NORTH SMITHFIELD – Town voters could now have a three-part decision to make when heading to the special election polls this fall to also help decide the 1st Congressional District seat.
Presenting options to the Town Council on Monday as requested, bond counsel Ellen Corneau said a bond referendum for a new police station, instead of just having yes or no answers on borrowing to build a new one or rejecting it, could have another option tucked in the middle: renovation of an existing building.
No matter what they decide, town leaders need to do it soon, Corneau urged, as the General Assembly session is drawing nearer to an end. It was revealed Monday that no local leaders have reached out to North Smithfield’s General Assembly delegation about potential enabling legislation needed for a bond question.
More specifically, the questions would be to approve developing a new police station with general obligation bonds, not to exceed a certain number; to renovate an existing building, not to exceed another number, also to be determined; or to not approve either option A or B.
Corneau said it’s rarely if ever done this way, so as not to confuse voters, but she was comfortable with the wording that it’s clear, and she would be able to draft a bond counsel letter in support.
Councilor Douglas Osier warned of what could happen if North Smithfield doesn’t have the proper cost estimate on the ballot for a renovation, saying the town could again be stuck with not being able to move forward with a project if the numbers are off.
Osier also questioned what happens if voters choose the third option, as he believes doing neither a renovation nor a new police station is viable, with the town potentially squandering “hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars” over the years to do nothing in the end.
“Doing nothing is not a good solution,” he said, mentioning potential price tags of $18 million for a new station or $15 million for a renovated one.
But Corneau said they are required to have an option to reject the bond, just as they would on a typical two-part question.
“That’s their option,” she said of voters.
Corneau added that most bonds of late haven’t been enough to cover building costs due to inflation and other market conditions, and communities are having to turn to other solutions to fill the gap.
Osier said the town absolutely needs to nail down all-in costs on renovation. If they determine it’s $8 million, but all kinds of asbestos in the current station is found and the price tag jumps to $12 million, then they’ll be in a familiar position again, “grossly under” on the cheaper option, with “a lot of angry voters.”
Paul Vadenais, head of the Municipal Buildings Review Task Force, agreed, saying this has happened on multiple projects in the past, only to spend years trying to fix the resulting headaches.
Councilor Paulette Hamilton said she’d still like to get an update on 2014 estimates for a renovation, saying the more current estimates from Tecton Architects are “not an apples-to-apples” comparison because the more recent one includes an addition.
Either way, said Council President Kim Alves, residents who are going to have their taxes impacted need to have all the information before them, including an option for renovation.
Vadenais urged the council to stick to two options, saying the previous council already made the determination not to pursue a renovation.
“Most of the process we’ve been going for is new construction,” he said, adding that if they want to give people several choices, they need to decide what they want to do. No matter what direction they go, said Vadenais, they should ask for the highest amount of money possible, but he urged them not to throw out all the work that’s been done over the years. Three members of the current council were on the council that made the decision not to pursue a renovation, he said. He said the question as proposed now will be very confusing for voters.
Hamilton repeated his words that it was the previous council that went in that direction, not this one.
Responding to Alves and her suggestions that the town might want to wait until next year to involve more voters in the general election, Vadenais said doing that will push the costs way higher.
“Waiting another year is going to add millions of dollars to this project,” he said.
Vadenais said the task force is full of serious experts with billions of dollars in projects under their belt, and the council should be trusting them on this project.
In prepared written comments, Vadenais ripped residents who have personally attacked this board and accused members of lying for presenting factual information, continuing to push “disinformation at worst and grossly misleading” information at best. He urged the council to “not become stooges to this buffoonery.”
If the question includes renovating a building, Vadenais said it should very explicitly describe what it would take to get the building to current codes and policing standards, saying the town can’t just renovate another building but must have a renovation/addition to accommodate everything from weapons storage, evidence storage and records storage to holding cells. The current police station building, the former Bushee School on Smithfield Road, can’t accommodate that, he said.
Vadenais urged the council to stop worrying about if the ballot fails, but to put their energy into making sure there’s a positive outcome.
