Minutes

Monday, July 24, 2023 at 7:00pm

TOWN COUNCIL Meeting

Town Hall – Council Chamber

Barrington, RI

Attachments can be found:  https://clerkshq.com/barrington-ri

Video: https://vimeo.com/showcase/9672722/video/848323994

 

Present:                        President Carl P. Kustell, Vice President Robert Humm, Councilwoman Kate Berard, Councilwoman Annelise Conway (arrived at 7:03pm) and Councilman Braxton Cloutier

Also, Present:               Town Manager Phil Hervey, Assistant Town Solicitor Amy Goins, and Town Clerk Meredith J. DeSisto

Department Heads:      Finance Director Kathy Raposa, Fire Chief Gerald Bessette, Police Chief Michael Correia, Human Resources Director Mari-Ann Oliveira, Library Director Kristin Chin, Public Works Director Alan Corvi, Senior Services Director Michele Geremia, Tax Assessor Jay Drew and Town Planner Teresa Crean

Absent:                        Human Resources Director Mari-Ann Oliveira

Council President Kustell called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.

 

President Kustell led us into the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

AGENDA # 3 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

(Approved at the Town Council meeting on December 6, 2021.  Read into the record by President Kustell.)

“Aquene (Peace) We recognize the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional territories.  We acknowledge that we are in the ancestral homeland of the Pokanoket Tribe within the original territory of the Pokanoket Nation.  We commit to ongoing efforts to recognize, honor, reconcile and partner with the Pokanoket people whose ancestral lands and water we benefit from today.  Aquene (Peace)”

 

AGENDA ITEM #4: Announcements (Town Manager Phil Hervey)

·       Sunday, August 6, 2023, VOTER REGISTRATION DEADLINE:  Police Dispatch, 100 Federal Road, 8:30am to 4:00pm for the Congressional District 1 Primary on September 5, 2023.

·       Monday, August 7, 2023, DISAFFILIATION DEADLINE by 4:00pm at the Town Clerk’s Office.  Please check view voter status www.sos.ri.gov

·       *Monday, August 14, 2023, All offices closed for Victory Day.

·       Tuesday, August 15, 2023, Mail Ballot Application Deadline by 4:00pm at the Town Clerks Office.

·       Wednesday, August 16, 2023, Early Voting through September 5^th Usual Business hours (Closed September 4^th Labor Day)

·       Monday, September 4, 2023, Closed for Labor Day all Town Hall offices.  Please check schedule for Recycle www.barrington.ri.gov

·       Tuesday, September 5, 2023, Primary Day:  Polls are combined: 

o   Barrington High School:  Precincts 101 and 106

o   Barrington Middle School:  Precincts 102 and 103

o   Hampden Meadows School:  Precinct 104 and 105

·       Monday, October 30, 2023, Town Golf Tournament.  Registration begins September 1^st with Recreation.

·       Tree Planting & Removal:  July 1, 2022- June 30, 2023– 97 trees removed/ 103 trees planted.

*Added evening of the meeting.

 

DISCUSS AND ACT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: 

All items with an asterisk (*) are routine by the Town Council and will be enacted by one motion.  There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a council member or citizen so request, and the request is for good cause in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to remove agenda item #11 Correspondence from the Consent Agenda.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to accept the Consent Agenda #5-#13 except agenda # 11 Correspondence. 

President Kustell asked that agenda item #11 be removed to discuss the correspondence that was received from Ms. Kay Chapin.  Although Ms. Chapin was unable to attend this evening’s meeting President Kustell asked former Town Council member Martha Scanvogelli to come forward as she spoke on Ms. Chapin’s behalf regarding the bocce/croquet court that was recently installed.  Ms. Scanvogelli expressed to all that Ms. Chapin is very grateful for the installation of the court.  Ms. Scanvogelli said that Ms. Chapin has an additional request to secure the  posts for permanent lighting in which the lighting already exists and that picnic tables be added to the area. 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to accept agenda item #11 Correspondence to the Consent Agenda.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

*AGENDA ITEM #5 ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS:

It was voted to accept the following resignations.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above.

·       Building Board of Review:  Noah Szosz effective immediately.

·       Planning Board:  Greg Lucini effective immediately.

·       Resilience and Energy Committee:  David Beal effective immediately.

·       Technical Review Committee:  Greg Lucini and Noah Szosz effective immediately.

 

*AGENDA ITEM #6 APPROVE REAPPOINTMENT(S) TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:

It was voted to approve the reappointment (s) below.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above.

·       Housing Board of Trustees:  Carla DeStefano to be reappointed for a full-term ending July 31, 2026.

 

*AGENDA ITEM #7 ACCEPT THE MINUTES FROM THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND TOWN COUNCIL ON MAY 8, 2023, TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 5, 2023, AND ACCEPT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES FROM MAY 1, 2023, AND JUNE 5, 2023:

It was voted to accept the Town Council minutes listed above.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

*AGENDA #8 ADOPT THE MONTHLY DEPARTMENT REPORTS (MAY/JUNE ’23): 

Business and Finance Director (no June), Fire Chief, Human Resources, Library Director, Police Chief/Animal Control Official, Public Works Director, Planner/Building and Resiliency, Recreation and Senior Services Director, Tax Assessor and Town Clerk

It was voted to adopt the monthly department reports from May and June ’23.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

*AGENDA ITEM #9 APPROVE ABATEMENT LIST:

It was voted to approve the Abatement List in the amount of $4499.53 and as described therein.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

*AGENDA ITEM #10 APPROVE SURPLUS PROPERTY: (none)

 

*AGENDA ITEM #11 ACKNOWLEDGE CORRESPONDENCE:

It was voted to acknowledge the correspondence.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above and the motion accepting this agenda item.

·       BAY Team Monthly Report

·       BCWA Monthly Reports

·       Letter from Kay Chapin

 

*AGENDA # 12 APPROVE THE DEACCENSION OF BARRINGTON PRESERVATION SOCIETY OBJECTS:

It was voted to approve the deaccession of Barrington Preservation Society Objects.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

*AGENDA #13 APPROVE VICTUALLING LICENSE:  MOVING DOUGH PIZZA CO., 59 MAPLE AVENUE, BARRINGTON, RI:  OWNER:  JOSEPH CANTONE:

It was voted to approve the victualing license for the Moving Dough Pizza Co., located at 59 Maple Avenue, Barrington, RI.  Owner:  Joseph Cantone.  The victualling license is granted, issued upon compliance with all state and municipal statutes, and that all proper paperwork has been filed applicable to each license.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

AGENDA #14 *APPROVE BARRINGTON CHRISTIAN ACADEMY 5K ROAD RACE SATURDAY OCTOBER 21, 2023, START TIME:  8:00AM.

It was voted to approve the Barrington Christian Academy 5K Road Race on Saturday, October 21, 2023, with a start time of 8:00am.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

*AGENDA # 15 ACCEPT AND RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS, $1000.00, FOR THE ADVERTISED SALE OF A 2015 DODGE CHARGER FROM THE BARRINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

It was voted to accept and receive the proceeds of $1000.00 for the sale of a 2015 Dodge Charger.  See the full motion accepting the Consent Agenda above. 

 

AGENDA ITEM #16:  DISCUSS AND ACT:   INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS:

 

o   Assessing Board of Review: (1 vacancy:  1st alternate with an expiration date of March 31, 2026). Interviewed:  James Berenback

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint James Berenback to the Assessing Board of Review to serve as the 1^st alternate, with a term expiring March 31, 2026. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

o   Building Board of Review: (1 vacancy: 1 full member with an expiration date of May 31, 2028). Interviewed:  Ladd Meyer

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint Ladd Meyer to the Building Board of Review to serve as a full member, with a term expiring May 31, 2028. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Cemetery Commission: (1 vacancy 1 full member with an expiration date of November 30, 2025). Interviewed: Michael Soyka

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint Michael Soyka to the Cemetery Commission to serve as a full member, with a term expiring November 30, 2025. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

(Out of Order)

o   Housing Board of Trustees: (1 vacancy:  3^rd alternate with an expiration date of October 31, 2024). Interviewed: Claudia Duran Maiorana

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint Claudia Duran Maiorana to the Housing Board of Trustees to serve as a Third Alternate, with a term expiring October 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

 

o   Charter Review Commission: (9-12 vacancies: 9-12 full members with an expiration date of December 31, 2024)

 

Interviewed: Shirley Applegate-Lockridge, Anthony Arico, Lawrence Bacher, Kenneth Block, Jeff Brenner, Thomas Cregan, Lisa Daft, Bill DeWitt (withdrew), Geoff Grove, Joy Hearn, Allan Klepper, Dan O’Mahony, Sarah O’Brien, William Piccerelli, Steve Primiano (unable to attend but sent a memo to Council), TR Rimoshytus, Cynthia Rosengard, John Taylor, Magnus Thorsson, Janine Wolf

 

o   Proposed Motion: To appoint the following to the Charter Review Commission, with terms expiring on December 31, 2024:

1.      ___________________

2.      ___________________

3.      ___________________

4.      ___________________

5.      ___________________

6.      ___________________

7.      ___________________

8.      ___________________

9.      ___________________

___________________

___________________

___________________

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to appoint Jeff Brenner to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024.  The motion passed in favor 4-1-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard and Councilman Cloutier, one (1) opposed, Councilwoman Conway, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by Vice President Humm to appoint Joy Hearn to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by Councilwoman Berard and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to appoint Dan O’Mahony to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to appoint Magnus Thorsson to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to appoint Sarah O’Brien to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by Councilwoman Berard and seconded by President Kustell to appoint Thomas (TR) Rimoshytus to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to appoint Steve Primiano to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by to President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Conway appoint Allan Klepper to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by President Kustell to appoint Cynthia Rosengard to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to appoint Lisa Daft to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024.  The motion passed in favor 4-1-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard and Councilman Cloutier, one (1) opposed, Councilwoman Conway, no recusals and no abstentions.

