David Carlin.

Lynn Underwood Sagley.

Here.

Charlie Holder.

Sai Kim Zavorba.

Here.

Jean Marina Politano.

Here.

Ellen Pinock.

Stephanie Smythe.

Here.

There is a quorum present, Madam.

Thank you.

We will stand for the pledge.

Pledge the means to the flight of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

If we could just remain standing for a moment, we'd like to have a moment of silence for a dear New Porter, Ernest Gibbons, who passed away.

Counselor Thompson Orban, would you like to say a few words?

Thank you very much, uh, Chair Segley.

Um Ernest Gibbons was 97 years old, and he reflected Newport's character in that he was everywhere.

If there was ever a study that we were doing, whether it was on housing or traffic, he would show up.

Uh, if there was uh a situation where there was somebody in need, he would show up and gave an incredible amount of his life to helping many of us across the city, including many of us on this dias and throughout this room.

And so I think it only fitting that we observe uh his wonderful life with a moment of silence to start tonight's meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a much smaller council today.

Um counselor holder chairholder is taking a well-earned vacation.

And um Councillor Pinnock uh could not be here today tonight.

So um, but Mr.

Carlin's here.

Would you like to come over here with us or stay over there?

You're good.

All right.

Okay.

All right, that's fine.

Um Madam Clerk, has anyone signed up for the Citizens Forum?

Uh yes, they have.

Uh first we have Chris Beewich.

Birch.

Okay, sorry.

Um Yeah, hi, uh Chris Birch, um, 24 Old Beach Road.

Um I'm also speaking uh today on behalf of Bike Newport as their advocacy associate.

Um I just wanted to speak before you to provide an update um on the bicycle-friendly community application that was uh submitted by the city of Newport and Bike Newport on June 25th of this year.

Um again, since 2013, Newport has been recognized um as a bronze-rated bicycle-friendly community.

Um today the city is well positioned um to advance to the silver level based on progress that has been made over the past decade.

Um first, I would like to thank this council um for allocating the staff time to complete this application.

Um I would like to thank Newport's resiliency and sustainability director Teresa Crean um for convening all the stakeholders um and ensuring a smooth application process.

I would also like to commend the engineering, planning, public works, and the newport police department um for providing the infrastructure policy and program inventory, um, which led to a robust application.

Um furthermore, I would like to thank the communications department um for circulating the community survey.

Um this survey is like an integral part um of evaluating Newport's bike friendliness, um, and thanks to their outreach.

Uh, we have over 200 responses.

Um this community survey helps the bicycle bicycle-friendly uh America review committee.

Um, get a better understanding of local experiences uh related to biking in Newport um and these local perspectives are um also helped to inform the feedback report, um, which is one of the most valuable outcomes of taking on this application process.

Um so if you have not already done so, uh I would like to personally invite each of you, counselors, um, including any city staff and members of the attendance uh to complete the survey.

Uh it takes about 10 minutes to complete.

Um each question is optional.

Um, and the survey closes this weekend, October 5th.

Um, whether you get on your bike daily or just go for a couple rides in the summer, um, your feedback and perspectives are needed for a comprehensive application.

Um, and with that, the survey can be found on Bike Newport's um homepage on our website, bike newport ri.org.

Um, and looking ahead, we will have another update um in December when the new rankings are released.

Um thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh Peter Garsha.

Hello.

Uh just like to uh could you please state your name and address Peter Gosha of Little 14 Shield Street Newport.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

Uh uh request to revisit um the mandatory insurance on uh commercial mooring.

Um it was passed without any workshop or real uh stakeholders um uh uh uh input, if you will.

Um the mandatory insurance is redundant as mine is managed by old port, which has insurance.

My boat owner who uses the mooring has insurance.

I don't use it as a business, but we're required to have small business insurance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Fulweiler.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I couldn't read it.

John Fulweiler, I'm an attorney over at 40 Mary Street.

I represent some residents and commercial permit holders on the same issue the former speaker raised, which is ordinance uh 1228071.

Basically, it's a requirement.

The commercial mooring holders, permit holders, have to obtain insurance.

And that former speaker was correct.

There was really no discussion, negotiation, consideration as to the city's goals in requiring that.

And we articulated some concerns about the procedural process by which the city went about uh passing that amendment or ordinance um in our September eighth letter, which uh we directed to each of you, and for which, despite three weeks having passed, we've received no response from anyone, much less the harbormaster department.

And I think we raised some rather meaningful concerns, principally that the ordinance uh is really something that's substantive, it's a substantive condition on a mooring, and as such, that's a CRMC um uh matter that needs to be approved by the CRMC.

I don't want to dive down into some sort of moral argument like I'm before an appellate court, but I just simply wanted to give you all notice that I I look at other other jurisdictions, this is East Greenwich.

That requirement, I'm that insurance requirement is in the harbor management plan for East Greenwich.

So it's been approved, we can assume by the CRMC.

And I think the the efforts of the city to sort of push that through without having the harbor commission or waterfront commission, I'm not sure the correct term can sort of have minutes on it.

I understand that there are no minutes of discussion on the on that amendment.

Um suggests maybe we need to revisit that.

And so um my only further comment on that is uh we also raised a concern in our September 8th letter, for which again we've received no response, uh, that there is on the Harbor Master's website a 2024 harbor management plan uh with indications that that's the plan that's in effect.

And yet when we look at the CRMC website, they have a different plan.

And so we asked whether the plan that's posted on the website for the public to view has been has that been approved by the CRMC.

And if so, it would seem like it would be rather easy to approach them and and sort of unpack this issue.

Your interest in obtaining an insurance insurance requirement and commercial holder policy commercial permit holders, so that they might um you know they might bless it, I guess, is the way.

And then finally, just based on experience with insurance, as I do a lot of maritime legal practice.

I I would submit to the city that it perhaps a better way to approach insurance requirement would be for the city to obtain the insurance, because then the city would have control over the coverage they're getting, and they could then allocate the premium across the permit holders.

So if that were so I I guess I conclude by saying if you're gonna have such a requirement, I think it needs to be looked at by the CRMC, which it hasn't been done at a minimum minimum.

The waterfront commission should take a look at it and should take in some comments and give you all some comments.

And then third, I think we've got to maybe consider is there a better way to approach it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Kent.

Good evening.

My name is Peter Kent.

Um I was executive director of the Newport Restoration Foundation.

We're still on the planet.

During that time, all of the workers' comp insurance uh providers pull out of the state of Rhode Island, leaving all the contractors with the inability to renew their contractor's license because they could not obtain workers' comp insurance.

Where am I going with all this?

Uh I have a little book with a few contacts.

Today I contacted uh travelers, I contacted Chubb, and I contacted Floyd's of London.

Without having a corporation, there's absolutely no way that I can insure my mooring, which I've had for 50 years.

Um I think that this is probably something that needs more research.

Perhaps the the uh council could uh come up with some kind of a scheme whereby we can all be a part of a group uh if we do this individually, it's gonna make the mooring cost for visitors unaffordable.

Uh that's all I have to say about that.

Thank you.

Is that it?

Charlotte Johnson.

Good evening.

Good evening.

I'm uh Charlotte Johnson.

I live at 15 Park Street in Newport.

I'm here to respectfully request the city council to rescind or at least delay enactment of the ordinance that requires all Newport Harbor rental mooring holders to carry business liability insurance.

I've owned a rental mooring since 1976.

For years, I used it as a private mooring for either my boat or my mother's boat.

In 2000, after my mother passed away, I turned the mooring over to Oldport Marine to manage.

They rented to a seasonal boat owner.

My moor, my brokerage agreement with Oldport includes inspecting and maintaining my mooring along with naming me as the mooring owner on their insurance.

These are my concerns.

Since I've only won mooring, the cost of this insurance would diminish my income and create a hardship.

I rely on this rental income.

The underwriters I've spoken with are dumbfounded as to why this additional insurance is being required, particularly of me, since I'm already insured through old court.

Looking for an explanation, I reviewed the city's 108-page plan, harbor management plan that was updated on October 18th, 2024, less than a week before the insurance ordinance was introduced.

There is no mention of rental mooring insurance in it.

Although there was an article in Newport this week last year on November 17th entitled Newport Council Approves Insurance Requirement for Commercial Moorings.

As you might understand, I was taken by surprise this July 23rd when I received an email from Assistant Harbor Master Rick Temple stating you will not be able to renew your permit in September without proof of business liability insurance.

That had to be submitted by November 15th.

So based on these concerns, I respectfully request that before November 15th, the council rescind the ordinance requiring rental mooring insurance, or at least postpone enactment of it for another year until it's been properly vetted by the Waterfront Commission and the CRMC.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Elsa, thank you.

So uh that is why I allowed um comment in the citizens forum pertaining to that uh matter.

Madam Chair, yes, Mr.

Announcement, please.

Yes.

Uh on September 20th, a couple Saturdays ago at Morton Park.

The by the approval of the Newport City Council.

Uh the men's and ladies' ancient order of Hibernians held a family day at which we invited or the members and the respective organizations invited uh all residents of Newport and beyond to bring the little ones and others to Morton Park in the third board, uh, and enjoy for a few hours, hot dogs, hamburgers, face painting, and much more.

I want to thank uh both of those organizations as well as the Newport Fire Department and the Newport Police Department, who both had uh a very busy afternoon based on some unfortunate situations firewise and other that uh happened during the event.

Uh, what a great, great, especially considering recent occurrences in the city.

What a great example of what our police and fire and our local organizations, nonprofit, not-for-profit, charity-oriented organizations do.

Thank you to the members of the council and to those organizations.

Thank you.

Okay, motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety with the exception of number 11.

Second.

I have a I have a motion and a second.

Is there discussion?

All in favor?

I number 11 is um Robin Dallin doing business as Japan America Friendship Festival, Turo Park, October 25th, 2025.

From 11 a.m.

to 3 p.m., I make a motion to approve second.

Uh Mr.

Dolan, would you like to speak about this festival?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

So I'm the president of the Japan American Society of Southern Wing.

Our group has been in existence since 2018.

We only did things on the base, and we called ourselves the Japan America Friendship Association, Navy Friendship Association, Newport, until last November when we expanded to do things off base.

And one of the things we wanted to do was when Shimoda comes for their sister city celebration, sister city visit.

We wanted to bring a festival in the Toro Park.

And so that's what we're doing.

So we're bringing a festival, we're bringing in Taiko drums.

We're bringing in a kimono experience and calligraphy and origami.

And Yagi Noodles has agreed to come.

And so we have Japanese food there too.

And we're looking forward to having a wonderful time.

Thank you.

Council General is going to be down for that.

And we'll have the uh it's good.

Looks like it'd be a wonderful time.

Thank you.

We have uh several people coming from the delegation.

Um we have uh four adults, I believe, and four students coming who will be staying with families.

And the festival will go from the 23rd to the 26th, and uh the 23rd, 24th, 23rd, 23.

Right.

So um on the the 23rd, there will be at five o'clock at the Edward King Senior Center uh a welcome to our Japanese uh friends, and we hope that the public will come out to um greet our sister city uh friends.

And um, and then there will be uh, of course, the the festival in the park, and we will have a karaoke evening.

So all of this will be on the website uh coming up, but uh we'll have a karaoke evening one night, and the public will be invited, and then of course the official wreath laying at the burial site of Commodore Perry.

So we uh thank you very much for everything.

This is a very important relationship that we have with Shimoda Japan.

And uh it is the oldest sister city relationship in the country.

Um it was uh the program was started under President Eisenhower as a goodwill um goodwill after World War II.

So I'm saying thank you very much for everything that you do and your entire committee.

Thank you.

All in favor of approving?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay, motion to approve a bittling license, new principal nutrition LLC doing business as SIP to shine 260 Bellevue Avenue.

Second.

Um discussion?

All in favor?

Aye, aye.

Aye.

Um motion to approve an entertainment license expansion, Vanderbilt OPCO LLC doing business as the Vanderbilt 41 Mary Street to expand the entertainment by adding the roof deck daily from 9 from sorry from 5 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

from June 1 through September 30, and the garden terrace daily from 6 p.m.

to 9 30 p.m.

Current entertainment indoors from 7 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

and the garden terrace from Thursday through Saturday from 6 p.m.

to 9 30 p.m.

This is a hearing.

