All right, good evening, everybody.

Uh Madam Clerk, you take the roll call, please.

David Carlin.

Here.

Lynn Underwood Segley.

Here.

Harley Holder.

Here.

Sycam Savoravan.

Jean Marie Napolitano.

Here.

Ellen Pinoch.

Here.

Stephanie Smythe.

Here.

There is a quorum present, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

We please stand for the pleasure of the allegiance and remain standing, please.

I pledge the flood of the United States.

If we can just please remain standing for a moment of silence.

This is before uh Tom and Aggie Perkins, who uh tragically passed away last week and were put to rest today.

Uh they will be remembered as very generous and philothrampic people, very thoughtful people to our community, and uh they will be missed, and our thoughts go out to their family and friends, and uh eternal may be their memory.

Thank you.

And uh before we get going today.

Um first off, you will notice that there are some of us in the room wearing pink.

Uh today was our pink out here at City Hall and recognition of uh breast cancer awareness week.

Uh we had a little ceremony on the uh front uh front steps of City Hall this afternoon.

We read a proclamation for the Susan G.

Coman Foundation.

So in case you're wondering why Mr.

Carl looks so snazzy in this pink tie looking sharp.

Uh next up, uh we do have uh our friends from our sister city of Shimoda, Japan coming in uh beginning tomorrow.

Uh so I have a proclamation that I'm gonna read here uh in honor of our Shimoda days.

So whereas on May 17th, 1958, the town of Shimoda in Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan in the city of Newport in the state of Rhode Island, United States, were formally joined in a sister city affiliation by their then mayors, the honorable Sedeo Suzuki and the Honorable Henry C.

Wilkinson.

And whereas the year, our two communities will celebrate the 67th anniversary of the affiliation that has been carried on by succeeding mayors because of the close ties that bind us in an everlasting goodwill and fellowship.

And whereas one of the principal reasons for the formation of our sister city affiliation with Shimoda was due to our illustr illustrious native son, United States Navy Commodore Matthew C.

Perry, having been born in Newport on April 10th, 1794, a sailor statesman who was instrumental in opening the way for Japan's entry into the society of nations of the world.

And whereas Commodore Perry's two visits to Japan were to leave indelible marks upon the history of our two great countries.

First, because of his landing in Kurahama on July 14, 1853, which resulted in the opening of Japan to the outer world, and secondly, his negotiations with the Emperor and the Japanese commissioners, which resulted in the Treaty of Kanaga and the opening of the ports of Shimoda and Hakadode to American ships, and whereas authorized by this treaty was the first American consular representation in Japan to which Townsend Harris was appointed in 1856, with offices located in Gaya Kunsenji Temple in Shimoda and through uh through patient deliberations concluded in the commercial treaty of 1858.

And whereas in celebration of enduring friendships between our communities, the town of Shimoda visits the city of Newport biannually to honor the unique and lasting bond shared by our two sister cities.

Now, therefore be it that I, Charles Holder, mayor of the city of Newport and the state of Rhode Island, to hereby proclaim October 23 through 26, 2025 as Shimoda Days, in honor of this occasion, call upon all of our citizens to join me in conveying to our friends across the seas our abiding friendship and warmest good wishes on the celebration of the 67th anniversary of the formation of our sister city affiliation.

The city shall display the Japanese flag from the mayor's balcony at City Hall for the duration of our visitors' stay from October 23rd to the 26th, 2025.

If everybody set my hand on the cause of seal of the city of Newport to be to be a fixed on the 22nd day of October in the year 2024.

Thank you very much.

And uh at this time I'm gonna at the last second call up this Bachmann, Brendan.

If you want to come up for a I know, I know you don't like to speak in front of crowds, so just take a minute and uh give us a little rundown of what we can expect this weekend.

Thank you.

Gotta make sure they don't fall too.

Um we're very excited.

We've planned, I think, a very um expansive and welcoming uh few days for our Japanese and more importantly for the residents of our con of our city.

Uh we have an opening uh welcoming uh reception tomorrow night at the Edward King House at 5 30.

We have um been able to work very cooperatively in twinning with um the new Japanese um Japan American Society of Southern New England, and there will be up at Toreau Park an exciting uh festival of Japanese uh taiko and sword dancing and kimonas and even um a J-pop uh group will be there, so we're hoping you can do it.

We're hoping that the community will join us.

Um thank you very much to the Marriott and Rocky Caminar for a karaoke night um down at the Marriott from 7 to 10 on Saturday night, and then in a little bit more solemn um experience at the gravesite of Matthew Perry on Sunday morning at 9 o'clock, there'll be a ceremony um throughout the time.

We will be um incouraging our guests to interact with our other fellow newporters and to explain and and share their culture as best they can.

We're very excited about this opportunity, and we welcome everyone to join us for all the public events.

Thank you.

Could I just add that uh we have four students coming, right?

From that.

And that at the um gravesite, the Belmont Chapel will be open from 8 30 to 10 30.

So if anyone is interested in seeing the restoration of it, that is a perfect time.

That's perfect time, and there are the four students are being um cared for by Newporters as home stays.

Um, and it's a program we hope to develop and expand.

We will have four Italian students from Imperia coming in April.

So if you've got a spare bedroom, keep us in mind.

Okay, thank you so much for all your support.

Brenda, when is uh what's the time frame on Saturday at the tour?

It's 11 to 3.

11 to 3.

11 to 3.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um, Madam Clark, do you have anyone signed up for the Citizens Forum?

Yes, uh, Christine Waglawski.

I've seen to say your name and address too, please.

Um Christine Weglauski, 122 Bliss Road.

I'd like to bring the council's attention to speeding at the east end of Oaks Road.

This road from Middletown, the Eustace doesn't have a single stop sign.

It's downhill.

There's only a sidewalk on one side, and it is so much pedestrian traffic.

Everybody's on one side, and people walk all day long.

We work from home.

I see it all day long and well into the night.

So they come around from Middletown, and there's no stop there.

There's a stop at K Boulevard, and then they are by the time they get to Fenner and onto Eustace, which is the first stop sign on that whole stretch.

They're unimpeded.

No one parks up there either.

There's parking is allowed on the north side.

I live on the north side, but somebody uh near me parks a truck there occasionally overnight, but it's a narrow road, and the sidewalk is four feet tall, four feet wide.

And if you're walking on the sidewalk, the cars are 15 to 18 inches away from you.

A lot of young families have moved into the neighborhood, and there are strollers, people walking dogs and strollers, kids on scooters, and the speed is shocking.

I've seen oil trucks whiz by and uh something will eventually happen.

Someone will trip and fall off the sidewalk.

And not only that, some overgrown hedges make the sidewalk even narrower.

That's a separate issue of taking back sidewalk.

But I did speak to Chief Duffy, who was very responsive.

He suggested he directed me to talk to Sergeant Head, who is the traffic person.

I spoke to him on the phone twice.

The first conversation I asked about stop signs.

Um and he said studies have shown that stop signs don't slow down traffic.

So I looked up a Cornell study on traffic, and that study stated that people tend to speed up in between stop signs.

But the sample was for big city blocks.

Our blocks are so short that people there's not really an opportunity to speed up.

Also, on that stretch traveling west on Bliss, there isn't really an opportunity except for K Boulevard until Fenner to have a stop sign.

So I asked uh Sergeant Head about one of those your seed mechanisms.

And at the time, it was a couple of months ago, maybe three or four.

He said that the city only had one.

And I noticed a couple of weeks ago that one has been installed eastbound near Eustace.

But once but there's a stop sign that used this.

So they're only accelerating.

And because there's no sidewalk on that side of the road, the sidewalk ends on the south side at Eustace.

So they go up, but no, it's less.

Is that my three?

Thank you.

Sorry.

So a good start would be one of those your seed things at the Newport line on the north side of Bliss Road.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sam.

Thank you.

Um I will say that when we put those speed signs up, you know, there are certain there are studies done what why they're in certain places.

Um and I know that I know exactly where obviously you're you live next door to my mother, so I know exactly where you're what you're talking about.

Um, so there's multiple reasons why it's there.

They're run by solar, so there has to be, you know, but again, this is what I'm told.

I'm not making the decision on where they go, but uh there are certain decisions why they go into that.

But I we do understand your your concern, and I have heard it heard of that before, so we'll continue to look into it.

I did want to spoke into all the neighbors.

I mean, I could have gotten together, but I had time this evening because I was working in front of my yard, and uh the thing is it's accelerating.

I only bought the property about two years ago, but I've had maintenance of it from since 2016.

It gets worse every year.

I've seen people oil trucks, delivery trucks, land we can we can have a discussion after I don't want to take too much time on this.

Thank you very much.

No, thanks for saying motion to approve motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety with the exception of E.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second, any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh motion to receive and refer to Waterfront Commission communication from CRMC application of Castle Hill Inc.

590 um uh Ocean Avenue, Newport, Rhode Island for commercial viability aquaculture.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Uh any discussion.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here from Castle Hill this evening?

Nobody here.

I realize that we are just sending this on uh to the waterfront commission, but we will ultimately opine on this.

I'd like to know because um certainly not uh any type of an expert on what they're attempting to do, just that, what they're attempting to do.

Um I'd like those answers before the council opines.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Council Smythe.

Um yeah, I just had a couple of questions that I had received.

Um, obviously, if nobody from Castlehood is here, I don't know if there's anybody from our or city manager's office that could shed some light.

Yes, Harbor Master is here.

Um very well aware of the project and can answer any specific questions about school.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Steve Land, Harbor Master.

Um, so the area that they want to put this oyster farm is that Castle Hill property, is that state waters?

What would and I don't know if lack of a better term, what jurisdiction does the city have?

Uh a great question.

Um, so the everything is state waters, but the state has given us authority to state statute to manage certain waters in Narragansett Bay.

Um, you've heard me talk about the inner harbor, the outer harbor, and then there's the north and south shore.

We have by state statute 500 feet from the north and south shore to be managing this.

So this is in the city's waters that we are going to be managing.

So the state is supersedes us, but this is under our management.

Okay.

And the the species that I guess they want the farm to be, is that native to that area, or is that going to affect any species that are already there?

That is a biology question that I can't answer, but um for those who don't know, aquaculture is uh farming shellfish.

That is the gist of it.

There's a lot of different methods to do this.

Um this method is gonna be a floating cage that they have oysters in.

Um it's common in Rhode Island.

Um they're asking for a small kind of test area to do this in.

Um they call it Grace Kelly Cove.

I didn't, it's just a small inlet in uh on the north side of the Castle Hill property.

And uh, I mean, anyone who's been in out to eat, um, shellfish is incredibly popular.

I can see exactly why they're doing this, but um, this is we have no ordinances on this.

This is a first for Newport waters.

So this is something that needs to be really uh talked about, explored, and uh and a plan made for aquaculture.

And and is there a reason why they're not um procuring this through local fisheries or or did that not work for them?

Um I would imagine the draw of having oysters grown right there.

I mean, Castle Hill's absolutely an amazing facility.

Everyone here loves it.

It's it's great for Newport.