Motion by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by President Kustell to appoint Ken Block Rosengard to the Charter Review Commission with a term expiring on December 31, 2024.The motion passed in favor 3-2-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, and Councilman Cloutier, two (2) opposed, Councilwoman Berard and Councilwoman Conway, no recusals and no abstentions.

Vice President Humm supports an odd number of members in case there was a need for a “tie breaker”.  Councilwoman Conway concurred.

Discussion ensued regarding the “charge” to the commission it was noted that the “charge” was in a previous motion at the Council meeting held on June 5, 2023.

 

 

 

AGENDA ITEM #17: DISCUSS AND ACT ON RESOLUTIONS:

 

o   Fee and Fine Schedule:  Harbor Waiting List

 

TM Comment: On June 5, 2023, the Council approved the Harbor Commission’s recommended revisions to the Fee & Fine Schedule establishing fees for submitting new waiting list applications, as well as maintaining pending applications from year to year. The new fees are below.

 

 

The Ordinance stated that the effective date is January 1, 2024. However, the Harbor Commission is requesting the Council amend the approval such that the effective date is July 1, 2023.

 

Vice President Humm requested that the date of passage needed to be amended to the retroactive date of July 1, 2023.

 

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to establish July 1, 2023, as the effective date of the Resolution adopted by the Council on June 5, 2023, amending the Fee and Fine Schedule establishing Harbor Waiting List fees for new and pending waiting list applications.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #18:  DISCUSS AND ACT ON ORDINANCES:

INTRODUCTION: (none)

PUBLIC HEARING:

 

·       2023-8 An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 45 Salaries and Compensation §Pay scale by occupational titles.

 

TM Comment:  Ordinance would amend the Salaries and Compensation table based on the salaries to go into effect for FY2024. The amounts in the table were increased by 8% to provide an additional cushion above the actual salaries, whereby the next amendment might not be needed for a few years.

 

President Kustell opened the Public Hearing for 2023-8 An Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 45 Salaries and Compensation §Pay scale by occupational titles.

President Kustell asked for any discussion from the Council, there was none.

President Kustell asked for any public comment.  No one wished to speak.

President Kustell closed the Public Hearing.

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to approve Ordinance 2023-08 amending Chapter 45 Salaries and Compensation §Pay scale by occupational titles, as presented.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #19: DISCUSS AND ACT ON BID(S):

·       Department of Public Works:

o   Resurfacing and filling depressions of the asphalt and hockey rink markings and award the bid to J.G. Coffey Co LLC with a contingency fee of 40 percent. Total cost: $36,772.40.

 

TM Comment:  The Park and Recreation Commission included repairing and striping the Legion Way Rink on its 2022 “priority funding list.” On September 12, 2022, the Council approved $60,000 in American Rescue Plan funds for this project. The Town recently advertised for bids, receiving two responses. The recommendation of the Department of Public Works is incorporated in the motion below.

DPW Director Alan Corvi was present.

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to award the bid to repair the Legion Way Link surface and add striping for a hockey rink to J.G. Coffey Co., LLC, in the amount of $26,266, to include an additional contingency of 40 percent for a maximum total cost of $36,772.40.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

·       Fire Department:

·       Communication Equipment Upgrade:  Purchase and Installation be awarded to Motorola Solutions Inc., 1303 E. Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL 60196. Total cost:  $98,038.69

TM Comment:  Fire Chief Gerald Bessette is proposing upgrades to the radio equipment at Public Safety “to accommodate the Rhode Island Statewide communications Network,” while citing the “need to upgrade the present VHF radio equipment now in use by both departments that will become the back-up communication network for both departments soon.” He notes the station is still using radio equipment transferred from the old Police Station at Police Cove in 2001.

Chief Bessette was present and noted that this communication equipment upgrade is for both Fire and Police.

 

Motion President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to approve the bid to upgrade radio equipment to Motorola Solutions Inc., 1303 E. Algonquin Rd., Schaumburg, IL, in the amount of $98,038.69.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

·       Dispatch Center Equipment Upgrade: Purchase and Installation be awarded to Motorola Solutions Inc., 1303 E. Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL. Total cost: $87,750.

 

TM Comment:  Fire Chief Gerald Bessette is requesting approval of a bid from Motorola to add a console in the Dispatch Center to improve efficiency of the operation. He notes the equipment “will complete the installation for the Rhode Island Communication Network” – a significant milestone for the Town.

 

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by President Humm to approve the bid to upgrade dispatch Center equipment to Motorola Solutions Inc., 1303 E. Algonquin Rd., Schaumburg, IL, in the amount of $87,750.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

·       Police Department

o   Police Ford Interceptor Hybrid Utility:  Purchase and Installation of Equipment 

 

TM Comment:  The Police Department has advertised for bids for the purchase of and installation of equipment on a 2023 Police Ford Interceptor Hybrid Utility Vehicle that was recently acquired to serve as a patrol vehicle. The recommendation will be emailed to the Council prior to the meeting, as the invitation to bid closes on Friday, July 21^st (after the agenda items are posted on ClerkBase). Funding source: Capital Auto Replacement Account.

 

Police Chief Correia was present.

 

Motion by Councilwoman Berard and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to approve the bid for the purchase of and installation of equipment on a 2023 police Ford Interceptor Hybrid Utility Vehicle to Island Tech of Warren, RI in the amount of $13,834.34.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

·       Department of Planning Building & Resilience

o   Resilience Consultant

TM Comment:  The Town Council previously authorized $60,000 from the Climate Mitigation Capital Reserve account to hire a resilience planning consultant. The Town issued a Request for Qualifications and received one response, from Karlo Berger, who has been serving as Resilience Intern for the Town. The rate is $45 per hour. Director Crean recommends approval.

Planning and Resilience Director Teresa Crean was present.

 

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by President Kustell to authorize the Town to contract (with) consultant Karlo Berger to serve as Resilience Planner. (The Town Council previously authorized $60,000 from the Climate Mitigation Capital Reserve account to hire a resilience planning consultant. The Town issued a Request for Qualifications and received one response, from Karlo Berger, who has been serving as Resilience Intern for the Town. The rate is $45 per hour.)  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #20: DISCUSS AND ACT:  AMENDED ELECTRICITY AGGREGATION AGREEMENT WITH NEXTERA

TM Comment: Good Energy, which the Town has engaged to perform consulting services in relation to its community electricity aggregation plan, recommends approval of an amendment to the agreement with the aggregation program’s electricity supplier, NextEra. According to Jamie Rhodes of Good Energy, the “intention of the contract amendment would be to give the program an option to do either 6-month or 12-month rate, and then it adjusts the procurement schedule and amounts to match.” According to Mr. Rhodes, the amendment in effect would allow NextEra to mirror RI Energy’s electricity supply procurement schedule and provide more flexibility in obtaining competitive pricing.

Proposed Motion:  To approve the amendment to the Electricity Aggregation Supply Energy contract providing the option to procure electricity at either a 6-month or 12-month rate.

 

Good Energy Consultant Jamie Rhodes was present to discuss an amendment to the Community Electricity Aggregation Agreement (memo attached via Clerkbase) with the program’s electricity supplier, NextEra.  He recommended to the Council that we amend the contract because the contract that was signed with NextEra originally envisioned that after the first six-month rate period, which we are currently in, it would move to a 12-month rate with the intention of giving more stability for the rate terms.  He said that after reviewing the initial procurements of electricity that have been done for the next rate period, there is a concern that while a 12-month rate would give significant savings during the winter when rates are higher, it would also mean that the rate would likely be higher than the last year of service offered by Rhode Island Energy come this next summer.  Mr. Rhodes gave an example if this winter, the rate were 20 cents, and next summer would be 10 cents, then for a year, we would offer a 15-cent rate to blend that together.  He said in the past the difference between winter rates and summer rates were a lot smaller and the difference in the winter would be a certain amount of savings and in summer it would be competitive, perhaps a little bit above a little bit below.  Bue, he said, because of over this last two years or so we have seen such a difference between winter and summer rates, it would mean that it would leave us a lot of savings in the summer and being higher in the winter and higher in the summer.  He said that this contract amendment would allow the town to consider offering to stay on a six-month rate while this volatility would still be in place.  That way, he said that we can offer a rate maybe not as low in the winter, it would mean it would not be as high in the summer and allow us to stay on the six-month cycle similar to what Rhode Island Energy currently offers.  He said that the contract amendment would allow that to happen after consultation with NextEra as well as the Town to determine what the best pathway forward would be and allow the option to still move to a 12-month rate in the future and it  should be still in the best interest of our customers.

 

President Kustell asked what do you attribute the variability, the greater variability in the rates that we are seeing recently, in the seasons?

 

Mr. Rhodes said that he is not an expert but his understanding  is that a fair amount of it has to do with our overall reliance on natural gas in the wintertime for our electricity generation sources, as well as our home heating means that we have seen prices, when the supply is constrained given either previously to pandemic inflation cost war overseas, exporting more of our natural gas means that those constraints lead to higher prices in the winter, when there is less fuel and natural gas fuel available.  He said that in the summer, those same constraints are in place and so you are able to get more competitive pricing in the summer. So, he said the variance, those constraints are more constrained now than in the winter.  So, the price variability between the seasons is playing out across all suppliers in the region.

 

President Kustell said, essentially you want the flexibility to be able to look around for another rate more frequently than otherwise you would.

 

Mr. Rhodes said we would like to be able to do so, to stay on six-month rate cycles while in order to stay competitive and not be too far away from what the Rhode Island Energy rate is going to be, especially in the summer.

 

Vice President Humm stated that he will abstain from the vote because what he does professionally.  He said that he does not need to recuse.  He said that he has been supportive of this program.  He said that this confuses me, just in terms of the timing.  He said winter terms of the volatility in the supply prices, that has been something that has been known for so why is this being brought now?  He said this was not anticipated.  You knew several months ago, including when it was first implemented, because it is a brand-new program and now six months in there is already a change.  Vice President Humm said that this makes me a little bit unsettled but interested to see what you think.

