Welcome to the North End, Ellen.

Thanks for hospitality.

Madam Clerk, want to do the roll call, please?

David Carlin.

Lynn Underwood Sagley.

Charlie Holder.

Here.

Side Camps of Oravong.

Jean Marie Napolitano.

Ellen Pinnock.

Stephanie Smythe.

Here.

There is a quorum present, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

We stand for Pledge of Allegiance.

Madam Clerk, anyone here for the Citizens Forum?

Yes, Paul Donovan.

Good evening.

I'll just say your name and address for us, please.

I'm here tonight to address the 525 Broadway LLC Planning Board decision.

Just do me a favor to state your name and address for the record.

Paul Donovan, 530 Broadway, Newport.

Good.

Okay.

And if I might, I would like to present my written statement.

Sure.

I would make a motion to receive.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Would you like to read it?

I can I can read it or I can just respond to it if you want to review it, whatever you prefer.

Do you want to just highlight any notes that you have that you wanted to discuss?

All of my thoughts on the situation taking place with the planning board procedures.

Well, I since this is public comment, I think you should read at least some of the paragraphs that members of the council.

I would like to formally request that the Newport City Council review the decisions made by the Planning Board on September 8, 2025 regarding variances in special use permits for the 525 Broadway LLC project.

Most Newport residents have stated they do not oppose the workforce housing at this location, but we were mostly ignored when objecting to this unsafe conditions this commercial complex will create as presented.

The architect testified that tenants would mainly walk, take buses, or ride bikes and scooters, while at the same time the traffic engineer stated he determined this complex will create an additional 1,800 vehicle trips per week entering and exiting this very busy section of Broadway.

The planning board instructed the developer to make a reasonable effort to provide additional parking.

This was a mere suggestion and not a firm requirement for receiving any variance.

If any of the 38 units have more than one vehicle or have guests, the allotted 41 parking spaces of the 76 that should be required will fall short and send vehicles across Broadway to take the already scarce parking spaces in the neighborhood.

If this happens, the risk of someone getting hit by a vehicle while walking back across this busy section of Broadway, especially after dusk, should be extremely concerning to everyone.

Before any variances or special use permits are granted, it should be mandatory that the developer provides at least 48 guaranteed on-site permanent parking spaces.

The developer suggested that he will provide five spaces at his Calvert property located a mile away, which the chair of the board described as laughable, and I agree.

Current zoning laws only allowed 13 units on this property if a uh variance is granted to allow medium density multifamily housing in this R10 area as suggested by the comprehensive land use plan.

That's the main subject.

And just I'm going to just throw the secondary subject in, was how we were treated by the planning board, which I consider and myself all this very disrespectful.

The planning board did not provide Newport residents with adequate time to comment on either of the two applications submitted by the 525 Broadway project.

It seemed intentional.

The application information was not posted on the city website until the Thursday prior to both of the meetings that were held.

If residents wanted their comments into entered into the record and read at the meeting, they were required to be submitted no later than 4 p.m.

on the Wednesday before the information was even posted.

On the first application, which also involved Middletown, I found out that the materials were sitting in the planning department office the week before the meeting.

I went to the office, obtained the application information, opened an account on the next door app and notified area residents.

Many of whom told me if I hadn't done that, they would never have known the planning board meeting with even held.

While there in that office, the Director of Planning told me that the planning board staff and council were in full support of the project because there was nowhere else to build them.

And I'm just going to close with a quote from one of the next door contributors.

So there is no discussion on the simple facts that this project violates the zoning laws.

It seems wrong to allow this proposal to be taken seriously.

If zoning laws need to be changed, let's change them.

But let's not encourage other developers to do what this man did, which is buy land unworkable for this project, and just assume he can railroad citizen boards into his profits before the law.

I don't get it.

Thank you, Paul.

Okay.

Appreciate it.

Anybody else, General Clerk?

Okay.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

We have motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve an annual entertainment license renewal, class A, indoor the Wharf Pub, Newport, LLC, doing business as Wharf Southern Kitchen, 37 phones wharf.

Second.

All right.

So motion and second on a renewal of an entertainment license.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve a bittling license, new owner, Tomb Army RI, LLC doing business as Kelly's Cafe and Pantry 27 Connell Highway.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Yes.

Council of Paul Sign.

I just want to welcome them to the neighborhood.

And I wish you a lot of success.

I am very happy that there is another cafe going in in that area.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to adjourn as counsel and convene as Board of Licensed Commissioners.

Second.

Motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

All right.

Motion and second.

All is in favor?

Aye.

Motion to adjourn is Board of Licensed Commissioners and Convenus Council.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Appointments to boards and commissions, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

So first up was our sister city commission.

We have three appointments.

First one, Michael Murray for a three-year term expiring 4-24, 2026.

Second.

We have a motion and seconds.

Any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Next is Michelle Gallagher, another three-year term expiring 424, 2026.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Joseph Lowe, three-year term expiring 424, 2026.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And just for uh clarification, I know the three-year terms where they do expire next year is because they are taking up terms of people who have previously either resigned or had their one-year term had expired.

So I don't want you to think there's a miscalculation.

Okay, so we have two reappointments for the historic cemetery advisory commission.

First up, Lou Keene request for his term as extension as chair.

Three-year term expiring 1026, 2028.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

James Lappin, three-year term expiring 1026, 2028.

Second.

Motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Public sculpture commission.

Four appointments here.

We have Paul Miller, three-year term expiring 10-11, 2028.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Harley H.

Tinney, three-year term expiring 1011, 2028.

Second.

Motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Nancy Grinnell, three-year term expiring 10-11, 2028.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Paul Zapari, three-year term expiring 10-11, 2028.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

And Trust and Investment Commission.

We have Meg Dodge.

Five-year term expiring 1013, 2030.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Communications from the city manager.

Memorandum from the city manager request for council nominations for the 2027 comprehensive plan update advisory committee.

Mr.

Chair.

I don't think I got I let her in.

Okay, attached is a memorandum from the Director of Planning and Development requesting each counselor to nominate one person from the community to serve as an advisory committee member in regard to the 2027 comprehensive plan update.

A description of the committee along with a scheduled timeline is provided.

This is a memorandum from the this is not to be voted on.

This is just a memorandum.

Move to accept.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith?

So we're just accepting this tonight, but we're not actually discussing the contents of it.

We can discuss it for sure.

Okay.

Yeah, I just had a couple of questions.

Um one sec before you go.

So I don't see Trish Reynolds here.

Are you taking that's correct?

Director Crane is here in the place about.

Thank you.

Director.

Council May.

So how much are we paying interface again for this?

Uh Teresa Crean, Director of Resilience Sustainability.

The contractors for $300,000.

$300.

Okay.

Um what's the difference between what we're paying interface to do and what the advisory committee will be tasked with?

So most comprehensive plans that I've been involved with in the past does have a community-based advisory committee, so that you're not relying on consultants from out of town or from who do consulting work who aren't based and rooted in the community.

We want to have that ground truth experience from people who live here, work here, and participate in the community, be in key informants to a comprehensive plan process to make sure that the comprehensive plan is representative of the residents and citizens of Newport.

So the work that they'll be doing will be to ground truth all the work the consultant team does to provide input and feedback to also be a voice for this plan in the community to make sure that nobody comes back to us in a year saying, I didn't know anything about this.