Um anyone who's been to the Matunic Oyster Bar or out to eat in any seafood place that they they have the catch right outside, it just makes it that much more special.

So I can absolutely see why they're growing this.

There's no such thing as a Newport oyster or Newport oyster, so I can I understand, but um, you know, what the you know, the gist for this and what we're gonna be talking about at the waterfront commission is the uh the single use once you do an oyster farm, those waters become a single use public trust property with with other uh uses in the in the the bay, it's multi-use mooring fields, you can sail through it, swim through it, fish, lobster, do other stuff.

Once an oyster farm goes, it is only for that oyster farm.

And that that's what needs to be discussed.

And uh they are all around the city.

I've had a lot of experience with these out on Block Island, so I'm I'm very, very um knowledgeable about aquaculture.

Okay, what do they have a plan in case there's a major storm that comes through?

I mean, is did they pull everything out of the water or could they lose it all?

Um that's the whole that is you're starting to get down to the nitty-gritty.

Yes.

Um on Block Island, we had problems with cages staying on site, they're all over the place.

Not every farm is like that.

Most farms are very, very responsible.

The fishermen are very responsible.

It's their product they're losing, they put a lot of money and time into it, so it's worth their time to secure it.

Um, that is a very exposed area, but um they they want it, so I think would be imagine it's actually gonna be part of Castle Hill.

They can have signs and show where the oysters are grown.

That's why they want it that that area.

Um, you know, this is a this is a first time, so I can't tell you if it's gonna be successful or not.

Yep.

Is there any liability for the city if if a storm does come through and they lose everything?

Can they come back to us and say that we didn't do enough to protect it?

No, I mean we're not permitting it.

Okay.

So I would say no.

Okay.

And and is there is there concern that this is going to set a precedent for any other waterfront uh hotels, restaurants to want to do the same and decrease our access to the plant.

I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter.

Yes.

This is where we're we're going with this.

So I think the waterfront commission is gonna have a full meeting on this and we'll discuss.

Um, you know, everyone who's been over the bridges has seen the farms and the west uh the west gap.

Um and that is a concern.

We have you know in unimpeded waters right now, and everyone seems to enjoy that.

They get really upset when I put a cruise ship out there for 12 hours.

I can't imagine permanently closing off an area.

Right.

Um, so that is the heart of it.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much, Steve.

Yeah, council Segley.

They are known for cleaning up the harbor though, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Aquaculture in it's in the science of it is absolutely amazing.

Um the the oysters and mussels in particular are their filter feeders.

They they take carbon out of the air and carbon out of the water.

It is the science behind it is is absolutely amazing.

Um unfortunately, it does have the impact of where the location is.

But um aquaculture in a whole is an absolutely amazing thing, produces food and cleans up the water, exactly.

So we would probably need to have um some sort of ordinance just to keep it in check somehow, but um, but that is the waterfront commission will be discussing all right.

It's the aquaculture in a whole is a proven science.

It's absolutely amazing.

And um, you know, to do another addition to how amazing Newport is to have a Newport oyster, fantastic.

Um, so I'm not opposed to aquaculture.

It's just this is the first one.

We haven't we haven't had this application yet, and so we need to kind of get going on this.

Thank you.

Uh slip.

Um, yeah, how large an area?

Do you know?

This is very small.

I think it's a thousand square feet.

It is a poet stamp, literally.

It's not uh not huge at all.

So this is a I would consider this almost a prototype to see if it's actually viable before they invest a lot of time, money, and energy in this area.

So it is not a big is it currently used or used by any bathers or anybody else?

No, it's uh can I I have got a I print out only print one, unfortunately.

So it's just kind of a strange picture because you don't see it like that.

That's actually basically um it's actually facing north, and that cove is not highly used by anyone.

I mean, there might be a kayaker or two, but it's it's shallow, it's rough to get out there.

You are in full Narragans at Bay.

So no, is that a high volume or high activity code?

No, it's not, and it's only accessible by private property.

So that is an important aspect to this.

Um, you know, it's it is only accessible private property.

So is it you know, this is this a terrible spot to do it?

Nope, it's probably the spot I would have chosen.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Steve There was a time in uh Newport Harbor, uh on the the East Passage where you're not allowed to cultivate shellfish for for consumption.

Correct.

Um does that still stand?

Yep.

Uh there is no shell fishing in the inner and outer harbors of Newport.

It does not pertain to South and North Coast.

So uh my the history of my job, I was out on Block Island.

Shell fishing is a way of life out there.

The city sells its own permits.

One of the reasons I took this job is there's no shell fishing, and we don't run a pump out boat.

It was one of those things I was really looking forward to.

But now it's followed me here.

So here we are.

Well, all right.

Um I'll I'm gonna make a motion to continue this.

Um until we can have someone from from Castle Hill or or that company that can come and answer some of these questions that we have.

Um, so I'm looking for a second.

Maybe I'll motion a second, any discussion or just counselor if I could Mr.

Chair.

I just want to point out the timeline here.

So we we received uh we requested an extension um to the comment period so that if the council came back in its December meeting, it would still give us time to uh provide that comment.

That was approved today.

Uh a continuance would force us to ask for an additional extension potentially into January.

So I just want to make sure we're considering that we might be overstaying our welcome with continuous extension requests.

Yeah, I don't see why we need to continue this.

I I I mean, this is to be received and to be referred to the waterfront commission.

So the waterfront commission is going to hear have public hearings on this.

Uh, anyone who is interested can go to the waterfront commission and then they will report back to us.

So uh and I bet and at that time, I mean it's unfortunate that no one is here from Castle Hill right now, but at that time I'm sure someone from Castle Hill will be here.

So I think that there is time for this.

Uh I I don't I don't know.

And we could certainly uh intend on inviting them to the December 10th meeting when the council will take up the matter.

So I would be more than happy to reach out to them and chairman Council Carl.

I support your continuance and I ask my colleagues to do the same.

I also agree with counselor Smythe regarding who else will want to do this.

Um I do appreciate Habermaster Land's explanation, but I'm quite disappointed that Castle Hill Management is not here this evening.

Shame on them uh to explain to us what this is.

Yes, it's only a thousand square feet now, but when there are a hundred others, once we set precedent here, it will be a hundred thousand square feet.

Uh and it's accessible by water.

May not be by land, but for private land, but it is accessible by water.

Waters which a lot of new porters use.

I support your continuance.

All right, so we have a motion and second to continue the matter.

All is in favor, raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

No.

Five one.

Okay, motion to approve the Vittling license expansion, extended hours, Broadway Mini Mart Corporation doing business as Broadway Mini Mart 316 Broadway uh to be open extended hours daily between 4 a.m.

and 6 a.m.

This is a hearing, Mr.

Chair.

Yep.

All right, do we have anyone from uh from the public that wishes to comment on this?

Or anyone from Broadway Mini Mart specifically?

Motion to close the public hearing and approve.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and side to close the public hearing and approve any discussion.

Um Council Napolitano?

Yes.

We're talking about the mini mart next to the former Dunkin' Donuts, correct?

No.

This is uh across from Bliss Road by A1 Pizza.

Yeah, okay.

No, I don't have a problem with this.

Um there's does no one here from Board of Women because I do have a question as to why the four to a M to 6 a.m.

hours are being asked for.

That's weird.

You know, it's it is a residential area.

I know that it's a partial business area, but there are residents there.

So if this is for do we know if it's for deliveries, if it's for to be open to serve any idea, uh Madam Clerk.

I I don't know, but I can certainly check with um my staff that took in the application to see if there was any communication on that regard and get back to you.

We can continue.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a comment.

You know, it's unfortunate when when businesses are asking for something that they're not here.

Um this is the process.

Uh I'm just, you know, I don't really have a problem with it, except you know, I want to know 4 a.m.

to 6 a.m.

Is that because they're preparing at that time?

Um, you know, I just uh I feel bad that that the people that are making these applications, we don't have more information.

Motion to continue.

Second motion and second to continue.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve a Vidaling uh license expansion crew cafe LLC doing business as crew cafe, one casino terrace to expand into the adjacent unit consisting of 15 tables and 60 seats.

I move approval.

Are we have a motion and second?

Any discussion?

All right, no discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye motion to approve a fitting license expansion, the preservation society of Newport County doing business as the Elms Carriage House 367 Bellevue Avenue to expand the food service to include hot food and additional 13 tables and 52 seats outdoors.

I move approval.

Second.

Uh motion and second, any discussion?

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh next to the 2025-26 Vittling License Renewals.

Um does anyone have any concerns over any particular establishment on the list?

I'm going to uh approve them all with the exception of um uh one bh and one bt, which m Mayor Holder has uh to have a key.

So um, all right.

I'm gonna make a motion to approve um 5A, the liquor establishments, um, with the exception of BH and um with the exception of Bloody Bowl uh Gardner House.

Second discussion, madam chair.

Yes, for informational purposes, what is this 131 Bellevue TBD?

Does anybody know?

They just haven't come up with an official name for the business.

Who owns the place?

What is it?

This is going to be one of the floating liquor licenses, the former Griswold's Rob in Realty LLC is the owner.

What is a floating liquor license for my information and for others?

They file to renew the license every year, but they have not been open.

Do we have an opinion on that, Mr.

Bean?

In the past, we have looked at these floating licenses, and we have um put pressure on them to um either open up or transfer out the the license.

Um we haven't done that probably in a in a year or so.

Um you do find that there are some legitimate business reasons why they can't use the license.

But um the each I would say each floating license has their own circumstances.

Um there will be some uh for example, the maybe they're they're under construction, they're not gonna open up for another year or so, but they want to make sure they can get the license.

So there's always these types of situations.

So yes, we tend to try to frown on that, council collin.

But um I think when we bring these matters up before the Board of Licensed Commissioners in the past, the council, based on um input from the license holders, um we haven't been overly aggressive in terms of uh of going after them.

Thank you.

I'll be somewhat controversial here.

Um not definitely not uh it's not new to me.

Uh but we had a hearing last week and we've been discussing the moorings that the city of Newport essentially owns and permits out.

It's my opinion uh that the liquor licenses are products of the city, that the city is the underlying owner.

And there may be a circumstance.

I know the former Griswolds, uh, and there may be a circumstance why the license is not being used, but when you come to the council and you ask for a renewal of your liquor license, at the very least, you should be selling liquor.

Um so I'll vote for it tonight, but I'd like us to go back to where we were in the past when we encourage them to do what they said that they would do with regard to the issuance of the license.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, uh uh no, I guess not.

Um, it's difficult enough for some people to run a business here.

I can understand things happening.

Um when you renew a license, and this has been true over the years, there's been any number that aren't open, but they renew the license so that they can keep the viability and the conversation going if they choose to or if they're trying to sell it, if they're trying to renovate it, if they're trying to pull money together with the bank.

Um, I just it's a tough business.

And I I understand this.

Having the license doesn't mean they're gonna be open.

They have to have all the requirements in to be open.

Um this looks like standard practice to me.

Um, yeah, I mean I think under the DBR regulations and also um just the concept of issuance of licenses, they should be in operation.