 

Mr. Rhodes said about a year ago, in late August, that we signed the initial contract with NextEra, which is when we set the six-month rate and then the 12-month rate after that and we were looking at indicative pricing for the future rate periods.  He said that there was a desire to move to a 12-month rate and we sought to do that, and encouraged Nest Era to engage the contract, that said they would move to 12-month rates.  But as we got closer to that period, we saw that the actual prices are going to be as they have moved from indicative to, we have done at 75% procurement for this winter rate period and adapt.  He said that includes about 30% of procurement for next summer.  He said that now we are actually seeing what those prices would be like and base off of a 75% confidence and a 30% confidence that the prices are starting to model what the price is going to be and likely lead customers leaving the program in the summer when the rates are higher.  He said as soon as we had that information available is when we started bringing it to the municipalities and saying, we see this volatility, this is what the pricing is to look like, and we want to take action now.  He said that we did not know if the seasonal volatility would be in place after the first year when we saw it in the consumer market this last winter and persisted for this next year.  He said that he does not know if they will persist one more year after that and no one knows the price of natural gas or electricity is going to be a year from now or the volatility but is based on possibilities and wanted to bring it to the Council.

 

Vice President Humm asked if this would put Next Era on the same schedule as the utilities going out to the market?

 

Mr. Rhodes said that we seek to bid into a similar market but not on the same day at the same time in order to maximize our flexibility to create a value for the program.

 

Vice President Humm said that was my same concern, the whole supply and demand and you are all fighting at the same time.  He asked if this is an option, it gives you flexibility to save people money.  Which is the whole purpose of the program and why the program was implemented.  Vice President Humm asked since this is an option would you be open to coming before the council again at the six-month period to reevaluate?  Or should we go back to what was originally intended.  Vice President Humm said that was his understanding that one of the benefits was the price stability over the course of the year and not the up and down.

 

Mr. Rhodes said that he would be happy to come back and continue to do as the program evolves.  He said that one of the things that we will be doing is that as we finish the final procurement of electricity, we will be meeting with town staff and present to the town the final procurements and begin to actually set the rates if we did set a 12-month rate and look at the range in the subsequent six months and make decisions accordingly. He said that we are about a month away from being able to do that for this next period.  Every indication is that there would still be value for a 12-month rate while those that have stayed with the program for the 12-month, and they would still save money in comparison to Rhode Island Energy’s rate.  He said that it’s just that the savings would be in the first six months and the second six months it would not be there.  He said that the risk is with front loading and that is what we are trying to manage and prevent those customers from leaving the program after those first six months.

 

Vice President Humm stressed that Good Energy continue to encourage the people are educated on their bills.  He said that as they work through the program, they understand their savings are coming.

 

Councilwoman Berard echoed Vice President Humm’s comments and questioned why this is coming at this point and switching (12 months to 6 months).  She said that the 12-month set fee schedule to be beneficial for consumers because they have the stability of price.  Councilwoman Berard asked, when does the six-month increments happen, when do you go out for bid, what month?  She said that in New England we do not have short summers, so a lot of that energy usage is tied to natural gas. She said this may be served by educating the consumer.  You may say you will have great savings in the winter, but be mindful, it may even out in the summer.  She asked, why does NextEra is saying that this is better and why is that necessarily better for the consumer.

 

Mr. Rhodes explained that the rate will change in November and then again in six months, buying the electricity and pieces over a longer period of time, add that all together and you end up getting a final rate and run that rate for the next six months.

 

Councilwoman Berard believes that it would be more beneficial to shorten the lock-in for our consumer and lengthen the rate change.

 

Mr. Rhodes expressed that if the provider stayed with the 12-month rate changes, energy customer would stay in the program during the winter months when the rates were lower than drop out in the summer months when the competition offers lower rates.  This makes it harder for the program to continue to be able to buy competitively because we just lost a number of our participants in the program.  The goal is to maintain enrollment with the program and not create a situation where you gain the program by having a large savings for six months and then have the program suffer for a secondary six months because of that big difference between winter and summer rates.  We need to level out the savings so that in the first six months it is a smaller amount of saving, but then there is not a loss in the second six months.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT:

 

Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing said that she is confused.  She said that the company presented a business plan to the Town for 12 months and now they want to change the contract because it is not beneficial to them.  Shouldn’t we just reap the benefits that we have gained for Barrington residents, but we have a contract and maybe when the contract is up, you can renegotiate. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding the other communities involved, who has agreed to make the change: A signed agreement with Portsmouth, Providence has agreed but not signed, waiting to present to South Kingstown and Central Falls has voiced their support and waiting on signatures and waiting to present to the Newport as well as Narragansett has agreed to move forward with the change.  He said that we are about 50% there.  Mr. Rhodes said that he completely recognizes and would agree that yes, keeping it this way would provide a short six-month savings, but it makes it harder for us to realize savings over five years.

 

President Kustell stated that Ms. Wolf makes a good point that it is one thing to protect the program but that only makes sense if that program is good for Barrington consumers (they have an option to purchase more renewables but with price).  She said that Vice President Humm is correct that we will need some close constant monitoring because we must make sure that people are not missing out on the opportunity that was promised (get in the program, get out of the program).  He said that the program has to serve the people but predicting energy prices six months out is challenging.  President Kustell asked do we not want to evaluate the benefits versus a cost of accepting this amendment beyond what you have said in terms of the long term.  And he asked, what factors would NextEra look into from their angle as you see it?  And continue the program?  Although he said he believes that the longer the program runs, the more benefit that will be offered to Barrington residents, but, it  has never been guaranteed or promised there would be massive savings.

 

Mr. Rhodes discussed the program that exists in Massachusetts, but the belief is that NextEra believes that this rate, this rate structure for the current market is the best way to offer value to customers.

 

President Kustell reiterated that flexibility is part of the appeal, but we must maintain an aggressive monitoring and have constant communication as to what is happening in the energy markets.

 

Vice President Humm asked, a change like this would the Public Utilities Commission need to approve it or is it already set within the contract in terms of the options.

 

Mr. Rhodes stated that the PUC would not need to approve the change, it would be changing terms within the pricing exhibit in that part of the contract.

 

Vice President Humm asked are you trying to say that what is best for the company and what is best for the consumer are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Because what you are trying to do is provide the flexibility that the company to better itself needs a consumer to do better and what you are proposing is something that you think is better for the consumer.

 

Mr. Rhodes said that it is his belief, but he said he is not going to limit it to a six-month viewpoint but he said he thinks over a five year contract would be better for the consumer.

 

Councilwoman Berard said she appreciated that you shared the profitability structure that is within the contract so that it is not tied to those rate adjustments, but the consumer can leave at any time.  She commented that it is a better benefit to maintain those clients with the ability to leave at any time for the company as opposed to the shifting.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Janine Wolf, 5 Atlantic Crossing said that this gentleman is acting like we in the Town of Barrington have a vested interest in NextEra’s continuation, but this company did some poor calculations with the initial contract.  She believes that this isn’t in the town’s best interest.

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to approve the amendment to the electricity aggregation supply energy contract providing the option to procure electricity at either a six-month or 12-month rate.

 

Vice President Humm said that he would abstain from the vote.

 

Councilwoman Berard said that she would like to amend the motion.  She clarified that she is in favor but would like additional language to the benefit of the consumer or defines the ability to choose 6 or 12 months – there doesn’t seem to be a bucket end on that language.  She said she would like to take a similar route that Providence did, and that Newport is considering.  She said that the Cape Community in Massachusetts is on a three-year walk rate.

 

Mr. Rhodes said no, what I meant is that Cape Light purchases in the same way we do, which is also on six-month rates and that they are in their third year doing six-month rates.

 

Councilwoman Berard heard Ms. Wolf comments and want to ensure that we have the ability to look at this again.  If we look at the future and look at six months and it is not working, we would be able to go back to 12 months.  We are not amending the contract we can no longer go back to the 12-month option.  Because there was a benefit to the 12-month option when we entered the contract.

 

Discussion ensued regarding drafting language to amending the motion.

 

Councilwoman Conway commented that we may get into a micromanage if we ask him (Good Energy/Mr. Rhodes) to come back every six months, we have full agendas.  But she said that her understanding is that the opportunity, this extension of flexibility gives Good Energy the opportunity to compete with some of the other suppliers so that we can offer a more competitive price so that people stay in because it is a conglomerate.  She said that she thinks we give them the flexibility and allow that to happen, but she does not believe that it is the Council’s position to therefore regulate what Good Energy is doing.  She said that there are other bodies that do that.  She said we simply are giving them the flexibility to make their option a more competitive to an alternative to Rhode Island Energy and provide a good alternative to shop around for more affordable and green solutions and provide the town with potential energy to use more solar and wind and less oil and natural gas.  She said that she is in favor of revisiting every six months and we must give them the flexibility and balance that they are a business and of course look out for the best interest of the consumer.  We are doing it by providing flexible pricing and allowing them to choose the more competitive rate.  Ultimately, she said we do not want to put a business out of business because there will be no option of any kind or additional aggregation.  Councilwoman Conway said that she is in support of the original motion without additional language that she seconded.

 

Discussion ensued regarding drafting the language pertaining to Good Energy return for a revisitation of this issue.

President Kustell drafted some amended language –

“…that the approval will be effective through the next procurement with the caveat that Good Energy will return for a revisitation of this issue and further approval going forward.”

 

Councilwoman Conway said that she doesn’t think that she wants them to come back every six months to have a regroup and have another approval, it is not a good use of their time or a good use of our time.