We want to make sure we get the word out to as many people as possible for public engagement throughout this process.

And that the comprehensive plan committee will assist with that, as well as any draft products and questions that the consultant team has can be vetted with this committee to make sure that they, the consultant team is using the best available information from New Porters.

So have we engaged our other commissions to see which ones would like to weigh in or work with interface?

I'm just wondering why we're doing a separate advisory group when we have all of our boards and commissions that could potentially do the same thing.

Oh, I'm sorry, I have it right here.

On page two of your memo.

We have planning board members, a representative from climate resiliency, North End Community, Energy and Environment Commission, Transportation, Business and Economic Development, and then two to three general community representatives.

That can absolutely be made up of members of our boards and commissions.

But this is an opportunity for you as the council to nominate who you want to have serve on this committee to make sure again that this plan is rooted in what new porters want to see.

And I'm just wondering why is why is Council being asked to nominate people versus just soliciting the community to ask them to apply to be on this commission?

Because to me, Council nominating people that there's a level of bias there that I think that if you want the full picture of what the community actually thinks and represents, I would think that we want to reach out to the entire community and say, hey, who's interested in providing feedback on this?

I can't speak for how Director Reynolds um put forward this idea, but it is not uncommon.

It's not there are different ways you can address this situation, this um opportunity to engage with the community.

So if that is the desire of council to have an open application process, it is more um it will be an extra uh level of effort to vet any applications that come in, and we may still come back to you and say, here's our short list, who do you want?

Um so I think that we need to consider that, but it's if that's the direction that the council would like to go in, I believe um staff are open to that.

Okay.

How many uh total um people do you expect on this particular commission?

Twenty to twenty-five.

Twenty to twenty-five.

Okay.

Yes.

Because I it's very similar to the last time.

I agree with what you've said, you know, in terms of uh a good cross-section of the community, um, particularly when we're looking at the future.

So thank you.

Council Sai.

Thanks for presenting this this evening.

We appreciate it.

Sure.

Is there a typical practice that we see in other communities, a best practice, i.e., maybe we've talked about League of Cities and Towns, maybe the Association of State Planners with regards to how we go about selecting the members to serve on this committee.

And the reason I asked this is um we just went through a great slew of appointments.

And so if we're interviewing for things like the Sister City Commission, uh, which is obviously important advisory, certainly a commission that dictates the direction of this city for the next decade should probably go under the same level of scrutiny.

I'm wondering, are other communities taking on a best practice that you think we should take a look at, consider here?

The city manager did reach out to the League of Cities and Towns and asked about um for links to other municipalities that have um undertaken their comp plan recently and how they approached putting together an advisory committee.

So, for example, East Providence um had zero appointees from the council or mayor's office, all the members were selected by the staff.

The City of Winsaket had 20 total members, four staff core planning board, one city councilor, one school rep, two business reps, four non-for-profit reps, and one policy advocate.

And the town of Middletown had 21 total members, seven planning board, two town council, nine board and commission reps, and three at large members of the general public.

So there really is not a standard formula for this.

Um Director Reynolds is putting forward uh a recommendation based on what this comp plan needs, and also making sure it has representation that is guided by council.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Mr.

Chair, I have one other question.

Okay.

Council Cegley go first.

Thank you.

Uh I'm I'm in agreement with Councilor Smythe about this.

Uh I think that there could be a bit of um bias in this with everyone choosing one person.

Um I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

And I think that we should solicit um applications and an interview.

I think this is one of the most important things that we do.

Thank you.

Council Smythe?

Um, how are we going to ensure that there isn't an overlap between what Interface is doing and what the committee is doing so that we're not paying somebody for work that the committee is is running with and actually doing instead?

In my experience, the committee is not going to be writing the plan.

Interface studio and the subconsultant team will be writing the plan, will be collecting the data, um, organizing it, doing analysis, presenting information back to the committee for review to make sure they got it right, and then be able to use that data collection process to identify what goals, policies, and actions will make it into the final plan, and that will be guided by input from the committee.

So the committee is not going to be doing the writing, the drafting, the um data collection.

They will be reviewing the materials presented by the consultant team who will be doing all of that research, organization, and um compilation of the data for presentation to the committee who will then respond to it and provide feedback.

So are they for lack of a better term?

Are are is the advisory committee sort of an over sight of what the interface is doing?

They won't be managing the contract the interface is doing.

Interface in your packets is presented a schedule and a layout of the process.

So this process is what interface is bringing to the table and presented in their interview process.

Okay.

Um the um committee will be following along this process and at key parts in the schedule be prompted to provide that insight and feedback or deliverables that are produced along the way.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions?

Um I know I I got to speak with um Director Reynolds and some of these one of the questions I had was similar to the question about, you know, if each council picks one person, does that kind of skew um where the discussion might go on on the on that com on that committee?

Um she's pretty strong-willed, strong-minded in saying that with 20 to 25 people, you know, a group of seven, it'll probably wash out if there was a certain bias going on.

And this, you know, taking this approach is not different than what we've done as a council and previous councils have before.

Um I know when we did the charter commission just a couple years ago, each counselor had one person that that they could put on that that committee.

Um I think that was, you know, just as important.

And that was more direct just those seven people advising the council directly as opposed to seven people in a group of twenty-five um being an advisory group to um an outside resource.

Um I know like something like the North End Urban Plan, we we've took, you know, obviously a lot of public um information in.

We had a advisory committee for that, the uh ad hoc bridge committee, which that was another advisory committee.

So I I think the way um Director Reynolds is going about this is is a good way.

And it gives us an opportunity as counselors to have without one of us actually being on the committee, you know, have somebody that might have our you know similar uh thoughts and processes behind it uh uh to serve on that.

Um the other part is and not to use this as um a major point, but there is a a time frame that we're we're looking at.

Uh so yeah, so there is I know there is a time frame that she wants to get to get this group together by I believe the the beginning of October, so um if we had to do an application process, that could take an absorbent amount of time depending on people's schedules and and whatnot.

So those are that's my thought behind it.

Yeah, I would agree with uh the mayor.

It's it's a tremendous amount of work that has to go into it, and not all the 25 people can make every single meeting.

So uh the more the merrier.

The more people and the more ideas they can bring forward from the community, I think it's actually a good idea, a good way to go.

Mr.

Chair?

Yes, Council Pennett.

Um I just had a question.

So it says num where each going to nominate one person, but that's just a nomination, right?

Or is that an automatic or is there a process to determine if the per people that we nominate are a good fit?

I don't know that that has been flushed out.

Okay I would um if you have more than one candidate that you wanted to um that and put forward, I I don't think that has been overly um um identified.

Okay.

Thank you.

Council Crawling?

Thank you.

Excellent question by my colleague to the left, Councillor Pannock.

Any appointments to city, commissions, boards, committees, ad hoc committees, et cetera, must be approved by the council.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith?

So if we vote to accept this memo, are we basically voting to move forward with permission for a council to nominate someone?

Correct.

Okay.

Um or not.

You don't have to.

Not you personally, I'm saying in general.

I'm afraid we'd all nominate the same person.

That would be not see that happening, but you know, I mean, I I still stand with, you know, I'm just afraid that um there's gonna be too much bias and we're not gonna see an actual representation of our community if we each nominate somebody.

So I still have great concerns about that.