You know, unfortunately um decades ago we've created caps on these licenses and we've made them very valuable.

So it's also hard for the council up there when somebody isn't ready to open to say, okay, we're gonna revoke that license that is extremely valuable on the on the market.

So there's a lot of those circumstances that go into it, but I would agree somewhat with counselor Carlin that from time to time these can get out of hand that you might have too many of them when the whole idea is to have them in operation.

I agree, you know, you know, I would like to see the licenses going to people that are operating them, but things happen unfortunately.

Uh the economy changes, people uh partners change, you know.

Some of them can't afford to do it on their own.

So I'm I'm just saying I really feel bad for them.

Any other discussion?

I have just one question.

Um, just so I understand it a little bit better.

Is is there like a a wait list?

If we have a cap on how many liquor licenses are out there, is there a current wait list for people who who want one?

No, we don't have a wait list because the only times we have uh expanded a class is because somebody's turned in a another license to have uh uh another one issued.

So you have a reduction and then in add-on in one of the classes.

That's been you know, the last time we've issued a new license, that's been what's happened.

Um, it's all market trigger driven.

Gotcha.

If you want a liquor license, you gotta go out and find it and have to find a willing uh seller.

Okay, thank you.

All in favor of approving the uh liquor 2025-2026 uh fittling license renewals liquor establishments, with the exception of uh Bloody Bull LLC doing business as Gardner House 24 Lee's Wharf.

Second.

All in favor?

I okay.

Um Madam Vice Chair, or Madam Chair, did we do that backwards?

No, now we're going to do the oh yes.

Yeah, our opportunity we we wanted to give Charlie and our the mayor an opportunity to recuse himself from one, not the rest of them, right?

Right, exactly.

But now he's going to recuse himself.

So now we got the votes.

Okay.

So we're going to approve uh liquor class BH uh or Bloody Bull LLC doing business as Gardner House 24 Lees Wharf.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye, hi.

Aye.

And uh for the liquor class BT, uh Bloody Bull LLC doing business as Gardner House 24 Lee's wharf.

Second.

All in favor?

I okay.

Uh next, uh we have um another the non-liquor establishments.

Um, Mr.

Mr.

Chair, you can stay here for this one.

Uh okay.

So for the non-liquor establishments, um, I'm going to make a motion that we um approve all of them except for Gardner Provisions.

Second discussion.

You can vote on this one.

Because then you're gonna recuse yourself.

Uh discussion on Gardner Provisions.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, now you can leave.

Okay, motion to approve Gardner Provisions.

Do I have a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

No, no, no, they're not good.

Uh motion to approve the extended hours uh establishments between 2 a.m.

and 6 a.m.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Moving on.

I'm sorry.

Right one.

Okay, this is um action item 6511.

Uh uh, the Department of Public Services recommends approval of a contract to Bowman Consulting Company, uh limited of Lincoln, Rhode Island to provide transportation engineering services to study the city's traffic network based on their submitted proposal for a not to exceed amount of 199,600.

Uh this requires additional appropriation.

I move approval.

Do we have a motion of second?

Any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Smythe.

Um, I just have a couple of quick follow-up questions.

Uh when was the last time that we did a traffic study in this area?

If you include the transportation master plan, which was a larger overarching study.

What was the year on that?

2020.

It was 2023 is when it was published.

Uh, and the work leading into that 2022-23.

And and was there a cost associated with it?

I do not recall the cost of the transportation master plan.

I'm sorry.

Um we have an any kind of estimate as to how much we typically spent over, say, the past five years on consultants for stuff like this.

I mean, there are so many counselor.

There's so many different types and scopes of studies that it's difficult to give a precise answer.

I would I would say uh it's not uncommon to have six-figure studies uh as such as this one.

Uh we also have some studies that only cost 20 or 30,000.

So it's such a wide variety, it's very difficult to answer that.

This is this is exclusively based on the engineering involved and and the firms that that ultimately bid on it.

Uh and and I'd just like to recommend maybe to the city that um, you know, I wasn't in favor with the type of bidding process that this underwent, um, especially not knowing what all of the proposal the dollar values were.

Uh so I do recommend that that as much as we can that we pursue maybe like lowest price technically acceptable with a lot of our bids, just so that we have something to gauge the dollar value to if we aren't able to gauge it towards historical values.

So I just wanted to make that recommendation.

Thank you.

Council Carl.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, we definitely need this traffic study.

The residents of Hammond Street asked that we conduct the traffic study, and one for the area is needed.

Subsequently, the Newport Police Department, the administration asked to expand the scope of the traffic study, which I agreed to along with my colleagues, since I was the sponsor of the original resolution.

However, we have two concerns here.

I have two concerns here.

One is uh what council Smythe alluded to 200,000 for a traffic study to study uh roughly 11 to 13 streets is far too much money.

Uh that's that's borderline absurd, as I said at the last council meeting or two council meetings ago.

Uh but again, we need the study.

Uh second, the residents of Hammond Street are correct, and the surrounding area are correct when they say that the most effective study which can be done regarding traffic should be done as close to the summer season or to the heavy volume season as possible.

Uh so what I would like to recommend, first of all, uh in agreement totally with counselor Smythe as a going forward process or as a going forward uh best practice from the city's perspective.

Uh we should do exactly what councillor Smythe suggested.

Secondly, uh I think knowing that I'm fully supportive of this need for a traffic study, and knowing that this will get done, I want the city to go back to the drawing board, get a lower price and get a commitment from whomever the proposed company is to do the Hammond Street area in particular closer to if not in the middle of the heaviest traffic season for the area.

That's what they're asking for.

I agree with it.

And I'm gonna stop now because there may be some members of the public who wish to comment, and there certainly might be some counselors who wish to opine as well.

But uh again, fully supportive two concerns.

Please keep them in mind.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Segley.

Well, I don't know how much it costs to do a traffic study, so I'm not going to pretend I don't know if I know that this is a a lot of money or not.

Uh we set aside 250,000 for a study on regionalization.

So I don't, I don't, I don't know.

Um what concerns me is if we're just going to concentrate on Hammond Street in that area, you know, there's a domino effect that happens throughout the the neighborhood, and all of the streets are affected.

So I don't see the point in limiting a traffic study when we already know that there's a lot of traffic that goes um up Hammond Street now because we closed Dixon's, we didn't close it, but we we changed the direction of Dixon Street.

And this and basically I approved the the direction changing the direction of Dixon Street based on the fact that we were going to have a traffic study done.

So I don't want to see this domino effect being um ignored.

I think that uh I I don't know if this is too much money.

I I I don't know.

According to our administration, I think that this is reasonable.

So I'm I'd like to hear from the public too.

Mr.

Chairman, might I add one more thing?

I know I said I'd stop, but uh with your permission.

Go ahead, counselor.

The Hammond Street area, very specifically Hammond Street and two other streets, if we approve this as is now, will be studied uh approximately in March, which would not yield the results that we want.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Um, Mr.

City Manager, didn't um Director Rickyo say that there were certain ways of being able to study without having to be within that specific summer time frame.

He did.

Uh there are there's loads of available traffic daddy that's data that's largely based on cellular cellular information.

And there are statistical analytical techniques that can be used to take volumes of data at certain points of the year, compare it to historical data, and ultimately come up with a very, very reasonable approximation as to what the traffic would be in the summertime and has been in the summertime.

So in his professional judgment, there was there was no need to wait for a certain time to start because while there will be some traffic counts involved, there's also a whole lot of historical statistical analysis that they will also employ to ultimately it to come up with a reasonable result uh that is that is credible.

Thank you.

Um I wanna take a moment just to turn over to if there's anyone in the public that would like to come up and speak.

And just please state your name and address.

I've never done this before.

Kendra Munter, 22 Homer Street.

While I live on this side, I work on that side.

And I highly encourage the traffic study.

Since the stop sign at Young Street, I work down near the Wellington cut.

The traffic, I sit and watch it, it is now back up to almost Narragansett.

I watch cars bail in and out, do U-turns in the middle of the streets, back down streets.

Uh while I think the intention of the stop sign at Young Street was well, I don't know in practicality if it's working.

So I think we definitely need to do a study from uh uh memorial down through Narragansett, see if we have to do you know up down every street.

I also encourage you just to talk to all the UPS drivers because I hear a lot of comments about the streets.

Um, but yeah, it's not great.

And I can see how the residents would get very frustrated.

I mean, as an employee leaving as a worker going home, I know I'm probably annoying them because I'm taking streets I've never used to take before.

I now see everybody on West Street as I cut through almost every day and wave to them.

Uh so yes, I don't I'm with uh counselor Segley.

I have no idea how much it's supposed to cost, but it needs to be done.

But I think it also needs to be done when there's a lot of cars on the road.

So thank you.

Good evening, council members.

Hi, Mark Del Giurus, 40 Hammond Street.

It'll be a repeat of what we've already talked about and what you've heard about, but um as we saw 16,000 cars on Dixon turned into 63,000 on Hammond.

And um we heard the traffic study would be from as well, uh Memorial to Narragansett, not just Hammond and Dixon.

So we're encouraging the traffic study to go forward.

Yeah, um Helen Dell do this from Forty Hammond Street.

It is justified and it is necessary because the traffic is awful, and it is a result of whole neighborhood as well.

But the um the the reversal on Dixon has caused a multiple effect.

So everybody does drive down Thames, they come up Hammond and they go to Dixon and they part and go and go.

We had this all the way during the summer from our neighbors.

Um they still want to use same street, they're coming up Hammond to go to their home.

Yesterday there was an accident on Thames on Hammond and Spring.

Yeah.

So a car was going up Hammond, just an exit onto spring, and they had a car accident with a car on spring.

Um but it is well, yeah, just so not to go back and forth with everything with the um with the study that we'll have, but the traffic's still steady now, even though that's end of the season, every weekend we have events, it's busy all the time.

And again, you know, Dixon was a change, and they probably absorbed quite a bit of it, but it seems as though people aren't even going to Narragansett for some reason.

I don't know what's telling them.

Hammond's a shortcut to to somewhere, but it's everybody's turning left more so than before Dixon change, and I'm not really sure why, but even the traffic study is important from memorial to Narragansett, not Hammond Street, Hammond Street.

It's the whole path and we understand it.

We know it's a busy time and popular place.

It is near round, and we are convinced, and it is a densely populated area, and we do have Wellington only going to the right.

And the number of times I've walked to the gas station, and everybody takes the illegal time to go to the gas station.

So maybe a pretty difficult Wellington to Lee Street somehow.

I don't know.

That's what the traffic study.

I thought we were going to do the traffic study before you started changing streets, such as Dixon because it affects all of us.

That's what we have for saying.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Linda Stevenson, Dixon Street.

I just want you to keep in mind one of the other things that was very important about changing the direction on Dixon Street is the fact that Dixon Street is not a full-size street.

That there were numerous hit and runs.

My car was hit, my neighbors on both sides of me had a car hit.

A neighbor across from me had a car hit.

There were multiple accidents.