 

Councilwoman Berard said that we initially entered a contract that said 12 months which is best for the consumer and now we are being asked to switch it to six months.  She said it would be prudent that for the next six months, we feel confident in the secondary choice and if there is the ability to look at this next year and review the data.  She said that she wants to make sure that we are making careful decisions because there was no data in the memo and nothing for me to look at, but we should look at it again at six months one time, not in perpetuity.

 

Councilwoman Conway said that her understanding is that Vice President Humm said that they would come back for approval in six months, and she does not think that it is necessary.  She said that the motion as it stands was either six to 12 months, or it didn’t necessarily require coming back.  She said that “just” a report to the Town Manager giving us awareness of how it is changing.

 

President Kustell said before I make another motion, if I were to add the language it would be that the approval will be effective through the next procurement with the caveat that Good Energy will return in six months for a final revisitation of the issue and for further approval.  He asked, does that capture what we are trying to say.  He further asked, “Do you think it would be better to have an informal request that we could make in six months.”  He said that he was sure that Mr. Rhodes would return.

 

Councilwoman Berard said that we are talking about contract language, and it is a chance to say we trust you as the liaison with your recommendation, but in six months we could solidify the contract language because the 6 to 12 months puts the power in NextEra’s hands.   She said that this gives them the option to switch back and forth as to what they see most beneficial.  But we, presumably, had a contract drafted where 12 months was desirable for the consumer and now, we have our liaison say, hey, no, six months is better.  She said we give it a chance for six months, but we need to sit down and read the contract language, or the Solicitor, to have an idea of what we are saying.

 

Assistant Solicitor Amy Goins stated that the language being discussed makes sense.

 

Discussion ensued regarding language within the motion instructing Good Energy Representative Rhodes to require him to return in six months to hopefully get final approval through the life of the contract.

 

Mr. Rhodes said that he had planned to return in a couple of months for the next rate announcement and the idea would be six months from now or probably seven months from now because we would have done two, six-month periods and if we did a 12-month period what that would have looked like and say this is a reason why we chose six months, as opposed to the 12 months.  He said that way we can absolutely get feedback from Council and say, we want to stick with 12 because that is what we would have done or we like the six-month iteration, and then we can adjust accordingly at that point.  Mr. Rhodes said that the only caveat is to not use the word “procurement” but use “rate period” because we do a lot of procurements.

 

President Kustell questioned seven months.

 

Mr. Rhodes said that he should return in seven months, and he will have the six-month term because we just did the six-month term, and we would know the next six-month term and have three data points to provide.

 

Councilwoman Conway asked Mr. Rhodes to share how many people have signed-up and how many people have left or have we retained in the program.

 

(FINAL)Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to approve the amendment to the electricity aggregation supply energy contract providing the option to pursue electricity at a six-month pr 12-month rate.  The approval will be effective through the next rate period in seven months. The motion passed in favor 3-1-0-1, President Kustell, Councilwoman Berard, and Councilwoman Conway, one (1) opposed, Councilman Cloutier, no recusals and one (1) abstention, Vice President Humm.

 

AGENDA ITEM #21: DISCUSS AND ACT:  TOWN COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR A BALLOT QUESTION FOR PLACEMENT ON THE SPECIAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 7, 2023, REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENT, RENOVATION. ALTERATION, OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL FACILITIES IN BARRINGTON

 

TM Comment: The School Committee is meeting on Thursday, July 20^th, to vote on a final “not to exceed” amount for the ballot question to be placed before voters for the November 7^th Special Election. The Council on May 8^th approved the School Committee’s request to submit to state legislators a resolution in support of enabling legislation for the bond referendum in the amount of $250 million. The enabling legislation was subsequently approved by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor.

According to Assistant Solicitor Amy Goins, “the Council can approve a ballot question with a lower threshold than the $250 million specified in the enabling legislation and can approve a threshold lower than what the School Committee sets on Thursday evening. The Council has the ultimate authority to approve the amount that is presented to the voters for approval, provided that the amount does not exceed what the General Assembly has allowed.”

Proposed Motion:  To approve placement of a bond question on the November 7, 2023, Special Election ballot regarding the construction, improvement, renovation, and alteration of public schools and school facilities in Barrington, in the amount of $____________. 

 

School Committee Chair Patrick McCrane, School Committee member TJ Peck and Dallas Construction Consultant Tony Demello were present for the discussion on the ballot question regarding the developments of the language regarding the “not to exceed number” and construction plan for placement on the November 7, 2023, Special Election.

 

School Committee Chair McCrann explained that the RI General Assembly approved, another milestone in the school construction process, by approving the first of two opportunities for the members of the Town; one, on the ballot of the Special Election in November and the second at a Financial Town Meeting to approve the funding of the project.

 

SC Chair McCrann said at a special meeting of the School Committee, after the Building Committee met earlier this summer, and as a result we decided that we simply did not have enough data to reduce the number competently to move forward with the construction process.  He said that we had set the number “not to exceed $250 million”.  That number was intended to give us the flexibility and organization to plan for the support and future development of our educational infrastructure here in Town.  He said that we have needs at our lower elementary school levels but also at our upper school levels.  He said that the School Committee voted back in January to hold the original process in reboot with a new consultant with a new owner product manager and now a new architect.  He said fortunately we were given the opportunity of an extension that we received from the Legislature, and we will be using these two months effectively with macro level goals and be able to present the plan options of where and what the dollars will be to the public in September.

 

SC Committee McCrann said that we were given a fantastic opportunity, which usually Barrington is not usually given, but is now been given an approved 55% reimbursement rate for this project.   He said it is an additional 20% on top of the housing aid 35% baseline that goes away in June.  He said, so as we go forward, not only do we have an urgent need in our schools and for our educators, for the members of our community and for future members of our community, but, also that any future project cost not simply because of inflation and cost growth but also because of the  the incentives and we can’t guarantee that they would be there if we do not take advantage of this this funding and invest in our schools.  He said that the recommendation still stands that we leave the $250 million amount on the ballot which we will submit to the state to appear on the ballot.

 

President Kustell asked what the public engagement process would look like and what further development will we see in plans or potential plans for the building going forward.

 

SC Chair McCrann said that we received a lot of feedback that our public engagement simply wasn’t enough in the first half of the process.  We now have additional resources, posting pages on the website, sending regular email out to the community.  He said beyond that we have held five (5) separate open houses at all elementary schools, the high school, and opportunities for members of the public to come in and tour the buildings. He said that we talked about making improvements for environmental changes, how our building infrastructure stands now, although our buildings are not well positioned to handle any climate changes.  SC Committee Chair spoke of the additional modular Primrose Hill School and have added a sixth classroom that will be in effect later this year.

 

SC Committee Chair continued to provide details on public engagement – that it will continue digitally, that meetings are the 3^rd Tuesday of every month with open houses, and we will do our best to be proactive.

 

School Committee member TJ Peck discussed that there was a six-month extension.  He explained that if we were to push out that referendum to match that six-month extension we would have to come back before this body, coordinate with our legislators and get back on the agenda at the Statehouse.  He said that the feedback was that other municipalities did that and were on the docket for four to five months.  He stated that it is better to take the approved referendum and formally submit the detailed package to the state in June, and, in November the residents will vote.  He said obviously the people will need to know the plans.  He said that we hired a new design firm two or three weeks ago and they are going building by building with cost benefit analysis and there will be the need to have buy in from the public.  He said that the School Building Committee is still meeting and discussing and will meet with the School Committee after Labor Day and allow for public engagement with options on the table.  He said then the School Committee will make a vote on what the option will be and present it to the community.  SC member Peck said that we will be back to this body and present the option.

 

Councilwoman Conway said that she was appreciative of the transparency and communication to the community. But she said from a health and safety standpoint we have a need throughout the district, a significant need.

 

SC Chair McCrann said that presently we do not have enough data to educate the community on what the projected price tag is even though they are voting on $250 million but that is what the ballot question will say and what will be on the referendum.

 

Assistant Solicitor Goins said that the motion should use the language “not to exceed” language which mirrors what was in the enabling legislation and what gives the most flexibility.

 

President Kustell asked for Public Comment – there was no public comment.

 

Motion by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by Councilwoman Berard to approve placement of a bond question on the November 7, 2023, Special Election ballot regarding the construction improvement, renovation and alteration of public schools and school facilities in Barrington in an amount not to exceed $250 million. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

Mr. Anthony Arico questioned the first meeting of the Charter Commission.  Discussion ensued regarding the first meeting of the Charter Commission.  Town Clerk will poll the newly appointed members for the best day for to begin the meeting schedule.

 

AGENDA ITEM #22. DISCUSS AND ACT: 25 WATSON AVENUE/CARMELITE MONASTERY

 TM Comment: For the June 5, 2023, meeting the Town prepared a “FAQ” in consultation with the Town Solicitor, as requested by the Council. The Council briefly discussed the FAQ before continuing the item to the July 24^th meeting. Since the June meeting the Town engaged Peter A. Scotti & Associates to complete an appraisal of the property based on the Planning Board-recommended plan (summarized below), a modified version of that plan, and several other options developed by Union Studio and presented to the Planning Board.

 

Planning Board Recommendation: On May 1, 2023, the Planning Board’s motion approved on April 26^th on the redevelopment of the former Carmelite Monastery property at 25 Watson Avenue was presented to the Town Council. The motion was as follows:

 

Member Rua, seconded by Vice Chair Lucini, made a motion to recommend Concept Plan 2 for redevelopment at 25 Watson Avenue, that includes the following characteristics:

·       The three lots to the south remain open space and are not developed.

·       The pocket neighborhood is individually owned, via a condo association or single-family lots.

·       The thru-road becomes a path, not a cut-through.

·       There be a maximum of 10-12 units in the pocket neighborhood.

·       There be two separate RFPs – one for the individual lots, one for the pocket neighborhood.

·       Maintain Town control, such as deed restrictions or phased development.

·       One of the lots and 25 percent of the pocket neighborhood be dedicated to low-to-moderate income (LMI) housing.

