NORTH SMITHFIELD – Town councilors unanimously passed the first reading of an ordinance this week to fund renovations of the North Smithfield police station with the help of a voter-approved bond not to exceed $9 million.
The resolution will require a second reading, expected on Monday, Dec. 1, and Town Administrator Scott Gibbs said the final version could change before the question is officially approved to appear on a ballot for a vote.
“That could be changed to $8 million next week,” Gibbs said.
The early vote to move forward followed extensive discussion of the plan Monday night regarding how the town should fund the long needed renovations to the century-old former schoolhouse that serves as department headquarters. Gibbs noted the town has roughly $10 million in reserves available, and is set to retire significant debt in the next two years, leaving plenty of room for potential borrowing.
“Theoretically, the additional debt liability that we’re putting on the town in principal interest payments is actually significantly below the savings that we’re going to get because we paid off debt,” he said. “With that being said, we always have to be aware of the fact that there are going to be other demands on the community.”
“Whether you’re balancing your own checkbook or the finances of the town, we all have to make decisions,” Gibbs added.
Steve Maceroni of PFM Financial Advisors told councilors that the town is in a good position to borrow the funding needed for construction.
“There is debt capacity for future issues – for future priorities for the town,” Maceroni said.
The advisor noted that North Smithfield could also spend up to $4 million of the current reserves without impacting its bond rating.
“I know it’s a balancing act. You have a tough job,” said Maceroni. “You have this money in the bank and it serves you well. You have a lot of capacity to issue debt.”
Asked directly what he would recommend, Maceroni replied, “I would lean toward issuing more debt than less debt. The other factor is rates aren’t excessively high.”
“I would lean toward more debt and less fund balance,” he added.
Residents in attendance at the meeting on Monday, Nov. 10 expressed some concerns with the bond proposal. In 2023, voters rejected a ballot question for spending of up to $18 million for construction of a new police station, a decision that led to the current plan for renovations.
Former Town Administrator and Councilor Paulette Hamilton asked what will happened if the new bond question, tentatively scheduled to go before voters in a special election this February, also fails.
“This could go on forever,” said Hamilton. “If it doesn’t get passed in February, we’re going to have a problem on our hands.”
Resident Richard Grubb cited more than a dozen projects in town that currently need attention.
“We need to consider all of the possible expenditures and then develop a plan,” said Grubb. “You need to set priorities. We have not done that in this town. I think it’s been fiscally irresponsible.”
Resident Michael Clifford pointed to a separate $12 bond passed by voters in 2014 – a portion of which was set to be used to fund police station renovations. Implementation of the projects planned at the time, which also included school improvements, work on the historic Memorial Town Hall and renovations of the former Kendall Dean School building that now serves as Town Hall, ultimately proved controversial, with a new council stepping in and changing direction in 2016, saying funding left for the station was inadequate.
“Every time we do that we get burnt,” said Clifford. “Most people in town feel like we’ve paid for this thing five times over now.”
His sentiment was later addressed by Police Chief Tim Lafferty, who pointed to work on the building that has been completed with the funding. The town’s insurer, Rhode Island Interlocal Risk Management Trust, issued notice to the town in 2023 that the town was at risk of losing coverage due to deterioration of the Smithfield Road police station structure.
In the time since, the 2014 bond money has been used for roof repairs, repointing of brick masonry, removal of a granite sign at risk of falling off the building, work to the handicap ramp, sealing of leaks and more.
“That money was spent for that because the insurance made the town do it,” said Lafferty.
Gibbs noted that the town still has more than $353,000 left of the 2014 funding, which has also been spent on architects and other soft costs related to the project.
“We’ve used that bond to fund this project to date,” agreed Councilor Rebecca DeCristofaro.
Monday’s discussion followed the recent return of estimates for the police station renovation that showed costs ranging from $5.4 million to $8.39 million. ECC Corporation has recommended that the town hire Pariseault Builders of Cranston for the work, noting that the base project is expected to cost around $6 million, with another $3 million in “add alternates,” and also needs contingency funding. A vote on a contract with Pariseault is expected to be held on Monday, Nov. 17.
This week, councilors’ main focus was on if renovation funding should come from the town’s unrestricted fund balance, a hybrid of cash plus bonds, or issuing the full amount as bonds.
“We have so many projects in town that our general fund could theoretically fund,” said DeCristofaro, pointing to items such as roads and sidewalks. “Why not save that general fund to be able to enhance our town? We’re hearing and we know that there are other projects and there are other needs in town.”
“I agree,” said Councilor John Beauregard, pointing to the need for improvements to water lines in Union Village. “I would not be keen on exhausting our reserves. We better maintain our reserves for emergencies, which is exactly what they’re intended for.”
Maceroni said there would be no real benefit to using a small amount of the reserves such as $1 million on the station project.