We had cars and trucks going up on the sidewalk because they couldn't fit down the street.

So it is a little bit different when you're looking at Dixon Street than some of the other streets because of the narrowness of our street.

I would also like to make sure that any traffic studies that's done, if we do have the advantage of looking back historically to see what the actual traffic was before the street changed.

This year, uh at the end of the fireworks, Dixon Street used to be gridlock.

You you could you couldn't get up it.

Because of course, then once people flew up it from Wellington, they couldn't then turn on to spring because spring was crowded.

I was surprised when I walked home that I our street was fine, but I went over to Hammond and specifically looked at Hammond.

Nobody was on Hammond.

They were all on there against it.

So I was a little bit surprised about that.

So I do think it's worth taking a look at the traffic study to see what the changes are.

Um I'd also like to know how many cars are coming down Hammond Street now compared to how many cars are coming down Dixon now, because obviously that's changed.

And I am a little bit surprised at the number of cars that we do find coming down our street, and we haven't solved the problem of adjusting the speed.

I still think everything should be 15 miles an hour between Memorial and Morton and Thames and Spring.

Thank you.

And you haven't taken into account uh probably the biggest elephant in the room, and that's uh the construction at Rogers and the traffic in and out of there.

Matter of fact, the proposal for the study, I think mentions that they are not gonna uh it doesn't include the time of dismissal uh at Rogers.

And I think that's short-sighted.

I don't think they know that Rogers is there and you're gonna feed the problem.

Uh if if I were doing it, if I were drawing up where the uh study was going to be done, I'd extend it at least uh to Ruggles.

Ruggles is a semi-narrow road as no sidewalks, and a lot of people walking dogs, a lot of kids out there trying to uh at the end of school and go into school.

And if you're gonna bother to study the problem, you ought to study the whole problem, not just small pieces of um, Mr.

Chair.

Hello.

Uh Sperous Illiopolis 38 Average Street.

I'm actually not here for this, but I just wanted to sort of highlight a theme of what people were saying, which is that when you're talking about, and I'm no expert, but I know a little bit of queuing theory, and I took a class on probability.

Okay.

So like usually I I would imagine that the way that these things are modeled, and I don't know because the books that are used for them are like a thousand dollars.

I looked into it when you know the wharf was being uh turned into a hotel.

But like probably what's happening is that they're looking at arrival rates, fitting some sort of like boss on model or something like that, and then running it through a graph of the city.

And the thing that everybody's sort of highlighting here is that Boston process has a fundamental assumption, which is that arrivals are independent, nothing is coordinating them, and people are talking about events where traffic is being coordinated by that event, and so it is sort of important to look at those times specifically and see how it is going to affect traffic in the city.

That's all yes.

Um Mr.

Kennedy, did we figure out a funding source for this study?

Uh, Madam Vice Chair, we we did we talked about a few at the last meeting, uh, but then when it was continued, that conversation stalled, but we're prepared to talk about that again.

We we need to talk about that again because this was a non-appropriated uh measure.

So, where are we gonna get it?

So we have a few options.

Uh uh the the first and uh the the first based on the new policy that council enacted the at the last meeting would be to use the the so-called committed fund balance uh for its inaugural usage.

Uh we have approximately uh three point one, about three million dollars available in that in that committed fund balance, not committed for any specific project, but think of it as committed to be committed.

Um so this would be 200,000 out of that three million, a very small fraction.

Uh other alternatives include modifying the capital improvement program expenditure that's currently positioned for the dynamic parking signs at $300,000.

We could drop that to 100,000 to make up the difference in the 200,000 for the study.

And talking with the uh director of planning and economic development, uh, Ms.

Trish Reynolds, she believes that we could still make a lot of headway towards that dynamic parking signage with that 100,000 and then push some of the some of the additional funds to to kind of zhuzh it up a little bit uh uh to the next capital to the to the CIP for fiscal year 27.

Uh outside of that, we have the ability to maneuver some smaller amounts of money, so sort of take some small stacks, maybe a little bit from council contingency, a little bit from other departments.

Um and there's other capital improvement plans that we could look at.

But I think the two most simple recommendations would be either one to choose to use the committed fund balance or two to uh reduce the dynamic parking signage CIP item by two-thirds and use the balance to fund the traffic study.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry, there's a young lady in the front.

You wanted to come up, uh state your name and address, please, if you're not familiar.

Angela Lima 203 Hillside Avenue.

Um, just a quick question for you all.

Um, just curious.

As the comprehensive land use plan is now planning phase is now on the way.

I believe that the transportation master plan also is included in the comprehensive land use plan.

And I sort of wonder like so whether I'm listening to Peter Rice, who's talking about Ruggles Avenue, perhaps that is the moment that you can also utilize to revisit the transportation master plan that was developed.

Um, there's been some um other um amendments to certain neighborhoods, and I sort of wonder what the impact is on that.

And because you're doing the comprehensive land use plan, um maybe that's the better space or place to do it.

And I've said a lot, and maybe nothing at all.

I was just wondering in terms of the comp the comp plan, the transportation master plan that are all integrated into the same thing, and there's this nexus that is happening that we need to update and revise our comp plan.

Thank you.

Uh Council Carlin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

With regard to the payment for this service, if we approve it or the payment to another firm if we approve another firm, uh, I'm not too concerned about uh whether the money will be there.

We are operating in fiscal 26 now.

And uh as the council knows, the Rhode Island General Assembly made some significant modifications uh to hotel, motel, short-term rental and other taxation processes in this last legislative session, which benefited Newport to a great deal.

By the end of the fiscal year, we're expecting to see hundreds of thousands of dollars in new revenue for the city of Newport.

So uh we found $7 million that we didn't have because we haven't gone to bond yet uh for the approval two weeks ago of some initial parate part work.

We found uh $2.9 million from a supposed uh and I imagine it is a real uh interest income excess for uh the school building project.

We'll be able to find a couple of hundred thousand dollars, and most importantly, we will be able to get that money back via these new great opportunities that we have or great revenue opportunities that we have that the General Assembly approved.

I'm still concerned, as I said, about the cost, 200,000.

Uh Mr.

Manager, what uh what was the uh uh the suggested price that VHB and PAR and Rockwell came back at?

There were four uh four bidders on this.

What did the other three bidders give us as a price?

Well, they weren't that's the thing, they weren't bidders, so we we don't have those prices.

Uh when you have professional engineering services, you put out a request for proposals from qualified firms that are able to do the work based on the master price agreement.

So the state of Rhode Island puts together a master price agreement for this type of work with some some ranges, some some some baseline expectations.

You tell the firms what what you're looking for with with great detail.

For example, we told them we we we definitely want them to do resident engagement.

We definitely want them to do traffic count.

We want them to use statistical analysis.

We also uh uh want them to uh uh take advantage of uh additional efficiencies in the marketplace.

We uh we want them to take a look at the transportation master plan and all of the other policy documents that the city has.

So we put all of that into the into the request for proposals, and four firms responsibly said, yes, we think we can do that, and they submitted proposals without the costs, because we're not supposed to know that.

And then they were scored because we knew they'd fall within at least some reasonable range based on the Rhode Island master price agreement uh model.

Once we pick the best firm, uh then we they then a price was revealed, and that was actually per Director Riccio negotiated down from what was originally approximately 230,000.

Uh he got them down to just under 200,000.

So that's that's the process when you're dealing with very high high technical uh engineering and and management services.

And and so we we are comfortable because of the Rhode Island A program that we got a reasonable price for what we were asking.

Well, how can you be comfortable that you got a reasonable price when you don't know the other three prices?

I mean because we trust the MPA.

Which is the master price agreement, but there are alternatives to the MPA.

It is not dictated in state law that you must use the MPA.

When we contract out, for example, uh for let's use as just a hypothetical here, beach cleansing or beach work of any sort.

We typically, as a council receive four or five, six bids, and uh that's in our paperwork with one bid suggested by the Department of Public Services.

We could take a look at that one bid versus the other few bids, and we can determine uh which one, or we can determine whether we believe the bid proposed by the city administration is appropriate, and we can vote yes or no on the uh the bid request before us.

In this case, we're not doing that.

And I I wonder why we're not using an alternative method.

It has to do with scope.

So if you have a very simple service or product that you want, uh I if it's just combing a beach, for example, to use your example.

That's a pretty limited scope project.

And and if you tell them how many square feet, you can you can invite firms to bid on that specific project.

The more complex and technically detailed what you're asking for, the more professional expertise is needed, the more likely you are to instead request uh proposals from from those who have the qualifications to do that, especially when we're talking, you know, uh several square miles territory as we are in this case.

So could we have done that?

Probably not.

I don't think we would have had any bidders because they would have come back with a million questions saying, how are we supposed to determine what you want uh based on the voluminous multitude of variables that are involved?

Do you have a copy of the specs for the bid?

Uh I don't have them not with you right now.

We have access to that, correct?

We have is there anything in state law that prohibits us from going to VHB, going to power and going to Rockwell, the three other interested parties and saying these are the specs, how much money will you do this project for?

Yes, there's certain under the um municipal um bidding legislation, there are certain ways you go about to get competitive pricing, and they range from the typical low bid to something like this where you're trying to get qualified um uh experts like engineers and in that.

So it follows a procedure that is set out in the law for that, and it's my understanding is that that's what they followed.

So there are three.

I believe if you look at the chapter on it, there's there's three um uh ways you can go about and get uh competitive pricing under the municipal act.

Uh and this is one of them.

So later on the agenda, we have uh a we're we're to be discussing not the contract itself, but parameters of moving money for a contract that involves uh close to 25 million dollars for utilities work.

Did we use the process that you're describing, Mr.

Manager, for uh for this or for the utilities work that we use for this?

It seems to me when you're talking about well, we we need to go to uh the state for uh the master price agreement for a 200,000 dollar, what ultimately is a 200,000 dollar bid.

Uh but yet we look because of specialized services that's being offered, but yet we look at a massive underlying utilities project, tens of millions of dollars in cost.

Is that not a technical service?

Uh, does that not involve technical services?

I it it just seems to me that this is an awkward way of doing business.

So I have I can see he's eager to speak to it.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna defer that question since it touches on the utilities uh to director Schultz.

He also has a great deal of expertise in all things uh um competitive procurement.

Well, I I'm not actually eager to speak to it.

I think it was 2017 or so.

Rhode Island changed the law uh and it mandated qualifications based.

So under the section of the law, we're actually prohibited from seeking any cost written or otherwise indicating what that would be for cost estimates, proposals, hours percentage.

It has to be entirely a qualification states with a schedule of work.

When you go into that, you enter negotiations.

If you do not come to an acceptable agreement, you can go to a different vendor.

Uh this project being the engineering services, and then the next one is more uh construction, and it's a blended procurement path on an existing contract.

So they're really apples and oranges.

Or have the city manager direct the director of public services to negotiate with the firm uh who we are proposing to give the award to, telling the firm that 200,000 is too much.

And I did look at the underlying state law that Mr.

Bean referenced.

And uh, if we do not come to a successful agreement with the firm uh that the administration is proposing, we then have the right by state law to go back to the state.

