And this is a 90% reduction.

Memo addressed to Nicole from Ali Spox who is here.

Um outlining the bond reduction and this would be uh reduction of the cost of 1 million 225, $72.16, leaving the 10% surety of $136,624.

And there is a uh small issue with this.

At the bottom of page one, there's a note that the town and developer are working together to assess the five distant street lights that are shown on the approved plan.

The street lights were not included in the process in the bottom.

They were not proposed as the town assets proposed as a facility-owned lights.

I don't know if Ali or Nicole wants to expand on this, but my understanding is that the utility as it's transferred from national grid over to Rhode Island Energy no longer wants to be in the supplying of lights business.

Right, they're no longer in the street light business.

So we're sort of in a middle of nowhere land where this was not considered a public improvement because it was not something we had any responsibility for.

Um there's a lot of different things that have happened in this particular phase over this time period.

Um National Grid nor the developer could produce any documentation showing who should have done what, what the responsibilities were.

So it is our opinion, and we've sat down with Matt on this a couple of times that at this time we have to, right?

We have to get these lights in at some point.

Our intention is if we can withhold, I think it's about 46,000 to install those five street lights.

Uh it's at least a negotiation piece that we can work with them to to get those lights in place.

Nicole these just I don't remember everything that happened about L D.

The street lights were shown on the approved uh shown on the plan.

So they're part of the construction plan set, they're part of the approved plan set.

Um they just have they've not been installed.

So the number of other ones were I think there's eight out there now.

And so there's five that were not installed, but eight had been.

And ultimately the developers responsible for whatever's on the approved development plan.

It really wouldn't be our job to worry about how they got them or who they got them from.

There's different options available to them.

That's true.

The issue is that we're just we're in a a tough spot because the you know, nobody's taking responsibility, they no longer do this work.

Um we have we have taken over street lights for the remainder of town, so we're in a salt where we've just got to figure out we've literally just had to figure out these five lights.

Well for the sake of simple math, uh my suggestion would be fifty thousand dollars to be removed from the reduction under the miscellaneous column, leaving a balance of four thousand four hundred five dollars and eighteen to be reduced.

And then that would become a surety held under the miscellaneous six thousand zero forty-five oh two.

Miscellaneous might be the most appropriate.

Uh that would change the reduction to one million seventy-nine thousand five.

Say that again.

I was just gonna take fifty thousand off of the see.

I would have to go up.

That would become one one two zero nine seven nine above it.

Uh that changes the contingency.

We get fifty-six oh forty-eight ninety-six.

No.

Um, did you end up with one seven seven zero two eight one six?

Yes.

That would be the final.

And that would leave us holding a grand total of one eight nine one one four two four.

Yes.

Never underestimate an older man in his abacus.

Okay.

Uh for clarity, we would be recommending a reduction in the mil in the amount of one million one hundred seventy-seven thousand twenty-eight dollars and sixteen cents with a total surety being held of one hundred eighty-nine thousand one hundred fourteen dollars and twenty-four cents.

I'll make that as a motion.

Motion the second.

Is there any discussion?

That was Tracy and Matt, are you and Nicole comfortable with that?

The question of resolving the street light issue.

Is this planning staff being given the authority to do that?

Yes.

I I think that ultimately if it's on the site development plan, unless the director wants to modify it for some reason or feels the need to bring it back, it's the developer's obligation to construct whatever's on the plan.

But if they want to do some sort of a resolution that's short of what's on the plan, is that something that staff can do, or should we brought back to the uh to the commission?

I do too.

That's what I'm saying.

Is that some I I would be comfortable with staff resolving it?

I think it's uh good.