And if if we're going to do really, you know, if the focus is for real community engagement, I I would like to see who in the community comes forward and would like to be on this.

I believe we have to vote on all the names.

Yeah.

When they supply us with whom they want to reign.

So we would have to prove it, you know, approve them if anybody had a question about a particular person that has you could certainly express it if you choose to.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Sagan.

Frankly, I am not comfortable discussing people who want to volunteer on a board in public.

I don't that's I don't think that that's something that we typically do.

And uh I of course want this to be a fair process and I want it to be robust, and I want I do believe that you know we need um representatives from the entire community, but I don't believe this is the right way to go about it.

So I am going to vote no on this recommendation.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you again to my colleagues for all the great questions.

Just like if the City Manager were to bring to the Council a recommendation that we spend a certain amount of money on a certain project, any road project, any contract, anything for that matter, it is simply a recommendation being brought before the City Council for our future consideration.

Moving to accept this tonight is simply acknowledging from my standpoint, my colleagues can correct me, and the solicitor can correct me if I am wrong.

We are simply acknowledging that this is the manager's recommendation.

We are not opining on this at all, though the last several minutes has been a great discussion, allowing us to opine on potentials.

But tonight we are simply acknowledging the fact that the council uh that the city manager has brought something before the council.

In my opinion, that's all we are doing.

Mr.

Chair, yes, um, if I may.

Yes, sir.

Um I believe the whole idea of the memo was to get the issue before the council.

You know, we have the open meetings act, so you it it's not like the council can communicate among each other about this.

So I think the discussion should be along the lines to at least give the administration an idea of whether the council would favor this or not.

You don't have to take a formal vote, but I think we already we know how a few councillors fail right now, so at least that would be the instructions back on how to how to go about getting this uh citizens uh advisory committee together.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Carlin.

May I follow up on mine or my and also count uh Solicitor Bean's comment?

Uh we run the risk, though I respect and appreciate and to a very large degree agree with the solicitor.

We run the risk tonight.

Should we decide as a council that we should offer input on the suggestion?

We run the risk of of simply rejecting an acceptance of what is essentially a memo.

We can reject the suggestions at another point, but we should at least accept the memo this evening.

Question for the uh counselor.

So I'm still a little unclear.

Read through the memo, and the memo speaks to a sense of urgency to start getting this commission together.

And so a couple of questions here.

First.

With all the commission members, not just those that the council might nominate.

Do those require confirmation by the City Council?

So every single person, whether they are recommended by the planning director or their boards will have to be confirmed by the City Council's members of this commission.

That's all I understand.

Yes.

Is that right, solicitor?

I am going to say, I mean, this is kind of a unique situation.

It is part of the comprehensive land use planning process.

So it's not entirely the same as a council creating a ad hoc commission, but certainly if that's on the other end, it is creating a board or a commission where we do we follow the practice where either by ordinance is created or resolution.

So I would probably agree with that.

Yes, out of abundance of caution.

So that being the case, what is the timeline by which we expect to start seeing names put before the council for consideration?

And will they be presented all at once, or will this be done as those names are identified?

So the way that the schedule is currently laid out, it proposes, proposes the official launch of the committee the week of October 6th.

So the idea would be that if we were to present this for approval by the council, it would have to be at your next council meeting.

But there could be flexibility in not having this committee fully formed by that first consultant visit the week of October 6th.

And I could work with Director Reynolds to identify how we engage public interest in participating in that count that committee during that week of consultant data collection and then firm up the committee at a later date.

Just to be clear, our next meeting is on the 24th, correct?

It have to be submitted by close of business on the Tuesday prior to the meeting.

That's correct.

That's right.

So we're as laid out, the schedule anticipates names being put forth in the next 24 hours for process we're reviewing today.

I realize part of the delay here is because of the unfortunate elevator uh situation we ran into.

But probably not going to happen, safe to say.

That's fair.

Um despite our best ambitions and intentions.

Yep.

I think at least what I am hearing from a couple of my colleagues, and I think it's a good recommendation.

Um that at least is a first step, even if the entirety of the process and timeline isn't nailed down today, and as Counselor Carlin uh suggested, and I completely agree with him, we are just accepting this communication.

We are not signing off on the process.

But in the way of feedback, it seems that casting a wide net within the community, um allowing folks to be aware that we are considering the formation of this committee is probably a step that can be taken immediately that would not delay the balance of the process, but might help us ensure we get the best and brightest from this community to help serve and reflect the community.

I don't know how the rest of the council feels about that.

But as one direct piece of feedback, I would throw that out there.

Mr.

Mr.

Councillor Paul Town?

I having gone through this twice now.

Let me tell you, this is a huge undertaking.

And it's very important that we have people on there that are aware of the city, that have been in the city, know the problems of this city, know the things that we want to work, the goals we want to work toward, improving the city for everybody.

So you know, I I welcome this, and I I think it is a good way to go.

It's very similar to prior uh comprehensive plans.

And I do know that during the course of the planning, a number of people had dropped out for various reasons.

Um I would hate to see that happen.

This fly loves me.

I hate to see that happen, but this is really some dedicated individuals that would have to be recommended, because it is a lengthy and uh very complex process that will move the City of Newport forward.

I agree with uh Councilor Carlin.

Um we're just accepting or approving, not approving, but accepting this memo, but that doesn't mean things can't change.

Mr.

Chair?

Council Smith.

I just want to make sure I am on the same page here.

So from what I'm hearing is that if we vote to accept this memo.

We're still only going to have until 4.30 tomorrow night to submit who we want to nominate, or or is that not the same?

No, that's a thank you for pointing that out, Councilor Council Boravong.

Um the way that the schedule reads is that the consultants will be in front of you uh at your October 8th meeting, and it notes the official launch of the committee.

Um it doesn't prescribe how the committee is selected in this product.

The rest of the memo talks about the concept.

But it does say October 2025 without a definitive date, in person first, NP N C P A C meeting, soft kickoff.

So it it does not prescribe that we have to have this done by DLB tomorrow.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I just want to say that I I still feel as though the memo isn't an entirely as as clear as I think that it should be.

So I'm I'm with Councillor Segley that that I'm I can't vote to approve it.

I'm sorry.

Um do we feel I mean, I don't know if we can it would be an unofficial vote, but we would rather would most of us rather have an application process as opposed to nominating.

Do we feel I mean I don't know if we can it would be an unofficial vote, but we would rather would most of us rather have an application process as opposed to nominating.

Can we make a can we can we do a um amendment on this that we want to have an application or just take one way or the other, okay?

The most you're going to be able to do on this is uh vote to receive it.

And voting to receive it is not doesn't mean it's approved.

Then we can have discussion with the administration and iron out how we want.

Again, I'm in no rush to get this done.

You know, this is the you know the comp plan is extremely important.

So I'm not I am not going to be beholden to hey, it's gonna be our next meeting, then we have to get this done.

So I think the end result is that the council wants to vote on the committee member.

Yeah.

So how it gets in front of the council up to the administration to try to get something either by interviews, applications, or however.

Right.

Okay.

So um let's just make a vote to receive.

Second.

All right, motion and second to receive uh the memorandum.

All in favor, raise your right hand.

Any opposed, raise your right hand.

All right, so five to two passes.

Okay.

Um action item 6489.

