Tiverton council debates rescinding resolution seeking state review of two water districts

At a council meeting, Tiverton Town Councilors considered rescinding Resolution 2025-006, which asked the Rhode Island General Assembly to examine a merger or other legislative action involving two local water authorities. Councilor Janek moved to rescind the February resolution; the motion drew discussion on infrastructure, bonding and whether the town or the Legislature should lead any change.

The issue topped the agenda and prompted comments from Attorney Tremblay, who said he had submitted a letter to the council and urged caution. "I wrote a letter to the council because it's a concerning issue for our district," Tremblay said, adding the matter needed an impact statement because "there's financial difficulties involved in this matter." He warned that voters and taxpayers should see analyses before the town forwards legislative requests.

The rescission effort grew from councilors' concern that the February vote authorizing the request to the General Assembly was premature. Councilor Janek, who moved to rescind, said the liaisons to the two water bodies gathered material indicating the matter requires more study. "Of the numerous emails and correspondence I've received, there have been 0 that were in favor of this," Janek said, calling the February decision made without sufficient research or interboard discussion.

Councilor De Maderas, a liaison to both entities, described infrastructure differences between the two systems and stressed the need for collaboration. She said North Tiverton operates mostly as a distribution system with a larger tax base and an active pipe-replacement program, while Stonebridge runs an older treatment plant and has a smaller customer base. "There was so much more to learn. I think this was so premature," De Maderas said. She noted Stonebridge has asbestos-cement pipe in some lines but, according to officials she spoke with, the pipe is not currently presenting an immediate public-health danger unless damaged.

Councilor Burke said he would not have supported the earlier resolution and urged that disagreements be resolved by the water authorities themselves, with the town facilitating discussion through the administrator. Councilor Paul said the February action helped spur conversation between the districts and said Representative Jay Edwards had assured him he would meet both districts before drafting any bill; Paul said he planned to vote to rescind but emphasized he supported continued talks.

Several councilors and speakers raised financial and technical uncertainties: Attorney Tremblay and others referenced roughly $4,000,000 in outstanding bonds and said audits require reporting of events that could affect bond covenants. De Maderas reported a preliminary engineering step is underway: a hydraulic model and an engineering study that she and others said should inform any decision. She cited local estimates discussed in meetings — for example, a 40-year-old main line and a quoted $17 million cost to build a viable physical connection, and a much larger, cited $80 million–$100 million figure to upgrade older treatment-plant infrastructure — and urged the council to await formal cost and engineering analyses.

Councilors also discussed wholesale water prices reported during meetings: De Maderas said officials reported Stonebridge charges about $4.50 per 1,000 gallons to supply other systems, while purchase costs from Fall River were described differently in the meeting records and required verification. Multiple speakers emphasized the contractual complexity of water rights and purchases involving Fall River and long-standing agreements that limit how much water Tiverton can draw.

The council debated whether the town or the General Assembly should lead any change. Some councilors said the entities are quasi‑municipal corporations created by the legislature and therefore legislative action may be required; others said the town should exhaust local options — including redistricting, revised transmission fees, or negotiated contracts — before pursuing a legislative solution.

The meeting record shows a motion to rescind Resolution 2025-006 was placed on the floor and put to a vote; the transcript captures abstentions and remarks but does not record a final roll-call tally or a completed outcome in the public minutes excerpt. Several councilors repeatedly urged follow-up steps: complete the hydraulic model and engineering report, convene both water boards with town leadership and the administrator, and obtain clear, documented cost estimates and contract terms before forwarding any proposal to the General Assembly.

What happens next remains procedural: Representative Jay Edwards was reported to have told council members he would consult both districts before drafting any bill; council members said they expect to review any draft and to press for local input. Councilors called for transparent, documented financial and engineering analyses to guide any future decision about redistricting, merger or other structural change affecting Stonebridge and North Tiverton water service and their ratepayers.

The meeting included extended discussion and several requests for additional documentation; the transcript excerpt ends with the motion on the floor described but without a recorded final vote result in the available text.