed-use development project. An analysisof potential impacts to the roadway capacity and safety has been completed, and is discussed in thefollowing report.

Very truly yours,BETA Group, Inc.

Paul J. BannonSenior Project Manager

Smithfield Estates Smithfield, RI

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Project Area ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................................. 3

3.1 Roadways ...................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Intersections.................................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Traffic ............................................................................................................................................ 6

4.0 Safety Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 6

5.0 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 8

5.1 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................. 8

5.2 Future Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................ 10

5.3 Operational Analysis .................................................................................................................... 11

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 14

LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix A: Traffic Volume DataAppendix B: Traffic Crash DataAppendix C: Trip GenerationAppendix D: Operational Analysis

LIST OF TABLESTABLE 1 – Trip Generation Estimate....................................................................................................... 10TABLE 2 – Highway Capacity Manual Criteria ......................................................................................... 11TABLE 3 – Level of Service Summary (Existing Conditions) ..................................................................... 13TABLE 4 – Level of Service Summary (Future Build Conditions) .............................................................. 14

LIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1 – Project Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 2FIGURE 2 – Project Location Map............................................................................................................. 4FIGURE 3 – Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 7FIGURE 4 – Site Layout and Access Plan ................................................................................................... 9FIGURE 5 – Future Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................ 12


1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONThe objective of the following study is to assess the potential traffic impacts associated with a proposed sitedevelopment project in the Town of Smithfield, Rhode Island. The project is situated on a parcel of landbetween Route 7 to the east and Ridge Road to the west, just north of Webster Street. The subject lotcontains approximately 43.4 acres of undeveloped and wooded land. The development proposal includesconstruction of 152 residential condominium units and a commercial building for medical office usefronting Route 7. Access/egress to the new homes and medical office will be provided through a network ofresidential streets forming the new neighborhood infrastructure, with the site access proposed at theDouglas Pike (Route 7) signalized intersection with Twin River Road. Refer to the Figure 1, Project VicinityMap, on the following page for the project location within the town.

The study summarized herein focused on both traffic flow efficiency and safety of the servicing roadwaysincluding Route 7 and Ridge Road in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, including the site accessroad, and the intersection of Route 7 with Twin River Road. The impacts associated with the site relatedtraffic have been defined and evaluated in accordance with standard traffic engineering guidelines andprocedures.

The traffic engineering study completed for this project included the following:

• A traffic counting program to define the existing traffic patterns and operational characteristics alongthe servicing roadways including Douglas Pike and Ridge Road. The data collection includedautomated traffic recorded (ATR) counts on Route 7 and Ridge Road, and manual turning movementcounts (TMC) at the intersections of Douglas Pike with Twin River Road and Ridge Road with HuntersKnoll.

• A review of accident records obtained from the Smithfield Police Department to determine if thereare any safety concerns relative to the frequency, severity or pattern of crashes in the project area.

• An inventory of the physical characteristics of the servicing roadways to determine the adequacy ofthe existing roadway geometric features in reference to safety and operations.

• An estimate of future traffic volumes for the proposed mixed-use development was calculated usingdata from the “Trip Generation” Manual, an informational report published by the Institute ofTransportation Engineers (ITE).

• Evaluation and analysis of existing and future traffic safety and operational conditions to definepotential project impacts.

• Development of recommendations for improvements where necessary that would be required tomaintain safe and efficient traffic conditions in the project area.

MASSACHUSETTS

burrillville northsmithfield

woon-socket

cumberland

lincolnsmithfield

glocester

fosterscituate

johnston

eastprov.

pawt.

prov.

cranston

coventrywest

warwick

barring

northprov.

warwick

eastgreenwich

exeter

westgreenwich

northkingstown

james-townrichmond

hopkinton

gan

set

t

W E

S

N Smithfield EstatesSMITHFIELD, RHODE ISLAND

Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map

ProjectLocation

ProjectLocation

TOWNLOCATION

LOCUS MAPNO SCALE


3

2.0 PROJECT AREAAs noted in the previous section, the subject property is situated in the southeast corner of the Town ofSmithfield in the vicinity of Twin River Road intersection with Route 7. The subject parcel containsapproximately 43.4 acres of undeveloped and wooded land. A residential condominium neighborhood anda commercial building for medical office use along the frontage of Route 7 are proposed to be constructedon the property. Figure 2 on the following page depicts the general project area, and the approximateboundary lines of the subject property.

Land use in the immediate area can be defined as predominantly commercial in nature along Douglas Piketo the east and residential along Ridge Road to the west. In the immediate area surrounding the property iswooded land to the north, commercial properties including Millennium Swim Systems Inc. to the south,Douglas Lumber Kitchens & Home Center across Route 7 to the east, and residential lots across Ridge Roadto the west in the Hunters Knoll subdivision.

Further north along Route 7 in the vicinity of Interstate 295, properties contain small to large scalecommercial properties including corporate offices, hotels, commercial plazas, banks, and restaurants.Properties along Ridge Road Road are predominantly residential in nature with very few commercialproperties primarily to the south. In addition, just south of the site heading into North Providence are highdensity residential apartment complexes and single family neighborhoods off of intersecting side streets.To the east along Twin River Road are primarily residential homes though the Twin River Casino and Hotel islocated further east near the limited access facility of Route 146.

Douglas Pike will serve as the primary access route to the proposed mixed-use development, with the newnetwork of residential streets providing immediate local access to the homes. Based upon the volume oftraffic serviced along these sections of Douglas Pike, and the mixed-use use proposed, a study impact areawas defined for the project. The limits of our analysis focused on the signalized intersection of Douglas Pikewith Twin River Road/Site Driveway.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 ROADWAYS

DOUGLAS PIKE (ROUTE 7)Route 7 is a north/south urban principal arterial between Route 102 in Burrillville to the north to OrmsStreet in Providence to the south. The roadway provides immediate local access to abutting properties butalso links to higher order facilities including Interstate 295 to the north and Route 146 to the east via TwinRiver Road.


5

In the project area, the roadway is generally thirty feet wide consisting of a 12-foot travel lane and 3-footshoulder in each direction delineated bya double yellow centerline and whiteshoulder markings. Bituminous concreteberm is provided sporadically along bothsides of the road; though a small sectionon the easterly side along thecommercial property frontage haveconcrete curb. There are no sidewalksalong this section of Route 7. Thepavement can be classified as being infair condition with visible crack sealing.The posted speed limit was determinedto be 35 mph. Cobra head lighting is provided sporadically on utility poles for night-time visibility along theroadway. The adjacent photograph depicts a section of Route 7 looking north in the vicinity of the site.

3.2 INTERSECTIONS

DOUGLAS PIKE (ROUTE 7) AT TWIN RIVER ROAD

Twin River Road intersects Route 7 to form a 3-Way, signalized “T”-type intersection. The Route 7northbound approach provides for a thru lane and large radii channelized right turn with yield controlturning onto Twin River Road. The Route 7 southbound approach provides for a separate left turn lane anda thru lane. The Twin River Road westbound approach consists of separate left and right turn lanes with agrassed median separating the westbound and eastbound directions of traffic. Slope faced granite curbingis provided along the Twin River Road westbound approach to the intersection that defines the grassedmedian areas.

The traffic signal system appears to have beenconstructed in the 1990’s and is in fair condition. Theequipment layout consists of mast arm mountedtraffic signal heads with in-road vehicle loopdetection. The controller is mounted on the mast armpole. In addition, there are no pedestrianaccommodations present at the intersection. Theintersection was determined to operate in a fullyactuated mode consisting of three phases. Route 7movements are serviced in two phases including anadvanced protected southbound left, followed bythrough/right concurrent movements. The Twin RiverRoad westbound approach is serviced under a single permitted phase. The above photograph depicts thetypical characteristics of the intersection looking south along Route 7.


6

3.3 TRAFFIC

Existing travel demand characteristics for the servicing roadways were developed from a traffic countingprogram completed by BETA including Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) counts and a manual TurningMovement Count (TMC). The ATR’s were conducted on Route 7, just north of the subject property. Basedupon the ATR data obtained, Route 7 in the project area was found to service an Average Daily Traffic (ADT)volume of approximately 13,500 vehicles during the weekday. On a typical weekday along Route 7, trafficvolumes begin to increase at 6:00 AM, with the morning commuter peak hour occurring between 7:00 and8:00 AM. During this hour, an average of approximately 1,000 vehicles was recorded. After 9:00 AM,volumes decrease to between 600 and 800 vehicles per hour until the late afternoon peak of 1,200 vehiclesserviced between 5:00 and 6:00 PM.

In addition to the ATR, manual turning movement counts were conducted at the Route 7 intersection withTwin River Road in January, 2019. Data was collected during the peak weekday morning period between7:00 and 9:00 AM, and during the afternoon period between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Complete countinformation can be found in the Appendix. Based upon review of the TMC data, Route 7 was found toservice approximately 1,120 vehicles during the weekday morning peak hour with approximately 520vehicles northbound and 600 vehicles southbound. During the same time period, Twin River Road serviced790 vehicles with approximately 450 vehicles eastbound and 340 vehicles westbound.

During the weekday afternoon peak hour, Route 7 serviced 1,285 vehicles with approximately 530 vehiclesnorthbound and 755 vehicles southbound. During the same time period, Twin River Road serviced 945vehicles with approximately 420 vehicles eastbound and 525 vehicles westbound. The results of the TMCdata collection effort determined that the peak hours typically occur from 7:00 to 8:00 AM and 5:00 to 6:00PM. Figure 3 on the following page depicts the daily peak hour turning movement volumes at the studyintersection.

4.0 SAFETY ANALYSISTo determine if there are any limiting factors affecting safety relating to access to the proposed mixed-useproject, the physical characteristics of Route 7 in the project area, and specifically at the site access roadlocation was investigated. These limiting factors would potentially include horizontal or vertical alignmentchanges or roadside obstructions that limit sight distances for vehicles traveling along the road, or enteringthe road from a side street or driveway location. In this instance, the sight distance standard is necessaryto permit turning vehicles to safely enter and exit the site access roads.

The horizontal alignment of Route 7 in the immediate project area can be described as generally straightwith a gradual curve in the vicinity of Webster Street, just south of the site. The vertical alignment can bedescribed as generally level with a minor crest vertical curve at the intersection with Twin River Road. Thephysical roadway features of Route 7 as described provide sight distances in excess of 500 feet to the northand south of the site access road.


8

These values are greater than the 200-foot minimum stopping sight distance required according to AASHTOdesign standards for the speed limit of 30 mph, and 425 feet based on the observed travel speeds ofvehicles between 45 and 50 mph. It should be noted that speeds are highly variable due to the controlledTwin River Road junction, where vehicles are turning off of or onto Route 7 at a low speed, or slowing tothe stop line at the traffic signal.

As a result of the preliminary evaluation of the existing roadway geometry and physical features, it does notappear that any significant physical roadway safety deficiencies exist within the defined study area. Also, aspart of our analysis, accident data was obtained from the Smithfield Police Department for the latest three-year period from January, 2016 to December, 2018 to determine if the intersection of Route 7 with TwinRiver Road experienced a high frequency or pattern of accidents.

A total of 15 crashes (avg. 5 per year) occurred at the intersection of Route 7 with Twin River Road over thethree-year study period, with four involving injuries. Summarizing the data, nine of the accidents wererear-end crashes, four were angle crashes, one was a sideswipe collision (same direction), and one was acollision with an object. This is typical of signalized junctions where the majority of the crashes are rear-enddue to the numerous starting and stopping movements required for the signal change intervals. Themajority of the angle crashes at intersection were attributed to drivers not yielding the right-of-way andone was attributed to red-light running.

Based upon the historical accident data obtained from the local police, and a review of existing roadwaygeometry and operations, roadway or traffic related safety improvements could be investigated to improvesafety at the signalized intersection. The RIDOT could review the clearance intervals at the signalizedjunction of Route 7 with Twin River Road to determine if they require adjustment in an effort to reduce thenumber of rear-end collisions. A summary of the accident data depicting the number, type, and severity isprovided in the Appendix.

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS

5.1 TRIP GENERATION

To determine the traffic impact of a proposed development, estimates of anticipated traffic to begenerated by a particular land use must be calculated. As previously discussed, the mixed-usedevelopment proposal includes construction of 152 residential duplex condominium units and a three-story34,800 square foot commercial building for medical office use on an undeveloped 43.4 acre lot betweenRoute 7 and Ridge Road. Access and egress to the homes will be provided via a network of streets withinthe neighborhood with access to the signalized intersection of Route 7 with Twin River Road. Figure 4 onthe following page depicts the site layout and access plan prepared by Millstone Engineering, P.C.