Um the council consideration of a the is for the council's consideration of the attached petition is requested for a new poll and anchor required for electric service upgrade requested by the owners of 519 Bellevue Avenue in order to provide a three-phase power for underground service.

The existing service location is not adequate for the power requirements.

Um make a motion to approve second.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and second, any discussion, Mr.

Chairman, Council Crowlin.

Thank you.

As my colleagues know, I had asked at the last council meeting that this request and the subsequent request we will be dealing with tonight be continued in order that uh I be able to discuss as the third ward counselor where Ruggles Avenue, the location of one of the proposed polls, and Lawrence, uh the second proposed poll location in the third ward are located.

Uh I'd like to uh first of all thank uh Rhode Island Energy and Jacques Afonso, their representative for meeting with me for explaining to me many of the concerns uh or for clarifying for me uh questions on many of the concerns I had uh also for clarifying uh some questions from abutters, neighbors, etc.

And I personally asked uh or I personally told I should say, uh Mr.

Afonso that since I was the one who asked for it, his presence here this evening was not necessary.

He is coming from Providence, so I don't want to burden him with that since I suspect there will be no objection, but we will wait and see.

Having said that, from my point of view, there is no objection, and uh I move to report back to Rhode Island Energy by way of this vote that there is no objection from the Council.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, any other discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

I any opposed?

Ayes have it.

Uh this is for the council's consideration of attached petition.

Um the staff has reviewed the petitions and have not identified any issues with the remote.

I'm I'm so sorry, uh Vice Chair Segley.

Um I mentioned both agenda items, I I do think we should vote on both of them.

This is the second.

Oh, yes.

Oh, this is the second one.

I'm so sorry.

I beg your pardon.

I'm sorry.

Yep, yep.

This is action item 6490.

Very sorry.

That's okay.

Um that the council um approve um and that the staff has reviewed the petitions and has not have any issues with new poll locations.

And I'll do these individually.

There were three petitions from Rhode Island Energy Verizon for installation.

Old Beach Road, new mid-span poll.

Do I uh make a motion to approve?

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor, say aye.

I Hillside Avenue, new poll and anchor to replace existing tree guy wire support due to planned tree removal.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Uh motion to approve the Lawrence Avenue new poll to install poll mounted switch required to shift load to accommodate new load of salve dormitory building being constructed at 51 Shepherd Avenue.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item 6498.

The police department recommends the purchase of a fitment of five police vehicles to be supplied and upfit by MAG Retail LLC doing business as McGovern Municipal Headquarters.

This is in accordance with the price quote submitted using the Metropolitan Area Planning Council's Greater Boston Police Council mass purchasing agreement authorized for city use by council resolution number 2021-34.

The total purchase price shall not exceed 299,292 into 80 cents.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

I fully intend to vote for this in any moment from now.

Because this is a fairly routine type of request from the administration from the police department.

The council not only has previously authorized, not by vote, but by will uh and by budgeting the purchase.

Uh but we do this on a regular occasion every year, uh every two years if that uh it is significant at 300,000.

I just don't want my colleagues or the public uh to to ask when we come to items 10, 11, and 10, 11, 12, and 13.

How come I am questioning the meaning of these when I don't question the meaning of this since they are all significant in uh what they are allotting from the city?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, I I did omit uh that this has been currently budgeted.

All right.

So uh any other discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That's a uh the Department of Resiliency and Sustainability, along with the IT department recommends the council approve the award of contract to visual edge IT for a total not to exceed $30,354 and eighty-eight cents for the annual lease agreement on city copiers, printers, and supplies.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smythe.

Um I have a couple a question.

Is are we consistently sole sourcing this to visual edge?

Or is there competition?

Is a bid going out to receive competition.

Craig, director of IT.

We are uh they are pretty much sole source.

We actually have taken the steps in the last you know eight or nine years to purchase the copying equipment.

But uh currently they the entire time they've still every year we've renewed with them and they've done all the supplies and that.

So that was a discussion that we had this year, but uh purchasing manager recommended that given our history with them, we continue this way.

Okay.

And is there a reason why we're not trying to compete?

Um we can.

We've seen pricing.

It's all very, very similar.

It would require a pretty heavy lift on the back end software that that's all the counters and all of that kind of thing for the supplies and the buttons.

I mean we certainly can.

Okay.

Um yeah, I was just wondering if there is any future plan to typically when you sole source something, unless it's uh you know they're the manufacturer only distributor, whatever.

Exactly.

That's the exception, but typically you like to see for future procurements.

Yep, yep.

The opportunity for that.

Sure.

So thank you.

Um Nick, quick question.

Do we use them for anything else besides the printers and copiers?

We don't.

We use them for um the penetration testing that we did last year.

Uh that was really the only other piece that we used them for.

They were very good and very reasonable, responsive.

Great result from appendix.

Yep.

Great, thank you.

Any further discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Action item 650, the Department of Resilience and Sustainability, along with the IT department, recommends a council approve or request to contract custom computer services LLC for a total not to exceed 127,362 and 10 cents for the configuration and licensing of a government office G 365 tenant.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

As per my last uh comment, uh items 10, 11, 12, and 13 represent uh north of uh $8,400,000 in spending.

Uh so I think it is appropriate for and I know we are provided with background information, but I think it is appropriate for the residents to get a detailed explanation of each one of these items, starting with uh uh this action item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

Mr.

Craig.

So this item in particular represents um setting up a government office 365 tenant in the cloud in in Azure, which is which is the recommended practice now for data security, for cybersecurity, for continuity for mail flow uh and mail protections, which are as you know, the the most common outlets for any kind of cyber threat or attack.

Um setting up that tenant gives us particular protections as a government entity.

It also will allow for collaboration, um, live document collaboration, which we have been lacking with our on-prem Microsoft solutions, so it will certainly learn lean to uh efficacies gained in the city and um it is possible that in future years we may be able to recoup some of the cost with uh grant funding.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Is this budgeted uh via the 26 budget?

Or is this budgeted from carryovers in past fiscal years?

For this year, it is in it is budgeted in CIP.

We're so as such via the CIP funding, and I understand that these are capital improvement projects that we want done, but the council, excuse my lack of knowledge, the council approved the funding via the budget, which underneath that umbrella is the CIP.

Yes, I think.

So this is we're not borrowing for this, we're not doing anything.

We have budgeted the money for this.

Correct.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smite.

Um, how many contracts do we have with custom computer specialists?

Uh contracts on executable services like this one in particular.

Because I see a number of the items on tonight's agenda are with them.

There are.

Lots of them are through them, uh, mostly because of their intimate knowledge of our infrastructure.

Um I don't know if you are all aware, but I am the only person in the IT department aside from GIS.

So for I think 20 years now, custom has been um staffing us and being uh you know acting as our managed service provider, which also includes you know engineering level and and all that kind of stuff.

So there is an intimate knowledge there.

I would say that it's hard to say the total number.

I know that you know, as far as renewals of you know, softwares and cybersecurity tools and utilities and I'm sure it's in the 30 to 50 range.

Okay.

And and is the primary reason why we keep soul sourcing to them is because of their intimate knowledge of the city system or the blanket managed service contract with them.

Um it's their knowledge of the system.

They're also on a state MPA.

Um, and so are some of the particular things that were contract.

So are these contracts, are they falling under this blanket?

Like is it a blanket master agreement that that we have with them?

Yes, typically.

Okay.