I um do I have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um does anyone like to speak on this issue?

Okay, motion to close the public.

Oh Matt Lyons, 513 Broadway.

Um, just the attorney uh representing Vanderbilt Opco.

I'm available.

The council has any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Does the council have any questions?

No.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye, aye.

Thank you.

Okay, uh motion to adjourn as council and convene as board of licensed commissioners.

Uh motion to approve this consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

Um, any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Uh moving on to licenses and permits.

Uh, action item six three seven four show cause hearing for the peer in mid club.

I'm gonna make a motion that we withdraw this second.

Do is there any discussion?

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Motion to adjourn as board of licensed commissioners and reconvene as council.

Second.

So any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Uh, next is communications from the city manager.

Uh action item 6505.

Um Council Nepalitano, do you want to go to your blue sheets?

There we go.

6505.

Yes.

This is a recommendation that is approving a revised and new administration administrative purchasing policy that governs procedures for all city departments, including the school department, in regard to purchasing thresholds and procedures for public bid opportunities and the amendments to the city ordinance to reflect the same purchasing limits as the state of Rhode Island to be approved.

Make a motion to approve.

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

Discussion.

Council Napolitana, did you have something you wanted to talk about this?

With this.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Next action item 6506.

Yes.

This is a um recommend it to the council, but direct the administration to inform CRMC and RIDEM that the city has no objection to the project.

It's a notice from the Coastal Resource Management Council and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management regarding the application of 128 Long Wharf LLC, 128 Long Wharf Marina to perform maintenance dredging of approximately 2,643 cubic yards of material.

The application was referred to the Waterfront Commission for their comments.

At the Thursday, September 11th meeting, the Newport Waterfront Commission reviewed the above application with the Harbormaster.

The Waterfront Commission voted to recommend the approval of this application.

Motion to approve a motion to approve.

Second.

Mr.

City discussion.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Thank you.

We're meeting this evening instead.

Given that as was explained by Council and Napolitano, the Waterfront Commission met on September 11th and reviewed this application.

They did so in expectation that the application would be submitted, or I should say that the commentary from both the Waterfront Commission and subsequently, if we had met last Wednesday from the council, would be submitted to CRMC by the deadline for submitting such commentary.

When when was that deadline, Mr.

Manager?

Deadline was September.

September 26th.

So we have lost the opportunity to effectively address this since we are meeting past September 26th.

Have we addressed this with CRMC?

I do not believe so.

I will check with Pat Fay.

Typically we'll contact CRMC for any extensions if they're required.

Okay.

Okay.

So Madam Chair.

So I'm can I get a clarification?

We did not opine on this at all.

We did not give a council opinion one way or the other.

And we did not request a extension.

For which the city would be given an opportunity to comment on this, considering we didn't have, I mean, did we simply drop the ball?

That's my question.

Thank you.

Mr.

Manager, uh, do you think that you could contact them and we should continue this until the fall the next meeting?

We certainly could.

Uh it's it's the deadline being September 26.

It's unlikely that in just a few short days later, they've already made a final decision.

We can try to intercept them and simply request an extension and/or reconsideration.

So if uh you'd like to continue this item to afford us the opportunity to do so, I would be happy to do that.

Madam Vice Chair.

Yes.

Just another example where the city has dropped the ball.

Okay.

Um I mean, it's it's something we need to face the facts on here.

We drop the ball.

The city dropped the ball on this.

There are rules for a reason.

We did not uh opine on this by uh the requested deadline by CRMC, their request.

And uh we did not ask for an extension either, regardless of the circumstances that exist in this case.

I I'm embarrassed.

Mr.

City Solicitor, do you think that we need to continue this or should we uh discuss it and vote on it and ask for an extension?

What they're asking is whether they're giving you notice to the city that you may comment on it and say you would object to it if you had an objection.

So I guess the first order of business is if that is the case.

If it isn't the case, then you don't have to address it.

Well, because it looks as though it's gone through all of the other city uh regulatory uh processes.

So uh how does everyone feel about voting on this uh tonight?

Can we hear from sure?

Yes.

Could I have your name?

Uh name's Gus Cruz Camp, um director of waterfront engineering for VHB on behalf of uh 128 Longworth LLC.

And um what would you like to say about this?

Oh, just I'm here to answer any questions and I'll quick overview is the uh the marina is located immediately to the west of Newport Yacht Club uh and uh to the east of the of the uh of the state fishing pier.

It was the old Casey's marina, yeah.

Yes, and Bill continues to manage the facility.

Yes.

So it's uh we're looking to do uh dredging.

It's part of the first step in a in a process to upgrade the facilities over uh the goal is to continue it as a marine operation, but as you know, I'm sure people notice it's it could use a little help, and this is the first step.

Right.

Um, in your capacity, do you see the deadline passing as something that is should stop us from voting on this?

Honestly, I think as a solicitor said, I think it's you know, this if there's no issue or no, you know, um you know there's no if there's no problem then I think that's the the point of the CRMC is they're trying to understand from the municipalities if or in you know the city of Newport if there's in fact a problem from their perception.

Okay, I think we should just um discuss this and vote on it.

Does anyone have any other discussion about this?

I just want to mention there's no fiscal impact.

Um, and it has been recommended by um a number of departments.

So yes, yes.

I mean it's it's it's a very straightforward uh situation.

Dredging is a necessary component of any kind of waterfront management.

Uh we're looking to remove roughly 20 2600 uh cubic yards of material.

Uh it's gonna help improve the facility, and we also are planning on in future uh filing you know future applications to further this along.

And material is going to be taken and uh brought to the uh the uh state cadsall up in the Providence River.

And I would assume all that dredging would be leave the island, right?

All of that that's being dredged, all of that silt and everything is going to be leaving the island.

It's yeah, exactly.

It's going up to the Providence River.

Okay, thank you.

This also has to be reviewed by DEM.

Yes, we have a water quality.

Yes, water quality survey and army corps of engineers applications as well.

Okay.

Well, I'm ready to vote on this.

Yes, okay.

Madam Vice Chair, yes, one final comment.

I would be more than happy to vote for this.

Uh recommending that the council approve or at least not disagree with the application when CRMC addresses it.

Uh it's the process that I disagree with.

We have gone beyond the deadline by which to object.

Uh so the council's opinion is meaningless at this point, thereby degrading uh the in my opinion, the opinion of the council.

Thank you.

Okay.

We ready to vote?

All in favor?

Aye.

Well, is that unanimous?

Mr.

Okay.

It is opposed.

Any opposed?

It's four to one.

All right.

Action item 6507.

Yes.

This is a recommendation from the Harbor Master to approve the ordinance amendments that include yacht club mooring reclassification and rental to private mooring conversions.

The background on it, um, yacht club mooring encompasses any mooring that is permitted by the city registered to an established yacht club and may be used to generate compensation through the yacht club members' rental.

This greatly improves each yacht club and their ability to promote prospective races programs and club activities through the usage of mooring property.

Um request for mooring permits and permit changes.

The optional conversion of a rental mooring to a private mooring will ensure the proper classification for mooring permit holders that more appropriately describes the actual usage of the moorings.

Any conversion from rental mooring to private mooring must be in the name of the existing permit holder, so long as the permit holder does not already hold additional private moorings.

Um the mooring permit classification and quotas, the additional of yacht club moorings will further clarify clarify mooring classifications to accurately describe the usage and purpose of each mooring in Newport Harbor.

And finally, fees and fines.

The yacht club mooring permit annual fee will be the same as the Newport Harbor rental mooring permit annual fee, as the two classifications share overall usage descriptions and purposes.

Second.

Yes.

Um I'd like to hear from the Harbor Master just to kind of explain what is happening so that provide a little bit more transparency to the public.

Thank you.

Good evening, uh, Harbor Master Stephen Land.

All right, let's uh take one step back.

Um, what we're talking about here are the rental moorings, and we have been out of whack with our percentage of rental moorings.

We are supposed to how it's written in our ordinance 25% rental moorings, 75% uh private moorings.

Uh, when I started here five summers ago, we were not in that compliance.

I asked you know, staff about it, and they said it's it's been out of whack for a while, and that's that's how it is.

I said, okay.

Uh working with CRMC over the last few years with this harbor management plan.

One of the things they recommended is that we work towards getting this back into compliance.

And we do everything we can to get it back into compliance before we change the number.

The number can be changed.

Um, so I was working with CRMC, and they said, give us all your ideas.

And the first one that came up is yacht club moorings.

They're used in other harbors.

We've got two major yacht clubs that uh have yacht club moorings, and they are not true rental moorings, they do not open them to the general public.

They um they rent them to their members or reciprocal clubs.

It's not you can't just call them up and say I want to rent mooring from you.

Um second is giving the option for the reclassification from a private mooring, uh, excuse me, from a rental mooring to a private mooring.

Since I've been here, I've had many requests of people saying, I bought this mooring years ago, I don't rent it out.

Can I convert it?

And I said, right now we're not doing any transfers that's how it started.

But I've gotten a lot of requests from that.

Since I've we've gone and talked about this at the waterfront commission, I've had a lot more requests.

When can I do this?

Um it gives control of the rental mooring to make that option.

We have you know so third, I'm gonna add I've been able to space out 18 or 18 to 20 new mooring spaces.

That's not replacing what we have as people give up their moorings, but actually 20 more in the harbor as it as it holds now.

There's holes out there that we can put in boats in.

Um, the third thing that I talked about, fourth thing I talked about with CRMC is actually moving the cable.

And if we can do that, I have talked to Rhode Island Energy about that.

It's gonna take some work to move that cable.

That would free up some space out in the harbor too.

Um so what we're we're looking at right now as we stand, we have um 918 total moorings.

Uh 546 of them are private, 340, 54 are rental.

What I'd like to move to or what we're shooting for is, and that's at uh 80, we're at 38 percent right now.

Um we we'd love I think with these small changes of really nomenclature and reclassification.

We can get down to 32 percent.

This is not something we have to do this year.

It can be a multiple year step.

This week alone, I had people who were giving up their commercial moorings.

They said, I'm I'm done renting moorings, I'm changing my lifestyle.

Um so that number is going to change as we go through the permitting process.

Um so I'd like to get down to at least 30% and then talk about, you know, with the waterfront commission with the council.

What does the ratio wanna look like?

What do we want to have?

This ratio is set over 30 years ago.

Uh the harbor has changed.

This the racing has changed.

The clubs, what they're supporting, have changed.

Just storing boats out in the harbor might not be the best use of the public waters of the port.

So this is a uh two, this is gonna be a multi-step ordinance change.

First, we're gonna figure out what we have out there in reality.

If we if people aren't using those rental moorings, they're not a rental moor.

If the yacht clubs are out there, let's make them yacht club warnings.

Once we actually know what's out there, then we're gonna talk about the percentage.

Percentages is just not the percentage of the whole harbor.

Unfortunately, the ordinance is more detailed than that.

It says 25% in each named field, and that is not gonna be possible.

Um, the main harbor has over 67% rental moorings for good reason.

That's where the visiting voters want to be.

That's we're not gonna move half of the rental moorings way out to the point.

There's nothing out there for them.

They wanna be in the harbor.

That's why people come.

That's why Newport is such an attractive place to come to.

So there's gonna be some more ordinance changes with this ratio.

Um, there's no way that we're gonna change that.

We're gonna have continue on to that 75 or 25% per field.

We're gonna start with this.

We're gonna see in December after all the permitting's done, where we're at, and then we'll go on to the next ordinance change.

Is that clarify?

It does.

Um, I I just wanna a lot of numbers up there.

Yeah, exactly.

Um, so somebody who has a rental mooring, this is an option for them to switch over to private.

To change classifications, okay, and switch over.

If they have a private boat on it, they've been using to store their private boat the last 25 years, it's not a rental mooring.

That's not open to the general public to rent.

We shouldn't be calling it a rental mooring.

And how does this impact the issue with the what we heard earlier about the injury?

It does not, unfortunately.

If you if you have a rental mooring and you change to a private, you don't need business insurance because you're not running a business.

So that would be a less of a hardship for them.

But actually improves their life.

Uh gives them more control.

Um what would be the downside of doing this?

I don't I don't see a downside.

I think we are going to change and update our ordinances so they reflect to what's really going on out there, and then we're gonna improve.

Um last couple years.

Been contact by different you know types of boats.