·       Revise the lot lines for the lots on the south side, where the connecting road will not have vehicle access.

Motion carried unanimously.

 

The Council has taken no action on the Planning Board recommendation.

 

More information:

·       Union Studio’s presentation on the revised concepts, presented April 26^th: https://www.barrington.ri.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1117/23_0426-CMC-PB-Presentation?bidId=

·       Appraisal by Peter A. Scotti & Associates

·       Additional materials on 25 Watson: https://www.barrington.ri.gov/361/25-Watson-Avenue.

 

Due to a technical issue with links to the appraisal the discussion will continue to September 11, 2023.

President Kustell welcomed public comments.

Councilwoman Conway stated that at the end of this meeting she would like to schedule an open meeting that is not stuck between other subjects and before we move forward with any actions or next steps.  She said that we have not received neighborhood comment as a body.

The Council concurred.

Town Manager Hervey had one additional bit of information that we will have new images that will help clarify the Planning Board recommendation along with the additional item of the appraisal since the FAQ (at the next meeting).

President Kustell welcomed PUBLIC COMMENT:

Paige Barber, Clark road thanked all for providing responses to her questions regarding the FAQ.  She questioned if we fully explored the adaptive reuse of the building.  She said that Signal Works stated that the systems would need to be replaced and work would need to be done, the elevator would need to go outside – a really complicated endeavor.  She said and we have heard that housing is not a feasible use for it.  She said however, it seems to have been like an insufficient exploration of other uses.  She said that since the residents voted down the demolition, she would like to hear once and for, nothing can be done. She said that Signal works danced around the issue. 

She said relating back to the FAQ asked about Belton Court, what is going on with that?  We want to solidify the plans with Belton Court before we make decisions relating to the Monastery.

She questioned the cost of the demolition.

She asked if the Council was given a list of grant money that may provide alternatives for the property.

Debra Nyser, 30 Adelaide Avenue said there still is not a concrete plan, and it has been over three years not to mention you have not approved the Planning Board recommendations, what is the goal?  This is a never-ending process.  Also, she said she is concerned with the security of the property.

Mark Hanchar, 25 Frederick Drive, discussed the current expenses involved with the Monastery and requested that current costs and how they must be transparent.

Mary Grenier, 10 Watson Avenue, disagreed with Mr. Hanchar.  She said that we were told that we did not need to recoup the money.  She said she hopes that it really will be in the best interest of everyone.

President Kustell commented on the Planning Board’s recommendation in which he believes was certainly much better received than previous outcomes – we seem to be getting to a solution.  He said that before we put the Planning Boards recommendation on the Council agenda, we will need to examine it.

Deb Nyser, 30 Adelaide Avenue commented that recently a lot on Governor Bradford just went on the market and within a day had an offer for $675,000.  She said that after she read the appraisal the cost of buying is going to be a lot more than what that appraisal said.

President Kustell believes that the process has been worth it because when you open it up to the public allowing for input and control in the way that we did through our system, there are going to be countervailing forces and people taking different opinions, complications.

Vice President Humm supports Councilwoman Conway’s special meeting and it will give the opportunity for public input on the Planning Board’s recommendation.

President Kustell clarified that this will not be on the ballot in November.

President Kustell said that this will be continued to September 11, 2023, with scheduling of a special meeting requested by Councilwoman Conway regarding the Watson property.  

 

AGENDA ITEM #23. DISCUSS AND ACT:  REQUEST $30,000 TO FIND CONSULTANT TO ASSIST WITH HOUSING INITIATIVES. FUNDING SUPPORT IS REQUESTED FROM THE $500,000 AUTHORIZED FOR HOUSING-RELATED PROGRAMS AT THE 2021 FTM.

TM Comment: Requesting approval of $30,000 for a consultant to assist the Town in developing new programs and strengthening existing ones, such as the First-Time Homebuyers Incentive Program. The funding would come from the $500,000 voters approved at the 2021 Financial Town Meeting for affordable housing initiatives.

If approved, the Town will issue a Request for Qualifications for consultant services. The consultant would assist the Town on housing-related projects, including updating the affordable housing production plan, reviewing the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, identifying opportunities for outside funding such as Community Development Block Grant program, and working with Housing Board on the Down Payment Assistance Program.

Proposed Motion:  To approve $30,000 to fund a consultant to assist the Town with housing initiatives, with funding from the $500,000 authorized for affordable housing approved at the 2021 FTM.

 

President Kustell opened the discussion for the request of $30,000 to fund a consultant to assist with the housing initiative, the funding support is requested from the $500,000 authorized for housing related programs at the 2021 Financial Town Meeting.  President Kustell said that this was something that was sponsored by former President Carroll as an effort to invest a little bit into finding creative ways or options and looking beyond what we have been able to do so far. 

 

Town Planner Crean was present to discuss the request.  She stated that none of the money has been spent to date.  She explained that the proposal is to bring on an expert in affordable housing to work with the planning building resilience department, the town manager, the Housing Board of Trustees to document opportunities and barriers to the implementation of a down payment assistance program with the Barrington’s housing market and to conduct a needs assessment for development of a housing production plan for the upcoming rewrite of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan which will be  starting in the coming year.  The focus is on housing and neighborhood elements that would explore potential community development block grant opportunities, and to identify any other opportunities for housing programs or assistant in Barrington that could include weatherization and energy efficiency, lead safe home programs and the like.  She said that this person would attend the Housing Board of Trustees monthly meetings.  She explained that currently the PBR department lacks subject matter expertise in affordable housing, and we rely on the Housing Board of Trustees.  She said that this would provide us with an opportunity to bring in another contract employee to advance the discussions and move us towards implementable actions that could start to clarify the intent of spending the $500,000 that has been allocated for affordable housing in Barrington.  She said that she is asking for the approval of the Council for $30,000 for the hiring of a contract staffer for the development of housing programs in Barrington.  She said with the funding coming from the $500,000 authorized in 2021, at the FTM.

 

President Kustell said that he is supportive.

 

Councilwoman Berard questioned the funds coming from the $500,000 as she read the language it said that those funds using a method or methods proposed by the Housing Board of Trustees and then approved by the Town Council (not that wouldn’t be included) it is just the method for which the funds are being requested is not the method for which the funds were granted.  She said that the idea is great, but she doesn’t know if those funds should be taken from the $500,000 unless it’s been reviewed by the Housing Board and suggested that way.

 

Councilwoman Conway said that she had a similar feeling, it is a capital reserve fund and the origination of the $500,000 was all of the funds that go to affordable housing came from the Spencer Trust, which was restricted to those who were existing Barrington residents.  She said the idea of having the additional $500,000 was to open it up to people who were not yet Barrington residents, and to hopefully expand some of the diversity.  She said that the issue with the existing program is that you need to have affordable homes going on the market that is currently affordable and as Ms. Nyser said, a house or a lot that is not close to the size or appeal of the Watson property when on the market at $675,000 sold in one day and now there is a home that will be sold as a spec home for $1.7 million, that will go to the extension of what the property/building envelope allows you to build.

She said that her concern is that we are not addressing the significant issue of that we do have existing homes in town that could be deed restricted if they were given some sort of a deed restriction.  She said that she has spoken with Carla DeStefano and the Town Manager Hervey about the potential of reducing tax payments for seniors so they could remain in their homes, it there was some sort of deed restriction on the home.  She said that it would allow us to maintain homes that exist in town that are still affordable and would remain affordable.  Rather than, she said right now people who are coming in, and excuse me, looking for affordable housing, are going to be beat out by people who are paying all cash to then tear the house down and build a larger home.  She said that we have seen it time and again. And that does not help our affordable housing stock.  She said that she would rather spend the $30,000 and would like us to investigate to find additional grant funding and preserve the $500,000 and look at ways that we can allow seniors to stay in their homes, reduce their tax liability, many of their homes are already paid off or close being paid off.  She said let’s not force them to sell their home to be able to afford their retirement.  She said that in addition, it reduces the limited segregation of affordable homes and allows affordable homes to remain in the community and part of the integrity of the neighborhoods.  She said we are seeing that many homes have additions built onto them and we know that people’s home values have gone up significantly and we are going to preserve any kind of home that is an affordable either a home for a family starting out single wage earner or seniors.  She said that they will need to be under a certain threshold, we have those properties in town.  She said that she would like to do this before we invest in any more money and have consultants to do an inventory of how many affordable deed restricted homes we have and how many do we need to get to the 10%.  She would like to know how many seniors qualify for reduced tax payment currently, how many do we have that are assessed at $350,000 or below and that would be the group that we go to and offer some sort of tax relief with an idea of deed restricting those homes. She said that the challenge is we are limited in what we can do with the funds as we have them right now.  She said that potentially we need some grant funding, probably through RI Housing, or some other program, even EDCAP and frankly, the Spencer Trust if the Trustees decided to make that decision in our September meeting.  But she said she would want to preserve this $500,000 for the people who need it the most.

 

Councilwoman Berard said that she thinks that Councilwoman Conway’s idea for tax relief is really smart.  But she said that she wanted to speak to the inability of one person to do so many tasks.  She said that she was speaking with the Planner (Crean) about our initiatives, working with FEMA to make sure that we get those payments lowered for those that have flood insurance and wanted to be mindful of the need of a consultant in this particular arena.  Councilwoman Berard said that the funding sources are wrong.  She said that she supports 100% for a consultant because you get those answers to all those questions about how many homes are assessed at that value and what are our percentages are and if we have the manpower to do so.

 

Councilwoman Conway said that she completely agrees.  She said that she thinks that the housing source or the funding source is incorrect.  She said potentially she would like to find a different source for funding first and then identify what the need may be.

 

Councilwoman Conway said that there are ideas that come up through the Housing Board of Trustees and we may want to review them and approve but she would like to preserve the capital reserve fund to be a capital reserve and find other operating consulting funding for this request.