The state does not have to accept uh our second go-round.

Uh, but we have the right to go back to the state and say we do not accept this 200,000 price.

We want to run the process again.

Well, I I think that's something that could be done um if we are in agreement that this is the traffic study we want to do first.

Um I'm in favor of of doing a traffic study.

You know, it's it's written down, it goes from Thame Street, Morton Avenue, Spring Street to Memorial Boulevard.

Um we're getting ourselves into pigeonhole ourselves with uh a one small, albeit very busy part of that uh grid with talking about Dixon and Hammond for the for the main point.

You know, but we are also missing the part of the study will be the connector from Memorial America's Cup to Thame Street, which is owned by the state, which we have issues there with uh a certain crosswalk that's there.

We have parking issues for a you know a new development that we've already discussed in past meetings uh byts warfare.

Um we have we have the traffic that we have.

I mean, I I don't think a study in the summertime is gonna say, hey, you guys have a lot of traffic.

It's like, yeah, no, no kidding, we have a lot of traffic.

Um what's uh but that that's the thing that's missing is we're gonna we're gonna do the study.

We're gonna pay maybe it's 200,000, maybe it's 150,000.

I don't know what the difference is.

I don't know where they come from.

I don't know what's what's an okay price to be like, yes, 175,000.

Yes, that's better than 200,000.

Whereas when we come back and we're gonna find the study, half of you people that are here in the audience are not gonna be happy with it.

The other half will be happy.

That's the reality we're looking at.

They could they they could very well come back and be like, there's nothing we can do.

Your streets are too narrow for the for the amount of traffic that you have.

Where are you gonna where are you gonna stop traffic coming from?

Are we gonna ban buses and trucks from coming down Thame Street, going down Spring Street?

You know, so I'm not really as concerned with the price.

The price is gonna be what the price is gonna be at the end of the day.

My concern is how we gonna do how are we gonna do this traffic study?

How is it gonna get done?

Mr.

Rice brought up a great point.

Should we should we bring it past?

You know, we we have traffic issues on uh Parallel Avenue up to Ruggles Avenue.

We have speeding issues, we have um you know, major we have bike lane problems.

Um Barry Freeman's sitting over here.

I'm sure she's she's uh she has her 25 cents she wants to put in on one what goes on.

We've talked about Wellington Avenue.

I mean, this is gonna be a growing study.

So to concern ourselves with how much money we're spending on this one traffic study, I think we're we're missing the whole point of this.

So uh I'm not even sure if this is the the exact study we even want at this point because there'd be there'd have been a lot of good good points raised by the public.

So um I'm happy with doing what if this is what we want to go with.

I can go for that, but I think we might have to step back and make this a something a little bit more bigger, to be honest with you, Mr.

Chair.

Council Smythe.

Um I I agree with what you said.

Um I do recommend that that perhaps we should continue this item until we can figure out exactly the scope of what our traffic study is going to be.

And I would also like to recommend that maybe uh the city manager's office does a little historical comparison regarding the pricing of what when we finally do decide the scope of this project, what we have done historically to determine whether or not the cost is fair and reasonable.

Well, I'll I'll go ahead and make a motion that we continue this so we can get some uh continue this to get some more information on if we can expand the study and and find out I guess on the second term, just find out pricing on it.

Second uh we have a motion, a second, any discussion on the continuation.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

I'd like to ask if there's any member members of the public who would like to comment on what is being proposed now.

This is a continuance.

You've gone through two continuances already.

Are you prepared to sit?

Are you prepared to have another continuance?

Does anybody wish to speak on that?

Mr.

Chair.

Council Sugley.

Um my concern is um I agree, you know, perhaps we need to expand the study.

Mr.

Rice is probably correct.

I uh, you know, but at the same time, I feel that we opened a Pandora's box in a sense that when we changed the, you know, there's been a lot of complaints about Dixon Street granted, and we did change that.

And then, you know, we have put a lot on the neighborhood or in order to do that.

Uh I'm sort of conflicted, but I think I'm going to be outvoted on the continuance.

So I I'm gonna agree, but I do think we opened a Pandora's box here.

And and counselor, that that's true, but you know what?

We we it's our fault for being in the situation because we made a change on Dixon Street, whether it was good or bad or indifferent.

Uh, we made it without a study.

We made it just because there was some passion behind people wanting that change.

And we didn't look down the road.

We didn't ex you know, look at the how the domino effect is going to be for changing that.

No, so that's our own fault.

So I'm not gonna go back and double down on a mistake by just limiting the scope of this, what the study should be.

Right.

So I think that's why I'm gonna push this continuation.

So we make sure if we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it as as damn close to as good as we can get it.

And I and I I agree with you, but I remember stating that I my vote was contingent on a traffic study in that area.

So um my vote on Dixon Street was contingent on a traffic study.

So uh we'll take a vote.

All those in favor of continuing this for more information, raise your right hand.

Any opposed situation.

Okay.

Action item six five two zero.

Uh the grants office of the department of resilience and sustainability in collaboration with the division of parks, grounds, and forestry within the department of public services recommends authorizing two grant applications to RIDEM's 2026 recreation acquisition and development grants program.

A presentation of the identified uses of the proposed grant applications was made before the tree uh cities tree and open space commission on September 30, 2025.

The commission voted unanimously to support and recommend application to the council.

The 2026 RIDE EM RDPG allows municipalities to apply in two categories: a small recreation development grant, 125,000, and a large recreation development grant, 500,000.

The grant program supports projects that develop new and um and or renovate open and recreational spaces and related amenities.

Projects must align with the state's comprehensive outdoor recreation plan.

The application is due by 3 p.m.

on November 18th, 2025.

The first one is a small recreation grant for 125, 125,000.

The following is the loss of the city's owned recreation field behind Rogers High School and the loss of access uh to Ford Adams practice fields.

The city is um is um short of safe and play fields for the children.

So Murphy Field corner of Carroll Avenue and Ruggles provides an ideal solution.

Also the large uh recreation grant, $500,000 with a I'm sorry, and both of these have a 25% match.

Um following the success of the new basketball court and skate park, uh the John Chafee Boulevard Recreation Center represents an unprecedented opportunity for the city to provide Newport's most diverse and economically disadvantaged neighborhood with equitable and high quality green and recreational space.

A public splash park is the most requested new recreation amenity.

Um and uh requested by the public in the open space master plan.

I move approval.

All right, motion a second.

Any discussion all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item 6521, the Department of Utilities recommends approval of the attached resolution to relocate existing general obligation bond funding to advance the primary clarifier rehabilitation project at the Newport Water Pollution Control Plant.

The funding allocations for the Easton's Pond Hardening, $5,375,000 and the Elizabeth Brook North End Stormwater $5,375,000.

Uh projects are recommended to be reallocated to the primary Cal Cal Clarifier Rehabilitation uh project.

The action is limited solely to the reallocation of general obligation bond funds.

Um I move approval.

I motion a second and discussion.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

I yield to Councilor Pennick, sorry.

Council Pennett.

Thank you, Councillor Carlin.

Um I have a few questions.

So first, I want to know why the primary clarifier project is now being um prioritized over the originally funded projects.

In a nutshell, and I have uh uh Director Schultz can provide more details, but in a nutshell, we had we had hoped to get about four to six more years out of our clarifiers.

We have six of them at the water pollution control plant.

Uh, but when they were due for their uh routine inspections, we did them in sets of two, so three inspections.

Uh predominantly almost exclusively, they all came out to be in a condition that was much more degraded than we had initially thought.

In essence, they've reached their end of useful service life faster than we had hoped.

Um, and so it now presents a a clear and present danger to to the clean to the cleanliness of our water pollution control efforts.

Rob trying to think of the cleanest way to communicate it.

So uh we're reallocating funds based on current risk and what we're ready to proceed on.

Neither the Elizabeth Brook project nor Easton's are being paused.

Both of that design work is continuing through uh shovel ready advancement.

So it's kind of uh order of operations or sequencing.

Uh looking back when we were doing the bronze projects, we thought we were going to be further along.

We also thought there would be some grant uh elements there.

Um what's happening is you're seeing the modernization or prioritization of risk.

We're lucky that we caught it ahead of time and we're not in a reactionary cycle.

And what we're trying to accomplish uh right now is to use what we know we need to start in the near term for the clarifiers and balance that we're not quite ready for the other two.

Uh already having the bond funding available in January.

Uh expedites that process and it eliminates any short-term costs or bond attestination notes or other elements that we would need.

So it's really kind of moving that timeline around.

Neither of the projects are being abandoned, they're just getting reallocated on the current reality.

We have and has there any have there been alternative funds looked at for this project?

Uh there are any of them would cost more or uh add to the rate shock right now.

So uh internally, this is the pass forward to balance everything we have.

So we're not having uh additional funds by reallocating that bond.

We're not incurring those different uh debts or short term, and we're preventing that emergency response cycle.

So we're leveraging everything that we can.

If we went to look for other funds, they'd all cost more than this.

You think the the thing that I'm concerned about, I guess is the fact that this was voted on um by the voters.

So this was the money that was allocated to um, you know, to the Elizabeth Brook to the North End stormwater improvements, um, is something that went out to our community, and this was what they said that they wanted to happen.

So I'm a little bit concerned that this kind of disregards like voter intent.

Um, and I also think that it, you know, it's possible I I hear um Director Schultz, but the delaying of projects that are critical to the North End.

Um so I'm really curious about how this decision will affect the flooding and water quality issues that already exist in Ward One.

Just before Director Schultz speaks, I think one thing to keep in mind is that the money that was allocated and pitched to the voters as part of the bond was in anticipation of grants that to date have not materialized.

These were matched dollars for grants that we had hoped and anticipated to get, but the federal grant landscape has changed significantly and that has eliminated at least temporarily some of our opportunities to use that to use those allocations.

So essentially we have we have matches to grants that don't exist.

So knowing that one only has seven years to use the overall uh bond allocations that the voters entitled to to, this is a this is a a decision that we're recommending be made in order to capitalize on what we can do now while still having available other lines of funding for the other projects that will come later.

As as Director Schultz said, we are still advancing, we are getting close to shovel ready.

We are anticipating other funding opportunities that may become available, and we'll look at those through things like the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank and other federal grant opportunities that may become available as the current administration readjust their thinking about grants, which we anticipate might lean more heavily into infrastructure, but those decisions at the federal level have not been made yet.

So rather than lose time against the clock on the seven-year window we have, we feel it's it's prudent to reallocate those bond funds now to a project that is ready to go while still maintaining our eye on the prize with the Easton's Beach Hardening and the Elizabeth Brook daylighting.

Mr.

Chair.

It's not just a matter of it's ready to go, it's that this is ready to let go.

Right?

I mean, over the course of a few years.

Yeah, uh with any of the risk-based elements of it, um, you're trying to quantify it.

A lot of our assets are pushed beyond useful life.

We've already done interim measures to stabilize and advance it.

Um we are lucky that we had a program in place that uh found it and inspected it.