The biggest fleet we have in the harbor right now is the shields.

They are uh 30-foot classic boat, absolutely stunning.

We have 39 of them in the harbor, and very few of them have their own private mooring.

We I the the harbors department puts 11 of them on turnbacks every year.

It's kind of white-knuckled for them because we might not get those every year, and they're in different parts of the harbor.

Should they, you know, this is a a locally run fleet of Newport residents.

Should we design an area for them to put their field their shields?

I know match racing has become incredibly popular in the last couple of years.

And they use a boat called a Snowinar.

We have tons of them in the harbor.

They right now we're hauling them all out at at Sale Newport.

That's something we can easily do.

When you pack the same type of boat in an area, you can pack them very close together because they all move exactly the same way, especially shields.

They're all wet surface.

We should be supporting this, not making them scramble every year.

These are residents racing these boats.

Thank you.

So there's stuff like that that we're gonna be able to improve once we have this ratio and get a handle on it.

This is step one of a few steps to get a handle on this.

Councilor Comms Borvang, so just to clarify again, the private mooring conversion option.

It's not a mandate.

So somebody has a rental mooring, they don't have to do that.

We are giving them an additional right that they do not currently have.

Correct.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, yes.

Um if if council is I'm sorry, Mr.

I didn't see you.

Go ahead.

Not at all.

Please, I yield to Council Smith.

I'd just like to hear from who is here in the public just to see what kind of questions or concerns they might have on the internet.

In that case, I I would like to ask my questions ahead of time.

Yes, go ahead, Mr.

Carla.

Thank you.

Um Thank you.

Can you educate me, the council, if they don't know and the public, uh if they don't know, many of whom absolutely do know.

What's the CRMC Red Book?

The CRMC Red Book is uh is the book of basically regulations that CRMC puts out for everything coastal related.

Does the CRMC Red Book have two classifications for moorings?

One uh private and two commercial, or are they allowing more uh as is found in this proposed ordinance?

That's a great question.

So they do have two two classifications, private and rental, but I have been recommended by Kevin Cute from C RMC to go forward with yacht club.

Yacht clubs are also in other harbors too.

There are parts of the postal CRMC Red Book that are not updated to reality of the harbors that exist and the ordinances that exist.

I appreciate the answer.

So regardless of whether the state, CRMC in particular, has found the time to update their red book.

The red book that exists allows for two classifications.

Am I correct?

Right now, how it's written in the red book.

There are two, but CRMC has recommended that we go with Yaklo.

Yes.

Where can I find it's a it's an interesting conundrum.

I agree.

Where can I find what you just said in writing by regulation or state law?

In the red book about No, I didn't ask you that.

Uh we define what's allowed by the Red Book.

I then asked you based on your response to me.

Correct.

Where can I find either in the Red Book, which obviously does not exist, or uh in state law, or in some type of regulatory ruling by CRMC, that what you are proposing here is fine and dandy with CRMC.

I I don't, with great respect to whomever you are referring in your telephone conversations.

I don't want to uh rely on hearsay.

Where can I find what you are proposing tonight as an official CRMC as something CRMC officially approves of?

I'm not I'm not too sure exactly where in the red book they do talk about this.

Thank you, Matt.

Do you have do you have um any uh documentation saying that CRMC is open to this type third classification?

I have, yes, we have communications with with Kevin Q about this.

Mr.

Bean.

We also have it's just not the Red Book.

We have enabling legislation from the General Assembly that gives us authority to also make ordinances and govern moorings in our harbor.

So there's there's a little bit more to it than just CRMC's red book.

Okay.

Um like a car, you have to have insurance.

Do all the boats have insurance?

But insurance is not on the docket for this.

No, but I'm I'm just asking the question in the city of Newport's moorings.

If you have a private mooring, you have to insure your vessel.

Okay.

That is what we have written in the the ordinances right now.

There it is not written that if you rent a mooring out, if you have a business that rents a mooring, that boat has to have insurance.

A lot of boats do have insurance.

I agree.

Not all of them do, but a lot of them do.

So the difference is between a private mooring is the recipient of that permit boat is registered to them and to the mooring, and they have insurance for that vessel.

Okay.

With the business liability insurance, they're running a business and they're renting it out to someone else that the city has no control over.

We don't know if they have insurance or not.

And that's the difference.

Yeah.

Okay.

I don't really want to open this up to the insurance.

Because this is uh all this is about uh yeah, um ordinance concern concerning uh moorings.

So um so these these are not these are for getting down the percentages.

So we know it's out there, so we can move forward and offer Newport citizens what needs to be offered to run the harbor, like the different shield, like the different types of of fields and stuff like that.

These aren't changing any way things operate.

These aren't changing anyway.

There's not adding moorings, subtracting moorings.

It's just reclassification of two types of moorings that aren't being used in the title that they're they're being called right now.

And that is for clarification.

So we can move forward from proving the function of the harbor.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak on this?

Oh, again, Vidasha.

Second generation new Porter, my father, and we get a game.

Mr.

Garcia, would you please speak into the microphone?

Thank you.

So Peter Gosh is the second generation New Porter father is almost three decades decades director of public works, former city council.

My mother originally attained this mooring.

I'm 62 since I was before I was born.

People like her made the effort to help the city, help the harbor, bring in boats by committing funds, et cetera, to establishing and committing to a commercial mooring.

She and others were always allowed, and still on the books, or it's not in the books not to allow to keep your own boat on there.

That's originally what it was all about.

Yeah, you had the option.

It was an option.

You could have a mooring, you could rent it, you could give it to a friend to use.

In fact, mine's not even a business.

I let a friend use mine.

So I don't, and it's under my name.

I don't even have a small business.

It was never an issue.

I don't see this issue that's so uh drastically changing in this upheaval, what why it is absolutely necessary.

Um it should be my decision, business or otherwise.

Uh, for Mike Musal, I'm sorry, Mike's father of Musil original harbor master when I was a kid to Rudy Brigetta to Tim Mills.

Everything ran smoothly, no issues.

Um this offer to take basically a taking or transfer from uh commercial to private.

Uh um is basically in essence a taking.

Um, yes, we'll get a private mooring, but we can't rent it.

And if we don't have a boat, then it's gonna get taken from that as well.

So that's a bad deal for commercial mooring holders.

Um, you can't transfer it.

Um, but it's uh it should be allowed to transfer as it's a business.

I shouldn't be told how it can handle my business if it's technically you're treating me as a business, although it's not um, it's under my personal name.

So for me, it's uh basically it's it's it's another it's enough taking from generational new quarters, ways of life, and uh strongly opposed.

May I just ask a question of um this harbor master?

There is no obligation to do this.

This is something that is voluntary, correct?

Completely voluntary for the if you want to keep your rental mooring, absolutely keep your rental mooring, continue renting it and bringing visitors to the harbor.

It's absolutely fantastic.

The um the rental moorings of Newport are vital.

Um, we're a vivacious harbor because we get so many transients from all over the world.

It is absolutely important that we protect these this asset to the city.

Um go to a harbor that's all private moorings, and it is not vivacious, it is very sleepy, very quiet.

It might be beautiful, but that is not Newport.

We want to have this option for people to come either nightly or seasonally.

Absolutely.

We're gonna protect this.

There's no intention of getting getting rid of these rental moorings.

That is not uh on the on the table whatsoever.

What we're we're doing is we want to find out what we really have out there right now.

We've got their moorings that are misclassified, they're not being used as rental moorings, and let's let's figure out what they are without without threatening, without taking anything away.

We don't take away anything.

We just want people to say I've not used this mooring ever as a rental mooring.

I've had my personal boat on it.

I want you know, let's change it to a private.

It doesn't affect them at all.

They cannot transfer the private moorings, they cannot transfer the rental moorings.

That makes no difference either.

Okay, thank you.

Did you have a comment?

Good evening, Jack Brant, 264 Avenue.

Um, I am a commercial uh mooring owner.

Just to quickly go back several years ago when the city proposed significant changes to the um private moorings and the way they could or could not be transferred.

Uh there was a lot of uproar by the um by the mooring owners at that time.

Uh there was concern that there was a lack of transparency.

There was a concern that there was a lack of input by the mooring owners, and to the city's credit.

The um one or more public hearings were held, workshops, if you will, to hear from the mooring owners.

And there was back and forth, etc.

And finally, the um final ordinance came to the council and it was passed.

Now, not everybody was happy with the outcome of that ordinance at all, but they were happy with the transparency and the opportunity to have a public hearing and to express our concerns and to have a back and forth discussion.

Um moving forward to today.

In the spring, we had for the moorings, we had um fee increases.

We have the we've heard about tonight in the opening comments, the insurance, etc.

And how much time is available for that um and when it's going to take effect and its availability.

Now we have changes in the classifications of the commercial moorings to go to private.

We're having this classification for yacht club moorings, and they're going to be treated differently.

All of this has been done without public hearing, without input.

It's been on a piecemeal approach.

The insurance was last year, the fee increases were this spring.

We um now we're doing uh the other changes now.

There's not where's the overall approach so that there was a clear understanding and input from the stakeholders on what's happening in Newport Harbor?

I my plea to the city council here is that you would um you would continue this and direct the either the waterfront commission, this city administration, or a combination of them, to um to hold a public hearing on all of these issues.

There's no harm.

The harbor is ratcheting down.

Votes aren't going to be coming back until the spring.

So there's time here to do this.

Um while cooler heads can prevail and input can be had from the stakeholders.

So that's my request to the council.

Um, Mr.

Um Harbormaster.

Could you please explain the process that has happened with these um proposed ordinance change?

Yes.

Um I worked on just rough drafts of these proposed ordinances when I was working with CRMC.

I brought them to the waterfront commission.

Uh we discussed it in, I believe, two or three meetings.

Uh I brought the rough draft and we talked about the concepts of it, what the goal was to get that number starting moving in the right direction.

Um, then I brought the final versions that were produced by the city solicitor, and we discussed them there.

And we also they voted on that, and they they supported it, which you've got a letter of support with the packet.

So this I went through the process that has been laid out for me on these small, these small ordinance changes.

Um they're not this is not a significant change.

There's no change to the yacht clubs towards calling them yacht club lines.

There's there's no change in the function of them, how they serve the public.

Um, this is a really a nomenclature change, a uh it's what we're calling them.

It's not a physical change at all.

Thank you.

So I, you know, I did go through all the steps that that we did we have to do this.

Thank you.

So anyone else from the audience who'd like to speak.

John Fulweiler and speak for a number of residents and commercial permit holders.

The comment about the ad hoc approach here is what I think the city should be concerned about.

While indeed the city solicitor is correct, there's a broad grant to the municipalities for how they control their harbor.

There's also a law, which I cited in our September 8th letter, which makes clear that all harbor rules, regulations, or programs need to be reviewed by the CRMC.

And what I'm seeing, I think, just forayed into this recently is a rather ad hoc approach to this.

Bits and pieces coming before the council without a real driving North Star by which to pursue.

And while there's been comments about um, and I defer to my inability to pursue legislative history with any kind of acumen, but I would say that we weren't able to find any minutes that just that captured any kind of discussion on these topics uh before the waterfront commission.

So I I think that the city is tacking in back and forth without a what the CRMC asked, which is a North Star, you a goal instead of an ad hoc approach.

Thank you.

Question.

Yes.

Uh counselor, thank you very much for coming before us.

Uh so in working with your client, I'm assuming that you review public documentation that's being put forth in an item.

If you're going to make an assertion that something hasn't been through a public process, you've read through the requisite public documents associated with those agenda items.

Is that a safe assumption?

I think it's as I said, uh, with deference to my ability to do much research on the issue, yeah.

Yeah, no, sir.

That's that's completely fair.

So I'm I'm looking at this letter from September 11th on this agenda item.

Uh it says this item came before our waterfront commission was heard, and they rendered an opinion on that.

On my on our September 8th letter?