10

For this site, projected traffic volumes for the mixed-use project were based on use of trip generationfactors. These factors are taken from the “Trip Generation” manual, an informational report published bythe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a national professional organization for traffic andtransportation engineers. The data provided in the ITE report are based on extensive traffic studies forvarious types of land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.). This data has been found to be veryreliable and provides a sound basis for estimating future trips to new developments.

For the proposed mixed-use development project, Land Use Code 230 ResidentialCondominium/Townhouse and Land Use Code 720 Medical-Dental Office Building were reviewed forapplicability in developing an estimate of site related vehicle trips. The appropriate worksheets from themanual are included in the Appendix along with the trip estimate calculations. Table 1 on Page 12summarizes the estimated peak hour trip volumes calculated for the Smithfield Estates project.

TABLE 1 – Trip Generation Estimate

Description Enter Exit Total

AM Peak Hour

ITE Land Use Code 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 11 56 67ITE Land Use Code 720 Medical-Dental Office Building 75 22 97

Total 86 78 164

PM Peak Hour

ITE Land Use Code 230 Residential Condominium/Townhouse 53 27 80ITE Land Use Code 720 Medical-Dental Office Building 33 88 121

Total 86 115 201

5.2 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES

In order to properly assess the impacts of a development, future traffic conditions of area roadways shouldbe estimated for the period when the development is constructed and fully occupied. Typically, theexpansion of base traffic is calculated when a project is to be constructed over an extended period (3 to 5years). In all instances, area growth that may affect capacity results should be considered. For this project,a conservative annual growth rate of 1.0 percent was utilized for the future background traffic growth. Thisrate was applied to the existing volumes to establish a future 2024 Build traffic condition on the servicingroadways. The future 2024 Build condition included traffic generated by the new mixed-use project.

In developing the intersection volumes to be analyzed under build conditions, a directional distribution ofthe site traffic was estimated. The distribution was based on current traffic patterns in the areadetermined through our traffic counting program. It is estimated that 40% will arrive from and depart tothe north, 35% will arrive from and depart to the south, and 25% will arrive from and depart to the east


11

during both the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 5 on the following pages depict the future build trafficcondition during the AM and PM peak hours studied for this project. Site distribution figures are providedfor reference in the Appendix.

5.3 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

The key to any traffic impact analysis is the evaluation of roadway operations during peak traffic periods onthe servicing roadway system. This situation would occur when the site-generated traffic, combined withthe traffic volumes on the main roadway, result in the highest one-hour volume serviced along a roadwaysegment, or through an intersection. Review of the record traffic data found that the weekday AM and PMpeak hours would represent this worst-case combination of site-generated traffic with the servicingroadway peak traffic period.

The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology provides the most accurate means of evaluating trafficcapacity and delays for roadways and intersections. The results of this procedure are expressed in terms ofLevel of Service (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic flow efficiency based onanticipated vehicle delays. For example, LOS “A” represents the best condition with little or no delay, whileLOS “F” indicates that the roadway/intersection is at full capacity resulting in extended vehicle delays andpotential queuing. Table 2 on Page 17 outlines the Level of Service delay criteria presented in the HighwayCapacity Manual for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

TABLE 2 – Highway Capacity Manual Criteria

Unsignalized Delay Signalized DelayLevel of Service Per Vehicle (sec) Per Vehicle (sec)

A <10 <10

B >10 and <15 >10 and <20

C >15 and <25 >20 and <35

D >25 and <35 >35 and <55

E >35 and <50 >55 and <80

F >50 >80

The intersection of Route 7 with Twin River Road, and with the new site access road were analyzed for theweekday morning and afternoon peak hour, which would represent the periods of greatest impact of siterelated traffic. The capacity analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix and Tables 3 and 4summarize the results of the analyses.


13

Table 3 on the following page depicts the current operating conditions at the study intersection. As can beseen in the table, the signalized intersection of Route 7 with Twin River Road operates in an efficientmanner at overall LOS B during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. All critical movementsoperate at LOS C or better, with no movement experiencing excessive delays or queueing.

TABLE 3 – Level of Service Summary (Existing Conditions)

Location / Movement

EXISTING CONDITIONS

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

LOS Delay

95th %QueueLength(veh.)

v/c LOS Delay


v/c

Douglas Pike(Route 7) at Twin River Road (S)Route 7 NB C 29.2 15 0.86 C 21.5 8 0.72Route 7 SB Left B 16.4 5 0.63 B 12.0 3 0.59Route 7 SB Thru A 6.3 5 0.34 A 8.3 6 0.46Twin River Road WB Left C 25.4 4 0.53 C 26.2 6 0.64Twin River Road WB Right A 6.4 2 0.38 A 5.8 2 0.46OVERALL B 18.8 - - B 14.5 - -

(S) – Signalized(U) – Unsignalized

Table 4 on the following page presents the future build conditions at the study intersection where theanalysis found that the estimated increase in traffic during the peak periods resulting from the proposedmixed-use development project combined with the base traffic growth along the servicing roadways willhave no discernable impact on overall traffic operations along Route 7, specifically at the defined studyintersection reviewed for this project. The signalized intersection of Route 7 with Twin River Road, whichwill be modified to form a four-way junction with the site access road, will operate overall at LOS C orbetter for the future build traffic conditions during the weekday peak periods. The minor additional trafficon the approaches will have no discernable effect of the traffic flow through the study junctions, which willcontinue to operate overall in a safe and efficient manner. A conceptual design of the intersection of Route7 with Twin River Road to accommodate the proposed site access road to form a four-way junction isprovided in the Appendix.


14

TABLE 4 – Level of Service Summary (Future Build Conditions)

Location / Movement

2024 FUTURE BUILD CONDITIONS

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

LOS Delay


v/c LOS Delay


v/c

Douglas Pike(Route 7) at Twin River Road (S)Route 7 NB Left A 7.6 1 0.06 A 8.5 1 0.09Route 7 NB Thru C 34.0 18 0.88 C 27.0 10 0.76Route 7 SB Left C 32.7 8 0.80 C 24.5 6 0.75Route 7 SB Thru/Right B 14.2 10 0.45 B 19.6 13 0.65Twin River Road WBLeft/Thru C 31.4 7 0.60 C 31.9 11 0.69

Twin River Road WB Right A 5.5 2 0.32 A 4.7 2 0.39Site Access EB Left/Thru C 22.0 2 0.15 B 19.3 3 0.17Site Access EB Right A 0.2 1 0.05 A 0.2 1 0.06OVERALL C 24.7 - - C 21.1 - -

(S) – Signalized(U) – Unsignalized

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSIn summary, the study has shown that the proposed mixed-use development project access and circulationplan has been designed to provide a level of traffic safety and efficiency on the servicing roadway system.The safety of the servicing roadways and specifically the study intersection were also reviewed forgeometry and sight distances. The intersection reviewed was determined to provide sufficient sightdistances in accordance with AASHTO criteria for visibility and decision making of drivers attempting toenter/exit main street traffic from a side street or driveway location.

The results of the operational analysis determined that the estimated minor increase in traffic during thepeak periods resulting from the proposed mixed-use project will have a negligible effect on overall trafficoperations along the servicing roadways, particularly during the daily morning and afternoon peak hourswhen the new mixed-use development would generate its highest daily traffic volumes.

Therefore, based upon the data collected on the servicing roadways, the analysis completed as part of thisstudy, it can be concluded that the future traffic conditions resulting from the proposed mixed-usedevelopment with the recommended mitigation, will provide for adequate and safe access to a publicstreet, and will not have a detrimental effect on public safety and welfare in the study area.

REAL ESTATE SURVEY FOR RIIDGE ROAD & DOUGLAS PIKE

(ASSESSOR’S PLAT 42, LOT 139 AND ASSESSOR’S PLAT 40 “TEA LOTS”)

SMITHFIELD, RHODE ISLAND Presented to: Town of Smithfield Planning Board Albert S. Gizzarelli, Jr., Chairman Michael Pinelli John W. Steere, Jr. Curtis Ruccolo Richard Colavecchio Michael C. Moan

For: Mr. Timothy F. Kane, Esq. 627 Putnam Pike Greenville R.I. 02828 By: Thomas O. Sweeney, SIOR SWEENEY REAL ESTATE & APPRAISAL 1 Turks Head Place, Suite 850 Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Property Type: Residential multifamily Date: July 27, 2020

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Board:

At the request of Timothy F. Kane, Esq., I have inspected the real estate located

on between Ridge Road and Douglas Pike (RI Route 7, otherwise designated as

Assessor's Lot 139 on Plat 42 and those lots known as the “Tea Lots” on Plat 40 of the

Tax Assessor’s Plats of the Town of Smithfield, State of Rhode Island. In addition to my

inspection, I have reviewed the surrounding property. The purpose of my inspection and

review was to determine the effect, if any, the granting of the petitioner’s request to the

Town Council to change the zoning on the parcels from R-Med Zone and Commercial

Zone to Planned Development Zone in order to allow the applicant to develop the

property with 139 residential units (comprising of 58 buildings with 124 two bedroom

units and 15 three-bedroom units) and a 34,800± square foot commercial building.

The subject property is located on between Ridge Road and Douglas Pike in the

southeast corner of the town of Smithfield, just north of the townline with North

Providence. Douglas Pike is a secondary corridor, which runs north south from the North

Providence line through the Town to the North Smithfiedl townline. Uses along Douglas

Pike are a mix of office, service and retail uses with some residential and undeveloped

properties interspersed. The property to the immediate south of the property is a nursing

home. Ridge Road is a two lane residential street and uses along it and to the north and

west of the subject are predominantly single family residential.

REAL ESTATE SURVEY TOWER HILL ROAD, NORTH KINGSTOWN, RHODE ISLAND

The subject property consist of a 43± acre parcel of land fronting on Ridge Road

and Douglas Pike. The property is currently vacant and unimproved. There are areas of

wetlands in the northeast and northwest corners of the property. The applicant is

proposing the Zone change in order to develop the property with 139 residential units

(comprising of 58 buildings with 124 two bedroom units and 15 three-bedroom units) and

a 34,800± square foot commercial building. The residential units will be developed in

duplexes and triplexes. (See attached site plan) Plans call for access to the property to

limited solely to an entrance on Douglas Pike, align with Twin River Road.

After completing my inspection and review, that the proposed changes will not

adversely impact the surrounding area, as the proposed use is an appropriate use of the

property. The applicant is proposing a high end development which will provide

necessary housing to the town. The density proposed is consistent with other projects

throughout the Town. The proposed change in Zone will allow for an orderly

development of the property and will not have any negative impact on the use, enjoyment

or diminish the value of the surrounding properties.

Respectfully submitted, SWEENEY REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL Thomas O. Sweeney, SIOR

REAL ESTATE SURVEY SITE PLAN

REAL ESTATE SURVEY GOOGLE MAP

QUALIFICATIONS OF THOMAS O. SWEENEY, SIOR REALTOR AND APPRAISAL SPECIALIST

Engaged in Real Estate business since 1983: Principal, SWEENEY REAL ESTATE & APPRAISAL Vice President, RODMAN REAL ESTATE Executive Vice President, HENRY W. COOKE CO. (1983 - 1996) Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: Rhode Island Certification No. CGA.0A00217 Licensed Real Estate Broker: Rhode Island Real Estate Broker's License Number B13444 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Real Estate Broker's License # 137525 Attended: Providence College with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science. Successfully completed the following courses and examinations: Society of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 101: Introduction to Appraising Real Property Course 102: Applied Property Valuation Course 201: Principles of Income Property Appraising Course 202: Applied Income Property Valuation Seminar: Narrative Report Seminar Seminar: How to Appraise Apartments Seminar: Overview of Income Capitalization American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 1A1: Real Estate Appraisal Principles Course 1A2: Basic Valuation Procedures Appraisal Institute Standards of Professional Practice, Parts A & B Seminar: Feasibility Analysis & Highest and Best Use Analysis Guest Instructor: University of Rhode Island Extension Division "Real Estate Fundamentals" "Real Estate Finance"


Qualified Expert Witness: City of Providence, Zoning Board of Review City of Cranston, Zoning Board of Review City of Warwick, Zoning Board of Review City of Pawtucket, Zoning Board of Review City of Woonsocket, Zoning Board of Review City of Newport, Zoning Board of Review Town of North Providence, Zoning Board of Review Town of Coventry, Zoning Board of Review Town of Smithfield, Zoning Board of Review Town of North Smithfield, Zoning Board of Review Town of Johnston, Zoning Board of Review Town of Barrington, Zoning Board of Review Town of Scituate, Zoning Board of Review Qualified as a Real Estate Expert to Testify in Superior Court & Family Court,

