North Smithfield council approves phased 'Option 2' work package for police station; staff told to ready bid documents

The North Smithfield Town Council on Oct. 15 voted unanimously to authorize a phased, no‑renovation base package of work for the Bushey School police station and to direct staff to prepare bid documents and confirm funding sources.

The council’s action followed a presentation from SignaWorks architect Eric Ermey, who summarized a consolidation of four prior studies and a 15‑line-item set of scope packages that the firm says can be mixed and matched depending on the town’s budget and long‑term plans. "There is that $1,000,000 grant ... use it or lose it, spend the money by the end of 2025," Ermey said, urging the council to consider near‑term items that align with available grant requirements.

Why it matters: Council members emphasized they want to use available grant money and avoid immediately returning to voters for a large bond. Several members said Option 2 — which focuses on exterior repairs and systems upgrades rather than immediate interior renovation — best balances cost, disruption and value while preserving the option to renovate later. "Option 2 is probably our best bet right now," an attending council member said during debate.

What the package includes: SignaWorks grouped the 15 scope items into exterior work (windows, doors, repaving, lighting), systems replacement (HVAC, mechanical, communications, fire alarm) and full renovation options (reconfiguration of detention cells, new elevator and accessibility upgrades). The firm estimated a full, all‑in renovation at about $17.1–17.2 million; scaled combinations of the most essential items could fall in the $5–6 million range, while the no‑renovation/base scope the council approved was presented with an estimated range of $2,700,000 to $4,500,000.

Code and safety questions: Council members asked whether partial renovations would trigger full‑building code upgrades (the so‑called 50% threshold) or require sprinkler systems. Ermey said pathways exist to maintain compliance for existing public‑safety buildings and that some life‑safety work can be staged; he also recommended planning alternates so the town can add items if additional funds or grants become available.

Votes and next steps: The motion to approve the no‑renovation/base scope was moved and seconded and carried on a roll call vote: Mister Beauregard (yes), Miss Hamilton (yes), Miss O'Hara (yes), Mister Osher (yes), Miss House (yes). Council directed staff to: (1) confirm exact available grant amounts and how much the general fund can contribute (finance staff/Steve Massaroni to be consulted); (2) share scope details with the town’s grant writer to pursue additional funding; (3) prepare and return bid‑ready documents for the approved package and a proposed RFP for an owner’s project manager. The council scheduled a follow‑up agenda item to confirm funding and to authorize paying for bid documents.

Public comment and outreach: The council opened the meeting for public comment before final motions; members of the public asked about alternative ways to prioritize safety‑related work (for example making the lower‑level detainee-area upgrades an add‑alternate). Presenters said add‑alternates could be structured in the bid documents so the town can select them if funding allows.

What remains unresolved: The council did not adopt a single final scope of alternates for bid packages; it asked staff and SignaWorks to return quickly with bid‑document language and confirmed funding figures. Council members signaled a preference for Option 2 as the practical near‑term path while keeping open future renovation or construction options.

The town plans to return the item to the council agenda at the next meeting so members can vote to authorize funding for bid documents and, if desired, to refine add‑alternates before going to bid.