And so these contracts, would they be like a task order type of thing that is being awarded under that agreement?

Yep.

Yep, like things, yeah.

Um do you know how how what the length of the agreement is?

Typically one year.

I try to do everything one year.

Okay.

Um and is there a reason outside of of their intimate knowledge?

Are there other companies like this that we could potentially put out for bid for?

Yes, there are.

And I have seen pricing and it's it's it's all very, very similar.

Um, but yeah, I mean, it is possible.

And actually, the way that I have presented the managed services contract that we'll get to tonight, kind of uh starts to push us in that direction and give us a little bit of autonomy, which we really need because we are very beholden to their customer.

Okay.

Um, thank you.

Yeah.

Any further questions or discussion?

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

I have it.

Action item 6501 at the city manager along with the IT department recommends the council approve the award of a contract to to custom computer specialists for a not to exceed $310,676 for the required hardware and licensing to upgrade the city's VDI infrastructure and upgrade the on-premises backup solution to support it.

Um the VDI is the virtual desktop infrastructure.

This is currently budgeted.

I move second.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin?

Same request, please.

Nick, you did a great job explaining that last contract, and I have respect for CCS.

Are they here tonight?

No, they're not.

Okay.

Uh it doesn't matter.

I just ask out of curiosity.

They're a Lincoln Rhode Island-based headquarters.

I know where they're where they're at.

I spent a little time up there.

Uh but would you provide for uh the residents for anybody that's interested?

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

And and you did a great job explaining around cloud-based issues, et cetera, what uh a dumb guy like me would not understand.

So can you put it in English for us here?

Absolutely.

So our VDI infrastructure, we started um I I think almost 10 years ago now, before my time.

And the idea was to uh have remote access easily available.

So virtual desktop infrastructure basically means you have a virtual machine that lives in the city that you can connect to from anywhere.

That's really bare bone.

What it's morphed into, especially since our our issue in 2022 has been a uh a big security layer.

So now whether you are in the city or outside the city, when you log into your computer, you're going right into our virtual desktop infrastructure, which allows us to have everything centrally managed.

And in fact, when you log off of a computer in the city, that virtual machine is actually being destroyed and your settings exported.

When you log back in, those are all coming back in.

So beyond that, it's also the backbone for all of our virtual servers too.

And this re refresh um includes a lot of that.

It includes the capacity for the backups and recovery within you know hours, not days.

Um really it's all cybersecurity stuff.

Excellent.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Nick.

Uh same question as a follow-up.

Budgeted through the capital improvement plan through the overall budget, yes?

Yes, it is.

Thank you very much.

Council Sai.

Uh well, excellent questions by my colleagues covered most of mine, so I will just say that first uh we really appreciate your leadership within the city.

I think obviously cyber exposure is a big deal.

And second, I wanted to commend you and the team on the transition you have been working us through to.gov.

This is something that uh former Secretary of State Nelly Corbea stressed uh very much uh to all of us on the council how important it was that we make that transition from a cybersecurity perspective.

I know that's been a massive undertaking.

I am very thankful to you and the entire team of both staff and the consultants that have done that work.

Thank you very much.

Any other discussion?

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Action item 6502, the city manager along with the IT department recommends a council approve the award of a contract to custom computer specialist for not to exceed 508,176 dollars for continued management services and support and staffing of two technicians.

Uh this is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Uh once again, that explanation that you just provided was excellent.

Do the same, please, will you for this uh contract, which uh is at uh a little north of 500,000.

And as my colleagues believed in the last two contracts, I believe that this is quite necessary, but uh it's a lot more in-depth than those last two contracts with respect to what it provides.

Could you give us an English explanation?

That's it.

The easiest explanation is that a made of service contract like this is basically outsourcing the entire department, the day-to-day, the staffing, uh, the patching, the upgrades, the maintenance, the monitoring.

Uh there's a 24-7 knock that monitors all of our network activity, and and if anything happens, or there's also a 24-7 knock that's reachable to all employees in the city so that everyone always has access.

And this is part of that, and then it's all of the maintenance agreements kind of wound into one.

So they're responsible for the upgrades and upkeeps and patching and and maintenance of of everything.

And this particular one uh this year, the the there's there was two.

I asked them to quote me two ways and just do a one-year contract.

And and this one uh is only 508.

It would have been six something because we would like, going back to our discussion about autonomy, to bring on uh uh the deputy um IT director so that we have some city support.

And that would be a question.

So, Nick, as a follow-up uh, I will ask the same follow-up that I asked about the other regarding the capital improvement about the others regarding the capital improvement plan and the funding, but as a follow-up to what you just said, is this uh action item linked with uh the action item to be considered uh further down the line, number 14 specifically with respect to uh a GIS specialist, or is that specific to utilities?

That is specific to utilities.

So when you talk about the potential for an assistant director, you are talking about something that you envision as as good for the city in the future?

Correct.

Not being addressed at all time.

Longevity, continuity, you know, administrative.

Thank you.

Uh covered by the this item is covered by the capital improvement plan and the budget overall?

This item is this this is a budgeted contract services.

Covered by SIP or or by the budget.

Taken right out of uh well, everything is taken out of taxpayer revenue uh ultimately, but it is separate from the capital improvement plan that is found within the operating budget.

Exactly.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Nick.

Mr.

Chair.

Um I I just want a little clarity.

How much of the work under this in the past couple of actions that we reviewed is something that if we built up our IT department and personnel could be covered by city employees instead of contracting out?

A lot of it.

I uh I I have presented a plan not to Council yet, but internally to Teresa and some other administrators about what that looks like year over year and how we can do that so that so that we're not beholden to these kinds of contracts and we can take over some of the maintenance on some of this stuff ourselves.

And how just a guess, how how much money could we potentially save if we were doing a lot of this in-house?

That's tough.

I mean, I you know, I think the IT department for for you know only a city of 400, I think it's budgeted at $3 million right now.

Um I know you know I reduced the budget a little bit this year, but um I would think, you know, very close to $500,000.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

Questions?

All is in favor?

Say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Action item 6503, the Department of Resilience and Sustainability recommends approval of the guaranteed maximum price of $5,500,000 for the contract with Albor Construction Corporation of Warwick, Rhode Island for construction manager at risk services for renovations to the Florence Gray Center.

Funding for this contract is fully supported by the Rhode Island Pandemic Recovery Office Capital Project Fund.

No municipal funds are required for this project.

I move approval.

Second.

We have a motion and a second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Uh first, uh just by clarification, I know we are dealing with a lot of things tonight for the Vice Chair and for anybody.

Uh there are two numbers here.

7.5 and and Lynn, actually, it's not fair to address this to you.

Uh 7.5 million is uh the total awarded by point five million for this particular item, correct?

If so, which I believe it is, uh then when I quoted a number earlier of the council potentially spending or at least authorizing uh spending and or receipt of potential spending of $8.4 million, I was mistaken.

It is $6.4 million if it's $5.5 million for this rather than $7.5 million.

Is it $5.5?

The $7.5 million is the grant we received as a city by the pandemic recovery office.

That is the amount that is being awarded to the city.

The amount for the construction projects that is on the table for tonight's approval is $5.5 million as a guaranteed maximum price for the construction.

And I do have uh Manny Ferrera here from the KCM group construction management.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Thank you, Director.

Uh this is the big one, obviously.