State of Rhode Island Qualified as a Real Estate Expert to Testify in Federal Bankruptcy Court,

Federal District Court. Appraisals for Attorneys, Business and Homeowners Clients include: United States Small Business Administration State of Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Real Estate Division Department of Administration, Division of Municipal Affairs Department of Environmental Management City of Providence Water Supply Board Department of Planning and Development Department of Public Property Solid Waste Management Corporation Narragansett Bay Commission Providence Redevelopment Agency Federal Nation Mortgage Association


Clients, continued:

Bank of America Citizens Bank

Bank RI Washington Trust Freedom National Bank GTECH Corporation Merrill Lynch Relocation Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge DarrowEverett LLP Hinckley, Allen & Synder Adler, Pollock and Sheehan Partridge, Snow and Hahn Nixon – Peabody Peabody and Arnold Moses, Afonso McOsker, Davignon and Waldman Lehigh - Portland Cement Co. Tyco Corporation Kaiser Aluminum Benny’s Stores PJ Fox Paper Co. CFS Air Cargo Christmas Tree Shops McLaughlin Automotive Ferland Corp. Tenneco Gas The Narragansett Electric Company Robinson & Cole LLP

FISCAL IMPACT STUDY

PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Earl Grey Estates

TOWN OF SMITHFIELD, RI

FOR:

SMITHFIELD ESTATES, LLC

PREPARED BY: JDL ENTERPRISES - JOSEPH D. LOMBARDO, AICP

APRIL 2020

Development Project – Smithfield, RI Fiscal Impact Study - by JDL ENTERPRISES April 2020

2

INTRODUCTION ~ This Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) has been prepared to supplement a Petition for a Zone Change for a Planned Development Zone (PD Zone). Smithfield Estates is proposed as a 139-unit Residential Development with 20 Low /Moderate Income Housing (LMI) units located on land off of Douglas Pike and Ridge Road in Smithfield, Rhode Island. The proposal also calls for a 34,800 square foot commercial building fronting on Douglas Pike which is the subject of a separate fiscal impact study being submitted herewith. The subject parcel is AP 40, and hundreds of non-conforming lots – generally known as Tea Lots along with AP 42 Lot 139. The FIS will use the per capita multiplier method for estimating anticipated public revenues and expenses associated with the proposed development. The per capita multiplier is a generally accepted planning method to complete this study for review by the Town of Smithfield. The FIS will attempt to estimate both future revenues and expenses utilizing past and present statistics and financial data from a variety of sources, to be noted. SUMMARY ~ The Town of Smithfield will realize total estimated Revenues of $857,182 from Property Taxes on an annual basis with the proposed development. By subtracting the total expense estimate of $630,559 from the total anticipated revenue of $857,182 , the Town of Smithfield will actually realize a Net Revenue Gain of $226,623 with regard to expenses and revenues on an annual basis with the full development of the project. Thus, Grand Total of Net Revenue to the Town of Smithfield from this development project is estimated at: $226,623. In addition, the Town of Smithfield will gain 20 Low and Moderate Income housing units towards their goal of 10%.


3

BASELINE INFORMATION ~ In order to begin the FIS, baseline information needs to be presented, including; population, housing units, Town budget numbers, and school age children. The following table presents this information, and will establish per capita multipliers for Smithfield, and this particular development proposal at Tea Lots.

TABLE # 1: PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS - BASE YEAR OF 2019- TOWN OF SMITHFIELD

PUBLIC

SCHOOL PUPILS

MUNICIPAL

BUDGET

SCHOOL BUDGET

HOUSING

UNITS (2010

Census)

POPULATION (2010 Census)

TOTAL

2,382

$32,854,810*

$38,472,773*

7,532

21,430

PER HOUSEHOLD

N/A

$1,533*

N/A

2.84

N/A

PER PUPIL

N/A

N/A

$16,151

0.32

0.11

NOTES: * Source: Town of Smithfield Town Budget: FY 2020 Budget Pupils: RI Department of Education as of October 1, 2019 School Budget is Town contribution only and does not include the $6,316,496 in RI State Aid contribution towards the school budget & does not include debt service & capital projects US Census Data - 2010 Therefore, in summary, the Per Capita Multipliers for Smithfield are: Municipal Budget per capita ...........................................................................$1,533 Revised Municipal Budget per capita ……………………………………....$1,303 School Budget per capita ..............................................................................$16,151 Population Multiplier per household ..................................................................2.84 School age multiplier per household ................................................................. .0.32 Revised Municipal Multiplier @85% due to private services provided by the development and typical projected expenses will not occur as this site development is maintained by a private developer/owner versus typical residential development that has town roadways and public works related expenses on site.


4

DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES ~ Based on the per capita multipliers presented above, Table 2 presents the anticipated population projections for this Residential Development:

TABLE # 2: POPULATION PROJECTIONS - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - 2019

TOWN OF SMITHFIELD

PER UNIT

# OF UNITS

TOTALS POPULATION - 2 BDR

2.07* 124

256 POPULATION - 3 BDR 2.84 15 42

TOTALS 298 * The per capita population estimates of 2.07 for the 2-bedroom units reflect national, regional and local residential housing data, particularly as illustrated in Appendix F, and as described below. For the 3-bedroom units, the Town’s average of 2.84 will be used for projections. In order to determine the school age children that may result from a development such as proposed, normally it can be expected to mirror the national, regional and more closely, local state averages of 0.05 students per household, or 5 students per 100 households. To verify the number of school age children that may result from a development such as proposed, numerous studies over the past 10-12 years have shown this to be an average rate of school-age children. Similar ratios have been determined to exist in several other Apartment & Condominium developments around the state and nearby Connecticut (Refer to Appendix C), notably Greenwich Place and River Farm in West Warwick (Refer to Appendix B & D). With regard to apartment complexes, at Cumberland Crossing, a 258-unit two-bedroom style apartment complex, there were only 14 school age children residing at that location in Cumberland in 2006. (See Appendix A & E for additional information on apartment complexes).


5

Appendix F is a recent compilation of the existing Apartment & Condominium developments in Smithfield, RI which also indicates similar ratios for school age children in that community. Thus, to estimate the school age children that may result from the proposed residential development as proposed, it can be expected to mirror 0.07 students per household or 7 students per 100 households that have been determined to exist Smithfield. Thus, at 0.07 students per household, eight (8) students would be expected from the majority of 2-bedroom units (124) residential development proposed within the development. That is primarily due to the proposed design of two (2) bedroom units that typically do not attract or retain families with children as potential residents. For the 3-bedroom units, fifteen (15) total, it is estimated to be an additional seven (7) students, for a total of fifteen (15) school children residing at the development. A total of 298 people (including the 15 school age children) will be projected to be residents. Review of Conclusions from the Addendum will substantiate the projected number of school age children from the multi-family residential development. The projected 15 school-age children will be spread between the Town’s elementary, middle and high school, approximately 5 in each.


6

TEA LOTS REVENUE ESTIMATES ~ Based on the projections presented above in Tables 1 & 2, Table 3 presents the projected total municipal revenue for the Residential Development:

TABLE # 3: TOTAL PROJECT REVENUE PROJECTIONS -

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – BASE YEAR OF 2019

TOWN OF SMITHFIELD

ASSESSED VALUE *

TAX RATE *

UNITS

TOTAL

REVENUE PER UNIT

TOTAL

REVENUE

RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY

TWO BED UNITS MARKET RATE

$375,000 (Ave)

$16.81/ $1000 106 $6,303 $668,118


TWO BED UNITS LOW/MOD

@120% AMI

$305,086

$16.81/$1000 18 $5,128 $92,304


THREE BED UNITS

$390,000 $16.81/ $1000 13 $6,556 $85,228


THREE BED UNITS

LOW/MOD @120% AMI

$343,012 $16.81/ $1000 2 $5,766 $11,532

TOTALS

139 $857,182

+ Per Smithfield Estates, LLC – Tea Lots * Per Town of Smithfield Tax Assessor’s Office – Residential rate @100% Total gross revenue from the proposed residential development is: $857,182.


7

ADDITIONAL REVENUE ~ There will be one-time fee revenue collected for Building Permits, Water and Sewer connections, and Site Plan Review that will accrue to the community for the building and construction of the project. EXPENSES ESTIMATES ~ Based on the per capita multipliers and population and school age children projections presented above, Table 4 presents the projected total municipal expenses for the Development:

TABLE # 4: TOTAL PROJECT EXPENSES PROJECTIONS –

TOWN OF SMITHFIELD - 2019

SCHOOL PUPILS

MUNICIPAL BUDGET

HOUSING

UNITS

POPULATION

TOTAL

15 N/A

139

298 PER CAPITA

N/A $1,303*

Varies

N/A PER PUPIL

$16,151+ N/A

---

N/A TOTAL EXPENSES

$242,265 $388,294

N/A

N/A

*Revised Municipal Multiplier @85% due to private services provided by the development + School Multiplier reflects Town contribution only and does not include the $6,316,496 in RI State Aid contribution towards the total school budget. Therefore, the actual cost to the Town for school and municipal expenses for the proposed residential project is $630,559. The municipal expenses highlighted above in Table 4 are conservative as some of that projected expense will not occur as this site development is maintained by a private developer/owner versus typical residential development that has town roadways and public works related expenses on site.

8

ANTICIPATED REVENUE AND EXPENSE COMPARISON~ Based on information and statistics presented above in Tables 1-4, Table 5 presents a comparison of the projected total municipal revenue with total projected expenses, as anticipated:

TABLE # 5: REVENUE AND EXPENSE COMPARISON –

BASE YEAR OF 2019 TOWN OF SMITHFIELD

TOTAL MUNICIPAL

COSTS

TOTAL

SCHOOL COSTS

TOTAL COSTS

TOTAL

ESTIMATED REVENUE

NET

RESULTS

TOTAL PROJECT

$388,294

$242,265

(15 students)

$630,559

$857,182

$226,623

SUMMARY ~ The Town of Smithfield will realize total estimated Revenues of $857,182 from Property Taxes on an annual basis with the proposed development. By subtracting the total expense estimate of $630,559 from the total anticipated revenue of $857,182 , the Town of Smithfield will actually realize a Net Revenue Gain of $226,623 with regard to expenses and revenues on an annual basis with the full development of the project. Thus, Grand Total of Net Revenue to the Town of Smithfield from this development project is estimated at: $226,623. In addition, the Town of Smithfield will gain 20 Low and Moderate Income housing units towards their goal of 10%.

9

ADDENDUM – CONCLUSIONS RE: MULTIFAMILY HOUSING & SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN In order to determine and substantiate the number of school age children that may result from a residential development of apartments or Apartment & Hotels, normally it can be expected to mirror the national, regional and more closely, local state averages. Empirical data collected over the past 10 years primarily in Rhode Island and a lesser degree from Connecticut, a ratio of 0.05 students per household, or 5 students per 100 households has been verified numerous times. To verify the number of school age children that may result from any such development that is to be newly constructed, in densities exceeding 50 units, contain one- and two-bedroom units, the selection of the developments to study over the years of research of similar type developments is key. Usually this involves and inquiry to the local School Department or bus company to quantify the number of students residing in the various selected residential developments. This will produce a ratio of school age children per 100 units to be used as a multiplier. These ratios have been determined to exist in numerous Apartment & Hotel and apartment developments throughout Rhode Island and Connecticut over the past 10 years. Based on a recent study in October of 2011 by Community Opportunities Group, Inc. for the Town of Maynard, MA, the following findings and conclusions verify and substantiate the projection of a ratio of 0.05 students per household, or 5 students per 100 households:

• Statistics derived from the Census Bureau's new American Community Survey (ACS) indicates virtually no school-age children in one-bedroom units, and very few in two-bedroom multi-family units

• Households in new multifamily housing are quite different from their counterparts in

older multi-family developments. The differences range from household size and composition to household income and employment characteristics. A key factor separating new from old developments is that the former are frequently designed to cater to childless households.

• The number of school-age children in new multi-family housing is driven primarily by

the size of the dwelling units (number of bedrooms) and whether the units are subject to age restrictions. For non-age-restricted housing, two-bedroom units attract a mixed population, including some families with school-age children; and one-bedroom units rarely have dependent children, especially older children.

10

In addition to unit sizes, new multi-family developments have a lesser tendency to attract families based on:

• Density. Higher‐density developments tend to have fewer children of any age than lower density developments. This seems to correlate with unit size because very high-density developments are usually dominated by one- and two-bedroom units.