 

No motion was made/no action taken.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

TR Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street, agreed with Councilwoman Conway.  He said that he remembers that the vote 2021 is that the money was to be used for assistance in a downpayment and there was no other language in there about being used for anything else.

 

Councilwoman Conway said, “such methods may include but are not limited to a downpayment assistance program and or the purchase deed restriction and resale properties in Barrington.”

 

AGENDA ITEM #24: DISCUSS AND ACT: TOWN’S INSTALLATION OF WAYFINDING SIGNS (CONTINUED FROM MAY 1, 2023) (K. BERARD AND C. KUSTELL)

TM Comment: The Town Council on June 5th voted to have the two “landmark” signs installed recently on County Road removed. These signs were part of a larger wayfinding signage program, which has been paused at the request of the Council.

After the June 5th meeting the Town launched an online comment webpage, along with images of the signs and the locations. The opportunity to comment via the webpage was mentioned on the Town’s homepage, social media, and in the Town’s newsletter. The Town received 13 comments (through July 18th) – attached.

While there were few comments in clear support of the remaining signs, there hasn’t been a strong backlash against the signs – which was clearly the reaction to the first two landmark signs that were installed.

Viewpoint Signs and Awning in Northborough, MA, has completed the wayfinding sign depicted in the photo illustration below. This sign is proposed to be installed at the northeast corner of Waseca Avenue and West Street (facing east).

The Town has a $58,400 grant from CommerceRI for the wayfinding signage program. The directional wayfinding signs were originally presented to the public as part of the 2014 Village Center Connectivity Study, and funding was included in the budget that was the basis for a $1.6 million Village Center streetscape bond approved in 2014. The landmark signs were added to the program later and included in the plan reviewed by the Economic Development Commission. Not proceeding with the signs would require returning the $58,400 grant.

Wayfinding signage has been a Main Street revitalization strategy throughout the country. According to Main Street America:

Wayfinding is an important component of a successful destination. It moves people through an environment and into desired locations within it using signage and other visual cues. Wayfinding guides people to places they seek but it also brings awareness to places they may have otherwise missed.

It can guide people away from areas you don’t want them to see. Wayfinding helps people find parking areas sooner. The less time spent in cars means more time “spent” in your stores. When visitors see well maintained wayfinding signs, they are reassured that they are on the right path and that they are in a safe area. Wayfinding connects people to places.

I strongly recommend proceeding with the remaining wayfinding signs, as they are consistent with the original vision from the 2014 Village Center plan. These signs also would bring more attention to the local commercial areas of town – including the Town Center as well as Tyler Point.

·       See also: Signage Plan Package (PDF), Signage Location Plan (PDF).

 

Proposed Motion: To approve continuing with the installation of the remaining wayfinding signs.

 

President Kustell opened the discussion on the smaller wayfinding signs in which he stated that there was a grant that was involved with this project.  He said that there were some negative comments but not the kind of uproar with the pillars.  President Kustell said that we delayed the action regarding these wayfinding signs from the Council meeting on June 5, 2023.

Vice President Humm stated that he supports the wayfinding project and the signs and would hope that his colleagues will support them as well.  He said that there is a grant that the Town received to install them and said that the signs are tasteful, noninvasive, and consistent with the wayfinding project as well as within the character of our Town.

Councilwoman Conway agreed.  She said that most of the questions had to do with funding and why we were spending the money on this project.  She wanted to remind the residents that it was a grant that was already received.

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by President Kustell to approve continuing with the installation of the remaining wayfinding signs. 

 

 

Councilman Cloutier read the stipulation of the grant:

            The grant was for $58,400 from Commerce RI for the wayfinding signage program.  It was presented originally to the public as part of a 2014 Village Center Connectivity Study and funding was included in the budget.  That was the basis for a $1.6 million Village Center Streetscape bond approve in 1014 to $50,400 grant that was approved in 2014.  Councilman Cloutier stated that is we do not continue with the wayfinding signs; we will have to repay that $58,400.

 

The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #25: DISCUSS AND ACT:  AMENDING THE TOWN’S COMMERCIAL SIGN ORDINANCE (K BERARD)

TM Comment: On June 5, 2023, the Council passed a motion “to refer the question whether Barrington would like to see a unified design aesthetic to their signage with a manual with photos for our business partners in Town” to the Planning Board, Technical Review Committee and Economic Development Commission.

Comments received:

o   Planning Board (7/11/23 meeting):  The Board voted unanimously “to recommend that the signage discussion fold into the Comprehensive Plan rewrite process, engaging a graphic consultant for technical assistance to work out guidelines for signage in business district and technical language that would be appropriate for signage ordinance.”

o   Technical Review Committee (5/11/23 and 6/8/23 meetings): The TRC on June 8^th unanimously passed a motion “to recommend to Town Council that Barrington should have a vision and design guidelines booklet for commercial signage that includes visuals, and this work should be done with a qualified consultant. ‘Unified’ design guidelines are a not necessary outcome.”

o   Economic Development Commission (5/25/23 meeting): The EDC discussed signs at the May meeting but took no formal motion. The discussion is summarized in the meeting minutes.

Background

The Town’s sign regulations were overhauled completely in the mid-1990s, based on the Barrington Village Center Design Study and Design Guidelines document published in 1995. After implementing the zoning amendments, the Town provided businesses with time to comply with the new regulations and included a financial incentive to help cover the cost.

Here are examples of signs before and after the new sign regulations were adopted in the 1990s (after images from 2006).

Since the original sign ordinance was enacted, the Town has made several revisions to the regulations and the sign standards. These include:

·       Streamlining the approval process to allow administrative sign-off on most signs, provided they comply with the Zoning Ordinance.

·       Assigning approval authority to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) in cases where multiple signs are proposed, followed by the Zoning Board if zoning relief is required. Originally all sign applications had to be reviewed by the TRC, followed by the Planning Board and possibly the Zoning Board.

·       Allowing “back-lit” signs where individual opaque letters and logos are illuminated from behind. This was in response to concerns from businesses about poor visibility of signs due to the exterior lighting requirement.

·       Allowing A-frame signs on sidewalks. Unfortunately, few businesses take advantage of this, likely because of the stringent requirements in the regulations (including insurance, time limits, and the requirement that these are chalkboard signs). Most businesses want more visible A-frame signs and often put these out without Town approval, creating an enforcement issue.

I agree with the Planning Board recommendation to evaluate our commercial signage as part of the next Comprehensive Plan update, which will start later in 2023 or in early 2024. The development of visuals, similar to those in the 1995 study, as a part of the comp plan process would help inform revisions to the Zoning Ordinance.

The motion below includes review of building and site standards in addition to signs as a topic for the next Comprehensive Plan update.

Councilwoman Berard said that when a new business comes into Town, specifically, Chipotle, there is no real design standard for signs.  She said the comment from the Technical Review Commission is it is not necessarily that it won’t result in some unified design process but a look book with some guidance for businesses in town with some framework for those new businesses with more clarity.  She said it was brought to light when the pillars were put in when they are completely the opposite to a lot of other signs that we had in town. She said that she thinks it would be more of a cohesive guidance for those business operators.

 

Motion by Councilwoman Berard and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to develop a vision for the Town’s commercial and mixed-use districts, to include an evaluation of the sign ordinance and development standards, as part of the upcoming update to the Comprehensive Community Plan.

The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #26: DISCUSS AND ACT:  DEVELOPMENT OF CARRY IN/CARRY OUT PAPER BAG POLICY (K. BERARD)

TM Comment: At the May meeting the Council referred “the development of a Carry In/Carry Out Paper Bag Policy to the Town Administration and Park and Recreation Commission for recommendations for the Council to consider at the July 24, 2023, meeting.”

Photo of a “Carry-In/Carry-Out” paper bag system (photo courtesy of Councilor Berard)

o   Park and Recreation Commission (6/22/23 meeting): The Commission passed a motion “against the proposal because the picture of the bag holder doesn’t look like it will keep the bags dry, because Michele anticipates going through multitudes of bags at the beach, and how will that be financed, and because of the potential that the bags full of trash will just be left at the parks/beach for DPW to pick up.”

o   Town Manager: If the Council wishes to pursue this initiative, the Town could try out the program through a pilot project at a park (suggest either Police Cove Park (Lion’s Club has adopted this spot), Town Beach or Latham Park). The wood storage structure could be designed to better protect the bags from the weather. I checked online for a source of handle paper bags with customized messaging. One vendor priced the bags with lettering and a logo at $343 for 500 bags; smaller bags could be purchased for less.

 

Councilwoman Berard said that she was surprised that you  said, President Kustell, “well received” because the Park & Recreation Committee passed the motion unanimously NOT to move forward with it.

Councilwoman Berard said that she grew up in NJ with this program and she said that she has seen that it has worked well.  She said that this is a middle option and would like to try this in at least one location.

Motion by Councilwoman Conway and seconded by Councilman Cloutier to approve a pilot project at Latham Park to test the paper bag carry-in/carry-out program, and $400 from Council Contingency to pay for materials.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

 

AGENDA ITEM #27: DISCUSS AND ACT:  FINANCIAL TOWN MEETING REPORT

 

TM Comment:  On October 3, 2022, the Council adopted a motion to request the Town Manager to research alternatives to the Financial Town Meeting and deliver a report to the Town Council at the July 24, 2023, meeting. Here is a summary of information we have compiled on budget approval procedures, including statistics from recent Town of Barrington FTMs.

o   Use of the FTM in RI: The Town Clerk’s Office has polled other cities and towns in Rhode Island to document the budget approval process followed in other municipalities.