On specifically on this issue that's before us right now that you're speaking on appearing before us.

read through the requisite public documents associated with those agenda items is that a safe assumption I think it's as I said uh with deference to my ability to do much research on the issue yeah yeah no sir that's that's completely fair so I'm I'm looking at this letter from September 11th on this agenda item uh that says this item came before our waterfront commission was heard and they rendered an opinion on that on my on our September 8th letter on on specifically on this issue that's before us right now that you're speaking on appearing before us and so my question is in your earlier assertion that the regulations that we're considering right now haven't been through any public process that there's no evidence in the waterfront commission's correspondence public meeting minutes uh that there was no process that was followed what is this letter if it's not evidence of that process well a I disagree with the premise I I did I didn't say that there was nothing followed I simply said there wasn't an invitation there weren't uh commentary captured in the minutes of the waterfront commission so I don't know what you're referring to you know we sent in the letter on September 8th you're telling me on September 11th it was heard without notice to our office is that what you're saying sir well what I'm citing here is that you're appearing before us on a specific ordinance change that's being considered and other the public meeting rules that's we're speaking to right now as part of that and as an attorney representing a client did you review the entirety of the documented materials on which you are now presenting a public comment on.

Did you review the item that you're speaking on right now and the materials associated with that's part of our council agenda.

Well I reviewed our September 8th letter and did a fair bit of research.

I don't think I'm following you if you're talking about there was a seven September 11th hearing or committee meeting at which our letter was addressed then I I sort of take umbridge the fact that we weren't giving any notice let me try and give some clarification here.

Please you are representing your clients we've established on an item that is on our docket this evening.

There is um uh a I I made comments initially because I don't think the item is actually on the docket this evening so I think I could be accused of trying to wedge myself into this proceeding I give you that okay so so you're you're actually your your comments right now are not relative to the item before us.

I disagree I think they are very relevant.

So it's part of that goes toward the ad hoc approach and so I was standing and offering the committee some commentary in that regard.

That's helpful what I'm getting at though counselor is that if you're here speaking on an item that you are representing your clients on we've established that have you actually reviewed the item itself that's before us.

The the yacht club mooring program this specific item on our agenda yes no I I I'm not here for that.

I am here to mention the reason I'm standing before you sir is because are you using this item to speak on an unrelated item respectful.

Let me okay yes I'm using this item to offer to the council my comments on behalf of our clients that it appears to be yet another sort of piecemeal approach to what I would argue as I said in my opening statements is a a sort of a lack of uniform approach to how to handle it but you don't have a comment on these particular ordinance changes other than the fact that they're tethered I would argue to my comments initially okay but I that's irrelevant.

So we're we're um yeah it's just it's it's there are comments made before the city council and I've cut you off with apologies uh about certain enactments and right state and the CRMC and I'm thinking up on on uh council person carlin's uh my eyes are failing uh correctly uh you know and I I so I do think I offer some uh benefit to the council in commenting that yes there the CRMC is sort of the genesis of how things should be run here.

And I appreciate the the commentary around the consideration the concern around an ad hoc approach I just can't help but find some irony in the fact that you are critiquing the city for taking an ad hoc approach and you are inserting yourself in an unrelated item that you haven't even read asserting that we are make taking an ad hoc approach on this item.

No no that that premise is inaccurate I'm surprised you're coming at it from that angle because this is not a very long document to read.

So I I have read that I've already told you I've found a bit of relationship between the two and so I thought I would offer some comments which I think are germane to what you've already heard this evening.

Well you you've asserted that you've read this uh you've asserted simultaneously that this product and this document didn't go through any sort of a review of our waterfront commission any sort of a process and yet there is a letter as part of this agenda item that speaks specifically to the process it was gone through and our waterfront commission weighing in on this item and so I'm just looking for some level of consistency here if what you're speaking to is that this item is tangentially related to a separate issue which I believe the majority of people here are most concerned about which is not an expansion of what they can do with their mooring but rather a separate issue of their ability to transfer moorings and the insurance requirement that's fine for you to make that assertion on trying to make that tangential connection but that is it's a bit of a leap from the immediate item at hand on our agenda right now is something that actually expands the rights of current mooring holders.

Well no I I don't want to repeat myself but I'll simply summarize it in this way you have your city solicitor making comments about what state law says you have councilman parlan making comments about the importance of the red book the CRMC's red book and so I think that my initial comments from which I'm pivoting off are related to this discussion.

Mr Chair um I Mr.

Um I'm sorry, but um I think that um your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

I just like to talk about the ad hoc process.

This is a very specific goal we're going for.

He's bringing in past ordinance changes.

Really have nothing to do with this.

Um our goal is to work towards that 25%.

And this is the first of many small ordinance changes.

You don't want to do massive sweeping policy changes.

That doesn't end out well.

You want to change something, see how it plays out, work on something else, see how it plays out.

This harbor is constantly developing while we do that.

So this is the first step in several ordinance changes you're going to see over the winter.

Like I said earlier, we have to work on the percentage.

We'll probably never get down to that 25%.

We might.

Uh, we're gonna have to work on the 25% per field.

That one I am not going to support.

I will absolutely change that because that's not how the harbor should be run.

There's also another one that says that we have to have 40 dedicated transient moorings.

That does not exist right now as we speak.

Um, there's a lot of parts to the moorings, the rental moorings section that we need to update because it's old and dated.

And we're gonna do that over the winter, probably do it over the next two winters.

Um, and over the next two winters, the harbor will change shape.

These ratios, all those numbers that you you saw are going to change.

Um, so this isn't an ad hoc.

There is a a reason for this, and this is a benign transfer of our uh reclassification ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Is there one more comment, please?

Name and address for the record, please.

Yes, thank you for your time and attention to this subject.

My name is Henry Spingler.

213 Coxhall Avenue Newport.

I don't do a lot of public speaking, so please bear with me.

Uh I hope you uh read my email and copy of the letter I delivered to the waterfront commission uh at the last meeting.

I have been a resident resident of Newport for over 80 years.

I have been around Newport Waterfront and the harbor my whole life.

When I was a kid, most of the voting was done by the Navy.

Boats is the biggest, uh, as big as the ones you see now at Code Island and the shipyard.

They were painted gray and had big white numbers on it.

So two ferries ran back and forth between Newport and Jamestown and passed each other at some point going in opposite directions, which kept the main harbor clear of moorings.

There were about 24 moorings off of Ida Lewis and in Britain's Cole, and a few in the basin where Parieti Park is now.

I have had one commercial mooring for about 50 years.

And at my age, you might think no big deal.

And in my case, you're probably right.

But a lot of my friends and others are getting pretty stressed out and upset about certain proposed changes.

My doctor told me that stress is not good for you.

Maybe he and I were talking about fishing, but anyway.

I know there are a lot of people in Newport that are affected by these even small changes.

I think it's a good idea, like my friend Jack said, have more time to fully discuss the changes and their consequences.

Everyone will feel better at a full and thorough public discussion where to take place, and stakeholders could voice, their concerns.

There's a lot of detail going on.

A lot of people don't know about moorings.

So and even tonight's proposal for a new category, a new category.

That's a that's it's a big deal.

And I think the city, did the city just put in 20 some rental moorings?

Okay.

As a sale for racing uh uh advocate, uh maybe it's time to put a postponement play.

And let's have more discussion.

Thank you.

Is there any more discussion from the chairs?

I I would just like to know from the harbor master or the chair of the waterfront commission what the dates are that you have your meetings so that for the benefit of this audience who may want to go to some of the meetings to check out what you're talking about.

So the waterfront commission is the second Thursday of every month.

It's located at the Maritime Center, which is the bottom uh floor of the sailing hall of uh hall of fame.

The entrance is on the water side.

It is our welcome center.

If you have not been there, you absolutely should check it out.

It is uh I've sailed around the world, and that is probably the most spectacular welcome center that I've ever seen.

Um so it's worth this coming and taking a look at.

Um that's when those meetings are.

Um, they are fluid, they're open.

I feel that there's a good dialogue of ideas.

Um, and we we discuss stuff.

You know, we we talk about how we want the harbor shape in the future.

Um it the harbor is a lot more than just moorings, too.

I work half of my job is on public access and making sure we have public access for for everyone, not just mooring holders.

Uh people who want to get down to the shore or want to launch a kayak who who want to just go for a walk, want to walk the waterfront.

Uh I spend half my job working on public access.

The moorings just a sliver.

The other half is or the third half is it's these cruise ships that are outside right now.

Uh ones leaving in about a half an hour.

Um, but yeah, these are welcome to all.

And this is where we we actually do have these debates and discussions, and sometimes they can they can last months.

Um but these are regularly scheduled meetings and they're open to the public and you have public comment, and these have been going on for a very, very, very long time, correct?

Correct.

I think we're ready.

Madam Chair, yes.

Um, I'd like to thank the harbor master.

I know that that your job is not easy, so I can appreciate what you're trying to do here.

Um, but I can also appreciate what the public is saying to us, and they are saying that they want more community engagement and uh more transparency to to this whole process.

So I would like to motion to continue this item to have a workshop on this and the um insurance item, just just to provide more of an opportunity for the public to come together, really ask their questions, discuss their concerns, and then hopefully move forward with what we're trying to achieve, which is a safer harbor.

Do I have a second question, Madam Chair?

Yes, Mr.

Carlin.

The sponsor Council Smythe, would you be willing?

I appreciate your proposed amendment, which I will support.

Thank you, Ms.

Mr.

Spangler, uh, Mr.

Grant, Mr.

Garsha, and others.

Uh it's entirely appropriate to have a public workshop before we vote on this.

Would you be willing to, instead of continuing uh this ill-advised ordinance proposal, would you be willing to indefinitely postpone the ordinance proposal in favor of a public workshop?

Um, I I can't approve this item as it stands.

So the only way that I would approve it is if a workshop happens.

Um, I know that there is an important timetable in November regarding the insurance piece.

So I would prefer a workshop to happen before we get to that point.

So whether a workshop can happen in the next couple of weeks to engage the public and then have this item reintroduced at the end of October or at the November meeting, then that would be my preference.

I appreciate that.

And uh for clarification, I asked that question because an indefinite postponement is different than a continuance.

A continuance essentially guarantees uh that this item will be up again.

Uh, but I would like to first have the public workshop.

And then if we like what we hear, and if everybody who testified tonight and others like what we hear at the public workshop, we'll bring it back again.

Uh but I don't want to guarantee that it comes up again.

Uh either way, I'll support you.

Um my issue with this uh continuance or indefinite, whatever we have public hearings.

We have we have what you would call a workshop pertaining to the waterfront, which is the waterfront commission.

This is where these things are discussed.

If we're going to have a workshop and overruling everything that our our commissions do and and re-hearing everything, and we're not even the experts on this.

The commission is the experts on it.

So, what's the point of having the commission?

So I I don't see why we would need to do that.

We have this is this is a very simple item.

There's not there's nothing here that has but I mean, I'm talking about I'm talking about from it's definitions of a yacht club moorings.

There are other issues I understand that are more complicated.

This one though, this is not, but this this issue is not an obligation.

You choose to whether or not you want to do this.

This you're not obligated to go from a rental mooring to a private mooring.

You're not going to be able to do that.

Madam Chair, can we hear from the solicitor?

Yes, from the solicitor.

Yes.

Yeah.

There isn't a motion that's been seconded.

Right.

So I want to debate the matter any further.

Okay.

Unless you're going to take the main motion.

Okay.

Do we have to detain a sub-type of motion to postpone, which is do we have a second on the continuous yes, we do.

I second it.

Okay.

All in favor for continuing.

I all opposed.

Nay.

Okay.

Could I say something that I think that might help?

I I agree that we should probably re-look at and do a workshop for the business liability insurance.

I have I know everyone on that uh on the dias gotten phone calls and emails.

I have gotten probably 10 times what you guys have gotten.

I do understand the confusion.

I have a hard time communicating where the lapse of coverage is.

So I think a workshop on that would be welcome.

It it has it was passed a year ago, so it is in effect.

Um we have been getting successful people finding insurance and filling out their applications.

They've been approved.

So it it is possible.

Um, you know, it's it's life goes on.

Um tonight's stuff is not it's not it's not exciting, it's not earth shattering or changing any function of anything.

Um so does that help?

Or Madam Chair?

Yes, yes, Mr.

Carlin.

Thank you very much to my colleagues, to the Harbor Master and to the public, especially.

Uh it is complicated.

It is uh controversial.

And uh because uh a public workshop, which my colleague councillor Smythe recommended that we hold before the vote, before the vote was uh rejected by the council.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the proposed ordinance.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I could.

Yes.

I want to make two kind of general observations here that I think are important.

The first is that commercial mooring holders in this city over the course of decades have been absolutely critical stewards of building this harbor into what it is today.