• Other choices in the housing market. Since new multifamily developments are so often

designed to discourage family occupancy, families seeking rental housing will choose other options if available in the same market area

• Housing costs. In a given market area, the higher the rent, the more likely it is that a

renter household will not have school age children

• Older multi-family dwellings are more likely to house families with children because they are relatively small buildings with yards, and the rents (or Apartment & Hotel sale prices) tend to run below market. Families that can afford to own a home generally purchase one. IN SUMMARY, statistics gathered in a broader manner for an entire community may not accurately reflect the anticipated number of school age children that will be residents of newly constructed, more dense multi-family housing. Townwide averages blend all multifamily residents and do not account for the large differences that determine the choices a family with children will make based on age, density, amenities and most importantly, number of bedrooms. There have been very few studies completed in the three-state region (MA, RI & CT) during the past 10-15 years to really assist any particular community to assess the impact of school age children that may reside in a proposed residential development. Given all the specific and detailed data collection prepared by JDL ENTERPRISES and the chosen methodology, there is a higher degree of confidence in predicting school age children for a new development, such as proposed for the Town of Smithfield, RI than attempting to utilize generalized older studies that do not reflect the actual project being reviewed by the community.

11

Appendix A

COMAPARABLE APARTMENT COMPLEXES SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (SAC)

COMMUNITY APARTMENT

NAME TOTAL UNITS

SCHOOL AGE

CHILDREN

# SAC PER 100

UNITS Cranston Springfield 216 9 4.1 No. Prov. Windsor 240 6 2.5 Warwick Villa Del

Rio 391 25 6.3

Warwick Briarwood Meadows

456 6 1.3

Providence Centre Place 225 2 .8 Narragansett Pier Village 99 0 0 W. Warwick Greenwich

Place 168 15 8.9

TOTALS 1794 63 3.5 Source: Community Impact Study for South County Commons, LLC, So. Kingstown, RI By Dan Varin – March 2003

12

Appendix B COMAPARABLE APARTMENT &

HOTEL/APARTMENT COMPLEXES SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (SAC)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMNT

NAME TOTAL UNITS

SCHOOL AGE

CHILDREN

# SAC PER 100

UNITS Cumberland Cumberland

Crossing 258 14 5.4

Westerly 7 Complexes 268 7 2.6 W.Warwick Riverview

Farm 125 4 3.2

Stonington, CT

8 Complexes (detail in Appendix C)

209 5 2.4

TOTALS 860 30 3.5 Source: JDL ENTERPRISES – March 2006

13

APPENDIX C

~TOWN OF STONINGTON, CT ~

PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS: EXISTING CONDOMINIMUM DEVELOPMENTS

• Stonington Landing 54 units 1 Student • Whitehall Pond Rte ( Mystic) 26 units 0 Students • Whitehall Landing 24 units 4 Students • Hewitt Road(Mystic ) 12 units 0 Students • Mystic River Square 25 units 0 Students • Broadway School (Mystic) 21 units 0 Students • Riverwalk Condos ( Pawcatuck) 37 units 0 Students • Pequot Run ( Pawcatuck) 10 units 0 Students

TOTAL = 209 UNITS 5 STUDENTS

AVERAGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS PER UNIT = 209/5 = 0.024 OR 2.4 STUDENTS PER ONE HUNDRED APARTMENT & HOTEL UNITS

SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

1. First Student Bus Company – (Data Released by Mr. Frank Connolly of the Stonington School Dept. – Business Office)

2. Tax Assessor – Town of Stonington, CT Date: February 15, 2006

14

Appendix D ADDITIONAL COMAPARABLE APARTMENT &

HOTEL COMPLEXES SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (SAC)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMNT

NAME TOTAL UNITS

SCHOOL AGE

CHILDREN

# SAC PER 100

UNITS No. Smithfield

Silver Pines 29 1 3.5

Woonsocket Laurelwood 162 0 0 (age-

restricted)

Cumberland 3 complexes 57 1 1.7 TOTALS 248 2 <1 Source: JDL ENTERPRISES – March 2006

15

Appendix E ADDITIONAL COMAPARABLE APARTMENT &

HOTEL/APARTMENT COMPLEXES SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (SAC)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMNT NAME TOTAL

UNITS SCHOOL

AGE CHILDREN

# SAC PER 100

UNITS W. Greenwich (Apts)

Centre of NE*

240 21 8.75

S. Kingstown (Apts) #

So County Commons

234 16 6.84

S. Kingstown (Condo)#

Preserve 52 0 0.00

Coventry Centre of NE + – Hopkins Hill

90 4 4.44

TOTALS 616 41 6.65 Source: JDL ENTERPRISES – February 2009 *Per City of West Greenwich Planning Dept – as of Dec 1, 2008. A total of 26 of the 240 units are 3 bedroom units. The balance of units is mostly 2 bedroom units, and some 1 bedroom units. These are apartments for rent. + Per Universal Properties – as of Dec. 30, 2008 # Per Vin Murray – Planning Director – City of South Kingstown – Current school year statistics

16

Appendix F APARTMENT & HOTEL COMPLEXES

SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (SAC) Town of Smithfield, RI

Condo Total # Units Student total

Apple Valley Condo 74 7 Apple Valley Estates 48 3 Autumn Run 86 5 Cedar Crest 38 2 Homestead Mills Apts. 125 14 Orchard Meadow 94 5 Pheasant Run 94 4 Pleasant View condos 54 8 Shadowbrook 68 1 Stonehenge 48 1 Tamarac 84 5 Timberlane 84 5 Village at Summerfield (Detached 1- fam.) 125 2 Village in the Woods (Detached 1- fam.) 31 11

1053 73 0.069326

Students Per Unit Average

Source: Unit Count - Smithfield Planning Department Student count by development provided by Smithfield School Department - October 2014

FISCAL IMPACT STUDY

ADDENDUM: PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

TOWN OF SMITHFIELD, RI

FOR:

SMITHFIELD ESTATES, LLC

PREPARED BY: JDL ENTERPRISES - JOSEPH D. LOMBARDO, AICP

APRIL 2020

Smithfield Estates Commercial Development Project Fiscal Impact Projections - by JDL ENTERPRISES April 2020

Page # 2

INTRODUCTION ~ This Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) has been prepared to supplement the Commercial Development portion for an Application by Smithfield Estates, LLC for a land development project comprising 34,000 square feet contained in one (1) new building, associated parking, drainage and landscaping to be constructed in Smithfield, RI located on land off of Douglas Pike in Smithfield, Rhode Island. The subject parcel is AP 40, and numerous Lots – generally known as Tea Lots. The FIS will estimate anticipated public revenues and expenses associated with the proposed commercial development portion of the project site. The FIS will attempt to estimate both future revenues and expenses utilizing present statistics and financial data from a variety of sources, to be noted. SUMMARY ~

The Town of Smithfield, RI would realize a projected Net Revenue Gain of $87,000 with regard to expenses and revenues on an annual basis as a result of this proposed commercial project at Smithfield Estates.


Page # 3

TABLE 1 TOTAL PROJECT REVENUE PROJECTIONS -

BASE YEAR OF 2018 – TOWN OF SMITHFIELD

VALUE

ASSESSED VALUE *

TAX RATE *

TOTAL

REVENUE

PROPOSED

BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS

34,000 SF @$200/SF $6,800,000 $18.35/

1000 $124,780

TOTALS $124,780

* Per Smithfield Estates, LLC and Per Town of Smithfield, RI Tax Assessor’s Office – Commercial rate @100% ADDITIONAL REVENUE ~ Also, one-time fee revenue for Building Permits and Site Plan Review will accrue to the community for the building construction of the Smithfield Estates Commercial project.


Page # 4

SMITHFIELD ESTATES COMMERCIAL PROJECT EXPENSE ESTIMATES ~ It is expected that the Town will incur minimal expenses from the project development. There would be an expectation to have small incremental demands for services that would be a result of the proposed development, including:

• Police – small increase in traffic and accident calls

• Emergency Services – small increase in calls to serve the facility (customers & employees)

From a cost of services perspective, and studies compiled by American Farm and Land Trust - Farmland Information Center in its Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies (See Fact Sheet in Appendix A), it can be anticipated that for every dollar of tax revenue collected by the Town of Smithfield, no more than 30% (or $0.30 per dollar) would be spent on providing municipal services. The 30% expenditure is a conservative estimate.

TABLE 2 -- SMITHFIELD ESTATES COMMERCIAL PROJECT REVENUE AND EXPENSE COMPARISON –TOWN OF SMITHFIELD, RI

TOTAL

MUNICIPAL COSTS

TOTAL

ESTIMATED REVENUE

NET

RESULTS

TOTAL PROJECT

$37,434

(@30% OF REVENUE

OF $124,780)

$124,780

$87,346

The Town of Smithfield, RI would realize a projected Net Revenue Gain of $87,346 with regard to expenses and revenues on an annual basis as a result of this proposed commercial project at Smithfield Estates.


Page # 5

Appendix A

SUMMARY

American Farm and Land Trust - Farmland Information Center

FACT SHEET: COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES STUDIES

• Commercial & Industrial = $0.30

• Working & Open Land = $0.35

• Residential = $1.16 The Median cost per dollar of revenue raised to provide all public services to different land uses. AFT NATIONAL OFFICE 1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7300 www.farmland.org

http://www.farmland.org/

TOWN OF SMITHFIELD, RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Smithfield Town Council will hold a Virtual Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 at 7:00 PM. The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider and act upon proposed amendments to the Zoning District Map and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments are associated with an approved Master Plan of a Major Land Development project known as “Earl Grey Estates” (Tea Lots) - (ID#: 19-005). These amendments are proposed to be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 45-24.51, 45-24.52 and 45-24.53 of the General Laws of Rhode Island.

VIRTUAL MEETING* Please join the meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://www.gotomeet.me/RandyRossi/smithfield-towncouncil

You can also dial in using your phone. United States (Toll Free): 1 877 568 4106

United States: +1 (646) 749-3129 Access Code: 342-830-965

For technical support dial: 401-233-1010

*Provided, however, that the meeting is allowed to be held virtually. If virtual meetings are prohibited on this date, then the Town Council may convene the meeting at the Smithfield Town Hall, 2nd Floor, Crepeau Hall, 64 Farnum Pike, Smithfield, RI, pursuant to compliance with the latest Executive Order dealing with public meetings. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Summary: The proposed map amendment involves a change to the Zoning District Map’s designation of lots located on Douglas Pike and Ridge Road, more specifically identified as: Assessor’s Plat 40 / Lots 1-111, 113-238, 250-273, 277-299, 303-332, 336-363, 366-385, 390-439 and AP 42 / Lot 139 from Commercial (C), Medium Density Residential (R-Med) and Low Density Residential (R-80) to Planned Development (PD), as shown below. The Zoning District Map’s designation of lots adjacent to the Earl Grey Estates but, not associated with the project are also proposed for amendment from Medium Density Residential (R-Med) to Commercial (C). These lots include: AP 40 / Lots 239, 240, 274, 275, 364, 386-388 and a portion of lot 452 with a proposed change, as shown below.

The proposed Zoning ordinance amendments include a changing the zoning district designation of the above listed lots to the Planned Development (PD) district subject to the following limitations, conditions, and restrictions:

1. The development of the subject property and the uses set forth below shall be allowed but limited to the following:

a. No more than one hundred forty (140) residential multi-family dwellings to be housed in no more than 55 buildings with a minimum of twenty-three (23) qualifying as affordable housing under Rhode Island Law (affordable units) with a sales price affordable to a household earning no more than one hundred twenty (120%) percent of the average median income as defined by HUD.

b. A commercial building comprised of no more than 35,000 square feet with uses allowed by right and by special use permit in the PD District as provided in the Zoning Ordinance.

2. The following provisions of Zoning Ordinance shall not apply to the development of the subject

property: 5.7.1. B, D, F, G, H, J, M, R, T, U, V, W, and X, Section 5.10 Inclusionary Zoning and Section 6.3, M. Performance Standards, Public Water and Sewer.

At said Hearing opportunity will be given to all interested persons to be heard upon the proposed amendments. The proposed amendment may be altered or amended prior to the close of the Public Hearing, without further advertising, as a result of further study or because of the views expressed at the Public Hearing. Any alteration or amendment must be presented for comment in the course of the Hearing.

Availability of Information The application and accompanying documents for this application are available for public review on the Town Planner’s page of the Town’s Website: https://www.smithfieldri.com/

If communication assistance (readers/interpreters/captions) or any other accommodation to ensure equal participation is needed, please contact the Smithfield Town Manager’s office at 401-233-1010 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.

BY ORDER OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.

Suzanna L. Alba, President

______________________________________________________________________ Please publish as a display ad in the August 27, September 3rd and September 10th editions of The Breeze using type size at least as large as the normal type size used in news articles.