So how long we could delay it or when you'd have catastrophic failure or what that would look like, I can't really predict.

I'm telling you that the risk is uncomfortable for me.

And I think that alone uh from the amount of complexities we have should be should be telling.

Um that's the primary backbone for that treatment plant.

So if it were to go, you have a very limited group of contractors that'll do it.

We have an operations contract with our contract ops folks that go through, I think it's 2037.

Uh, that's prior to any of our options to renew.

Um and then any of that emergency mobilization, and that would all increase cost.

So uh it's much better that uh and we're actually fortunate now that we're ahead of the curve instead of being reactionary.

So I know it doesn't seem like that.

Um both of those other projects are not stopping.

So the Elizabeth Brook is probably going to be in three different phases.

It's not just the city that carries that uh burden.

You have private property, DOT, and the Navy.

Um phase one, probably at 90%, and we'll be back shortly what that number is going to look like.

It may be much higher than we thought uh so kind of the same story.

There's a ton of need where we put that money is where the risk is.

Right.

And the risk is for the entire bay, and um the north end is impact would be impacted by that.

Everything Mr.

Chair?

Slide.

Um, how much have we applied for in grants for for these projects so far?

No idea.

Uh Easton's Pond, we've applied twice.

The third time we were positioned, and then the BRIC program disappeared.

Elizabeth Brook.

I think there's one active grant that's that's pending now between four and six.

We turned over numerous other ones, they've all disappeared.

So tens of millions of dollars.

Okay.

Um and what happens if we find out that this this work is going to cost more than the two projects that we're reallocating funds for, where are we going to get that additional money?

Are there other projects that we're going to recommend we push down the road that the bond was originally approved by the voters for?

No, from a utility standpoint, it was only these two projects and bonding.

Um the sequencing of permitting and construction and probably give us two plus years.

And so what we will most likely do is pause some of the pay as you go to give us a little cushion.

Uh, there's still some other elements to work out, but overall, from that cash flow basis over that period of time, it is manageable.

Okay, and if we do reallocate these funds, those two projects, what's going to happen to them?

Are we do we have funding that we'll eventually be able to put towards them or will they be put on pause?

You don't have funding now for the totality of those projects, so you have a portion of it.

Um our revenue bonding standpoint with utilities, we have a bunch of different debt.

Uh what it does, and I believe it's around the two to four year period.

We have a lot expiring, so we could go out and increase pay as you go, or we could go back and go out for revenue bonds.

Right now, we're not in a position for that.

Any action outside of this would be either delaying or increase costs in the near term.

So uh neither project is abandoned, they're just reallocating for risk and what the timeline is right now.

Okay, and is was there a plan that we were going to break out the cost for stormwater versus sewer and and how would any of this impact the utility bills uh that's what we're actually trying to do is not impact them right now until we make it through that process.

So if we were to go out to interim financing or uh a revenue bond, the current structure wouldn't support that.

Um so we'd be incurring more temporary or immediate debt and then have to come back and adjust that revenue, or you'd be paying a premium for it.

Um that could be potential.

It's not anything that is advisable or a best practice right now.

Uh we will be back in November, and there's a lot of direction as far as the uh utility rates.

Water is somewhat uh taken care of because it's through the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission.

Water pollution control.

Um we will be here in November recommending a stormwater utility and modifications to the wastewater, but what that looks like, uh, there's a lot of gray area there that needs policy and vision.

Uh it's trying to get it to be fair for everyone.

Right now, you have around 38% of your water pollution control bill goes to stormwater.

Uh historically that was blended in with the overflow, and it was kind of all in one bucket.

We've advanced now with that.

We're at the point where on the tail end of that program, and it makes more sense uh to separate them out.

Um the water pollution control rates right now are not necessarily uh fair or equitable.

You're gonna have opinions both ways.

We want to improve that, but there's gonna be a lot of guidance and public input that's needed.

Uh overall, depending on what that envelope looks like.

Uh, you know, the typical personal probably see uh a minor correction, but then you're gonna have large impervious areas or other uh things that would see a big increase.

Okay, and just want to make sure that I'm understanding so to to sort of summarize and and please correct me if I'm wrong, we have a critical situation that we'd like to reallocate funds to fix at the front.

We're taking the two projects and sort of pushing them down the road, but but not discontinuing the work that is going to be done on them.

And if we don't utilize these funds to fix this major issue, we'll be in a situation where we will have to increase the rates on the utility bills to try to accommodate for an additional source of funding.

If we don't go forward with this path, we'd be uh looking at revenue bonding and interim stop get measures to do that, which the current rate structure wouldn't support.

So yes.

Um the long-term view, while we're modernizing and we're trying to do it, we're doing much better as far as knowing the health and putting systems in place and using that data.

Uh, there's a lot of infrastructure that is aging, uh, some more critical than others.

Uh this happens to be one that would have a major impact uh uh across the board, which is why we're we're taking it.

So I'm hoping that we wouldn't have anything like this, but you're you're gonna have several different projects that need to get prioritized.

East ends the north end, you have other stormwater projects, uh lead service lines, water quality, it's all overlapping.

And I don't know whether the regulations would change in two years or three years, or what the grant landscape.

So right now, with the best available information that we have, this path will recommend.

And can you just speak really quick to the criticality of this?

Um what would happen if we didn't fix this urgently so right now uh through that inspection, we caught it.

We started to talk with the contract ops and their team and and are working on a draft contract that we're gonna come back to for that pricing.

If we didn't do that in place and weren't on the proactive, we'd be reaction.

So you're calling because you have an immediate public health and safety with sewage either going out into the bay or spilling over untreated, and you have to respond to that.

And so at that point, cost and other elements are not the primary factor, and there's a premium to that response.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Thank you.

I agree with counselor pinnock.

I think uh if we do this, though it is necessary, uh, if we do this, we will undermine the credibility that the city has in the bond process.

We told the voters of the city uh that the bond in part was for two projects that we are now taking money away from, one of which uh the residents of the North End have uh been dealing with for many, many years and have been fight fighting very hard uh to uh to overcome.

I certainly would not want to explain to the residents of the North End that you accepted what the city put forward as a bond in part to help you with Elizabeth Brooke and other related issues, and we are going to ignore that.

We need to find another way to fund this necessary improvement, this necessary fix.

But one of the ways should not be taking the money away from those that we already told we would uh we would take care of.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Um thank you to counselor Carlin.

And that those are my sentiments exactly.

The issues already exist in the North End and they've existed for a multitude of years.

And I just don't think first of all, that it's fair, but second of all, that we should even consider like pushing those down the road.

I heard our city manager say that um we don't really know about the funding landscape in the future, and we don't we see what's happening right now.

So I don't know how we could possibly guarantee that these projects would continue if we reallocate these funds.

Previous council action actually uh allocated of that 5.3, 2.8 to the Jacobs project to advance it uh on repayment when the bond path.

So that money is already due back to water pollution control rather than muddy the waters in that.

I just tried to uh leave it at that reallocation base.

So if whatever that math is from the five point something, you're gonna repay 2.8 to water pollution control.

And uh while that project is advancing, it is not uh shovel ready now, and there's numerous partners there.

So you can hold this money.

Um we're not gonna be coming back to you within a near term to solve the totality of that.

Um we're we're actively working on it, we're seeking to improve it.

Uh, but you know, withholding or not reallocating this is not going to generate that project getting delivered faster.

Mr.

Chair, sorry.

I'm really concerned about this discussion because I see this as uh a need to have.

We we cannot let these clarifier um pieces just disintegrate or just go.

I mean, this is a citywide issue.

It's also an issue that does impact the north end.

Uh it impacts the entire bay.

I I mean, yes.

So in a perfect world, would we want to spend everything that was on that list?

Yes, but we don't live in a perfect world.

And we're at a point right now where, you know, uh the the hardening of Easton's Pond had to take a back seat because of the BRIC grant that was um taken away by this administration.

So I see this as an emergency.

I see it as a something that is for the entire city for our bay.

I I don't know how it is that we would want to put this on the ratepayer.

I how is that fair?

So uh I attempted before, and I I'll I'll take this step back to say that none of us here on the dias or or that you know, created these issues, they're inherited, some of them are inherited probably in a century plus, and so we're doing the best we can to mitigate those.

If you were to look at the infrastructure gap across the board and and like to have or need to have um some of the risks out there probably would not make people feel very well.

Uh myself and my team, it's normal operation.

This is when we're coming to you and saying that it needs to get done.

We're not trying to defer or not complete those other, but the reality is is they're not ready now.

Uh and the money, even if you had it, should get allocated to the clarifiers of the treatment plant first prior to those.

Yeah.

Um, I think that this is a need to have.

Um, you know, and I I'm saying this as a person who owns a house in the flood zone in the north end, and I understand the the the issues with it, but um, you know, this I think that protecting our harbor uh takes precedence in uh if this is an immediate need.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Um, have we considered reallocating funds from something like Clipwalk?

No, from the standpoint of this, I only looked at the utility-centric.

Uh, we typically stay in just anything that would be allocated for those enterprise funds.

Uh, I didn't explore any other options.

Is that a possibility?

It is.

Uh we could uh don't forget there's there's five million dollars allocated to the Maher Center that probably will not get used for that because the price we were quoted was 2.7 times that amount.

Uh, likewise, uh and I don't mean to bring this up and I hope it doesn't generate a debate because that's not my intent, but there is 10 million dollars for the Rogers uh dirt pile and and what we ultimately do with that space.

It may not come in at that, given what I'm hearing now from the Rhode Island DEM as their likely recommended remedial alternative.

So as time goes on, we may find ourselves being able to recoup some of what we might reallocate today right back to where we started at a time when grants might become available.

So there's a lot of what if there, I understand that.

Uh, but but this is all fungible money at this point and always was intended to be because the nature of changing circumstances and conditions from a pragmatic standpoint, it doesn't alleviate the option for the council or administration when we do get phase one shovel ready to search for funds anywhere in between.

It doesn't uh change what the reality is for the clarifiers and what's needed at the plant today.

Jim, did you want to come on?

Jim Nolan, uh finance director.

I think we also have to keep in mind that the the money is the funding that we're reallocating.

This is general fund money.

And later down the road, when Elizabeth Broke and Easton's Pond are shovel ready and we have that grant because that those two projects are just matches.

So those are matches that were initially allocated from the general fund, right?

So if we reallocate those other projects, we'd have to make sure that we determine where that that debt service will be coming from, whether it's from the general fund or will be the enterprise fund.

And right now, what we're doing is we're saying, let's look at the clarifiers that will come through the general fund as far as a debt service.

There'll be no change to the rates down the road when Elizabeth Brook and Easton's Pond are ready, they will be funded by the ratepayers.

So that that's where the reallocation that that was the logic behind it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

I understand the urgency behind this.

That is of deep concern to me, but it's also of deep concern that we are respectful towards what the voters voted for.

I would like to motion to continue this item to the November meeting so that we can have more of a robust discussion about it and some other maybe funding opportunities.