And so their sense of ownership over that stewardship is sincerely rooted.

It is important, and we should be honoring that.

And I think that considerations of things like a workshop, innovative ideas like those proposed by uh an attorney representing many of those holders are completely fair and valid and deserve to be considered.

Um the second half of this, though, is the city right now is trying to figure out how to navigate um a harbor that has developed into one of the most premier, but also one of the most complicated uh in the world.

And that's a complicated process that's going to require change.

And that change needs to be treating those stewards of those commercial moorings as partners in that process.

And so I think those who have raised issues and concerns around things like the insurance and around transferability and the exchanges we've had on that are 100% fair.

And that is a valid area to want to be investing time.

I with you agree that our waterfront commission is the group of experts closest to the issue to actually understand how to press and ask the right questions there.

But the council needs to invest time in understanding that as well.

And I think that's a fair point.

But this issue, and and so to that extent to the to the extent that there is public comment at the beginning on this issue, that is absolutely the right form to be raising that question.

This issue before us, while it is tangentially related, is something that stands alone not only on its merits from a policy perspective, but procedurally in terms of the process that it went through for consideration.

And so my support for this in no way is opposition to the concerns that have been raised by those existing mooring holders, nor is it any disrespect at all to their stewardship uh they've provided over the commercial mooring field in our harbor.

But I would say on this issue itself, I am narrowly voting on the issue before us, which in my view enhances the potential rights and options that exist rather than forecloses any new ones for existing mooring holders.

And that is the why that I'm supporting that this particular item.

And I second everything that you have said.

I think we're ready to vote on this.

Uh all in favor of this ordinance change uh 12.28.020, 12.28072, 12.28071, and 12.28200.

All raise your right hand.

All opposed.

Okay.

Motion passes three to two.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Action item.

Um, and we will hold a workshop on the insurance issue.

Thank you.

Um action item 6508, Council Napolitano.

Uh yes, the Department of Public Services recommends awarding a contract to the automatic temperature control in Cranston, Rhode Island for the purpose of installing a new HVAC system at the Martin Recreation Center at 35 Golden Hill Street for the total project cost of 253,000 990.

Um the city requested proposals for the upgrading of the HVAC.

Uh currently the gym is only supplied with an outdated heating system.

The new system will allow the recreation department to offer programming year round in the gym.

Thank you.

Um this is currently currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Is there a discussion from the council on this?

All in favor?

Action item 6509.

Yes.

Uh the recommendation from the Department of Public Services recommends awarding a contract to Dubond Masonry Construction LLC of East Greenwich, Rhode Island for the purpose of rebuilding the retaining wall at the rear of City Hall 43 Broadway for a total project cost of 310,000.

Um proposals were requested.

Uh there was a partial collapse and it requires reconstruction.

The second most important section of the wall is in the middle section, which has received maintenance repairs to the existing veneer few years ago.

Um the funding for this project was approved in the CIP program, capital improvement program, which includes 300,000 in construction, a cost plus 10,000 in project contingency to be held in reserve for the uh city.

This is currently budgeted.

I move past it.

Second.

So any discussion.

All in favor?

Action item 6510.

Yes, this is a recommendation from public services recommending the awarding of a contract to install LED sports lighting at the John Chafee Recreation Center.

Um to the lowest most responsive bidder K Electric Inc.

of Walwick based on their submitted bid proposal for associated work not to exceed the project cost of 164,446.

Uh, it is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

And um may I just also say that this is fully funded by a community development block grant.

Uh any discussion from the council?

Oh, the second.

Um discussion?

Any discussion from the council?

All in favor?

All right.

Action item 6511.

Yes.

Uh this is a recommendation again from public services, recommends approval of a contract to Bowen's Consulting Group Limited of Lincoln to provide transportation engineering services to set to study the city's traffic work network based on a submitted proposal for the not to exceed amount of 1996,000.

Um this is for a resolution uh soliciting a complete comprehensive traffic study of the area bounded by Thame Street, Memorial Boulevard, Bellevue Avenue, and Morton Avenue, Webster, and four transportation engineers engineering proposals were received.

Um the Bowman Consulting Group was determined to have the most responsive proposal that addressed all the components and the timeline.

Uh the cost is uh I had already mentioned 1996.

I move passage.

Yes, um, second.

Um this will require additional appropriation though, correct?

Yes, madam by yes, madam chair.

So um where are we going to get that money?

So we have several options.

Uh director of finance can speak to those.

I'll just lay some of them out.

Uh I would remind the council that there it did approve in the budget a CIP reserve amount of $50,000, not enough, but it's a portion of what we could use.

There's also the council contingency fund of 100,000 available, still not enough.

Um we could reassign some existing capital projects.

Uh a fourth option would be to uh de scope some of the uh uh some of the dynamic parking signage amounts.

Uh I think the $300,000 was budgeted per CIP.

We could still get a lot done with $75,000 and then take some of the technology enhancements that we had hoped to go with that and move that into the next year's CIP, thereby freeing up $225,000, which would cover this amount.

Uh the final option, uh one that's intriguing, uh it's not on this docket, but sneak pre uh sneak preview for the next docket, you will be seeing an introduction of a recommendation from the Department of Finance about how to uh how to take a fresh look at those of our uh uh those of our our general fund unassigned fund balance amounts that are over 30 percent of our expenditures, which we have now achieved uh for the last few years, and that that amount continues to grow incrementally every year.

It may not always grow every year, but it has been fortuitous recently.

Uh and so the idea is 30% being fairly healthy for a city of our nature to commit fund balances over 30% uh in the future to as to be determined CIP project.

It's a way to provide a little bit of financial flexibility for capital uh while still maintaining a healthy balance in the event of a rainy day.

Uh so that will be in front of you for consideration as a matter of policy at the next meeting.

And so if you were to approve that, uh it would right away free up approximately three million dollars uh based on the uh based on the numbers that we are calculating from the closeout of this year's books that we're getting ready to audit.

Uh so three million certainly well exceeds the 200,000 dollars that you would need for this project.

You could you could use some of that newly committed fund balance uh to pay for that project.

The only thing is we don't have that policy yet.

So in order to get there, you would effectively need to continue this item administratively so that we could dovetail it with the policy that you're going to see at the next meeting.

If you have any further questions, uh Director Nolan is here to kind of delve into the details.

Madam Chair.

Well, I just I just have one more have one more question.

Is there um a reason why we have delineated the this area of the city and not other um portions further south?

Yes, two reasons.

One, there was a resolution that called for precisely this area.

Okay.

Uh two, uh it matches what we had proposed in the transportation master plan.

So keep report moving from 2023, specifically delineates this area as an area of concern.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Carlin.

Thank you, madam chair.

Three points.

Number one, uh residents of Hammond Street and the surrounding area asked for a traffic study.

I was happy to sponsor it.

I received unanimous support from the council on the original proposal.

Uh the police department, the public safety department, uh, according to the city manager, asked that we as a council expand the traffic study to additional areas.

Uh so the council subsequently, again by a seven to zero vote, approved that recommendation or that uh ask by the public safety department.

Uh that's one.

Two.

Uh I am a little bit concerned.

In fact, I'm more than a little bit concerned about the price, 200,000.

Uh we had four bidders for this, correct?

They they were not bidders.

They these were from uh these were quotes that were seen because they were all entities that were in the master price agreement.

How many how many quotes did we just keep?

Proposals.

I'm sorry, how many?

There were four proposals.

Uh so then they were uh without knowledge of price, they were adjudged based on the based on the quality of the proposal.

And then at that point the price is revealed as per the master price agreement.

Uh, and that's where the number of 100%.

So we had the council ultimately, based on the public safety's uh public safety's public safety department's recommendation.

The council council ultimately expanded uh the scope uh to 11 to 13 streets essentially.

And perhaps a tiny bit more depending on how you look at this overall uh plan.

In no way did I expect that this would be to my colleagues to the public, a 200,000 dollar project, 200,000 uh ultimate award of a contract.

That's that's borderline absurd, I think.

Uh to do a study of traffic on 11 to 13 streets with some impact.

Four and only four came back with a bid.

You uh with the proposal.

You prior to if I understand what you said two minutes ago prior to your recommendation that the award be given to this uh recipient or to this proposed recipient.

Am I correct in what I heard you say?

Yes, yes, counselor.

The the the dollar amount was not known.

Uh these you know the proposals came back and said, okay, based on what you're asking for, uh in the request for proposals, uh, we can do this job for X dollars, and they kept X hidden.

That's the way it works.

And then once you scored the most accurate proposal, then you open the envelope and you determine the price.

So you did not, again, to be perfectly clear, and I believe I am being so, or my understanding as such.

You did not take into consideration when you suggested the award or the contract be awarded prior to understanding the cost.

You you did not take into consideration the cost.

You simply said this is who we think will be the best bidder to produce what we are asking for, irregardless of what what the dollar amount might be, correct?

When operating from a master price agreement and making requests for proposals from within that master price agreement, that is the course of action.

I would further add that uh I recall from that meeting in which the resolution was passed.

I had I raised concerns about uh price, and you counselor said don't worry about that.

The council will find the money.

So we are offering you options here based on what we were given.

You're essentially correct when you uh quote me back, uh and you can paraphrase you don't need to quote, uh, but I bring the council's attention to two things uh regarding what the manager earlier said and to his point now.

Number one, uh the manager proposed at the most recent council meeting, and in the next agenda item, the very next agenda item, we will be dealing with a similar situation that we approve uh based on or at the last council meeting, approximately two million dollars as it relates to uh parate park surrounding expenses.

I asked, where are we getting this money from?

I was told we have the money.

I said we did not go to bond yet, based on what the voters approved in November of 2024.

That is to say, a 98 and a half million dollar infrastructure and more bond approval for lack of a better phrase.

Well, when we when we get to that one, we can discuss that.

But um, Madam Chair, I with great respect.

I you know does anyone else have any comment on uh I would like to finish.

Um you mind if I finish?

You have another minute.

Go ahead.

I think it's entirely appropriate what I'm talking about.

The last council meeting, I asked where is this money coming from?

The manager six minutes ago, seven minutes ago, explained to the council through intricate detail about where we might get this 200,000 dollars.

Now you know that I have a problem with what was submitted as the final bid.

200,000 is a lot of money to study 11 to 13 streets and their traffic or the related traffic.

But the manager said we can do this, that, or the other.

Yet at the last council meeting, he came up with two million dollars or so to pay for what I mentioned earlier, the parate park uh and surrounding costs, without the city having released the bond or having put the bond out uh to the market.

The next item on our agenda will be very similar as I started to stay, say five minutes ago.

It'll be about eight million dollars, and we have not yet put the bond out.

So there are there are two things here that I think the council should uh pay attention to.

Number one, it is absurd uh when the manager starts talking about uh one, two or three places to get the money for two hundred thousand dollars on a study, which is too much to pay for the study, but yet he's got plenty of money for the eight million dollars that you're about to see in the next item and what we saw at the last meeting.

It just doesn't make any sense, but nor does a lot that this city has been dealing with in the last several weeks, if not the last year.

Counselor, thank you.

Council Smart.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Kennedy, was Bowman the lowest place price technically acceptable offer, or were they just the most technically acceptable offer?

I I would need I'm gonna need to defer to the the director of public services and that.

Mr.

Ricciot, could you could you kind of talk about the the response the request for proposals process and how uh that was ultimately determined?

Thank you.

Bill Riccio, director of public services.

So as the manager said, this um I find confusing statements.

So the master price agreement was used, which laid out um which was done request for qualification.

So there's um a pool of folks that we we issue, we sent it to all of them.

Um proposals were received by from four.

Uh a panel, a review panel composed of planning and public services.

Same team that essentially helped with the transportation master plan.

Uh reviewed the proposals.

The proposals uh provide detail of what will be looked at.

It's there's a lot here.

This is a defined mapped area with some one-ways, some multi-way streets.

Um trying to determine routes via um data that we can get um from you know cell phone data, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

If we're going to look at this, we can't we've always said we cannot look at things one street at a time.

Because once you look at one street, um we've talked about, I mean, my whole career we've talked about this, and we put a parking restriction on one street, the next street talks about it.

So and then they ask for it.

Um so this is our best effort to take what was presented by the council as the ask and to try to come up with something real that can look at the entire lower portion of the spring Thames corridor.