 

Cities and towns that use the FTM (with estimated population):

 

1.      Barrington (17,201)

2.      Exeter (6,858)

3.      Foster (4,505)

4.      Jamestown (5,531)

5.      Lincoln (22,415)

6.      Little Compton (3,600)

7.      New Shoreham (1,007)

8.      Richmond (8,064)

9.      Scituate (10,423)

10.   Smithfield (21,855)

11.   Tiverton (16,287)

12.   West Greenwich (6,500)

13.   West Warwick (30,823)

 

 

o   Budget Approval Procedures: RI Cities and Towns (compiled by the Town Clerk’s Office)

 

Population	City/Town	Budget Ratified By
(2021)		FTM, Town Council, Referendum
17,201	Barrington	FTM
22,305	Bristol	Town Council
16,186	Burrillville	Town Council
22,192	Central Falls	City Council
8,012	Charlestown	Financial Referendum
35,386	Coventry	Town Council
82,654	Cranston	Town Council & Mayor
36,186	Cumberland	Town Council & Mayor
13,970	East Greenwich	Town Council & Town Manager
47,171	East Providence	Town Council & Town Manager
6,858	Exeter	FTM,
4,505	Foster	FTM
10,007	Glocester	Referendum
8,411	Hopkinton	Referendum
5,531	Jamestown	FTM
29,550	Johnston	Town Council & Mayor
22,415	Lincoln	FTM
3,600	Little Compton	FTM
16,983	Middletown	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
14,759	Narragansett	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
1,007	New Shoreham	FTM
25,322	Newport	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
27,696	North Kingstown	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
33,935	North Providence	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
12,537	North Smithfield	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
75,200	Pawtucket	City Council
17,802	Portsmouth	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
188,812	Providence	City Council
8,064	Richmond	FTM
10,423	Scituate	FTM
21,855	Smithfield	FTM
31,576	South Kingstown	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
16,287	Tiverton	FTM
11,166	Warren	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
82,666	Warwick	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
6,500	West Greenwich	FTM
30,823	West Warwick	FTM
23,352	Westerly	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings
43,044	Woonsocket	Town Council &  (2) public Meetings

 

 

·       Barrington FTM – Attendance, Length of Meeting (2014-2023)

 

Year	Attendees	Registered Voters	% of Reg. Voters	Length of Meeting (Hours)
2023	194	13,862	1.4%	3.3
2022	311	14,774	2.1%	4.3
2021	354	14,768	2.4%	5.5
2020	195	14,694	1.3%	1.8
2019	735	14,608	5.0%	3.5
2018	224	14,614	1.5%	2.0
2017	685	14,523	4.7%	3.8
2016	104	14,523	0.7%	3.5
2015	187	14,501	1.3%	1.0
2014	388	14,245	2.7%	3.5

 

·       Memorandum from Solicitor: Memo submitted to the Town Council for the October 3, 2022 meeting: https://clerkshq.com/Content/Attachments/Barrington-ri/221003_ftm.pdf?clientSite=Barrington-ri

 

·       Rhode Island Bar Journal article on the FTM by Assistant Solicitor Peter Skwirz (attached)

 

·       Municipal Charters in Rhode Island (RI Department of Revenue document, last revised 2013). The Town has reached out to all the clerks for RI cities and towns to identify which municipalities have amended their charter as it pertains to the budget approval process. We are continuing to update the attached document in anticipation of discussion of the issue by the Charter Review Commission. We are also assembling text from city and town charters related to budget approval to share with the Charter Commission.

 

President Kustell said that the purpose of this would be to look forward to the Charter Review Commission and what their mission is going to be.  He said that we had several candidates from the Charter Review Commission discuss the FTM as being something that they would address.  He said that we can review the report and believe that the Counselors have reviewed the report.  But he said that he is inclined to make a motion since earlier this evening it was centered around this matter.

 

Town Manager Hervey stated that our intent will be to provide this material and additional material as we gather examples of other Charters that show different processes, and especially ones that have changed recently from the FTM to a different model.  He said that we will keep assembling this material for the Charter Review Commission.

 

President Kustell said that all the material are within the Town Managers memo as to what other towns are doing, what they are moving away from the FTM structures that they have had in place.  He said that the Charter Review Commission could consider and use this model going forward.

 

Town Manager Hervey said that he learned this evening that there has been an update to Smithfield and has moved on from the FTM – although the information in my memo has not been updated.

 

President Kustell said that Smithfield moved to a town wide budget vote or a council budget vote.

 

Assistant Solicitor Goins said that Smithfield passed that in 2020.  She said that there is a Budget and Financial Review Board that advises the Council.  It is a Council approved budget with the advice and assistance of the board with a specific charge to review the budget.

Discussion ensued regarding additional information regarding information for the Charter Review will be updated on a page on the Town’s website where all the materials will be housed.

 

Motion by President Kustell and seconded by Vice President Humm to charge the Charter Review Commission with evaluating alternatives to Barrington’s Financial Town Meeting format, including research provided by the Administration, for inclusion in the Commission’s Final Report to be delivered to the Council. The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #28: DISCUSS AND ACT:  ELECTRIC LEAF BLOWER/STRING TRIMMER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

TM Comment:  Voters at the Financial Town Meeting approved a motion adding $25,000 to the FY2024 Town budget to assist residents with up to $250 toward the purchase of a battery-powered or corded electric leaf blower or string trimmer.

 

The Town Council in June voted to “refer to the Town Administration and the Resilience and Energy Committee for input on guidelines for the electric leaf blower/string trimmer incentive program, for the Council’s consideration at the July 24th meeting.”

 

The motion approved at the FTM was as follows:

Since the FTM, 220 people have signed up through the Town website to receive more information on the program once available.

The Town has the flexibility to establish parameters for the program. According to Assistant Solicitor Amy Goins:

FTM authorization is just that, an authorization. It means that this $25k is incorporated into the budget and can’t be used for any other purpose. The administration can legally implement this program with guidelines that were not included in the motion so long as the guidelines don’t conflict with the broad outlines of the motion. For example, the approved resolution states up to $250 per household – you can lower that maximum rebate amount. You could also require applicants to turn in their old gas-powered devices, as that doesn’t conflict with anything the FTM authorized. However, you couldn’t expand the parameters by, for example, allowing landscapers who work in Barrington but aren’t residents to qualify, because that would conflict with the FTM approval.

Input on a Potential Barrington Program

o   Jeffrey Poland, URI Energy Fellow working for the Town, has researched incentive programs in other municipalities.

o   Resilience and Energy Committee: The Committee passed a motion “to recommend to Town Council that the $25,000 appropriated at the Financial Town Meeting be awarded one per household who turn in gas-powered lawn equipment for the purchase of an electric string trimmer or leaf blower, up to $100.  The Committee requests that Town Council direct staff to explore match funding for the initiative from state and federal sources, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, and Lead By Example.”

 

Town Manager

·       The incentive should not cover 100% of the cost of higher-end equipment.

o   I like the idea of incentivizing turning in gas-powered leaf blowers and string trimmers, but that could become too difficult to administer. The Town could instead provide information to applicants about the benefits of switching from gas to electric and provide instructions on how to dispose of old gas-powered equipment.

o   An application period and lottery system if necessary (like the kayak sticker system) would ensure fairness and avoid a rush of applicants looking to apply for the funding before it runs out.

·       I recommend:

o   An incentive of $50 per household, payable upon submittal of an original receipt showing the purchase of an electric string trimmer or leaf blower (corded or battery-powered).

o   The receipt must be dated no earlier than July 1, 2023.

o   Applications will be made available online and at the Library, Senior Center, Town Hall and DPW.

o   Application deadline of Thursday, August 31, 2023 (must be submitted online, dropped off in person and date-stamped, or postmarked no later than August 31). Application form must be accompanied with the receipt showing the purchase on or after July 1, 2023.

o   If 500 or fewer complete applications are received, the Town will mail checks to those applicants. (The Town will open one or more additional application rounds, dates TBD, to distribute the remaining funds)

o   If there are more than 500 applicants, the Town will do a random drawing to determine who receives the incentive.

 

Councilwoman Conway recused herself from the discussion.

 

President Kustell explained that this was not a Council initiative but one that was generated at the 2023 Financial Town Meeting by a Barrington citizen.  His goal is to effectively disincentivize gasoline powered blowers, incentivize electric among residents.

 

Town Manager Hervey stated that the Resilience and Energy Committee made a motion recommending an incentive program.  He said that this is a program that will be difficult to manage because we do not have the staff to track it.  He said we do not know what the impact will be at the recycling center where the batteries will be handed out.  He said that in his TM memo he did recommend $50 but would like to change it to $100 due to additional feedback that he received a few days ago.  The program will allow the resident to be paid per household, upon submittal of the original receipt showing the purchase of an electric string trimmer/leaf blower corded or battery powered.  The receipt must be dated no later, no earlier than July 1 of this year. He said that applications will be made available online and paper copies will be available at other site locations.  Town Manager Hervey stated that the program will be modeled after the kayak sticker program and if we oversubscribed, we would do a drawing until we hit 250 people and the checks would go out after the selection that has been made randomly as we did with the kayak sticker program.  He said that we would like this to be a public education campaign, educating the public that gas powered products are polluting the environment.

 

Discussion ensued regarding the deadline.  Town Manager Hervey explained that we have over 220 people that have signed up to obtain information.

 

Councilwoman Beard discussed that we do not want to provide an incentive beyond what they have paid, and that the language must be drafted in a way that it is not based on the receipt, and it should be clear and is limited. She said that there may be those that have signed up but once the money is spent you may not receive a rebate.  She said she believes the purpose is to promote a public education campaign. She said that the committee also requested that the Council direct the staff to explore match funding for an initiative from the State and Federal sources.

The Town Manager said that he will look further into any match funding.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Michelle Turgeon, 27 Adelaide Avenue, questioned the date that the program will begin on July 1^st and why not May 24^th?

 

Town Manager stated that is when the money is available.

 

TR Rimoshytus, 1 Howard Street, suggested a tax credit and place it with the Tax Assessor’s office.

 

Town Manager Hervey stated that a renter is not eligible.

 

Councilwoman Berard asked for further clarity with why the funds are not available until July 1^st and not retroactive.