Councilor Claire O’Hara agreed with Vadenais, saying costs will balloon if the town waits. She thanked him for his continued diligent service, saying the town could never afford to pay him for all his work. She said the majority of people don’t believe the way a few critics do.
Councilor John Beauregard echoed that, saying members don’t deserved to be called liars and other names.
Also Monday, Town Administrator Paul Zwolenski updated the council on four grants that are moving forward for consideration, including a $20 million potential federal appropriation being worked on by Sen. Jack Reed for funding of a new police station. This is anything but a done deal, he said, but it’s a positive step in the right direction.
Council members discussed whether a town vote to limit the police station to a renovation could disrupt that potential award, agreeing that language should reflect the potential acquisition.
Hamilton asked what led to the potential federal appropriation, and Zwolenski said it went back to when it was being discussed alongside a grant for a new senior center with Congressman David Cicilline and the senior center grant came through and the police station one was turned down. They received notice to apply for the grant again this year, he said, and much of the work was done previously, so the police chief resubmitted it for U.S. Senate consideration. Other potential grants for $1 million toward the Halliwell Elementary School site and $1.4 million to extend water lines on Saint Paul Street kicked into gear during grant writer Lisa Andoscia’s temporary stint with the town, he said.
(6) comments
Tom Devito do you think chances for approval would be greater if a major real estate development company, and campaign contributor, was requesting favorable action on the towns request would be effective? If it was a contributor who supports candidates from both parties making the request?
Mike I agree it is possible but I do not think a $20 million project is enough money to call in a political favor. Also there are only a couple of companies in RI that would have made a significant political contribution.
How can the town council not carry out a voters approved project? Seems a bit strange. Also no grant money will be coming from the federal government because 1st the debt ceiling issue will come with some cuts to spending, 2nd Jack Reed is not on the committee that issues these grants, 3rd Jack Reed has little to no influence in congress, and 4th the republicans control the house and will never approve money for a democratic state. Let’s face it Paul Z and John B the taxpayers are not going to approve your Taj Mahal police station and no magic money will be coming from the federal government.
If someone makes a statement which isn’t true or is very misleading, I typically attempt to get recognized immediately to challenge the false claim and set the record straight. Mr. Vadenais should follow the same practice rather than making his claim after the fact, without even naming the individual or stating exactly what statement was allegedly false. I have accused some of our leaders of lying and making misleading statements and this article about the bond question offers a great example. For months I suggested offering voters options on the ballot question but was told it wasn’t possible for one silly reason or another. When the claim was made that Bond Counsel Corneau would not approve of it, I challenged the claim and asked for a copy of the letter sent by Ms. Corneau. Her letter did not say it could not be used; she actually requested a draft of the proposed ballot question to review in order to make a determination. Didn’t those responses from our “leaders” represent a classic example of what Mr. Vadenais refers to as “disinformation at worst and grossly misleading information at best”? Mike Clifford
Too bad nobody on the Council asked Ms. Corneau her legal opinion about ignoring the will of the people on the vote of a previous bond issue. Also, any alleged expert that states that the existing building can't be rehabbed is really not an expert. It is also likely that construction costs will decline over the next few years as recession sets in and the congressional pork money dries up a bit.
They can add all the questions to the ballot they want ! They will DO as THEY please regardless of the taxpayers wishes. They have already proven that while IGNORING the vote of years ago to RENOVATE the current police building !
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Comments that will be deleted include:
- Those that include threatening, derogatory, obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
This includes any name-calling/nicknames of people both on the local and national level.
- Those with accusations or allegations that can’t be proven, or that try to build a negative narrative about one person or entity
over time through a clearly coordinated campaign. If you believe the backstory really needs to be shared,
send us a letter to the editor or a story pitch with your name and contact information.
- Those with outright lies or falsehoods.
Please use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know if you believe a comment was allowed in error.What we at The Breeze would truly like to see are comments that add history and context to a story or that use criticism constructively.