You've got to remember there's only a couple of links that get you up to to Bellevue.

And you know, so this it's confined to that mapped area, but there's inputs from other areas and how people route through there.

I think the world has seen significant change in how people move because of the detriment of the cell phone and ways, etc.

etc.

etc.

Because they know where the cars are going, which when they see them going through, that's where they tell you to go.

Yeah.

Um we've all we've all used it when we've gone somewhere.

So it's just do you um find that the quote on this is outrageous or too much, or just about in line with other studies that we've done.

It's a big number, but there's a lot in there.

So and the other part of the process is after you score based on requests for qualifications, etc.

It's not a bid.

This is the this is the big difference between professional services and bids.

For example, buy one of these, okay.

We will get a bid.

But when you're looking at services, you've got to not only look at qualifications, but the detail of what they say they're going to provide as it relates to what was asked for.

Yeah.

And they were all different.

But collectively, there was four, I believe, four um team members that scored.

Um, and you know, that's that's how it came out.

Right.

So did you did you see the dollar value for the other three, or did okay, so you didn't even you have to you have to take the high score and attempt to negotiate.

If you can't come to agreement, um and we negotiated down.

It was higher than that.

Okay.

So how much higher was that?

I don't remember it was over, it was maybe two and a quarter, two thirty, something like that.

Gotcha.

It was over that.

Okay.

Um yeah, I I'm I'm not comfortable voting on something if we don't know exactly where the funding source is going to come from.

So personally, I would like to to have the discussion that you stated was going to be at the next meeting before we vote on this one.

Because if that option falls through, then we're gonna have to sort of scramble to find funding for this, is what I'm hearing.

Um that being said, um I'm gonna give this a shot again, but I'm gonna motion to continue this item until the next meetings item can happen and a discussion can happen to determine where that funding is gonna come from.

I will get that notion.

Thank you.

Um I think that my comment on this is that well this traffic study was meant to be done much later, and I think we were trying to fast track this.

Is that correct?

Because the the people on Dixon and the other streets, um Webster were so pushing for this study.

Um so I think that that was the impetus in trying to get this information before us in order, and I understand that it requires additional appropriation.

Um I'm willing to continue this as well, um, so that we will know exactly where the money will come from, but um I'm sure that we will.

And uh yeah, I but I you know I do remember us trying to fast track this in order to make it um you know something that the neighbors wanted.

Mr.

Rice, did you have a I'm sorry, um Council Napolitano first, and then Mr.

Rice.

I just wanna say all the years that I've been on council, um truly, these are some of the busiest streets named Spring, uh, Memorial Boulevard, Bellevue, Morton.

I haven't seen a comprehensive study done.

And I think it's really become an issue, particularly for the people that live in that area.

We've studied Broadway, we've studied the north end, and I do think that you know it's time that we pay some heed to these particular streets because they do get very uh they do get a lot of traffic and and the neighbors have been complaining for years.

I would like to see it go forward, but I I still need more time to look at the proposal.

It's it's quite an in-depth proposal.

So I would that was my reason for basing it on the continuance.

Um, but I think it's really needed in this neighborhood.

I I agree.

Mr.

Rice, do you have a comment?

Just name and address for the record, please.

Uh Pete Rice, uh live in the fifth ward.

Traffic study might be done.

Uh live at one Harrison Lane.

Uh I listened to the construction at the school site often and watch the uh the pile continue to grow.

That said, uh what I'd like to see grow is this study.

I don't think it goes far.

It stops uh it stops at uh stops at Morton.

Uh you got a couple real bad areas after Morton if you continue on to Ruggles, especially Ruggles.

Ruggles busy, busy uh lots of boats moving, lots of people moving, lots of construction guys moving there, and there's no sidewalk.

None.

And there's a whole lot of people walking dogs and themselves there uh day and night, and you just built a new school and there's no sidewalks for the school.

There's no way for kids to walk uh down uh ruggles.

There's no provisions made for that along the way.

And there aren't any even even in front of the school, there are no sidewalks.

Uh the uh I don't think the uh the scope of the stu uh uh the proposed study is sufficient.

It should be you should expand it uh to uh uh go out to uh ruggles at least that far.

If you're gonna bother to do it, uh you ought to do it right.

You got another 50,000.

Chewing away at a little a little bit at a time.

Yeah.

Um well, how does the administration feel about including Ruggles and how does Bill Riccio feel about that?

I mean, we'd have to go back out and ask right.

I mean we we would.

We'd have to have the proposal rescope.

Uh I I would just say that we were doing our best to stay in line with the the the one of the interim measures in the transportation mastermind.

That's that's how we define this area.

Right.

We were trying to stick to policy.

Because the these are the streets that really run off like one way uh in and sort of like a haphazard pattern.

And um, and that's and how they lead up to down to beams and up to Bellevue.

So that's why this was a contained study.

I mean, I agree, I agree.

I think that you know, at some point we do need to study the whole city, but um, and perhaps we need to stay within the scope.

Yes, Mr.

Council Conservatora.

Brand new school, good uh good chance change the uh speed limit.

Uh next to it.

It'd be nice to uh uh take a kind of a comprehensive look, include that uh within the uh scope of the study.

Thank you.

Um the few up your set, sorry, Ms.

Rice.

Thank you.

First, we have we have a transportation master plan, which calls for us filling in on certain areas.

This is this falls within the realm of that, respectively.

So separate of that though.

I think it's important that we get this study right, but I also think that the residents in this area deserve some relief when they're getting crushed.

Um, and I I feel for them all, right?

Um, particularly those on Hammond Street that we've heard from recently, but uh throughout this entire area.

I do look at the timing on the study, and I'm a bit concerned.

I get the urgency of starting quickly in two weeks.

But when you look at the project timeline that's been put forth in the bid here, it calls for doing traffic counts in month three after starting, which is the middle of January.

So I have to kind of question how relevant is a study taking data for the middle of January on actually giving us a solution relative to the um the actual problem we're dealing with at the peak of summer.

Um so I'm a little torn on this issue.

This is you know uh because I I want to move urgently to address these residents' needs, but uh I'm not entirely compelled by the timeline for this study that it's actually going to deliver us the level of thoughtfulness that we need on this item.

So um councilor uh Smythe, you made a motion to continue.

Uh should we vote on the motion to continue?

Okay.

Uh do we have a date as to when we would want to continue it too?

Um, well, I believe that it was stated that the the item in question on the funding was going to be at the next council meeting.

So I would assume that they continue it to the second council meeting in October.

Uh, is there an opportunity though to talk to the uh consultants about doing excuse me?

Is there is there an opportunity to uh talk to the consultants about doing the study during um more uh you know heavily trafficked time?

So that's what the director and I were just discussing.

So uh we could uh he pointed out something that was valid too.

Some of the study is not done in situ, it's done from existing uh cellular data that can look backwards to figure out trends.

So it may or may not necessarily have to coincide with the summer months.

Uh some of that some of that data will be in situ, but not not all of it.

We can probably get a pretty accurate picture regardless of the time and season that we that we do the study in.

All right.

Well, let's continue it to the next meeting and then we can discuss it some more.

How does that sound?

Okay, okay.

All in favor of continuing, please raise your right hand.

Five to zero.

Thank you.

Excuse me, madam chair.

Just so I'm clear.

That's the next meeting, not the second meeting in October.

Oh, let's do the second meeting in October.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Because we're yeah, we're all messed up.

Okay.

Um, action item 6512.

Yes, uh, madam chair, the uh department of public services recommends awarding a contract associated with karate park harbor shuttle landing, seawall and floating dock, a reconstruction project to the contractor with the most responsive and value-driven driven proposal.

Reagan Marine Construction of Newport, Rhode Island.

Um, the cost of this work will not exceed the total amount of 7,949,000, and will be funded by the approved municipal bond for capital projects.

This total price includes 7,199 for the anticipated contract construction work and 750 for project contingencies to be held in reserve by the city.

Uh, three can proposals were evaluated uh by the public services, harbor master, and professional consultant team member for each project for each of the proposals, project cost value, technical merits, schedule, and contractor qualifications and performance.

Reagan Marine was determined to have the most responsive proposal and best addressed all the requirements and provided the best value.

The municipal bond was approved by the voters in November of twenty twenty-four and will be used to fund karate park harbor shuttle landing seawall and floating dock reconstruction project for a total amount of seven million nine hundred forty-nine uh-nine.

It's currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second to discussion on the council.

Madam Vice Chair, uh, Madam Chair.

Yes, Mr.

Carlin.

Uh tick exception, first of all, it is not currently budgeted.

Uh it has been conceptually approved uh by the council and by the voters, most importantly by the voters, that the bond, which was approved in November of 2024 for a number of infrastructure and other projects.

Uh would in fact uh be brought to fruition.

Uh, but we have not budgeted this.

We have not uh question for the city manager.

Uh am I unaware of something?

Uh maybe I missed it.

Have we gone to to market with the bond?

No.

Okay.

So this is an eight million dollar expense.

We have not gone to market with the bond yet.

Where are you getting the eight million dollars to pay for this expense?

Counselor, we've been through this before.

It's excuse me.

It's cash.

Madam Chair.

Uh no.

Mr.

Carlin, you know, I I asked you a question.

If you don't like the question, let's deal with it in a separate Mr.

Marina.

Mr.

Carlin, Mr.

Carlin, let me know.

I know you don't like the questions that I ask about.

Mr.

Mr.

Kennedy, please continue.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The the cash flow supports.

The the bond is going out in January.

Uh the director of finance has a number.

Those bonds will be sold under state law.

You are allowed to memorialize the cost of planned and budgeted projects.

That is what this is, period.

Madam Chair, again, I ask, where are you getting the money?

Where is the cash coming from to pay for this $8 million expense?

Explain to us what memorialization of the funds is.

Explain to us what account you're taking the money from.

You're playing footsie here with us, or at least with me.

Give us the answers.

It is available by cash flow through the maritime fund.

The director of finance can provide additional detail.

Madam Chair, I would I would suggest that the council has on a number of occasions, not the least of which on June 28th of 2024.

I'm sorry, 2025 by way of voting for the fiscal 2026 budget.

Increase the taxes on our citizens saying we need the money.

We need to increase your taxes by almost the maximum amount permissible by state law, but suddenly we find $8 million that apparently we did not take into consideration.

And I know there will be various explanations as to why.

But this, I mean, this is Mr.

Nolan.

This is financial.

Can you please explain that you'll be going out to bond in January?

And that we have to get ahead of some of these plans in order to be ready for when the money comes in.

That is correct.

So we are on schedule to go out in January for approximately 50 million dollars on the infrastructure bond.

That number will continue to change.

We are starting with our our uh financial consultants hilltop in November to go out to um have bond proceeds of 50 million dollars in January, beginning of February time frame.

That is correct.

When is the work scheduled to start?

Should the contract be approved?

Prior to January?

I believe in the fall of okay.

So how are you getting the money prior to the issuance of the bond in January?

Sure.

How are you getting the money to pay for the bills when it comes in from Regan?

And who's being displayed, despite that?

Please explain how I was not being just please respectful by asking what I consider to be uh a totally appropriate financial question.

Uh you and I must disagree on that.

Explain, please.

If the bonding is being prepared for January, the work is being done in the fall.

How are we getting the money as the bills come in from Regan to pay for those invoices?

And if we have available accessible cash, why did we not use it for other purposes outside of what the voters approved in November 24 by way of the issuance of the bonds?

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Next fall.

I'd have to speak to I mean if that that's the information that I have gotten.

So it does follow up.

No, it's not this fall.

I know I spent a lot of time here tonight.

I'll be quick.

Um where we are with this project, we've already hired a engineer to oversee engineering of the entire product.

We're awarding the reconstruction, hopefully tonight, or the purchase.

That's going to start with the purchase of the docks.

They take about a year and a half to actually make, they're made over in Europe and we can ship them over.

We're not going to start construction until the last cruise ship sales next fall, which I believe is November 1st.

I looked at the schedule today, but I can't quite quote you.

They're going to come in and knock down that building November 1st.

Uh they're gonna so we I mean we understand that this is covered by the the bond.

Right.

And and it was fully and the public was fully aware that this was part of the bond.

Okay.

Um why do we need to do this now?

Excellent.