But we are also one counselor down who is also a subject matter expert in the type of funding that would be going into some type of work like this that may be able to shed some light or or give us a another creative idea of how we can honor what the voters voted for, but address this urgency in an emergent manner.

Mr.

Chair.

I'm sorry.

And because we've because we've made some promises that probably that money wouldn't be spent anyway within eight years.

This is it sounds good politically, but from a from a reasonable rational reality, it it only makes sense to do it this way.

So we don't put the the onus on the on the ratepayers.

I I if I bet you anything, if we had a vote of hands today for people in the audience about do you want to have a clean harbor?

Or you know, I mean it, yes, sometimes you have to make choices.

I'm not gonna sit here and be on a council that's going to allow the harbor to be polluted.

I don't think anybody is saying, hold on, hold on.

Hold on.

Rob, do you have some to add to this?

It's a matter of timeline and deferring and risk.

And so you're you're you're managing all that.

Uh we can't say when that's going to happen, but if we were to get the approval tonight, we would finalize negotiations and it looked to expedite the contract.

This type of heavy construction work and allocation of the resources is not something that happens quickly, and we are trying to expedite that.

So the intent would be you reallocating it tonight.

We still have to talk with Middletown and the Navy on those, and there's some other funding elements that we'd be looking to uh do over the course of the entire contract.

Um delaying it tonight, uh, I would most likely rep recommend to the city manager or Jim that we uh start looking at bans and other things because it it is critical at this point.

We have we have data that shows the longer we wait, the more risk uh that's there.

Um you still have the contract that's gonna get have to get approved in other elements or uh you know when we are shovel ready, we'll be back for whatever that uh contract is, whether it's Easton's Pond or phase one for Elizabeth Brook or anything of that matter.

And we may or may not have the have the funding right now.

We do not have the funding to fix everything across the board.

If you had uh the top two issues, this would be one, and there's a finished water pump station on the clean water side that'd be number two.

So what do you what do you mean by bans?

Uh bond anticipation, no.

So um delaying or going through a whole cycle to to do that.

If you look at the obligation bond, we already had uh what that timeline was.

You'd have something similar going for the infrastructure bank.

A parallel would be when uh the longmore force main failed, you got anticipation notes, interim financing, or we'd be looking for the city for a loan.

All of those have costs to that enterprise fund, which true into whatever the the subsidy or that would be and delay the project.

Um so we can't commit or come back to you if we don't have that general idea where the the 22 point something or 25 million is going to come over that we're gonna uh owe the contractor for the next two and a half years.

Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, I can see the urgency of this, and and I would have to agree.

I don't want to see the bay polluted.

Um, it's not only the voters in Newport, it's the US Navy and the town of Middletown.

You know, this this is a hard place for us to be.

And I believe we have to do something um positive to make sure that we can continue to service not only Newport and its residents, but our partners in Middletown and the Navy.

Um I don't think we should delay on this.

I think a recent parallel would be from a permit compliance or public health issue.

Uh, what happened in Winsocket with their plant and uh untreated dischargers going into the water body.

So that's what we're trying to be uh ahead of here.

We know the condition exists, and we have the responsibility to act.

It's unfortunate that uh we're looking at the bond money that we had designated for some other projects.

However, they're not project ready.

So perhaps you know, we'll be looking for alternative revenue sources, even after if we take a step back.

I would say that it's fortunate that this avenue exists right now, uh, that we can avoid any of the increased interim financing, or we have the ability to expedite it without having some of those costs.

So I wouldn't want to look at it that we're abandoning or delaying those projects.

We're making the best of what the landscape is and and fiscally responding and also technically and and whatnot going through that process.

Yeah, those projects still should be done.

It's just that we have some urgency here with the clarifiers and responsibility to two other entities.

And as we stand here today from the sequencing of how those projects would get phased and and what we're available to do, uh it is different than when we originally started that bond process and the allocations were made.

So different Mr.

Chair, Smythe.

Can you tell me when this situation was deemed critical?

No, I'd have to go back and look.

So someone tell you it's not critical, it's not in failure now.

Um, depending on what you want to look at.

We probably have half a half a dozen or other ones that could be critical failures.

Uh if they don't wind up in regulatory uncompliance or public health and safety or failures that impact people, everyone thinks it's fine.

Uh the reality is is that our team 99% of the time is ahead of it and make sure that doesn't happen.

So, would you say within the past month, maybe it was probably a couple of months.

It's an ongoing dialogue from the inspections back and forth with Violia, their subs and trying to allocate everything and see what uh what potential other options would exist, including finance, what the implications would be to the operations contract.

So with most of my area, it's about as clear as mud, everything overlaps it.

Okay.

So if it's say it's been a couple of months, um, what is a couple more weeks going to do to this situation?

Are we is is it within the next couple of weeks?

Are we going to end up with a drastic situation of sewage into the harbor if we've already waited or determined over two months that this was an emergent situation?

I think that's one of the downsides of my position here is that you probably have numerous things, and as long as everything's fine, it's okay.

If any of it fails, you're gonna turn and say that I should have done better.

So I I don't have that answer for you.

Uh I think if I could probably go through and highlight numerous single points of failure or things that would probably make people cringe.

Stuff that is in excess of a hundred years old that I'm not worried about.

Uh, this is one that I'm not only worried about, our contract operators are worried about, and we've been fortunate and proactive enough to be ahead of the curve.

So we may be fine waiting two weeks or four weeks.

Uh we may not.

If an emergency occurs, we're gonna do that expenditure now.

So I don't have a quantifiable answer for you.

You could have one of them go down and we make due.

You could have a cascading failure.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

I'm gonna formally second uh councillor Smythe's motion.

All right, uh, did you uh officially make a motion to continue?

I did.

Okay, so we have a motion and second any discussion.

All right, all in favor on continuation, raise your right hand.

All opposed, raise your right hand.

Order two continue.

Okay.

Next, uh, we have the uh motion to adjourn.

Oh, sorry.

No, sorry, we have resolutions.

Um allowing for open containers at the Broadway Street Fair chairholder.

Oh, thank you.

Uh so this resolution came about.

Um I'll just read the resolve real quick.

Uh resolved at the city uh Newport City Council asked the city administration, including but not limited to the Newport Police Department, Newport Fire Department, City Solicitor, and the Broadway Street Fair Committee or Broadway Street Fair Board to uh research the feasibility of allowing for the public to consume alcoholic beverages within the boundary dedicated to the street fair.

Uh I make a motion to approve.

No second.

All right.

No second.

Then fails.

Great.

You can't even have a discussion.

Beautiful.

Um next, the resolution establishing an ad hoc board, a commission um handbook committee.

Councilor Smythe.

Okay.

Um I will just read the resolve.

Uh that council hereby establishes an ad hoc committee to draft a handbook detailing standard operating procedures of the boards and commissions, and be it further resolved that the committee will be appointed no later than 31 December 2025 and shall be comprised of five individuals who will serve a two-year term to complete this task, and be it further resolved that all applicants must be registered voters and will be required to submit an application resume and ethics statement that is in accordance with ordinance 2.56.10 to council through the city of Newport's application process found on the city of Newport.com website.

And be it further resolved that council review all applications and resumes, will submit a list of qualified applicants they wish to interview to the chair.

And once council conducts the interviews, then the five committee members will be chosen by a majority vote of council, and be it further resolved that the committee will appoint a chair of the committee at their first meeting, and be it further resolved that the committees shall hold monthly meetings to obtain information from the boards and commissions, council and the public needed to draft a handbook that will then be presented to council at the end of their term for council to vote on.

I motion to approve.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chair.

Do we need to have another board and commission to do a handbook?

We I thought that this was already going to take place within the uh city manager and mayor's office.

I don't see, I think we need to be combining some of our boards and commissions.

I don't think we need to be expanding them.

We've all I and it just doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, how hard is it to write a handbook?

Apparently, difficult to ask them for two years.

Mr.

Chair?

Council Smythe.

Um during our workshop, it was determined that yes, there are some standard operating procedure issues, and it wasn't determined that the city manager's office was going to take this for task.

Um having a committee that can do this, maybe they can get it done within six months, and they won't need the full two years to do it.

I I threw two years out there to give them time to talk with the commissions and the chairs of the commissions to determine where the issues are.

We heard from a few people that things are inconsistent with our boards and commissions and how they do things.

So this would hopefully help to streamline the process and make our boards and commissions more of a resource for council and for the public to be able to address our issues.

I can understand councillor Segley's concerns about do we have too many boards and commissions.

Um, I don't think that we have enough.

I feel as though these individuals are subject matter experts that we can lean on instead of pursuing consultants and utilizing taxpayers' dollars for consulting work that we don't necessarily move forward with.

We have commissions for just about everything, including our sister cities, which is there to determine and to help us have friendships and relationships with other delegations and to learn from other cultures.

So personally, I don't see how how this would be an issue for anybody, but I I defer to council to their questions, Mr.

Chair.

Council Pennick.

Um I also think that like our boards and commissions are the foundation for like community participation in local government, and I don't think it's harmful to have something that will help streamline the um accountability, transparency, and consistency either.

And then I also think that we should empower residents with clear guidance.

Um, and some were feeling like they didn't have that right now.

So I do think this is really helpful.

And you know, I think if we can create more boards and commissions, whether or not we have a lot right now, and that encourages our community to join in local government and have a voice, then we should do so.

Ms.

Chairman, I had to read through this twice.

We're gonna have a commission to study our commissions.

I mean, it just seemed rather redundant and excessive to me.

Um the resolve as far as all applicants have to be registered voters, they do, and it it they've been given the information.

Um, and they have to provide it to the city.

They have to submit an application, a resume, and sign an ethics statement.

Um it's all out there.

A booklet, yes.

I think a booklet should be provided.

I think that's a good idea.

But you know, you have so many boards and commissions, and then you know, they uh may differ from one board or one commission to another commission, and then the council is right in the middle.

Council is the ultimate uh place where it's resolved.

I just see this as over um overdone.

I don't think we need another board or commission to study our boards and commissions, Mr.

Chair.

Council Smythe.

Um, so this isn't to study our boards and commissions to provide information.

We already have to.

Council Smith has a table.

Thank you.

Um they would be putting together a handbook.

I mean, we can this actually it would be a committee, not necessarily a commission to be able to do this, but I would think that we would want maybe some volunteers to be able to put together a standard operating procedure instead of putting the burden on our city manager's office and paid employees to do that for us.

A book could consist of 10 pages.

I mean, it's not and that's a handbook, a booklet, a handbook, which is what this might say I don't think it's too much.

Yeah, sorry.

Any further discussion?

Um I I don't feel that this is a necessary committee uh for the fact that we should we can be having these boards and commissions as individual boards and commissions do their own handbooks as a pertains to that board and commission.

Um because if we can find volunteers to fill this committee, you know, that have an expertise in this area, then I would rather have them on our already existing boards and commissions.

Um that being said, we can go take a vote.

Uh all is in favor of the.

Mr.

Chair, uh Council Smythe.

I believe we have public.

Yeah, come on up.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Uh Emily Conklin, I love at Seven Gwyncourt.

Um, I'm on the Energy Environment Commission.