 

Town Manager stated that the monies are not available until the start of the fiscal year July 1.  He said that we have stated and placed the date on social media.  The date was announced soon after the FTM.

 

Motion by Councilwoman Berard and seconded by President Kustell to approve the guidelines for the electric leaf blower/string trimmer incentive program as described in the Town Manager’ memo with the clarification that an incentive of $100 not to exceed $100 per household payable upon submittal of the original receipt and limited to the funds of $25,000 that were appropriated at the 2023 Financial Town Meeting and that those applicants will be randomly selected and included  in this is a public education campaign and that staff will explore matching funds for the initiative from state and federal sources.  The motion passed in favor 4-0-1-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, and Councilman Cloutier, no one opposed, one (1) recusal, Councilwoman Conway and no abstentions.

 

AGENDA ITEM #29: DISCUSS AND ACT:  CONSERVATION/CLIMATE RESILIENCY – STANDING AGENDA ITEM FOR TOWN COUNCIL UPDATES AND DIRECTION TO APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE/OFFICIALS

TM Comment: This is a new standing agenda item added at the request of Councilor Conway. Guidance from the Council on this topic would help us prepare for future meetings. Examples of updates the Town can provide include: the Resilient Route 114 Corridor Study, the Tree Inventory Study, the Bay Spring Community Center Climate Resilience Center project, solar initiatives, Walker Farm Recreation and Resilience Improvement Project, the upcoming Climate Action Plan, the Town’s Community Ratings System application with FEMA, etc.

Proposed Motion:  No motion provided.

 

President Kustell commented that this is a very wise move and is the biggest long-term threat to Barrington which can suddenly become a short-term threat depending on a hurricane season.

Councilwoman Conway said that she has no comment today but that we met as a council and identified our priorities, and that climate was the number one goal.  She discussed the progress of other cities and towns with significant changes (Boston’s waterfront will be raised 10 feet, Water Street in Warren and the purchase of a large commercial area that is outside of flooding.  She said that we have a responsibility to our citizens to keep it in the front of our minds.

 

AGENDA ITEM #30: DISCUSS AND ACT:  RECREATION FIELDS AND FACILITIES (R. Humm)

TM Comment: This has been a standing agenda item. The Town is continuing to work on the questions in the Council motion passed at the January 10^th meeting “to explore, on separate but parallel tracks:

1.      whether to build a recreation center in Barrington;

2.      whether to install a synthetic turf field in Barrington; and,

3.      ways to improve the overall maintenance of Barrington’s fields, including whether to develop a dedicated field maintenance team.”

 

The motion further stated the Town should include the following action items (updates in bold):

 

1.      Sending out a survey to residents asking questions and opinions regarding each of the three issues; [Comment: The Town posted an online survey on January 13^th, which was active through February 17^th. The survey generated a total of 787 responses. (Discussed in greater detail in the materials provided to the Council for the March meeting)]

2.      Referring the three issues to all of the Boards and Commissions listed on page 32 of the “Improving Barrington’s Fields and Recreational Facilities” presentation from the January 9, 2023 Town Council meeting, including the School Committee, and in addition to the Conservation Commission and any other appropriate Board or Commission; [Comment: The only comments received to date are from the Economic Development Commission, which passed motions at two separate meetings.

At the Feb. 27^th EDC meeting, the Commission passed a motion recommending the Town make every responsible effort to secure a large enough parcel of land to support a plan for new athletic fields and recreation center with consideration to sell 25 Watson to offset the acquisition of the entire Zion property for that purpose and other uses consistent with the Town’s master plan.   Motion carried (7 in favor of motion, no opposition).

At the January 19^th EDC meeting, the Commission discussed the newest conceptual plan for the development of the Zion site and consideration of the Town to acquire space for a Recreation Center.  The EDC unanimously (9-0) passed the following motion: “The EDC is requesting the Town Council provide a review and comment of drafted survey prior to its release to insure inclusivity of all communities within Barrington and economic impact with consideration to acquire space for a recreation center to help further discussion of the following items:

1.      whether to build a recreation center in Barrington;

2.      whether to install a synthetic turf field in Barrington; and,

3.      ways to improve the overall maintenance of Barrington’s fields, including whether to develop a dedicated field maintenance team.”

3.      holding public workshops to discuss and develop the three issues for public awareness and to solicit public feedback; [Comment: The Council has held two workshops, on February 1^st (fields and rec center discussion) and on April 19^th (specifically on the recreation center/fieldhouse concept.]

4.      commissioning preliminary, efficient, and cost-effective studies by consultants to review the issues involving a recreation center and synthetic turf field, including engineering and other technical studies, feasibility studies, traffic studies, or other reasonable and cost-effective preliminary studies; and, [Comment: The Town has engaged Victus Advisors to complete a Recreation Center/Field House Feasibility Study, and Traverse, a Providence landscape architecture firm, to complete an Athletic Fields Condition and Needs Analysis. Victus will be in Barrington this week (June 7 and 8) to visit sites, meet with the Town, and conduct stakeholder interviews. The Town had a kickoff meeting recently with Traverse to discuss the scope and schedule. More to come…]

5.      obtaining more information on potential locations for a recreation center and synthetic turf field.  [Comment: this question will be examined in the recreation center/fieldhouse study, mentioned above]

 

Field House/Rec Center Update from Victus:

 

Currently right on schedule. Will be completing the comparable facility and trends analysis the week of July 17.

 

Here’s the timeline:

 

 

Once Victus finishes the comps/trends analysis, the next step is to prepare and then present the interim report, which will summarize our market research findings and make initial recommendations regarding the fieldhouse building program.

 

This interim report is an important step in the process, as they prefer to meet with the project steering committee and confirming the findings and recommended building program before proceeding with the additional phases of the analysis (concept/site plans, cost estimates, operating pro forma, funding analysis, etc.). 

 

The interim report presentation will take place in early August. The information on the research and progress will be shared with the outdoor fields consultant, Traverse.

 

Fields Analysis Update by Traverse:

 

1.     Kick-off meeting and field tours completed.

2.     Site visits are about 60% complete.  Traverse still has to complete its site visits to review all facilities.  Tom Irwin Advisors (subconsultant) has completed the initial surveys to get soil samples out as quickly as possible.

4.     Traverse has met with user groups and will start to compile the information into a list of meeting minutes. 

5.     The above information will be used to compile the usage study and some other recommendations. 

6.     Traverse is planning to have another sit-down with DPW to review some of the findings from the user groups and get some feedback on maintenance practices.

7.     Traverse will be reviewing and commenting on the Haines Park field improvements project drawings by Kevin Alverson.

8.     Meeting with Victus next week to share information.

9.     Traverse is prepared to set up field tours, preferably in early August.

 

Traverse has started the following:

 

1.     Building CAD base plans including constraints for every site for development of recommendations.  This will help determine the exact square footage available in town.

2.     Building the hours of use model for the field usage study.

 

Art Eddy of Traverse: “We are still in the investigation stage of the project but, we have started to develop some opinions that we believe will lead to a recommendations list and a plan to move forward.”

 

Fields Tour (Recommended): As part of the Athletic Fields Study, we would like to invite the Council to a walk-through of Town fields as well as a field trip to tour artificial turf fields at East Providence High School. The Traverse team along with the Town administration (DPW included) would be available to answer questions.

This would need to take place in August (I am on vacation 8/4 – 8/9) to keep the project on schedule. This would need to be advertised as a public meeting if attended by a quorum of the Council.

Town Manager Hervey stated that we are making a lot of progress relating to our field house with the Traverse team and the subconsultants really know natural and natural turf fields as well as artificial turf fields.  He said that there is a timeline (see TM memo) for the Fieldhouse Recreation Center study which we will be coordinating between the two studies and that they will be interlinked.  He said that we will be conducting a Public Tour meeting of all the fields with the Council and those who would like to attend to review East Providence High School as an example of a synthetic field (fully recycles, artificial field is behind the building

President Kustell said that we have debated natural turf field vs artificial turf but there is an idea with a hybrid field and we need to explore this option.

Town Manager Hervey said that the Consultant Tom Irwin with the Premier League in England said that these hybrid fields are everywhere in Europe.

President Humm requested that the Council be contacted to hold the tour of the fields.

 

AGENDA ITEM #31. UPDATE:  LIAISON REPORTS

TM Comment: Standing agenda item to provide Council members the opportunity to provide information in their capacity as liaison to various boards, commissions, and organizations.

 

Proposed Motion: No motion provided.

 

No discussion took place.

AGENDA ITEM #32. PUBLIC COMMENT (Maximum 3-minute statement)

To the public:  This agenda item is for members of the public to speak regarding a topic that is not already on the agenda.  Please indicate that you would like to speak by raising your hand.  When you are recognized, please state your name and residency for the record.

 

No one wished to speak.

AGENDA ITEM #33: SET AGENDA FOR THE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2023, TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

·       Discuss and Act:  Spencer Trust at 6:30pm

·       Day of Caring Presentation to Council

·       Discuss and Act:  Boards/Commissions and Departments regarding the Ordinance Requirement for Additional Local Training with the Bay Team and Economic Development Committee (continued from 6-5-23)

·       Discuss and Act:  Town’s Cannabis Public Use Ordinance and Policy, Including a Potential Motion for Referral (K. Berard)

·       Good Energy to return in January 2024 to discuss rates.

·       Discuss and Act on 25 Watson continued to September 11, 2023, and to set up special meetings.

·       Community Engagement Package (R. Humm)

 

 

ADJOURN:

Motion by Vice President Humm and seconded by Councilwoman Conway to adjourn the Open Session at 11:10PM.  The motion passed in favor 5-0-0-0, President Kustell, Vice President Humm, Councilwoman Berard, Councilman Cloutier, and Councilwoman Conway, no one opposed, no recusals and no abstentions.

 

___________________________________________

Meredith J. DeSisto, CMC, Barrington Town Clerk