Uh we need to secure to fit to finish it first by the docks, which they have to finish designing, and we have to work on the actual design build of the entire project.

We need to the next step, next RFP will be for an architect to design the building and finish up the park.

Once the architect has been hired and designs and approved, that'll be a lot of public input.

We're gonna hire a contractor to build the building.

Everything has to be in place, ready to roll permits going for that November 1st knockdown of that building.

So we're we're we're planning this a year in advance to start.

Thank you.

Our our window is tiny during the winter to get the construction done because we have to be active by April 1st of the following year for the cruise ships to come.

Mr.

Nolan, um, do you have any concerns that we would not get this money uh in January with Bond?

No, I do not have any concerns whatsoever.

Thank you.

What's the actual cash flow and the outlay of cash for this project?

Do we have to you know put out you know the entirety of it all at once, or is there a tier draw schedule as the cash is needed that it's drawn down upon under the contract?

It's my understanding that it's uh the order, it's just to place the order, it's not putting the eight million dollars up.

Right, we don't pay them the eight million dollar check when they come and jump per se.

That everything will be billed out as they the work is completed.

So there's gonna be a long period, a long lag.

Uh the the docks and pilings are probably gonna be within the two million dollar range.

Um they'll start stocking stockpiling the metal from the sheet pile.

Um, and so their their expenses for the next year will be mostly engineering and getting the docs ordered.

So just to to be clear, then what you're looking for is permission to bind into a contract.

It's but open a purchase order to promise to allocate funds.

The actual drawdown on those funds though is likely to lag substantially beyond today's date.

And the availability of those funds, which Councilor Carlin raises a good point.

Um ultimately will be the bonds themselves.

And so to go out and bond today for funds that we might need to spend not need to spend until much later means that we will be paying interest on a bond for cash just to sit there.

That is correct.

Okay.

And and we only have a finite set of time, really, as far as when we can spend those uh those bond proceeds.

That is correct.

Uh Madam Chair, yes, counselor.

What is the interest cost that that we would be?

Well, that that's what will go out to market in in January, February when we when we go out for the bond proceeds, that'll go out to market, and that's where the interest rate will be set.

So what that interest rate we can only project right now, that will probably, you know, four four and a half percent.

Um, but that that's really all market driven.

Um, but once we go out to borrow those funds, we're paying interest on that right away.

So we're trying to make sure we have a very good idea of what our projects are to minimize that amount of interest that we're paying.

And um, what happens if we don't get the money?

If something happens and this this falls through or whatever.

Sure.

Uh well, there's always a contingency plan.

Uh would there certainly be some shifting that we'd have to do if we did not go out to if we were not able to successfully get that 50 million dollars?

We'd have to really understand where we are within our fund balance, which is our unassigned fund balance, um, which is something that we do not want to draw down on, especially now based on our our rating calls that we have coming up in in uh most likely January.

So we'd have to have those discussions, we'd have to potentially shift CIP projects.

So there'd be many more discussions that we'd have to have, but I feel very confident we would not come to that point.

In your experience working in the city with multiple municipal bonds, that has never been the case, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

I do have a few other questions.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

That's okay.

You're fine.

Um the company that we would be going to, what it to counselor compsivoravan's um point.

What is the is there a payment schedule that that they would have to meet certain milestones and then they could invoice us for the work that they're achieving?

Or you're talking on the doc specification.

Yes, yeah.

Yes, exactly.

Okay.

And we are once that the contract gets awarded, we're going to start discussing the actual design build, and we will figure out those milestones.

That's um, I mean, the the simplest, easiest one is the docs must be ordered ASAC, and that's that's the goal because there's such a lag on that.

Um, the longer we give for shipping, the cheaper they will be too.

They have to hire a boat and bring them over.

And if there's one coming and they can reach that, then great.

Um, that's it's all this cost savings.

That's why we're kind of we're we we've moved to get this going, even though it's you know, we're not gonna actually do the second RFP until well, we'll get the architect out in the building out.

Um, but that's gonna be another year.

We have to get all the permits for the building, too.

But there, yes, there is gonna be a billing schedule.

Okay, and you know, we will be we'll know exactly when those milestones are met.

Um it's gonna be a really quick billing schedule, four months to put this in.

Um, so we have to have all our ducks in a row on this.

Okay.

The construction of the building can take a little more time.

If we open we got part open and it's functional in April.

Um, the building, it doesn't, I mean it'll be good to have it functional because we're gonna have a trailer bathroom, which is not gonna be great.

Uh, but we want to open it as fast as we can.

It will not be open that summer.

There's no way to do that.

That's too quickly.

Um today we had about four forty, five hundred people uh go through, and there's a line out the door the entire day.

Um, so I we're getting getting better and better idea of what that building's gonna look like.

Um so this is an exciting project.

It's a big, very complicated, time sensitive, a lot of engineering projects.

So this is in a sense um what we call shovel ready.

Yes.

Okay.

That is a perfect term for that.

Okay.

We're not 100%.

Still have to go get the architect.

We have to do design of the building, and we have to hire a contractor for that.

And it'll be trained is uh that will completely left the station then.

Right now we're half out of the station.

They're gonna start the the process of getting all the materials.

Does um Reagan uh Maritime do they know that we are in the process of getting the money for this project?

Yes, they are uh Newport locals, the company is based in Newport.

Uh they they live in Newport, they are fully aware of our funding.

Um lucky we have uh they've actually just completed a project for us, also paid for by the bond, the Elm Street Pier, which they did a fantastic job.

Um there is some news about that with uh Chief Donnelly's staff.

I have applied for uh FEMA reimbursement for that, and it looks very good.

We might get 75% of that 1.7 that we paid out for that.

Well, excellent madam, madam chair, please.

Yes, Mr.

A couple of more questions.

We do not have an obligation to pay anything to Reagan because apparently what you said if I interpret it correctly a moment or two ago, they understand our funding structure.

So uh we when we receive an invoice from Reagan, if we do prior to going to bond, trying to go prior, I should say, to going to the market uh with the approved bond.

Uh will we pay that invoice?

Do you expect Mr.

Land to get an invoice between this evening's voice uh vote and uh when Ms.

Nolan, as indicated a few minutes ago, anticipates going to the market uh with the bond?

That is to say around January.

Do you anticipate getting a bill, an invoice from Reagan between now and when we go to bond or when we go to market with the bond?

And signing this contract commits us to paying paying those bills.

Uh that's not exactly what what the council was told.

Uh am I misunderstanding what I heard?

That's not exactly what the council was told in the course of the last seven to ten minutes.

So clarify, please.

The city, what we use is we use a pooled cash.

Okay, we that's what I was trying to get at.

Where are you getting the money from?

We have the cash flow or cash flow within the city.

We manage that every day.

Uh we keep an eye on it every day.

Uh we use a pool cash system amongst our funds.

All right.

That enables us to have flexibility with items such as this.

So we can we can essentially pay in advance, knowing that we will receive the bond money, and we track everything through a specific project.

That same pool of cash, presumably, is available for needs such as keeping the water and sewer rates as low as possible and keeping the tax residential and commercial rate as low as possible, correct?

It's all connected.

So we're levy, so we we all have quarterly payments, so we know that our cash flow is going to be spiking on a quarterly quarterly payment.

So we're making choices.

Absolutely.

Okay.

I choose not to make this one.

Thank you.

I think are we we're ready to vote on this?

Um all in favor of um this um recommendation by public services.

Raise your right hand.

All opposed.

Okay, it is four to one.

Um next we have action item 6513.

Yes, madam chair.

It's recommended a contract be awarded to Motorola Solutions Inc.

Uh of Chicago to purchase and install four Motorola APX consulates to use to use at the fire department dispatch center.

The contract is in the amount of $51,414.99 and is being made in accordance with the master purchase agreement number, RIMPA 395.

Uh fire department seeks to a purchase to replace existing consulates that are well beyond the recommended service life and no longer supported by the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency.

Um the replacement needed are needed to ensure that safe communications can take place over fire department's radio frequencies.

Um it's currently budgeted, and I move approval.

Second.

Uh is there discussion on the council for this?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Action item 6514.

Yes, madam chair.

The grants office of the Department of Reliance Resilience and Sustainability recommends approving a special projects grant request of 40,000 to the Newport Prevention Coalition with the funds allocated from the FY26 opioid settlement fund account.

The grant funds are intended to bolster NPs, ongoing prevention and education programs, MPC application for special projects grants, specify the funds be applied to a community-wide education program, youth empowerment initiatives, Narcan training and distribution, and comprehensive community outreach.

Um the council.

This uh special projects grant request and uh a 40,000.

And um all in favor?

Action item 6515.

Yes, um, Madam Chair.

This is the grants office of the Department of Resiliency and Sustainability in collaboration with the Fire EMS recommends authorizing a grant request of 200,000 sponsored by the city's fire and EMS department to the opioid settlement municipal incentive grant program offered through the executive office of the Rhode Island Department of Health and Human Services.

The application which seeks funds to support program initiatives of the Newport Middletown Situation Table is due on September 30th.

Umport Middletown Situation Table uh launched as a pilot program in January of 25 and is the first of its kind initiated in the state of Rhode Island.

They meet weekly and include 20 representatives from child welfare, fire, EMS, hospitals, housing, mental health, behavioral health, peer recoverment, public health, safety school and youth agencies.

I move approval.

Second.

Is there any discussion on the council?

Yes, Mr.

Comce Burrow.

I just want to commend our fire department and our community partners on this.

I see out there, Chief Donley.

We hear pretty consistently, uh, particularly in the corridors of along Broadway and then downtown, um, that much of our population struggles not only with housing issues, but a lot of other co-occurring issues in ordinance.

Uh and they, it's not a huge number of individuals, but it's a number of individuals who are very visible, uh, are you know important members of our community ones who take a lot of city resources, quite frankly.

I mean, it is expensive to run somebody on an on an emergency an ambulance uh every time there's a situation or issue.

And so the intentional coordination with our community partners, since the city itself doesn't have a social services agency to help these individuals get the assistance they need, um, is not only really thoughtful, but it's also a very good investment for us as a community when we think about uh the level of resourcing that it's otherwise required.

And our public safety department is consistently at the leading edge, but on this side, I'm particularly bringing very humane and thoughtful and individual approach to how we work with some of our most vulnerable community members.

I think is incredibly commendable.

And of all the things we're voting on this evening on this agenda, uh, this is one of the best ones that I feel good about voting for.

And so I just want to thank the administration for the work they've done here.

And I wanna thank our community partners for all the time they've put in to coordinating with one another uh intentionally to make sure that these people get the help they need and that our community uh can live up to uh what it should.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Um I'd like to echo those comments and also um that it really is about the kids.

It's about the young people that are growing up, and it's a very confusing time.

It's a confusing time for us.

So you can imagine when they hear some of the things they hear, and it's stressful.

So I think again, the community partners have made this happen.

We're so blessed in Newport.

I don't know how many times I can say it, but we are so blessed with people that are willing to extend a hand when we need it most.

So uh congratulations.

Yes.

Uh I I would actually like to have um Carmela and the chief, uh fire chief and police chief come up just to rare.

Oh, I'm sorry, John Ferrara.

Could you just come on up?

I just what I would like to happen is you know, I think it's great to say that we have all this community input, but when you sit at the situation table, what happens?

Deputy Chief Mike Ferrara, I am uh one of the team leads for the situation table.

So what happens is it's a weekly meeting amongst all social services that we have in the community, a police and fire there from both Newport and Middletown.

And we discuss individuals that need help in the community.

Um we then build outreach teams based on the agencies that are there.

We go out, do door knocks, do outreach, Tom Allen those door knocks, and uh we we document the data, bring that data back and discuss it the next week.

So there's actually like a feedback loop.

So previously, if let's say uh someone was having a crisis on Broadway and and was picked up by the fire department and went to the hospital, they would have been treated to the hospital and then let go, right?

Now there's follow-up for these people, and there's accountability for the um community groups in that are working with this community table.

Is that correct?

So, yeah, there often would be um a disconnect.

So the to use like a kind of a cliche term, but working in silos.

But now the table's all there together.

So not only are we working collectively with that one individual or family, but we're also reducing duplication of effort.

Sometimes that was happening as well.

So now we all have like one focus, and we can work collaborative collaboratively together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Carmela, do you want to say?