Tea Lot Abutters

MBL LOCATION OWNER OWNER 2 OWNER ADDRESS OWNER CITY STATE ZIP CODE

40/112 0 DOUGLAS PIKE 'INDEPENDENT REALTY ASSOCIATEC/O DOUGLAS LUMBER PO BOX 17098 ! SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

40/441 90 DOUGLAS PIKE SURABIAN PAUL B C/O DOUGLAS CONSTRUCT90 DOUGLAS PIKE UNIT 2 1 SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

40/452 0 DOUGLAS PIKE • SURABIAN PAUL T !C/0 DOUGLAS CONSTRUCi90 DOUGLAS PIKE 1 SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/031 151 DOUGLAS PIKE WEDGEWOOD ENTERPRISES INCI 15 MEADOWLARK DRIVE i CRANSTON Rl 02921

42/032 125 DOUGLAS PIKE iTABBOOMA INC IC/O DOUGLAS LUMBER POBOX 17098 i SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/043 40 DOUGLAS PIKE CHEBBO IRREVOCABLE TRUST i MARIA NORIEGA TRUSTEE 94 CRAWFORD STREET CRANSTON Rl 02910

42/044 268 RIDGE RD RYAN FINANCE LLC IC/O KEVIN RYAN 359 BROAD STREET ! PROVIDENCE Rl 02907

42/044D176 DOUGLAS PIKE i PERROHA JOHN E 400 PUTNAM PIKE STE J504 SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/093 257 RIDGE RD MJV ENTERPRISES LLC 350 PIPPIN ORCHARD ROAD CRANSTON Rl 02921

42/094 251 RIDGE RD BRIDENSCOHE 251 RIDGE RD SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/095 245 RIDGE RD i DEFREITAS MICHAEL ET UX 1 PASHA CTE 240 SILVER SPRING STREET PROVIDENCE Rl 02904

42/096 241 RIDGE RD DEUTSCHE BANK NAT TRUST CO ;C/0 HOMEWARD RESIDENT! 1525 S BELT LINE RD COPPELL TX 75019

42/097A 237 RIDGE RD TURNER JOHN K 237 RIDGE RD i SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/097B 233 RIDGE RD i SYLVESTER JAMES D ET AL iC/O JAMES L & JUDITH M S^'233 RIDGE RD SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/097D 223 RIDGE RD BORGES ORLANDO L ET UX IIRENEMTE 223 RIDGE ROAD ESMOND Rl 02917

42/099 0 RIDGE RD TOWN OF SMITHFIELD 1 64FARNUM PIKE ISMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/138 80 DOUGLAS PIKE 80 DOUGLAS PIKE LLC iC/O HEALTH CONCEPTS LTpBO DOUGLAS PIKE i SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/139A 142 DOUGLAS PIKE IDAREZZO DONNA J ET VIR ! ROBERT TE 142 DOUGLAS PIKE ISMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/150 216 RIDGE RD IHARONIAN S JOHN1

1405 DOUGLAS AVENUE iNO PROVIDENCE Rl 02904

42/200 9 HUNTERS KNOLL CHELO DARYL W ET UX IKRISTENM TE 9 HUNTERS KNOLL ISMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/217 37 HUNTERS KNOLL SYLVESTER JAMES D 37 HUNTERS KNOLL SMITHFIELD Rl 02917

42/280 256 RIDGE RD ! FONSECA MANUEL ET UX i FONSECA TINA TE 256 RIDGE RD ISMITHFIELD Rl 02917

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: New Victualling License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC, d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, for the


BACKGROUND:

Lola’s Lounge, LLC, d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, has applied for a new Victualling License for their business located at 55 Douglas Pike.

TOWN REVENUE:



Copy of application Copy of BCI – No Record

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Victualling License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, 55 Douglas Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, a copy of their Retail Sales Permit and final approval from the RI Department of Health.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: New Entertainment License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge” for


BACKGROUND:

Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, has applied for a new Entertainment License for their business located at 55 Douglas Pike.

TOWN REVENUE:

The cost for a new Entertainment License is $100 plus a one-time initial application fee of $15.


Copy of License Application

Copy of BCI – No Record

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Entertainment License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “ Lola’s Lounge”, for their business located at 55 Douglas Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: New Special Dance License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge” for


BACKGROUND:

Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, has applied for a new Special Dance License for

their business located at 55 Douglas Pike.

TOWN REVENUE:

The cost for a new Special Dance License is $1.


Copy of License Application Copy of BCI – No Record

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Special Dance License for Lola’s Lounge, LLC d/b/a “Lola’s Lounge”, for their business located at 55 Douglas Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: New Victualling License for Ichiraku, LLC, d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion”,

for the August 4th Town Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

Ichiraku, LLC, d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion”, has applied for a new Victualling License for their business located at 970 Douglas Pike.

TOWN REVENUE:



Copy of application Copy of BCI – No Record Copy of menu Retail Sales Permit

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a new Victualling License for Ichiraku, LLC d/b/a “Ichiraku Ramen and Fusion”, 970 Douglas Pike, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations, local ordinances, and final approval from the RI Department of Health.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Temporary Expansion of a Class D Full Privilege Liquor License for the

Portuguese American Social and Athletic Club for a Music Festival for the


BACKGROUND:

The Portuguese American Social and Athletic Club have applied for a Temporary Expansion of their Class D Full Privilege Liquor License for a Music Festival to be held on Saturday, September 12, 2020 from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

TOWN REVENUE:

There is no fee required, (already a Class D licensed premises)


Copy of License Application Copy of BCI - No Record Copy of TIP cards Drawing of proposed event area Letter of explanation

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving a Temporary Expansion of a Class D Full Privilege Liquor License for the Portuguese American Social and Athletic Club, 40 Fenwood Avenue, to hold a Music Festival on Saturday, September 12, 2020 from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Bingo License renewal for the August 4th Town Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

The Raymond C. LaPerche PTA, has submitted their application for the renewal of their Bingo License.

TOWN REVENUE:

The fee for the renewal of Bingo Licenses for the Raymond C. LaPerche PTA, has been customarily waived.

APPROVAL STATUS:

All paperwork is complete for Town Council approval.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving the annual renewal of a Bingo License for the Raymond C. LaPerche PTA, located at 11 Limerock Road, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances. Fees waived.

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Annual renewal of two (2) Pool Table Licenses for the August 4th Town Council

Meeting

BACKGROUND:

The businesses listed below have filed their applications for renewal.

TOWN REVENUE:

The cost to renew a Pool Table License is $20 for the first table and $10 for each additional table.

APPROVAL STATUS:

All paperwork is complete for approval of renewal by the Town Council.

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving the annual renewal of two (2) Pool Table Licenses, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances:

1. Bryant University Fisher Student Center, 1150 Douglas Pike (one pool table)

2. Portuguese American Social & Athletic Club, 40 Fenwood Avenue (one pool table)

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Annual Renewal of two (2) Peddler’s Licenses for the August 4th Town Council

Meeting.

BACKGROUND: The businesses listed below have filed their applications for renewal. As required, a background check has been conducted on the owner of the business, and background checks on all drivers will be done as they are hired.

TOWN REVENUE:

The cost to renew the Peddler’s License is $100 per year.

APPROVAL STATUS:


RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving the annual renewal of two (2) Peddler’s Licenses, as listed, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances.

1. CALM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a “Del’s of Smithfield”, to sell only frozen lemonade from a truck with RI Reg. #’s 126485, 25833 and 51697, 115 Pleasant View Avenue

2. CALM Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a “Del’s of Smithfield”, to sell only frozen lemonade from a pushcart with a RI Reg. # 55218, 115 Pleasant View Avenue

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Annual Renewal of one (1) Massage Establishment License for the August 4th

Town Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

The business listed below has filed their application for renewal.

TOWN REVENUE:

The cost to renew the Massage Establishment License is $100 per year.

APPROVAL STATUS:


RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving the annual renewal of one (1) Massage Establishment License, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances:

1. Soothing Touch Spa d/b/a “Soothing Touch Spa”, 180C Pleasant View Avenue

Memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020



SUBJECT: Annual Renewal of one (1) Massage Therapy License for the August 4th Town

Council Meeting

BACKGROUND:

The business listed below has filed their application for renewal.

TOWN REVENUE:

The cost to renew the Massage Therapy License is $75 per year.

APPROVAL STATUS:

All paperwork is complete for Town Council approval

RECOMMENDED MOTION:

Move that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss and act upon approving the annual renewal of one (1) Massage Therapy License, as applied, subject to compliance with all State regulations and local ordinances:

1. Rhonda Rohelia working at “Soothing Touch Spa”, 180C Pleasant View Avenue

MEMO


FROM: Judy Paolucci, Ph.D., Superintendent

DATE: July 10, 2020

RE: 2019 USDA Grant Approval

The Smithfield School Department is requesting that the Smithfield Town Council consider, discuss, and act upon accepting a USDA Farm to School grant on behalf of the Smithfield Public Schools. The award notification is attached. According to the award notification letter, hundreds of applicants across the country competed for a limited amount of funding. Our grant application was commended because it demonstrated our readiness to conduct farm to school initiatives; showed that we are thinking critically about opportunities and challenges; outlined goals that are closely aligned with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) goals for the program; proposed a reasonable scope and budget; and provided the grant administrators confidence that our farm to school program will be implemented with or without continued federal support. The total amount of the federal award is $86,793.00 with $64,930.00 being awarded by the FNS And $21,863.00 being a cost share responsibility of the district. Of the $21,863, $13,000 is an expense incurred by the elementary building project for a refrigeration unit, which is budgeted already within the project costs. The remaining funds are split between curriculum supplies already budgeted and food service funding. This is a 2-year grant ending on June 30, 2022. We are especially pleased that this grant will enable us to continue to develop relationships with

Smithfield farms, which will supply additional food items for our food service program. Most

importantly, it will support our wellness initiatives, aimed at improving the health and welfare of

our students and families.

RECOMMENDED MOTION That the Smithfield Town Council hereby accepts a USDA

Farm to School grant in the amount of $86,793, with $64,930 provided by the FNS and $21,863

in matching funds, which are the responsibility of Smithfield Public Schools.

United StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Food andNutritionService

Office of FinancialManagement

1320 BraddockPlaceAlexandria, VA22314

USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider, Employer and Lender

July 2, 2020

Ms. Judith Paolucci Ph.D.Superintendent of SchoolsTown of Smithfield64 Farnum PikeSmithfield, RI 02917-3224

Dear Ms. Paolucci,

Congratulations! The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has selected Town of Smithfield to receive a Farm to School Implementation Grant.

Hundreds of applicants across the country competed for a limited amount of funding. The overwhelming interest in this round of USDA Farm to School Grants was exciting but also made the selection process extremely difficult. Your application stood out because it demonstrated your strong experience and readiness to conduct farm to school initiatives; showed that you are thinking critically about opportunities and challenges; outlined goals that are closely aligned with FNS goals for the program; proposed a reasonable scope and budget; and gave us confidence that your farm to school program will be implemented with or without continued Federal support.

Attached please find the FNS-529 Grant/Cooperative Agreement form that provides funding for the above-referenced project, as detailed below:

Total Amount of Federal Award: $86,793.00FNS Award Amount: $64,930.00Cost Share Amount: $21,863.00Award Start Date: Award End Date:

July 15, 2020 June 30, 2022

The Total Amount of Federal Award includes both Federal and non-Federal funding, such as cost sharing, matching or a recipient’s voluntary contribution. In addition, attached is a copy of the FNS Grant Terms and Conditions for this award. These Terms and Conditions will remain in full force and effect throughout the agreement period. Please note the following, as detailed in the Terms and Conditions:

· All expenditures paid for with funds provided under this award must be incurredwithin the period authorized above and be in accordance with the tasks, projectdeliverables, and guidelines outlined in the Grant Terms and Conditions.

· Only actual costs for work completed, rather than the estimates described in yourgrant application, may be charged to the award.

· If you establish sub-awards to carry out any of the work on your project, it isimportant that subgrantees also abide by these award terms. It is your responsibilityto monitor the work and expenditures of your subgrantees.

Ms. PaolucciPage 2

Please have the appropriate authorizing official sign the FNS-529 (in BLUE INK), and return it to FNS no later than five days after the receipt of this letter. To expedite the funding process, you may return the signed FNS-529 via email as a PDF attachment, provided the scan is in color.