Uh this is not to be taken lightly.

Not that the Council does take spending of any kind lightly, but uh this is very, very significant.

So what you are asking for us to do tonight is it to approve a maximum amount which can be spent via part of the $7.5 million that we have received from the State and from the Recovery Office, Federal and State, or is it that and approval of an individual contract?

And if there is an individual contract tied with this, who is getting it?

Sure.

What are the components of the contract educate, even though you have provided some background information?

Educate the residents of Newport, please on this.

And me.

Happy to.

Thank you for the question.

The Florence Gray Center and the City of Newport is the fiscal agent for a $7.5 million grant.

And the contractors who have been involved in this project included an owner project manager who has been managing the overall choreography of this whole construction effort.

An RFP process was conducted several months back in February 2025, competitive process.

And Alberg Construction was selected as the awarded contractor.

And that was presented to the Council back in April 2025 when the contract was awarded.

But at that time, we were only authorizing $39,000 for them to finish the pre-construction phase of the project in order to generate a guaranteed maximum price that would not exceed $5.5 million.

Excuse me, Director.

Just so I understand, and I do understand what you just explained, and I do understand what the Council has done before.

Similar to the $39,000, which the Council passed some months ago, based on the expectation that we are dealing with here tonight.

Who is involved in the selection process of that?

Was it the City of Newport, the town of Middletown, the Boys Club, and the State of Rhode Island or the Office of Recovery, Pandemic Recovery, all four or others?

I am going to ask Manny Ferrera to please come up from the owner project manager KCM group.

I can say that the selection committee included Mr.

Ferrera, myself, Rhonda Mitchell from the Housing Authority, and the Boys and Girls Club and the Town of Middletown.

Yes.

And Mr.

Chairman, thanks again.

While Mr.

Ferrero is up answering those questions.

Tell us, please, how many bidders on this potential award were there that you considered and to what degree were the bids different from a financial standpoint from a company competency standpoint of the company or companies which bid on it and any other further information you can add.

Thanks.

Yep.

Manny Ferrero owner's project manager from KCM Group.

So to answer your question directly back in April, when we were complete with the schematic design, which is about 25 percent of the overall design, we went out to a public bid.

We received five construction management firms that submitted bids.

And at that time, what we signed back in April was a construction management at risk contract that was basically a $39,000 contract.

And the way that it is written with the AIA form contracts is that it's built in by design that the construction manager gets you through up to the basically they become a consultant in the design phase.

So they start off with a schematic design.

We give them an upfront budget of $5.5 million, and they go back and forth with the architect and the engineers at several stages of the design to make sure that by the time we get to 100 percent construction drawings, we are at the $5.5 million budget.

And that is where we are, not a dollar less, not a dollar more.

There was some value engineering that occurred in that process.

We weren't always at $1.5, but that was the whole point of the getting the construction manager at risk involved in the design process so that where we are now, the um the budget is exactly where we need to be.

And as I mentioned earlier, the contract is designed so that there is a GMP amendment to the contract already designed by AIA.

Um that is what we're requesting approval on today is the GMP amendment for $5.5 million, which matches the original contract budget of $1.50.

Mr.

Chairman?

As a follow-up, please.

So we meet with the ownership team every every Tuesday, and uh we offered, you know, if anyone wants to join the uh the uh the panel that that selected um contractor, and there was three uh three members of the uh so it was the housing authority and uh two members of ownership uh of the KCM group that scored the uh the KCM group is is outside of government.

Um there was nobody within the State uh Office of Recovery, the Department of Administration, or uh from that point of view, nobody from the Federal Government who initially provided the dollars uh flowing through the States, come from the Federal Government first, flowing through to the States, flowing through to the cities and towns.

Nobody uh from either the Federal Government or the State Government asked to be involved with the awarding uh of a maximum five and a half million dollar contract?

No.

Okay.

That is pretty poor.

Uh secondly, uh and that's not your fault.

That is something we should address with the State Government and the Federal Government.

Secondly, you mentioned there were five bidders, uh, with Allberg being uh the company which you selected, which the Committee selected.

Um, I don't mind too much as a member of the Council that uh we award contracts for a smaller a lot smaller amount of money without seeing by way of information provided to the Council who the other bidders are.

You are asking this council to approve a $5.5 million request, and I have nothing uh information-wise regarding who those other bidders were, what their bids were, etc.

Can you tell me why that is the case?

Yes.

So the the construction manager at risk was actually selected back in April.

So this particular amendment, it's an amendment to the construction manager that was already selected back in April.

So they were selected based on uh the technical and pricing factors.

We gave them a budget of $5.5 million for construction.

And um, so really the only way that the contractor or the construction manager would change now is if they couldn't get to the GMP of uh $5.5 million for some reason, and then we would have to restart the whole process.

So this is just an amendment.

I appreciate that that candor.

Uh but when the Council voted uh on the construction manager at risk costs, uh, first of all, there was no that I recall uh detailed information about who the uh additional competition, who the other bidders were for uh anything involved in the project.

And secondly, at that time we were not dealing with anything like we are dealing with tonight from uh the standpoint of uh from a dollars and cents standpoint.

I I really wish that something like this, the Council should absolutely be provided.

Let me pause and say when I was a member of the school committee uh many years ago, we used to receive uh detailed explanations on who the bidders were and why uh the eventual bid or the eventual proposed award of the contract was going to XYZ company.

But certainly we we received information regarding who the other bidders were and what they submitted as their proposed bids.

I mean, suppose I know it is a maximum guaranteed contract, but a little bit more substantive information would I think be appropriate.

Maybe I am wrong.

Maybe my colleagues say we have no interest in that.

If I could just banning this grant is managed by the Pandemic Recovery Office of the State of Rhode Island, and we are in constant communication with the Pandemic Recovery Office.

And there are 20 other projects around the State for this.

It was never, as the fiscal agent, the City is in charge of compliance to make sure that we are spending the money appropriately, that we are able to get the payment requests paid out to the contractors that the city is required to hire.

So we have been this has been a process that has included the city as the compliance fiscal agent for this grant to make sure we are in compliance for every requirement by the pandemic recovery office.

So we have all of that documented.

We have ranking sheets for all of the proposals that were put forward, and the committee that was put together selected Alberg as the most responsible bidder for this project.

The City Council has not been made aware of what you just said with regard to all of the proposals.

And if I am wrong, please tell me.

You are wrong.

You missed it, Dave.

It's here.

This is when you received, as member of the Council, what I just talked about you with regard to these are the bids we receive.

This is what they bid at, or these are the companies who bid, this is what they bid at, et cetera.

While I appreciate your sharing that uh in constant communication, as you said, with the State's pandemic recovery office, uh, my information is is certainly lacking.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

One question I have.

So I know Middletown is part of this uh program as well.

Are they do they have any have a hand in any of this uh the 5.5 million?

Yes, Laurie Turner has been representing the town of Middletown at all of our weekly 1130 Tuesday meetings, and um we are working with the Town of Middletown to confirm the level of service that will be provided to the town of Middletown as this um allocation was is required, and there is a resolution requiring both that uh sorry, that um uh invited both towns to combine their allocation to have service provided at the Florence Gray Center for both municipalities for workforce development, health monitoring, and education.

But the agreement for it is through Newport.

That is correct.

We agreed to serve as the fiscal agent for the 7.5 million.