Carmelic Year Executive Director, Edward Kinghouse Senior Center.

This is a dream come true.

Um for me as a professional.

I've been paying for something like this for 13 years.

And now we're actually here.

And I can't thank Chief Bonnelly and Mike and now Peter and all of you for supporting the concept of the situation table.

One of the things that I think everyone needs to take home with regards to this is that it's not a case management table.

That's not what we do.

It's a situation.

The situation that comes to the table has a very high elevated risk of something completely terrible going wrong.

Freezing to death in the winter is one of those things that we worried about.

Um not having access to food and possibly starving to death.

All of those things that people don't believe exist in their wonderful communities.

And as counselors I had said, you know, a moment ago, the numbers are huge, but this particular program allows us to track those numbers.

And being able to work with our law enforcement and firefighting uh folks together at the same table with all of the helping organizations.

To give you an example, money for a hotel for an individual who is without a place to lay their head at night.

There are different organizations around that table that have different pockets of money that come from different places to help to provide that housing for a night, for example.

Usually it's about a week, but for a night.

So now instead of three of them all coming at that individual all at once, we can now coordinate our efforts so that we've got maybe three weeks to work with that individual to find some sustainable housing for them.

Where before it was always in crisis mode.

And now we have the opportunity to attack some of these risk situations and really get a good idea of what it is we're looking at.

Housing, I believe, and Mike, I don't know if you want to talk about that real quick.

From a data perspective, housing is one of our number one problems with the folks that come to the table.

The other thing though that I sort of remember discussing when this the idea of the situation table came up at a meeting that I had with uh both chiefs and and Chief Donley said, you know, I think I have an idea about something that I've heard about, and so you know, we start and then started investigating it.

But one of the important things I felt was um follow-up on people's medications, particularly people who might not have the money for the medications, but also people who think, well, now I'm fine, I don't need to take the medication anymore.

So it's like there's a follow-up for people with these um sort of lapses.

So anyway.

Absolutely.

So um, what this grant will do is ensure that this work continues for at least a year uh and allow us to expand in some of the needs that are greatest that we've measured through the risk factors.

That's great.

It'll also give the city a comprehensive view of risk factors and outcomes so it can help guide the city and how they might want to make decisions in the future once we have a bigger data pool.

I'd I'd really like to see um more in the press um about this um sort of uh because um you know I I think it's important for the community to understand that these people are getting help and that that this the community is coming in a very um uh diligent and um way to to try to help them.

So I'm I'm just saying just throwing that out there.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah, Peter.

I I just wanted to add, so I had the pleasure of collaborating with Mike and Carmela and Laurie Turner from Middletown to put this together.

And I just want to reflect what your earlier comments were.

This is really unique.

Newport is the only um community in the state right now that has a program like this that's modeled on some national models.

So we should be really proud of what is being stood up here, and then just nine months in having now 51 situations, families and individuals who've been served.

So the state is really looking.

That's why this grant is a great opportunity to not only now formalize this amazing volunteer work that has happened for the last nine months, but to take it forward in perpetuity to build capacity and to be able to do more.

So it was a great privilege to learn about this great work that's going on and just to support and applaud all the community folks who are involved.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kudos.

Mr.

Cosalino will be in touch with you.

All right.

Uh so all in favor of this uh action item.

Raise your right hand.

I uh okay.

Okay.

Um next uh we're onto ordinances amending chapter, a section chapter 3.12.020 of the codified ordinances entitled City Manager to maintain specifications, enumeration of classes, annual review of specifications, enumeration of classes.

Uh this is a second reading.

I move approval.

Second.

Um, Mr.

Mr.

City Manager, could you just explain this one one more time?

But essentially, the director of utilities put together a proposal that funds this position in exchange for what will ultimately be about $500,000 worth of uh cumulative savings over the course of five years.

It begins in year one and year two with an immediate $23,000 give or take savings and then expands once we're able to get outside of the footprint of our contract with Jacobs to approximately 150,000 a year.

And I don't have those numbers right in front of me, but I remember there was a huge jump in here.

Again, we're going to ease out of using this GIS function that we're already required to because of our consent decree with our own employee, ease out of that work with Jacobs and ultimately take it on entirely within our within our own lifelines, uh, which will allow us to have long-term savings in perpetuity.

Thank you.

Um we have a motion and to be able to do that.

Yes.

Did I make did I make a motion?

I make a motion to approve this.

Um thank you.

Uh any discussion.

Yes.

Um I just have some some follow-up questions from the last meeting from some residents.

So we already have a consultant that is in this position, and we're transitioning out of that to a hired employee.

Um how is how is that going to play out?

Are we going to be paying for two people to be in the same position as we're transitioning?

Uh yes, but the but the but the contract work will be a reduction.

So imagine I don't know the exact numbers, but imagine if we're having the contract work and then adding the position.

That's how we get to the net 23,000 savings in your number one and your number two.

So by reducing the footprint of the contractor, establishing the position, we'll see some modest savings over the first couple of years.

And then when we pull out from uh Jacobs entirely, we will see the entirety of that savings.

Okay.

And where will the the savings, where will the money that we will be saving go towards?

Is that other utilities projects or it it it ultimately it's just in the the general funds of both the water fund and the water pollution control fund?

Ultimately, those savings will be reflected in future budgets where we're able to potentially reduce we're able to affect rates in a positive way for our ratepayers by not having to having to pay those excess funds.

So we could be reducing the the sewer rate and the other rates that we saw an increase with.

I would be cautious of promising any reductions because certainly there are other factors that might warrant increases, but I will say that will that those savings will be will allow to be factored into uh likely a a net it's it's a positive impact on the ratepayer overall.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair.

Yes, Mr.

Carla.

Thank you, madam chair, uh members of the council.

Uh, by voting to accept this, if you do tonight, uh there's no question about the fact that what you're doing, regardless of explanation, is you are adding uh a new position to Newport City employee at 100,000 or more.

And that comes on the heels if you voted, uh, which the council did by a five to two vote, uh, if you voted to include in the budget by passing the budget, a increase in some cases by 30% or more for the residents and ratepayers of Newport and other areas, Middletown, Navy, certain degree of Portsmouth, for their water and sewer bills.

I'm voting against this for the same reasons I've explained to the public and to my colleagues at the last meeting and elsewhere.

Again, adding a hundred thousand dollar plus position on the heels of increasing the taxes, the rates that our residents and voters pay.

I urge you to vote no on this.

Thank you.

Any other discussion on the council?

Yes.

Um I just want to say, you know, as I listen to these departments and the cost and employees and the projects we have going.

In 20 years, I have never seen any of them decrease.

We have a very complex system for our water.

We supply water not only to new porters, but to Middletown, to Portsmouth, and to the Navy.

And our systems are in dire need of good engineering and quality um upgrades.

And we know that.

You can't even go to McDonald's and get a hamburger like you used to for a quarter.

I mean, now you're paying four and five dollars if not more.

So I I just don't buy that argument about having somebody putting somebody in that department that eventually will offset some of the services that we have contracted out somebody to come in and provide us with that information.

So I I'm supporting this.

I think it's a I think it's the right move.

And I think we need to do more with the uh particular department, the utilities department.

I think we need to have more discussions about it, and I think people have to understand how many people we service from Newport.

Council Compson Varagon wanna add to my colleagues' observations uh just by saying this, that these two things are not mutually exclusive, both acknowledging the need to invest in and to better manage the system itself, but also not agreeing with the current rate structure that's put forth that has severely impacted residents.

And so let me explain as follows.

With regards to how we operate the system, you you've heard us review a lot of contracts this evening uh about a lot of outside contracted services.

I I believe that where we are able and where it is prudent for us to manage things in-house, that we are better off having employees who are members of our community who have jobs here that allow them to continue supporting the city and its critical purposes, then we are outsourcing things to contractors at an enormous expense.

And in this instance, in the opinion of the administration, which I think is a reasonable one, um, this move will actually save a half a million dollars a year.

Second, we talk about uh expenses in terms of positions and a hundred thousand dollars is an aggregate expense number.

And so you have to rough out the cost of benefits, retirement, otherwise, and you're probably looking at an employee making somewhere around $65,000 a year.

Right.

When you consider the importance of the work that's being done here, I I don't find that to be something that is wildly out of line.

Um, but it's also to say this as my colleague has noted, we need to invest in our infrastructure here.

And so we can't on the one hand sit here and say the infrastructure's a mess, right?

The water and sewer and the storm water isn't being handled well enough.

Uh, and so we need to make investments there.

But on the flip side, when those investments come before us, constantly, constantly, constantly being be saying we shouldn't be paying people a modest amount to continue implementing the system.

Now, conversely, uh, as my colleague has, I think very fairly raised, um, you can't be opposed as to how that expense is being distributed throughout our community.

And to this end, one of the reasons why I voted against the rate increase for the sewer fee specifically was because a year ago we determined that the rate distribution was either neither correct nor fair, and we asked for a study to be done.

And so to expect that before we levy out a rate increase that's gonna jack up residents' rates, we hear the results of that study.

I thought was a prudent step.

If we're gonna contract for these studies, let's look at them, let's listen to them, and let's make a well-informed decision that doesn't unfairly burden residents with the cost of the investments that the system needs.

And so that's how I reconcile both supporting an investment like this that ultimately should save the city money with being opposed to the rate structure and how that cost is distributed between the users within our system itself.

I'm gonna be voting in favor of this because of that reason.

Thank you.

Is there any other discussion?

Madam Chair.

Um, and and I can appreciate what all of counsel has said.

I initially voted against this position during the budget talks.

Um, you know, I voted against the the sewer rate, the increases, property taxes, the budget as a whole.

Um but the reason why I changed my vote is because council had an opportunity to to pull back that funding when it was this position was voted against.

That did not happen.

The funding was still sitting there, it is was approved in the budget.

So to me now we have an obligation to utilize that funding.

So if we are going to approve this position that is going to overall save us money down the road, that is why I have changed my vote to to approve this.

Um, and if there is an opportunity to be able to utilize the money that we are saving to help with our rates and other utilities projects, then all the more reason for for me to move forward with approving this, um, even though I voted against it initially.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we're ready to vote on this.

All in favor, raise your right hands.

All opposed.

One.

Thank you.

Resolution supporting a moratorium.

Uh counselor Smyth.

Uh yes, I'd like to motion to continue this item contingent upon a joint workshop with the Energy and Environment Commission.

Okay.

I'm second that.

All in favor?

Yes, discussion.

Why if the council has an opinion on this?

Uh and my opinion is that the moratorium is inappropriate.

Why don't we just vote on it?

I mean, the original suggestion, and I know there's been a number of requests for continuances on a number of items, but what you're asking is you're asking ultimately the council to opine on whether we support the moratorium or not.

Right.

And why why don't we just vote on that this evening?

Because put your money where your mouth is.

Vote yes or no on the moratorium.

First of all, my co-sponsor is not here to discuss it.

Um second of all, after speaking with the Energy and Environment Commission who brought this to my attention initially, um it was discussed that per feedback that we're receiving from the community that it would be better to engage them, hear the pros and cons of this, and to have some speakers that are familiar with this and how it would impact the community to be able to speak to it.

So having that workshop to be able to educate the community, to gain their feedback and to have a proper discussion before this is voted on, to me seems to be the right route to take, which is why I'm asking council to continue.

I'm sorry, I had my microphone off.

Absolutely.

Uh thank you for that explanation.

And since you gave me that great explanation, I will be supporting your motion for a continuance.

But I do look forward to uh my three other colleagues voting against this continuance, much the way they did with regard to a public workshop on the mooring fees or on I should say the mooring issues.

Stay consistent.

Put your money where your mouth is again.

I'll be very consistent.

You know, really, I don't think we should be telling another community what they should or should not do in terms of extending the building.

That's the way I felt this is not our we've already made that mistake once.

We've got to stay on we gotta stay on the motion to continue whether or not we should continue.

Is there a date?

I mean, yeah, would you it's no date set up?

Would you would you rather withdraw it and then we'll we want to withdraw and then bring it back?

Yes, okay.

I think that might be the best thing.

So that's appropriate.

Okay, so we'll vacate the motion to continue and you'll motion to withdraw the item contingent upon a joint uh workshop.

Thank you.

Uh all in favor?

I okay.

That's it.

Right.

Are we done?

And motion to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

Yeah, thanks.