Please forward your signed document via email to Dawn Addison at [email protected]. If a color scan is not possible, please mail a copy of the requested materials signed as noted above to your Grants Officer at the following address:

Dawn Addison, Grants OfficerUSDA Food and Nutrition ServiceGrant and Fiscal Policy Division

1320 Braddock Place, 6th Floor Alexandria, VA 22314

Lastly, included as an attachment is the ASAP.gov Information Request form. An ASAP.gov Information Request Form is necessary to begin the ASAP enrollment process and to set up the Letter of Credit by which your award funds will be made available to you. Please return this form only if you do not already have an account established with FNS. For additional information on ASAP.gov please visit https://www.asap.gov/.

Once we have received your signed FNS-529 form, we will sign and return one copy of the fully executed agreement to your organization. Please note that your fully executed FNS-529 agreement, signed by both FNS and your organization, serves as the “official grant agreement” and should be maintained in your files.

USDA made a public announcement of FNS Farm to School Grant Program awards on June 29, 2020. You are encouraged to share the news with local and regional media.

To summarize, please take the following actions:

· Save the date and participate in the introductory webinar. Please see date(s) in awardemail.

· Sign and return the FNS 529 agreement and the ASAP.gov Information RequestForm no later than five days after the receipt of this letter.

If you have any questions or need assistance with amendments or financial matters, please contact your Grants Officer, Dawn Addison, at 703-305-2450 or [email protected].


Once again, congratulations on your grant award. We look forward to working with you and your staff on your FNS project.

Sincerely,

Lynn Rodgers-KupermanActing Director, Grants and Fiscal Policy Division

Enclosures

cc: Pascale Jean Dawn Addison Judith Paolucci


Ms. PaolucciPage 3

Julie BrewerDirector, Office of Community Food SystemsFarm To School

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

1. GRANT/AGREEMENT NOCN-F2S-IMPL-20-RI

2. FEDERAL AWARD DATE 07/02/2020

GRANT/COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 3. IS THIS AN R&D

AWARD?

YES NO

5. UNIVERSAL IDENTIFIER NUMBER (DUNS)

3617447820000

6. FEDERAL AWARDIDENTIFICATION NUMBER (FAIN)

4. CFDA NUMBER10.575

7. FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY 8. CFDA NAME

9. RECIPIENT NAME 10. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

11. AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDSOBLIGATED BY THIS ACTION$64,930.00

12. TOTAL AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDSOBLIGATED$64,930.00

13. TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE FEDERAL AWARD$86,793.00

14. PLACE OF PERFORMANCERI: Rhode Island

15. BUDGET APPROVED BY AWARDING AGENCY$86,793.00

16. TOTAL APPROVED COSTSHARING/MATCHING (WHERE APPLICABLE) $21,863.00

17. INDIRECT COST RATE FOR THE FEDERALAWARD (PLEASE INCLUDE IF THE DE MINIMISRATE IS CHARGED)0%

18. MAIL REQUESTS FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO 19. SPONSOR(SPONSORING FNS PROGRAM) Pascale JeanFY20 Farm to School - Implementation

20. START DATE 07/15/2020

21. END DATE06/30/2022

22. FEDERAL AWARD PROJECT DESCRIPTIONModel Farm-to-School Initiative

The Grantee/Cooperator hereby assures and certifies that they will comply with the regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements as they relate to the applications, acceptance, and use of Federal funds for this Federally-assisted project including: 2 CFR Chapter I (Office of Management and Budget Government-wide Guidance for Grants and Agreements) and Chapter II (Office of Management and Budget Guidance) as well as 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards); and any USDA implementing regulations, such as 2 CFR Part 400 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), 2 CFR Part 415 (General Program Administrative Regulations), 2 CFR Part 416 (General Program Administrative Regulations for Grants and

Town of Smithfield64 Farnum PikeSmithfield, RI 02917-3224

Dawn AddisonUSDA Food and Nutrition Service

23. REMARKS

SIGNATURE OF GRANTEE/COOPERATOR UNITED STATES OF AMERICASIGNATURE (Authorized Individual) DATE SIGNATURE (Grant Official) DATE

NAME (Type) NAME (TYPE)Lynn Rodgers-Kuperman

TITLE TITLEActing Director, Grants and Fiscal Policy Division

TELEPHONE NUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER703-305-2595

FNS 529 (05-15)

Payments made via ASAP Letter of Credit

Farm to School Grant Program

FN.CN.3102.01 FN.CN.3151.01

USDA FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1

Terms & Conditions 10-04-2019

Effective August 1, 2016, all new USDA Food and Nutrition Service grants and cooperative agreements, as well as amendments to existing awards, are subject to the following Standard Terms and Conditions.

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service (hereinafter referred to as “Agency”) awards funding to the Grantee (hereinafter referred to as “Recipient”). By acceptance of this award, the Recipient agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the award listed below. Important information regarding the award, including the Agency contact and CFDA number, is contained on the Grant/Cooperative Agreement Form FNS-529.

The Recipient shall conduct the project as described in its submission of the Officer of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 424, 424A, proposal, and budget narrative, including any subsequent revisions, amendments and/or clarifications.

Effective January 1, 2020, the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) will become the central repository for common government-wide certifications and representations required of Federal grants Recipients. As registration in SAM is required for eligibility for a Federal award and registration must be updated annually, Federal agencies will use SAM information to comply with award requirements and avoid increased burden and costs of separate requests for such information, unless the Recipient fails to meet a Federal award requirement, or there is a need to make updates to their SAM registration for other purposes.

STANDARD TERMS OF THE AWARD

1. Funding: The Agency will provide funds to the Recipient in the amount stated on the Grant/Cooperative Agreement Form FNS-529, Box 11, and as specified in the award letter, for use in accordance with this agreement. Funds will be provided at the Agency’s discretion through the Letter of Credit, Reimbursement, or in advance of need, upon receipt of a properly executed Grant/Agreement Form FNS-529. The Total Amount Of The Federal Award – Box 13 of the FNS-529 – includes both Federal and non-Federal funding, such as cost sharing, matching or a Recipient’s voluntary contribution.

2. Performance Period: The period of performance for this project is listed on the Grant/Cooperative Agreement Form FNS-529, Box 20 and 21. The Recipient may only incur allowable costs during the period of performance. Any costs incurred prior to the period of performance must be approved in writing by the Agency.

All funds must be obligated and all program activities under the agreement (other than activities related to the close out of the agreement) must be completed by the Expiration Date listed on the Grant/Cooperative Agreement Form FNS-529, Box 21. The closeout of the agreement must occur within 90 days of the expiration date, and all obligations incurred under the agreement must be liquidated by this date.

3. Amendments/Revisions and Budget Changes: The Recipient may request an amendment or revision to the agreement, including the proposal, in writing at any time during the duration of the agreement. Prior approval is required for any revision of the scope or objectives of the project (regardless of whether there is an associated budget revision), changes in key personnel, such as the project director, disengagement from the project for more than three months (or a 25 percent reduction in time devoted


2


to the project) by the project director, transfer of funds budgeted for participant support costs, the subawarding, transferring or contracting any work (unless approved in the submitted application package) or changes to budget line cost/expenditure. All amendments or revision must be submitted in writing to the Agency Contact listed on the Grant/Cooperative Agreement Form FNS-529, box 7.

The Recipient may transfer costs within the approved direct cost categories to meet unanticipated requirements. However, as required in 2 CFR 200.308(e) the Agency requires that prior approval be obtained for any budget revision that involves a shift of funds among line-items in excess of 10% of the total approved project budget. Such revisions must be submitted in writing with a revised budget in the same format as the original budget. All other requirements within 2 CFR 200.308 shall also apply.

The Recipient must include justification with any proposed amendment/revision and budget changes. All requests for changes must be made at least 10 days before the end of the award period. Any request received after this time will not be considered.

4. Non-agreement Funds: The Recipient may seek and apply for funds from other sources in support of the mission of the agreement.

REPORTING

5. Semi-Annual and Final Progress Reports: Progress reports must be sent to the Agency 30 days following the end of each semi-annual period, using the FNS-908 Performance Progress Report (PPR) form. These reports should cover the preceding semi-annual period of activity. The final report is due 90 days after the end date of this Agreement. Note: Use of the FNS-908 PPR form is required for all progress and final reports. The FNS-908 PPR form will be sent with the award package and/or can be received upon request to the Grants Officer.

The Recipient must report immediately any problems, delays, or adverse conditions that impair the Recipient’s ability to meet the project objectives. The notification must include information on action taken or contemplated in response to the problem.

All materials developed with funding from this Agreement must be submitted in an electronic format (preferably Microsoft Word).

The Recipient is strongly encouraged to submit Progress Reports via electronic mail to the Grants Officer listed on the FNS-529. If the Recipient wishes to send a hard copy, an original shall be sent to the address listed on the Grant/Cooperative Agreement Form FNS-529, box 18.

6. Financial Status Reports: The Recipient is required to electronically enter the quarterly and final financial status report (SF-425) into the FNS Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS). Detailed FPRS enrollment instructions are provided at: https://fprs.fns.usda.gov/. This report must be entered within 30 days after the close of each quarter. The Final Financial Report must be entered into FPRS within 90 days of the expiration of this agreement. This report must also be certified by the Recipient’s chief fiscal officer or an officer of comparable rank.

https://fprs.fns.usda.gov/


3


REGULATORY AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

7. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance: This Federal financial assistance award is subject to rules and regulations related to the Recipient’s organizational entity type as noted below.

Government-Wide Regulations

• 2 CFR Part 25: “Universal Identifier and System for Award Management”

• 2 CFR Part 170: “Reporting Sub-award and Executive Compensation Information”

• 2 CFR Part 175: “Award Term for Trafficking in Persons”

• 2 CFR Part 180: “OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Non-Procurement)”

• 2 CFR 200: “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”

• 2 CFR 400: “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards”

• 2 CFR Part 415: USDA “General Program Administrative Regulations”

• 2 CFR Part 416: USDA “General Program Administrative Regulations for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments”

• 2 CFR Part 417: USDA “Non-Procurement Debarment and Suspension”

• 2 CFR Part 418 USDA “New Restrictions on Lobbying • 2 CFR Part 421: USDA “Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance)”

• 7 CFR Part 3: “Debt Management”

• 41 U.S.C. Section 22 “Interest of Member of Congress”

• Privacy Act. The Cooperator/Recipient shall follow the rules and procedures of disclosure set forth in the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and implementing regulations and policies, with respect to systems of records determined to be subject to the Privacy Act.

• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Public access to Federal Financial Assistance records shall not be limited, except when such records must be kept confidential and would have been excepted from disclosure pursuant to the “Freedom of Information” regulation (5 U.S.C. 552)

PROPERTY STANDARDS

8. Insurance Coverage: The Recipient must provide the equivalent insurance coverage for real property and equipment acquired or improved with Federal funds.

9. Intangible Property:

a. The Recipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under the award. The Agency reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish or otherwise use these materials for federal purposes and to authorize others to do so.


4


"Federal purposes" include the use of award products in activities or programs undertaken by the Federal Government, in response to a governmental request, or as otherwise required by federal law. However, the Federal Government's use of copyrighted materials is not intended to interfere with or disadvantage the Recipient or assignee in the sale and distribution of the award product.”

The Agency may request copies of an award product for not-for-profit use. These copies will be provided at the cost of reproduction and shipping, and no royalties or other fees will be charged.

b. The Agency has the right to: 1. Obtain, reproduce, publish or otherwise use the data first produced under an award; and 2. Authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal

purposes.

c. In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for research data relating to published research findings produced under an award that were used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law, the Agency shall request, and the Recipient shall provide within a reasonable time, the research data so that they can be made available to the public through the procedures established under the FOIA. If the Agency obtains the research data solely in response to a FOIA request, the Agency may charge the requester a reasonable fee equaling the full incremental cost of obtaining the research data. This fee should reflect costs incurred by the Agency, the Recipient, and applicable sub-recipients. This fee is in addition to any fees the agency may assess under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)).

d. Title to intangible property acquired under an award or sub-award vests upon acquisition in the Recipient. The Recipient shall use that property for the originally authorized purpose and shall not encumber the property without Agency approval. The Agency reserves the right to determine the disposition of the intangible property when it is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose.

10. Federally-owned and Exempt Property: Title to federally-owned property remains vested in the Federal entity. The Recipient must submit annually an inventory listing of federally-owned property to the Agency. Upon completion of the project, or when the property is no longer needed, the Recipient must contact the Agency for disposition instructions.

11. Equipment: Equipment is defined as tangible, nonexpendable personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. The purchase of equipment not included in the approved project budget is allowable only if it is specifically approved beforehand by the Agency and there is documentation to support that the purchase is necessary and reasonable to carry out project activities.