Any other questions or discussion?

All right.

Mr.

Chairman, can I have a show of hands on the vote, please?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh raise your right hand.

All those in favor.

All is opposed, raise your left hand.

Six to one.

Action item 6504.

The Department of Utilities requests an ordinance amendment to Chapter 3.12 classification plan to add the classification utilities, GIS and field specialist in the executive, administrative, and professional employees group at grade five.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Council Carlin.

Thank you once again.

The question for the acting city manager.

Was this uh item, this particular included in the FY26?

Are we simply approving the creation from a personnel standpoint of classification?

Was this comma?

Was this uh approved or rejected uh if there was something similar?

I seem to recall a GIS position that was proposed in the FY26 budget, which the Council rejected uh four to three during our budget discussions.

That is correct.

Director Schultz here to speak to why this is before Council this evening.

Just to clarify, what you are bringing before us is something that the Council already rejected on a 4-3 vote, correct?

That is correct, with some additional information, Council.

Director Schultz.

During the budget process, there was no discussion on the position itself, and the reality is you rejected the ordinance change to create the position, but you approved all the funding mechanisms in the budget.

So basically we have the money therefore just no one would take it.

No one in that position.

There is that gap where it is not created.

And then the reality is that it either will be served through contract operations at an increased cost, or we will, over the next two years, transition to have that position.

And would you mind just kind of explaining the position itself and why we feel it is needed and the benefit in the long run?

Yeah.

The GIS portion of it is a small element.

A big portion of it is what rides on top of the GIS, which is our management system.

Since 2017, we have been bringing that all into a digital world.

Right now, if you don't count myself, we have a single point of failure for that, one position in City Government.

The all the supporting or emergencies or anything if I am not available or Mr.

Norton is not available or contract ops.

The internal GIS position that the City has from that is helping and has gaps, but they do all of the City.

They are not really meant to fill in the need for the management or the work order system that City uses.

So I will certainly yield to any colleague who has a question.

Mr.

Chair.

So it says that there is going to be a two-year overlap between the person who I guess is currently handling these responsibilities, or what is that?

Currently the responsibilities are there is one internal person, they can't complete all of the work, so it falls to two different contract operations.

The other one is the consent decree, which was 1.2 for the next two years.

Okay, thank you.

One question I have, Director Schultz.

So we have a projective savings of 510,000 over five years.

How close do you think, or how realistic is that number, do you think?

I try to be conservative, not either way.

And so my recollection is that number is an all-in cost of 120 to 140,000, and then doing a low-level cost on the consultant end, which would be 200 and 200 in change.

It depends how fast we can fill the position and how the transition goes.

Plus or minus, probably 20 percent either way.

Okay.

Thanks.

Council Carlin.

Thank you, Director.

Notwithstanding what you said regarding the rejection from a personnel ordinance standpoint by the Council on June 28th of the proposal found within the budget overall, my recollection is that, again, by a 4-3 vote, as proposed with the FY26 budget, or let me back up.

There were eight positions proposed by the City Manager and the City, the Administration for consideration by the Council, eight new positions, totaling 1.1 million plus dollars in spending, spending which would be as proposed, covered by both the, if you will standalone budget itself, and then, although contained in the budget, not direct revenue from taxpayers.

That is to say, like your office or what your Department and others, the public safety office, et cetera, has money-wise, outside of direct taxpayer contributions.

In other words, regardless of what we did with the personnel ordinance, it is my belief that again, this council by a four to three vote rejected this when it was brought before us the the prior funding, the funding mechanisms that I talked about a moment or two ago fall into uh two buckets for the purpose of this conversation.

That which is provided by taxpayers by way of collection of fees, et cetera, found within the operating budget, and that which is found uh via enterprise funds.

Your department has the use of enterprise funds, the Harbor Master's Office has the use of such, the Public Safety Department has the use of such.

Tell me why I am wrong, and I hope I am when I say, regardless again, of what you described a few minutes ago when you said that the Council rejected the personnel ordinance.

Tell me why I am wrong when I say that the Council also rejected the request for funding for this position.

It was a 4-3 vote on June 28th.

Am I wrong?

I will refer to the solicitor on the legality of it, but from an operational standpoint, there were no modifications made to the enter finding undefined budget.

So water pollution control and water were not changed.

They were fully funded, voted, and approved upon with that rate structure in place.

The Director Schultz, the City Manager, the acting city manager essentially told me a few minutes ago and the Council that yes, this was asked for by the Count by the Administration, and yes, it was previously rejected.

So my question, plain and simply, again, is why am I wrong in saying that the Council rejected this position from a funding standpoint by a 4-3 vote on June 28th, and also subsequently rejected the underlying personnel ordinance, which would have accompanied that.

The Council rejected the personnel ordinance.

They did not modify either budget for the enterprise fund.

You are not answering my question.

There were eight new positions offered via the proposed budget, one of which is exactly this position you are bringing to us some many months after we rejected it.

We can beat around the bush all we want.

The Council rejected this by a 4-3 vote on June 28.

Somebody proved me wrong, and I will vote for this.

And again, I could be I could be off in this.

So the money has been approved for the position.

We just didn't approve the position itself.

Mr.

Chairman, with great respect, that is not true at all.

We rejected both the funding and the personnel ordinance underlying the funding or proposed for the funding.

But we have it here as it is currently budgeted for the position.

Then somebody is not being candid.

But we do have the ability to go back and build this position.

There is no additional appropriation needed.

Right.

So it may have been the intent for the Council when they rejected that position to modify the enterprise fund budget or the revenue streams.

Neither was done.

That is simply not the case.

We rejected this position.

It was not funded in the FY25 budget.

It was proposed to be funded in the FY26 budget.

We did not tinker with what was proposed with respect to outside of the eight new positions that were proposed, granted, yes.

And that is both allows both for the enterprise funds outside of the eight new positions and the operating budget outside of the eight new positions.

We clearly rejected this on June 28th.

I mean, folks, I I I can't understand why we are pretending that something that happened did not happen.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah.

So I I was under the impression that during the budget process that if we turned around and voted against a new position being put into place, that that was automatically taken out of that budget source.

Is that not what happened?

I mean, if if we don't know, then I I don't recommend that we move forward with this item until we can get some answers.

Mr.

Chairman.

I am not sure who did you have your hand up to say something?

No.

Okay.

I I believe Director Schultz is saying it has been funded.

There is funded.

That's all I think was on here.

Whether you want to remove it out of uh personnel budget or it is going to get shifted to another portion of the budget, all of that funding is there and was not modified.

Mr.

Chairman, this is simply ridiculous.

Now the administration can fund whatever they'd like by telling us for all intents and purposes, it has been funded.

It was clearly rejected by the Council.

I do not like this approach.

It is insulting to the Council and to the taxpayers of the city.

It was not funded.

Show me where it was.

It is not insulting, and if you look, there is an overall cost savings.

When you rejected it, you didn't give the opportunity for the department or the administration to express anything on it.

And so I am sorry, but I I will not take that it's insulting.

Part of government employed the process of the process.

I didn't ask you if you took it as insulting.

I take it as a subject.

I moved the question and I urge a rejection.

Mr.

Chair, if I if I might just reiterate what uh Director Schultz was indicating there, there was not the administration, nor Director Schultz at the time had the opportunity to provide the council with a five-year cost-benefit projection, which which is listed here, referencing specifically the more than $500,000 plus savings in five years that you that you initially spoke about.