I attended the workshop that was referenced.

I think that this is a good idea.

I support um what counselor Smythe and Pinak put forward, and and especially what Councillor Pennick just said in terms of empowering our um your constituents, our residents, to be able to do the best work that they can.

Um, I think that many people have had a wonderful experience being on boards and commissions, myself included, but I do think that there is some muddiness in the processes, and so and I know personally that there is interest in our commission, our commission members to be a part of developing this resource.

And so I think um it wouldn't necessarily take two years.

It wouldn't necessarily need, you know, applicants outside of your our the pool we already have, but I think that having a standard operating procedure and also guidance for boards and commissions to determine um, for example, our commissioner Andy Bjork helped us write our internal operating procedures of how the EEC takes votes, what's a quorum, how do we do Roberts rules?

Those are things that we don't know coming into being a commission, and that is not a requirement to be on a commission, and that takes a lot of time away from doing the work of the commission itself.

So if we were handed a handbook on day one of learning those things and that we could refer to, yes, each commission can tailor how they run their meetings to what works best for them, but I think this would be a huge stress off of the commissioners.

And I also think there are people who would have fun doing this.

Um probably included, not to volunteer him in this meeting.

And so I don't think that would be um a heavy lift, and it wouldn't necessarily be people outside of you know that were taking talent away to put them on this committee from other commissions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

Um I mean, I would be comfortable amending this to have existing commission members appointed to this committee to be able to do the work of pulling together a handbook, a booklet.

If counselor Pinnock is on board with something like that.

Um if that would be easier for council, I would be happy to make a motion to amend it so that we could reach out to our existing boards and commissions and see if there are five members that would be happy to help draft up this booklet.

Second.

Um you'd have to change the ordinance or the uh rules of the council that to allow people to serve more than one board and commission.

Tim you can come up.

We'll get work to I believe they can serve up to two.

Yeah, you could at the time.

We have to change it though.

Probably if you have that.

I think right now it's just one.

There are certain exceptions, but I don't think that's yeah, I'm Jim Madsen.

I'm live at 32 Poplar Street.

Uh, I'm also on historic district commission.

Uh, the only thing I would like to do is caution you that all commissions aren't the same, right?

A lot of them, you know, filtered down from other parts, whether it's associated with the state, you know, or the federal government.

So you really can, and it's not up to the city council to really uh tell us how we should, you know, run a meeting and how we should make the decisions that we do make.

So just a word of caution that they are different.

The HDC, as a matter of fact, has all kinds of ordinance already in the in the uh city's uh documents, and it also filters down from the federal department of interior.

So uh just be caution what you want to change.

Mr.

Sher.

Um, thank you.

I I I appreciate that.

And and I think that that's something that I would envision that this handbook would also detail is those distinct differences that we have with certain boards and commissions that that have a state um regulation to them, and and it would just be a resource for the public to be able to understand that as well.

All right, any other discussion?

Which one are we voting on?

Are we voting on the argument?

Yeah, all right.

Uh motion to amend uh the resolution to allow people to serve more on more than one commission.

Correct, right?

More than one commission.

Yeah, well, the the or an existing existing members.

Existing members to serve on this on this board of commission.

All is in favor, raise your right hand.

Any opposed right?

Uh now to vote on the resolution.

Uh, all is in favor of the resolution, raise your right hand.

Any opposed three three motion fails.

Okay, motion, okay.

I'm resolution, I'm sorry, establishing an advice and accessibility advisory commission, councilor Smith and I whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires public entities to make their programs, services, and facilities accessible to persons with disabilities, and whereas the city of Newport recognizes this and is committed to fostering an inclusive community that ensures equal access and participation for all residents and visitors, including individuals with disabilities.

And whereas under Title II of the ADA, the city has a responsibility to involve persons with disabilities in their self-evaluation and planning process to identify to identify and remove barriers to accessibility, and whereas the city recognizes the importance of engaging individuals with disabilities and community advocates in an advisory capacity to help inform and guide accessibility improvements.

And whereas public engagement, consultation, and lived experience are essential components in the development of effective accessibility policies and procedures.

And whereas an advisory commission comprised of individuals with relevant experience and lived experience can provide valuable guidance and insight into decision making regarding barriers to access and inclusion.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that Newport City Council hereby establishes an accessibility advisory commission to serve as the communications link and advisors to the city council, city administration, the city's boards and commissions, local businesses and the public, and be it further resolved that the commission shall be comprised of seven residents who will have the option of serving two or three-year terms, and that our all applicants must be registered voters and will be required to submit an application resume ethics statement that is in accordance with ordinance 2.56.10 to council through the city of Newport's application process found on the city of Newport.com website.

And be it further resolved that council will review all applications and resumes, will submit a list of qualified applicants they wish to interview to the council chair.

And once council conducts the interviews, then the seven commission members will be chosen by a majority vote of council, and be it further resolved that the commission will appoint a chair of the commission at their first meeting, shall hold monthly meetings and will submit an annual report to the council outlining its objectives, opportunities to remove accessibility barriers, proposed programs, and updates on initiatives undertaken throughout the year.

I move approval.

Second.

All right, motion and second, any discussion.

Um Mr.

Chair.

I think this is important to have uh a commission on accessibility uh for sure.

I'm just wondering, I'm just gonna throw this out there.

Is it possible to perhaps combine it with another commission, for instance, maybe the bike and pedestrian commission or the affirmative action commission and add a couple of members to those um to those commissions?

I I I see some redundancy here, and I'm just wondering uh how I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.

I'm not uh, you know, because I mean I'm going to support this accessibility advisory commission.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair?

Council Bennett.

Um, I'd just like to say that the ADA is its own like framework.

And I know we kicked around the idea of rolling it into like affirmative action, which is focused on representation and employment, but I will hold up the fact that people with disabilities, whether visible or not visible, um, have historically been left out of um conversations even about diversity and inclusion, not on purpose, it just is something that has happened.

And I'm afraid that if we roll this into another board or commission that we could dilute um first of all the people that will be getting in because lived experience matters, but then we could also dilute some um issues that would fall under like you know, another umbrella of you know.

I don't have a question with the hit the on button.

I have a question for the management.

Do we um it do we have somebody within one of our departments that serve in the capacity in terms of the disability act um or it either in personnel or something?

I just want to know.

I mean, we certainly have staff members who are very familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and uh, I think uh most notably, I think of public services, uh city engineering, uh because in the course of their work, they have to confirm that what they're building uh is in compliance with the ADA.

So there is some expertise that's that's resident within the staff, absolutely, largely from an engineering and construction standpoint.

Thank you all, and of course, human resources as well.

Yeah.

Um, I just want to make note too that uh the city um embarked on some accessibility issues over the years, particularly the elevator that we got in City Hall, but uh also there were um putting other languages on our computers, uh not our computers, but uh from the management end, so that it's in different languages that people can understand.

I'm just wondering, you know, if not I actually like the idea of um maybe having them work with affirmative action uh and the disabilities rather than open up a completely new one.

I don't, you know, I think it might be effective.

Mr.

Chair.

Smyth.

Um I I agree with counselor pinnick that uh due to the ADA regulations.

I think that it's important for this to be uh a standalone commission.

Um, I I think it just deserves the attention that it needs.

Um there's no reason why this commission can't work with the affirmative action commission to be able to partner on certain topics.

There are other commissions that that they do work together on certain issues, and and I think that that's part of our our boards and commissions process that we should be encouraging commissions to work together on issues just just to provide more resource resources and subject matter expertise.

But but I I do feel pretty strongly that this should be its own commission.

Thank you.

That's like one add in that we do encourage our boards and commissions to work together and we meet once a month for that exact reason.

Um I do have one question on the second resolve.

This is a list of qualified applicants.

What is the what's the criteria of a qualified applicant for this uh particular commission?

Um that's that's an interesting question.

I believe that we brought that up during the boards and commissions workshop.

Um, what the qualifications were for all of our commissions, and uh we didn't have an answer for that that was determined to be something included in the booklet.

So um qualified applicants, I I believe would be individuals that have experience with ADA regulations and also have a lived experience.

Um regarding disabilities.

So uh I think that would certainly qualify people.

I think you find somebody with a legal background on it as well, be extremely helpful.

Sure.

Sure.

All right.

Uh any other discussion.

All is in favor uh of the audience.

Oh, yeah, come on up.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Pender Munter, 22 Homer Street.

Uh I would encourage this commission to exist.

I think if you want a present example of what has been great intentions, but missing the mark would be how we have redone the playgrounds.

There is not a single playground that is handicapped accessible or inclusive for neurodivergent children.

Uh Bridge Street did have ramps.

It's now one swing that you have to push a wheelchair through like three inches of uh wood chips.

So our playgrounds, which look great with all the new equipment, are not actually accessible for any handicapped child, or is there is also nothing at the playgrounds for any children who are neurodivergent.

So I think you know, we spent a lot of money redoing these playgrounds, but they're not inclusive or handicapped or truly ADA compliant for this people and visitors of Newport.

So I think this is a prime example of why this should be a standalone commission, because there's a lot more than just elevators and ramps.

It's a whole range of accessibility for all ranges of spectrums, handicaps, and ages.

So I would just that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh any further discussion?

All right, all is in favor, raise your right hand.

All right.

Uh police details, Mr.

Carlin.

Move the table.

Second.

Motion of second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

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

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the class F daily liquor license, Newport Art Museum doing business as members opening 76 Bellevue Avenue, January 22, 2026 from 5 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh the next is a public hearing on the 2025-26 liquor license renewals.

Um, we're gonna do this one a little bit differently.

Um uh liquor class A.

Uh, you can see here for this, right?

So um you want to do that one?

Uh yeah.

Uh liquor class A, which is uh basically liquor store licenses.

Just yes, just the class itself.

Um all in favor?

Aye.

Uh next is uh liquor class bh.

Uh motion to approve with the exception of bloody bull LLC and vote on this second, madam chair.

Let's do it the opposite way.

Once again, we wanna allow Charlie to vote, the mayor to vote on everything, right?

He's going to.

I thought you said with the exception of Bloody Bull.

Oh, yes, it is with the exception of Bloody Bull and then vote on the right.

Yeah, pardon me.

It is confusing.

There's no doubt about it.

Good.

Okay.

So all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, now you can back up.

Um motion to approve bloody uh bull LLC doing business as Gardner House, 24 leaves reward.

Second, second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Uh motion to approve the liquor class BL license.

Second.

Um discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Uh motion to approve the liquor class BT license with the exception of Bloody Bull LLC.

Second.

Discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Uh motion to approve Bloody Bull LLC doing business as Gardner House 24 Lees Wharf.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Uh motion to approve uh liquor class B V licenses.

Um do I have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

And is that it?

Oh, and uh motion to approve liquor class D licenses.

Uh do I have a second?

Second.

All in uh all in favor?

Aye.

Uh motion to approve liquor class C license.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Uh motion to approve liquor class J license.

Second.

Um discussion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve liquor class K licenses.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve liquor class T licenses.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

Aye.

In favor.