Equipment records must be maintained that include the description of the equipment, the serial number or other identification number, the source of equipment, the title holder, the acquisition date, the cost of the equipment, the location, use, and condition of the equipment, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and the sale price of the equipment. A physical inventory of the equipment must be taken and the results reconciled with the equipment records at least once every two years. The Recipient shall share the results of this inventory. A Tangible Personal Property Report, SF-


5


428, must be submitted at award closeout to report the status of the equipment, if requested.

The Recipient shall follow the Agency’s equipment disposition guidance and procedures. Disposition procedures will be provided by the Agency.

12. Sub-recipient Compliance: The Recipient shall ensure that sub-recipients are in compliance with applicable Federal administrative requirements and cost principles. No funds shall be provided to an eligible collaborator or contractor before such an agreement is signed by all parties.

PROCUREMENT STANDARDS

The Recipient shall adhere to all procurement standards, including those listed below, if applicable, as found in 2 CFR 200.318 through 2 CFR 200.326. When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures used for procurements from its non-Federal funds. State Recipients shall comply with 2 CFR 200.322.

13. General Procurement Standards: The non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations provided that procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in this section. The Recipient must maintain oversight over contractors to ensure performance in accordance with the terms, conditions and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders, including written performance standards of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. The non-Federal entity must award contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.318(j), the non-Federal entity may only use time and material type contracts after a determination that no other contract is suitable and if the contract includes a ceiling that the contractor exceeds at its own risk.

14. Competition: All procurement transactions must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with 2 CFR 200.319.

15. Suspension/Debarment: The Recipient agrees to ensure that all sub-recipients are neither excluded nor disqualified under the Suspension and Debarment rules found at 2 CFR Parts 180 and 417 by doing any one of the following: a. Checking the System for Awards Management (SAM) to determine if the applicant or Recipient

has been debarred or suspended. This information can be found at www.sam.gov. b. Collecting a certification that the entity is neither excluded nor disqualified. Because a Federal

certification form is no longer available, the Recipient or sub-Recipient electing this must devise its own.

c. Including a clause to this effect in the sub-recipient agreement and in any procurement contract expected to equal or exceed $25,000, awarded by the Recipient or a sub-recipient within any agreements.

16. Nondiscrimination: The Recipient shall comply with the following nondiscrimination statutes and regulations, other related regulations and any USDA nondiscrimination directives: a. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d- et seq.) and USDA regulations at 7

CFR Part 15, Nondiscrimination, an Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR Part 42, Non

http://www.sam.gov/


6


discrimination; Equal Employment Opportunity: Policies And Procedures; b. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) and USDA regulations at

7 CFR Part 15a, Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance;

c. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) and USDA regulations at 7 CFR Part 15a, Education Programs or Activities Receiving or Benefiting or Benefiting from Federal Financial Assistance, and Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR Part 41, Implementation of Executive Order 12250, Nondiscrimination On the Basis of Handicap In Federally Assisted Programs; and

d. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) The Recipient assures that it shall immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate the requirements in these laws, regulations and directives. The Recipient gives this assurance in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining the funds provided under this agreement.

e. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment (Title I), state and local government services (Title II), places of public accommodation and commercial facilities (Title III). (42 U.S.C. 12101-12213).

The following nondiscrimination statement shall be included, in full, on all materials that are produced by the Recipient for public information, public education, or public distribution.

“USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.”

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: How to File a Complaint, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]


7


RETENTION AND ACCESS

17. Evaluation and Access to Records: The Recipient shall cooperate with any evaluation of the program by providing the Agency requested data and access to records. The Recipient shall cooperate with any, as needed, on-site financial and/or technical reviews and audits at any time during the term of the agreement. In addition, the Recipient shall make all records pertaining to activities under the grant available for audit purposes.

The Recipient shall require any sub-recipient or contractors to comply with the requirements of this agreement and ensure that the Agency has access to any sub-recipient or contractors for purposes of evaluating, monitoring or reviewing other operations or records as they relate to this grant. When entering into a sub-award, the Recipient shall ensure that the sub-recipient agreement contains any clause required by Federal Statute or Executive Order and their implementing regulations.

NONCOMPLIANCE AND TERMINATION

18. Noncompliance: As provided in 2 CFR 200.338, the Agency may unilaterally terminate this grant agreement or recover, withhold, or disallow costs of up to 100 percent of the funds made available under the agreement if the Recipient fails to comply with any term of the agreement. The Agency will consider failure to comply with the reporting requirements of this agreement to be a material failure to comply with the agreement and a basis for termination. If the Agency decides to take action against the Recipient for noncompliance under this agreement, the Agency will provide the Recipient written notice of the basis for its determination.

In the event that an award is suspended and corrective action is not taken within 90 days of the suspension effective date, the Agency may issue a notice of termination. No costs that are incurred during the suspension period or after the effective date of termination will be allowable, except those that are specifically authorized by the suspension or termination notice or those that, in the opinion of the Agency, could not have been reasonably avoided.

Within 30 days of the termination date, the Recipient shall furnish to the Agency a summary of progress achieved under the award, an itemized accounting of charges incurred against award funds and cost sharing prior to the effective date of the suspension or termination, and a separate accounting and justification for any costs that may have been incurred after this date.

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

19. USDA/FNS Acknowledgement: Unless otherwise advised by the Agency, the Recipient shall acknowledge the support of USDA FNS whenever publicizing the work under this grant. To this end, the Recipient must include in any publication resulting from work performed under this grant an acknowledgment in substantially the form set below:

“This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.”


8


20. Liabilities: The Recipient may not seek any financial recourse from the Agency as a result of any liabilities the Recipient may incur for bodily injury or personal property damage resulting from negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the Recipient, their officers, agents or employees, or if applicable its sub-Recipients or their officers, agents, or employees, in performing this agreement. Liabilities of the United States are governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq.

21. Privacy Act Policy: The Agency does not collect any personal identifiable information without explicit consent. To view the Agency’s Privacy Act Statement, visit: www.fns.usda.gov/privacy-policy.

22. Program Income: Program income is money that is earned or received by a Recipient or a sub- Recipient from the activities supported by award funds or from products resulting from award activities. It includes, but is not limited to, income from fees for services performed and from the sale of items produced under an award; usage or rental fees for equipment or property acquired under an award; admission fees; broadcast or distribution rights; and license fees and royalties on patents and copyrights. The Federal share of program income is determined by the percentage of total project costs that are supported by the Agency.

Income Earned During the Award Period: The Federal share of program income earned during the award period shall be retained by the Recipient and, unless the award specifies how such income shall be used, the Recipient must use it in the following way:

It may be added to the existing project funding to cover increased costs of the project.

A report of program income earned during the award period must be submitted with the final Federal Financial Report whenever program income is earned during the award period or when the terms and conditions of the award specifically require such a report. The report shall indicate the total amount of program income that was earned and how it was used.

If income is to be returned to the Agency, a check made payable to the Food and Nutrition Service must be submitted to the Accounting Division at the following address:

USDA Food and Nutrition Service ATTN: Accounting Division

P.O. Box 979027 St. Louis, MO 61397-9000

All checks must identify funds as program income and include the Project Fiscal Year, Agency Name and FNS Grant Award Document (GAD) Number (the GAD Number can be found on the FNS-495).

POST CLOSEOUT ADJUSTMENTS AND COLLECTIONS

23. Post-closeout Adjustments: The closeout of a Federal award does not affect: a. The right of the Agency to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of an audit or later review; b. The obligation of a non-Federal entity to return funds as a result of later cost adjustments;

http://www.fns.usda.gov/privacy-policy

http://www.fns.usda.gov/privacy-policy


9


c. Audit requirements; d. Property management and disposition requirements; and e. Record retention requirements.

24. Collections: Any funds paid in excess of the amount in which the non-Federal entity is finally determined to be entitled will constitute a debt to the Federal Government. If these funds are not paid within 90 days, the Agency may make an administrative offset, withhold advance payments or take other necessary actions. In addition, interest will accrue on any overdue debt in accordance with the Federal Claims Collections Standards (31 CFR Parts 900 through 999).

Farm to School Budget Narrative (Example)

Overview

Source of Matching Funds

District General Fund: $4,490

Construction Bond $13,000

Total: $17,490

Funding Request Summary

Federal Match

District Personnel:

Personnel:$0 $0

Fringe Benefits: $0 $0

Travel: $2,500 $0

Equipment: $29,900 $13,000Supplies: $25,640 $4,490Contractual: $11,120 $0

Construction: $0 $0

Other (conference fee): $800 $0

Total: $69,960 $17,490

Total project cost: $87,450Total match percentage (match/total project cost): 25%

NARRATIVE

Travel: The total travel cost is $2,500

Of the total, $1,700 of USDA Farm to School Grant funds will cover the travel expenses to the mandatory annual meeting and farm to school conference, which will be attended by the Wellness Co-coordinator. The conference fees are included in "other" and total $800. The remaining $800 of travel cost will cover the bus transportation for 170 grade 1 students to attend a field trip to a local farm each year.

Equipment: The total equipment cost is $42,900.

These funds will be used to purchase 2 mobile teaching carts (Port*Equip Workstations). The base unit cost = $7,650.00 per unit with an estimated freight of $800 each. These mobile teaching carts allow a food service worker to demonstrate food preparation and serve students from the station. The cart will be used for educational and food service purposes.

.

Additionally, two refrigeration units will be purchased to allow for more fresh, local produce to be stored and displayed. Each unit costs approximately $13,000. The USDA Farm to School Grant funds will be used to purchase one unit, to be placed at the high school, and the district will purchase the other unit through construction bond funds for our soon-to-be renovated elementary school.

$8,450 x 2 mobile unites = $16,900 $13,000 X 2 refrigeration units = $26,000

TOTAL: $42,900

Supplies: The total supply cost is $30,130.

Three family dinners will be organized each year for a total of six family dinners. The purpose of the dinners is to provide nutrition education and food services orientation to families throughout the district. Over the two years, each of the district's 6 schools will have one dinner at the school for approximately 100 attendees apiece. The total cost of food for each dinner is $700 for a total cost of $4,200.

We will also use supply funds from the USDA Farm to School Grant for no less than 2 tastings per school, per year. Tastings will concentrate on breakfast items in order to increase breakfast participation and introduce new breakfast items that incorporate produce from local farms. The food purchased for tastings is budgeted at $2,000 per year for a total of $4,000.

USDA grant funds will also be used to purchase wide format printed permanent signage depicting local farms and farm produce for each of our cafeterias to promote farm to school and healthy eating. The budget for these high-quality, wide format photographs and signage is $17,800.

$640 of USDA Farm to School grant funds will be used to purchase materials to make two smoothie bicycles. Our high school engineering design class will create the bicycles, which will operate a blender.

Educational materials connecting the Farm to School initiative to health education classes will be purchased each year. The total cost is $5,290. District funds will cover $4,490 of the cost of the educational materials and the remaining $800 will be covered by USDA Farm to School grant funds.

$700 x 6 family dinners = $4,200$1,000 X 2 years of tastings = $2,000$17,800 - wide format printing for signs$640 for materials for smoothie bicycle$5,290 for educational materials TOTAL: $30,130

Contractual: Total cost of $11,120. 100% of these costs will be paid through the USDA Farm to School grant.

Food Services Contractual ($4,200): The district will contract with our food services provider to prepare and serve a family dinner, consisting of foods prepared with local produce, at each of our schools (3 schools per year).

Entrance fees for farm tours for first graders are estimated to be $1360 per year.

Last, the district will contract with each of the local farms to provide informational presentations and/or informational displays to students. The budget for these services is $2,500 per year for a total of $5,000.

Food Services Contractual $700/school X 3 schools/year X 2 years = $4,200

Entrance fees of $8 per student X 170 students X 2 years = $2,720 Contracts with Local Farmers $2,500 per year X 2 years = $5,000

Construction: N/A

Other: Conference fees for the farm to school conference is budgeted at $400 per year for 2 years.

Updated May 2019

Welcome Welcome to the USDA Grant Program. As a new grantee, you will need to complete the five action items listed below. The following checklist and corresponding instructions will help you complete the new grantee enrollment process.

For questions related to the enrollment process, please contact your Grants Officer, Dawn Addison:

Checklist Action Item Task Complete

(Y/N) 1 Review project Terms and Conditions

2 Review, sign and submit Grant/Cooperative Agreement (FNS-529)

3 Register for ASAP (administered by US Treasury)

4 Obtain Level 2 E-Authorization

5 Register for the Food Program Reporting System (FPRS)

Checklist Instructions 1) Review your project Terms and Conditions

a. Direct questions to the assigned project Grant Officer listed above.