Correct.

We did not have the opportunity to present that to Council at the time on the 28th.

Thank you.

Council Sai.

Director, I have been, I think, as tough as anyone on water and sewer and your organization's budget.

And so, you know, whether it was grilling you originally in this position, whether it was pressing for the rate study that we know is forthcoming, or uh whether it was voting against uh your rate increase as proposed.

Not your, but the water and utility department's rate increase.

And so I I will say that my vote was driven by information that was lacking, and I I gave a clear charge and an ask of you at that point in time, which is summarized to say is we can't keep doing things the same way.

So if you wanted an additional position, which as Councilor Carlin accurately stated, we did not establish in the personnel code, um, bring us something that shows that you are doing things differently.

Bring us something that shows us that you are raising uh fees within the city employment, right?

To help ensure that those driving a lot of this cost are paying for it as we did with the cruise ship fee increase.

Bring us uh a way to prove that you are saving funding with a new position that is being created.

And so I am supportive of this because you have delivered.

You have you did what we asked.

And so while I was opposed to the rate increase, well, I was opposed to the original creation of the position, um, I am going to give you credit and I am going to support this, because you did what we asked you to do here, and you are delivering something that's going to help save the ratepayers a half a million dollars a year.

And so while I absolutely share my colleagues' frustration on the cuteness that kind of emerges on not approving a position but the funding still being there, I am very realistic that the work still has to get done, that while I voted against it, that overall rate increase was approved by this body as a whole, and that you have come back with what I at least had uh asked that you do here with the justification of how we're saving ratepayers' money.

And so I will be supporting this based on that logic and an appreciation of the work that you have done here.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Council Carl, we're gonna take a vote on this now.

Uh question from my colleague, Councillor Comzavarodong, please.

Uh thank you for your comments.

Uh I was not aware you well, first of all, would Councilor Kamzavorovang agree that the rate increase was approved by way of the city budget approval.

Yes.

I was not aware you voted against it.

You voted for it.

Yes?

By a five to two vote.

That is incorrect.

Okay.

So you did not vote for the proposed city budget, which included the sewer and the CSO rate increases.

Is that what you are saying?

What I am saying, Councilor Carlin, and you can check the record, is the sewer rate increase specifically is voted on separately as part of the city budget.

As it is voted, including the total city budget with the final vote.

Am I wrong?

No, I don't believe that is accurate.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's fine.

All right, thank you.

So we're going to take a vote.

Show of hands.

I am sorry, Council Swife.

I just I just want to be clear so that I know what I am voting on here.

Okay.

So back during the budget conversations, Council voted against this position, but still voted to approve the budget which had the funding for this position in it, correct?

That is my understanding.

I believe it is confusing and nuanced, but we are not looking for any appropriation.

So as FY26 was approved, this position is funded.

And by approving this, we are going to be saving half a million dollars by going this route.

Plus or minus about 20 percent, yeah.

And building over I think more importantly is the organizational capacity and response capability.

Because right now you have a single point of failure.

Okay.

But the money can't be ignored either.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, if I if I could, just to follow up on my colleague's question.

And this could be helpful for folks watching as well.

The budget itself is a composition of multiple different ordinances.

Part of those is the ordinance to appropriate, part of those is the ordinance for the number of positions for the city, and part of those are two different votes that are taken.

One relative to the rates that are set, which dictates how it is that you are raising the funds to pay for any expenditure in the city, and the other is the general property tax levy.

And so to clarify my colleagues' prior point, I did in fact vote in support of the aggregate city budget.

However, with regards to how specifically those funds are raised, I voted against the sewer rate increase.

And so I wanted to make sure we had that clarified.

Councilor Carlin, you were correct on a portion of that.

And I wanted to make sure we have that on the record.

Council Pinnock?

Thank you.

I was just curious how much of that savings will be passed on to residents.

Oh, it is.

All of it?

Okay.

The reality is we inherited issues that are hundreds of years in the making with aging infrastructure.

We don't have the ability to not comply with several different elements that all overlap.

So what we wind up doing if something is not funded or underfunded, we are making a choice based on a risk profile.

The majority of it in the past decade plus has resulted in deferred payment.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I am sorry.

I am sorry.

I just want to piggyback off of what uh Councilor Pennick said.

So whatever the savings is, where is that money going to go towards that is allocated in the budget?

It gets rolled over every year we come back with the budget, and so there is several different elements of it.

It could wind up being in contract services.

The largest infrastructure gap we have is construction needs, whether that is self-performed or we go out to bid, there is a pretty substantial gap in basically all our underground piping.

A lot of it is at end of useful life or beyond useful life.

Okay.

So this money is going to be put towards helping the overall issues that we are seeing.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Show of hands, raise your right hand.

All those in favor?

All is opposed.

6-1.

This is amending motion to amend Section 10.24.010 of the codified ordinances entitled Parking Prohibited at all times in designated places.

This is a second reading to add Thame Street, East Side, beginning 54 feet south of South Baptist Street, proceeding a distance of 46 feet south.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and second any discussion.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next we have our one resolution.

Mr.

Holder.

Thank you, Councilor.

All right.

So this resolution, so the City and Newport Council asked the City Administration with help from the tree and open space commission, the draft of policy to be followed for this current and future request for the naming of public spaces.

And also further be it resolved that this policy state standards for verifying the community involvement and activities, plaque size, location, impact of public safety, financial liability, and any other matters the group sees fit.

I ask for a second.

Second.

So this resolution came to be because I was approached by uh by Richardson, a longtime resident of Newport.

Actually, former student athlete under my coaching days way back.

And if I don't know, Mr.

Richardson is in the in the crowd.

So basically his great-great-grandfather J.K.

Sullivan was institutional in the placing of the cobblestones in Thame Street, among some other things, along with the Newport School system.

And they have asked that the area of Thame Street be uh where Green Street and Thame Street um and Pellham Street uh come together uh be known as J.K.

Sullivan Square.

Um if anyone has gone down there and looked at the cobblestones as actually stones in place that would be JK 1908 when the cobblestones were put in place in that area.

So before going forward and saying yes, go ahead and do it, and we approve it.

Um I spoke with Maureen Cronin from the Trino Open Space Commission, and we realized that there is really not a policy for something like this to be put in place.

Uh we do have like Memorial Bench Program, we do have other things where where people can can dedicate uh statues and what have you, but nothing for um a public square uh that is uh like this situation.

So uh we decided it would be good to have a policy in place.

So this um resolution is to get that policy put in motion, and then hopefully we can uh okay the uh approval for the J.K.

Sullivan Square and any other public squares and what have you uh in in the future.

There are any questions?

Mr.

Chair, um this came before us before, and I'm really happy to see this because the person who brought it to uh my attention about this J.K.

Sullivan at this the stones being arranged was actually Dr.

Love, who uh was actually a Sullivan also.

And he unfortunately passed away.

So I'm I'm just really happy to see that this um can be done.

And um and I'll always remember Dr.

Mr.

Chairman, was this the guy that used to uh I know Dr.

Love Kevin hey Mr.

Sullivan was a great American and a great New Porter, not to be confused with the guy who used to hand out $22 bills in front of Mr.

Buttons.

You all remember that?

That's low 22.

All right.

Uh without any further discussion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.