Gibbs noted that if a $9 million bond question ultimately moves forward, the town will not necessarily have to pull the full amount, and can still look for grants for things such as equipment and fixtures.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said.
The full roughly $9 million renovation would include addition of a sallyport to the building, as well as an elevator costing around $500,000. Still up for debate is whether the building could instead utilize an ADA lift and still be in compliance.
“If we’re told we do not need an elevator then we look at the other options,” said Councilor David Punchak. “We have to do everything we possibly can to help ensure success of this bond.”
Lafferty urged councilors on Monday to move forward with the plan.
“It’s for the next chief and the officers that serve the town,” the chief said. “The whole building needs to be brought up to code. It’s a public building. The council needs to make that decision for full renovation, and I think the town will be behind it.”
Unlike the last bond, which then Councilor Hamilton and Council President Kimberly Alves came out against just before the vote, Lafferty said that this time, “Every councilor in the town should be behind the project and be happy about it.”
“I think that would go a long way with town residents,” he said.
“I don’t think anyone can say that the station does not need a full renovation,” agreed Alves. “It needs to get done as soon as possible.” T
“The amount of money we’re putting out there now versus what we were putting out there before – big difference,” said Alves of 2023’s failed $18 million bond question. “The building is going to be beautiful. It’s going to look great.”
“It’s going to have everything you’re going to need,” Alves told Lafferty.
“Let’s take action. Let’s put it forward,” agreed Lafferty. “I have confidence in the residents in the town.”
This project should have been finished years ago when the money was approved by the voters! But there are some, and you know who you are that kept putting this off, KICKING the can down the road in the hopes of getting the 18-million-dollar Taj Mahal. Just like what happened with the middle school many years ago. The towns voters turned it down, and then low and behold it came back, and we had a 20-million-dollar school rammed down our throats. I am sure the same tactic was on the mind of the person who keeps harping on this new police station. I am very happy I moved out of this very backwards way of doing things many years ago. My wallet and bank account could not afford this town any longer!
This has become a big joke. A solid AFFORDABLE $5M tops budget needs to be approved and not just a bucket of money that the fiscally irresponsible Gibbs and council can waste on whatever they please. The financial advisor is out to just make a buck and have the town borrow as much as it can so the banker gets his big commission so all of his statements should be ignored. Second Gibbs should not be trusted with a slush fund of $3 million because we all know what a prior administrator did with those funds. He spent them inappropriately on his pet projects that yielded zero cost benefit.
Now for Councilor John Beauregard, pointing to the need for improvements to water lines in Union Village. “I would not be keen on exhausting our reserves. We better maintain our reserves for emergencies, which is exactly what they’re intended for.” This is the problem with the statement, town reserves are not for the water lines. Water lines and water improvements are paid for by the people who receive water services and not by the people who provide there own water.
Lastly the police department has not proven to be a high functioning trust worthy group. The police chief is never available or ever returns phone message for taxpayers police issues. The department has had too many personnel and legal issues. And third the majority of the officers make over $150,000 annually (just request the W2’s from 2024 to verify). So until the police department proves that they are deserving of an expensive facility I would not through good money at a poorly functioning department. And last a new building will not improve police performance one bit. And to quote the police chief the Mayberry jail housed some notable criminals unlike the NS police station. A jail cell is not meant to be the Ritz Carlton.
In regards to Mr. Beauregard’s comment: He was specifically discussing if it was an emergency – like a break in the line. That may not have been clear from the part quoted, and I don’t want any misconceptions created from what’s published.
If there is a break in a line the funds still have to come from the water budget and not the general fund. Emergency or not people receiving water services need to pay for the water, maintenance, and emergency fixes.
We are already paying water taxes to the City of Woonsocket and everyone in town is aware of the issues. Apparently, it keeps Scott Gibbs awake at night…now JB is on the bandwagon…this is news. The water pressure is so low that tankers need to be brought in to fight fires. I’m not sure that anyone in town really cares about Union Village, as every effort in town concentrates on Slatersville. Now we will have flags for the parade. We used to have banners in Union Village. We need to prioritize by need, not want. Residents must come first, not any special projects that somehow benefit the business corridor of 146 or those that push an essentially new police station. As someone previously noted, how much money has already been spent?
Thank you for covering this subject. I am grateful our Town Council determined this is their first priority of the open issues in town. I think it’s great that they actually picked ANYthing as their first priority. This potential bond referendum is superior to the last one in my opinion because number one, it is for half as much, and number two, it will be written better and more precisely.
There is a red flag. This referendum is being cobbled together in a bigger rush than the last one. if everything goes smoothly the referendum will be ready for a ballot in February. It may be difficult to educate and motivate voters to get to the polls regardless of how they feel about the expenditure. Last time Kim Alves expressed concern there may be a very small percentage of our citizens determining the fate of a significant Capital expense. This iteration could be worse.