2) Review and sign your Grant/Cooperative Agreement (FNS-529) a. Submit signed and scanned copy via email to your assigned grants officer. b. Direct questions to your assigned grants officer.

3) Submit ASAP registration form to your assigned grants officer.

a. The registration form is provided below. b. USDA will submit this to the U.S. Treasury and the listed financial point of contact

(POC) will receive an email with further instructions for completing the registration.


4) Obtain Level 2 E-Authorization.a. Three step process:

1. Complete online application athttps://identitymanager.eems.usda.gov/registration/selfRegistrationForm.aspx ?level=2• You will receive a confirmation email with instructions on next steps.

2. In confirmation email, click #2) Activate My Account and follow the instructions.

3. Take your government issued picture ID (e.g. state driver’s license) and present it in person to a Local Registration Authority (LRA) who can activate your account with Level 2 access. To find the nearest LRA location, go to http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?type=lra.

b. For technical assistance, call the E-Authorization helpdesk at (800) 457-3642

5) Register for the Food Program Reporting System (FPRS) – NOTE: Must have Level 2 E- Authorization before completing the FPRS registration

a. Submit the User Access form (FNS-674) via email your assigned grant officer.i. The FNS-674 can be accessed via this link: loohttps://fprs.fns.usda.gov/Public/

FNS-674.pdf .ii. Once the paperwork is processed, you’ll receive an email indicating FPRS

access has been granted for the person(s) listed on the 674.b. For technical assistance involving registration or access to FPRS, email

[email protected].

Definition: Online System Information 1) Food Program Report System (FPRS) – pronounced ‘fippers’

Purpose: Support service and implementation grantees submit financial reports using Standard Form (SF)-425.

Administrator: Food Nutrition Service (FNS)

Myth buster: FPRS is NOT used to draw down funds. See ASAP.

2) Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP) – pronounced ‘a-sap’

Purpose: Grantees use ASAP to draw down awarded grant funds. See your terms and conditions for guidelines on withdrawing funds.

Administrator: US Treasury

Myth buster: ASAP is NOT connected to FPRS; they are two separate systems that do not share information.

https://identitymanager.eems.usda.gov/registration/selfRegistrationForm.aspx?level=2

https://identitymanager.eems.usda.gov/registration/selfRegistrationForm.aspx?level=2

http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?type=lra


FPRS Registration Form (674) – Line by line instructions

Box 1: Required - Basic contact information




Box 5: Required - All grantees must have Level 2 E-Authorization. See form instructions.

Box 6: Required - Insert “State” for state agencies and “Other” for all others.

Box 7: Required - Enter applicant phone number

Box 8: Enter N/A

Box 9: Enter N/A

Box 10: Grantee organization name

Box 11: Enter N/A

Box 12: Enter N/A

Box 13: Required – Basic contact information

Box 14: Enter FPRS

Box 15: This will be data entry or certification. If the person requesting access will be

responsible for both data entry and certification simply enter “Certify”. Entering “certification” will automatically give the user access to data entry. If there is a person for each action, then two forms will need to be submitted and the appropriate action entered here. (Be sure to delete the action not needed).

Box 16: If you are new to FPRS enter Add. If you already have access to FPRS then you

should enter Modify. (Be sure to delete the action not needed). Box 17: Leave blank

Box 18: Enter- Year and Grant Project name

Box 19: Leave blank –This will be filled out by USDA.

Box 20: Leave blank

Box 21: Enter name and date, print, and sign.

Box 22: Complete (a) and Leave (b)-(d) blank.

Box 23-26: Leave blank (Agency use only)

MEMO

TO: Smithfield Town Council FROM: Derek Osterman, Colliers Project Leaders DATE: August 4, 2020 RE: Smithfield School Construction – Change Order Process

The Smithfield School Building Committee is requesting that the Town Council consider, discuss, and act upon the approval of the Construction/Renovation Project Change Order Approval Policy and Procedures, as outlined in the attached document. The attached is being offered in order to establish clear guidelines through the prescribed policies and procedures to approve change orders to the design requirements and/or the scope of construction for the 2020-2021 Smithfield School Buildings Reconfiguration Projects, which causes an adjustment to the Contract Amount or Contract Time of a project while under construction. In order to maintain forward momentum on construction currently underway, this policy aims to set in place the ability to have select individuals/groups authorize work that may require expedient approval of changes to avoid unnecessary costs as a result of delays to the project where change authorization is not granted in a timely manner.

RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the Smithfield Town Council hereby approves the Construction/Renovation Project Change Order Approval Policy and Procedures, as outlined.

Construction/Renovation Project Change Order Approval Policy and Procedures

Purpose: The Smithfield Town Council wishes to establish clear guidelines through the prescribed policies and procedures to approve change orders to the design requirements and/or the scope of construction for the 2020-2021 Smithfield School Buildings Reconfiguration Projects, which causes an adjustment to the Contract Amount or Contract Time of a project while under construction. In order to maintain forward momentum on construction currently underway, this policy aims to set in place the ability to have select individuals/groups authorize work that may require expedient approval of changes to avoid unnecessary costs as a result of delays to the project where change authorization is not granted in a timely manner. Policy: Facilities under construction require the execution of a “Change Order” or “Construction Change Directive” (CCD) to change the design requirements and/or the scope of construction which in turn requires an adjustment of the Contract Amount or Contract Time (time of construction). A proposed Change Order or CCD will be considered:

1. When essential design/work has been inadvertently omitted. 2. To correct errors in plans and specifications. 3. To correct design/work when concealed conditions in existing facilities are exposed

and found to differ from construction document or available information. 4. When unavoidable events or weather cause delays and the need for additional time

for completion of work. 5. When work may be required to restore originally intended project scope.

The following shall be the process for the review and approval of construction Change Orders and/or CCD’s based on the Smithfield Town Council setting an initial cumulative allowable contingency budget value in the amount of $700,000 which shall not be exceeded. When this initial allowance is expended the School Building Committee may seek additional contingency allotments from the Town Council.

DBVW and Colliers Project Leaders shall review all proposed change orders/CCD’s. Following that review, where a recommendation to approve is provided by Colliers Project Leaders, the following authorizations are required in writing and in advance of the proposed work being performed by the contractor.

1. Change Orders/CCD’s shall be administered in accordance with procedures outlined in the contract documents.

2. Change Orders/CCD’s shall be prepared on a form approved by the School Building Committee.

3. Colliers Project Leaders are responsible for the preparation of Change Orders/CCD’s. 4. Collier Project Leaders shall submit completed Change Order/CCD forms with all

required supporting documents as laid out below: a. For Change Orders/CCD’s up to $10,000 per occurrence

The Town Manager and The Superintendent of Schools may authorize such construction Change Orders/CCD’s

b. For Change Orders/CCD’s from $10,001 - $50,000 per occurrence A simple majority vote by the Steering Committee, comprised of select

members of the School Building Committee, may authorize such change orders/CCD’s.

c. For Change Orders/CCD’s from $50,001 - $100,000 per occurrence A simple majority vote by the School Building Committee is required to

authorize any such Change Order/CCD. 5. The construction budget and/or contingency budget shall be adjusted following the

approval of any change order. 6. The Town Manager shall report all approved change orders/CCD’s to the Town

Council monthly at regularly scheduled meetings, the current project status, the balance of the project budget and contingency budgets.

7. Proposed Change Orders/CCD’s that exceed the allowable balance in approved project construction budgets and/or contingency budgets require approval of the Town Council.

memorandum

DATE: July 29, 2020 TO: Smithfield Town Council FROM: Randy R. Rossi, Town Manager RE: Front Façade Prepping and Painting Proposal - ESNC Based on the advice and recommendations of J. Paul Loether, Executive Director of the RI Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission, we began taking the necessary steps to access the front façade of the center to allow the commission to review the structure. In order to do so we have removed the bars off the windows, had the electrical service disconnect and had the paint tested for lead prior to removing the T-111 siding from the front of the building. Since the paint tested positive for lead we needed to reach out to lead certified paint contractors do complete the necessary work. Lopco Contracting provided a qualified proposal which will include the removal and proper disposal of the existing T-111 siding. They will wash and sand the clapboard to remove all loose and peeling lead paint. To encapsulate the façade Lopco will stain the clapboard and trim. MOTION: Moved that the Smithfield Town Council hereby authorizes the proposal for

prepping and painting to Lopco Contracting, Incorporating to complete the front facade at

the East Smithfield Neighborhood Center in an amount not to exceed $4,878.

LOPCO Contracting 1384 Hartford Avenue Front Unit B Johnston, RI 02919 Phone # - (401) 270-2664 E-mail – [email protected] Web-site - www.LopcoContracting.com Date Work Order Created – 7/29/20 State of RI Contractor’s Registration # - 21331 Work Order Submitted To: Town of Smithfield Attn: Robert Leach Mobile: 401-862-5156 Email: [email protected] For property located at: East Smithfield Neighborhood Center 7 Esmond Street Smithfield, RI 02917 Work Order # - 201720 Source: Tom Acquaintance General Description – One quality repair job to specified areas at said above property. Specific Description – Including areas on the very front façade of the building.


http://www.lopcocontracting.com/


2

Included Areas: - Front façade

o The existing siding areas o The previously painted white trim

Excluded Areas:

- The door areas - The window areas - Any carpentry repairs - All other areas not specifically listed as included above

PROCEDURE:

- The existing T-111 siding shall be taken down and disposed of

- The included areas shall be soft washed to remove mildew & mold

- All included areas to be “lightly” prepped - All included siding to be coated with 1 coat of a Benjamin

Moore Arborcoat, stain, white - All included trim to be coated with 1 coat of Benjamin

Moore, Exterior Aura, Low Lustre, white I understand that this Work Order covers the items as listed above only and does not account for any “unforeseen” issues that may be found during the course of the project (example – rotted structural work that may be discovered, etc.). If “unforeseen” issues are found, they, as well as possible solutions, shall be brought to my attention. ___________________________________________ __________________ Signature Date CLEANUP: To the entire job site daily and in full upon completion for neatness/safety. Payment Schedule: Deposit Due at Job Sign-on - $2439 Due Upon Completion - $2439 Total with all Labor and Materials included - $4878 Any other additional work not listed above shall be quoted and agreed upon separately.

3

Delays caused by events which are beyond the control of the contractor, do not constitute abandonment of the project and are not included in any calculations of time frames for performance and payment. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner, according to standard practices. Respectfully submitted, Tom Lopatosky President LOPCO Contracting

Acceptance of Proposal

The above prices, specifications, and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. Signature _______________________________________________________________ Print Name ______________________________________________________________ Date ___________________________________________________________________

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORETHE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED INACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE

INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #

NAME:CONTACT

(A/C, No):FAX

E-MAILADDRESS:

PRODUCER

(A/C, No, Ext):PHONE

INSURED

REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement onthis certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THISCERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIESBELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:

(Per accident)

(Ea accident)

$

$

N / A

SUBRWVD

ADDLINSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIODINDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THISCERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

$

$

$

$PROPERTY DAMAGE

BODILY INJURY (Per accident)

BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOSAUTOS ONLYNON-OWNED

SCHEDULEDOWNED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATIONAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY

OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?(Mandatory in NH)

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS belowIf yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE

$

$

$

E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT

E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE

E.L. EACH ACCIDENT

EROTH-

STATUTEPER

LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EXP

(MM/DD/YYYY)POLICY EFF

POLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTRINSR

DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB

UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE

$AGGREGATE

$

OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE

DED RETENTION $

$PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG

$GENERAL AGGREGATE

$PERSONAL & ADV INJURY

$MED EXP (Any one person)

$EACH OCCURRENCEDAMAGE TO RENTED

$PREMISES (Ea occurrence)

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR

GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICYPRO-JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCEDATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

ACORD 25 (2016/03)

© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER

The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

HIREDAUTOS ONLY

07/09/2020

NEW WAVE INSURANCES

111 Washington St

Suite 201 G

Plainville MA 02762

Chris Shepherd

(508) 695-1534

[email protected]

Lopco Contracting

1384 Hartford Ave

Johnston RI 02919

The Burlington Insurance Company

Liberty Mutual

145B521748 06/24/2020 06/24/2021

1,000,000

100,000

5,000

1,000,000

2,000,000

2,000,000

BAS57787655 02/10/2020 02/10/2021

1,000,000

RI CRLB

560 Jeferson Blvd

Suite 204

Warwick, RI 02886

Sca

nn

ed w

ith

Cam

Sca

nn

er

Documents

SMITHFIELD TOWN COUNCIL MEETING · 2 days ago · powers. § C-1.03 Composition, Selection, Term Chair Costantino explains that this amendment would allow for a five member Town Council