Madam Clerk, we take the role, please.

David Carlin.

Here.

Lynn Underwood Segley.

Charlie Holder.

Here.

Size Camps of Oravon.

Here.

Gene Marina Politano.

Here.

Alan Pinock.

Yeah.

Stephanie Smythe.

Here.

There's a quorum present, Mr.

Chair.

Please rise for the pledge of the pledge of legislative.

Foundation.

Yes, Council.

Uh, just a quick point of personal privilege announcement, if I might.

I would like to thank my colleagues.

I would like to thank the police and fire department of the city of Newport, the city administration, solicitor bean and the legal office, the veterans of foreign wars, local chapter, of course, uh, the ancient order of Hibernians, both men and ladies, the ancient order of Hibernians pipe and drum ban, and to you, most of all, uh, the public in particular, one member of the public, Mr.

Patrick Murphy, for a wonderful dedication, rededication of Murphy Field last Saturday.

Fantastic patriotic event.

God bless America.

God bless Mr.

Murphy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Councilor.

Uh Madam Clerk, anyone sign up for the Citizens Forum?

No, they have not.

Okay.

All right.

Um motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety with the exception of Jay.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh communication from Maureen Cronin, uh Chair Tree and Open Space Commission recommendation for the relocation of the carousel.

This is a receive.

So we're not voting on this tonight.

We're just discussing.

A little bit, right?

Oh, we're just yeah, we're just gonna receive.

We're just receiving.

Unless, yeah, let's get a second.

Do we need I need a second to receive?

Yeah.

Second.

Are we have motion second to receive any discussion?

Um Mr.

Chair.

Council Smythe.

I believe that Maureen is here tonight.

Um, I wasn't sure she had anything that she'd like to.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh Maureen Cronin and Harvard Street.

Um, available to answer any questions about our process, our deliberations and our outcome that you all may have and how we came to this decision, if anybody has any.

Um I have a question.

Um I uh I I'm not so sure that I don't I'm not sure I really want to sell the carousel right now.

Pardon me?

I don't not sure I really want to sell the carousel right now.

I mean, which is the recommendation.

Um I think that there are other areas that we could look at in the city.

Uh and I'm wondering if the um administration would do such a thing as especially looking at the gateway center, which is next to the um aquarium, it's downtown.

And uh we have always talked about having to redo the parking garage there, and if we could put another level on the parking garage, then that would help with the parking on the main level.

Uh so I don't know, I think that that's something that I would like to look at.

Um I would ask counsel if when you're looking at things, it would be really helpful to take the six parameters that we laid out there.

Um, because those are not um those were actually studied, and we went through the records of what the carousel has done all these years.

We went through of all the problems with it.

That's how we came up with them, and we gave our framework with which to look at locations, and we did consider putting it next to the aquarium for the very fact that children are there near Carde's and wouldn't that all be great?

Part of the reason, one of the reasons it came up is there tends to be flooding sometime in the area, so you would have to be looking at something that's a little more elevated.

Um, primarily the carousel has always been used for birthday parties.

Um, it's been a very big draw for that, and that helps underwrite.

We also do need to have a recreation staffer near there while it's on.

Um, so that also was a precursor that was a problem with it, and it would require a built building.

So when you take into account that um, well, we would get rid if we were doing it of the 48,000 a year, we still have to encumber the 400 to 500 to make it operational, and then we have to build a building to put it in.

So you're dealing with a significant amount of money.

That when we looked at it from our perspective, but of course we'll take any direction you want, but when we looked at it from the perspective of the commission holistically, we felt that that money would be better spent to enhance today's needs in recreation and activity that exists that are already kind of wobbly in where they stand and where they should be.

So definitely it is something, and I understand.

Everybody cares a lot about the issue.

The one thing we ran into is nobody wants it near them because they don't want to hear the music, nor do they want the parking dilemma.

So it's many people we said that's going to be the transportation plan is going to really come in because we are now at the commission have run into two or three instances where doing enhancements is a problem because people are saying that they don't want to deal with parking and transportation issues.

And that goes back to making sure that we get a transportation plan that has some kind of a trolley and trolley out, parking in and parking out.

So those are the things that you that we kind of ran into with all in some way, shape or fashion with every kind of a location that we had.

Yeah, I I and I understand the recommendation because I know that you know every every city park is in a neighborhood.

So it causes that causes an issue.

Uh, and I always, if it was not going to be at the beach, I felt as though it had to be somewhere where there would be children and there would be activity.

Right.

And I think it would also improve the gateway area and make it uh more of a placemaker for that space.

So um anyway, it's something that I think that we could investigate.

I but of course it's it's a council decision, and but it's just so that you know where I am on it.

We serve your direction, so if you want to start looking into it more, we'd be happy to do that, knowing what we have as limitations, but there isn't one thing I would really like to point out about it, which I think is the most important, and what shows that the work that we did, the research we did and the interviewing that we did was done in the right way.

We approached it with an open mind, and from that open mind and listening to people, we came away with the need for the recreation, Martin Recreation Center to be upgraded.

We cannot stress that enough because once we started looking at it to be in conjunction with the carousel, and we started holding public doors of it.

It was very, very clear that we have to, if we've got money to spend of any significance, that we do some kind of a study to see how we can enhance that and bring that into 2025 or 2000 going forward for all of the people that use it, want to use it and continue to use it.

It really is way overdue, and that's what fell out of this thing, most of all.

So I can't stress that enough.

And that fell out from the public that spoke with us too, um, that they would love to see a more enhanced version of the recreation center if we could come up with some way to do that, and grants would probably be the way.

Mr.

Sherry, Smith.

Um, Maureen, I just want to thank you and the commission for for all the work that you did and the workshops that you had to engage the public.

Can you speak to because I um I'm sure other counselors have also gotten questions as to why it cannot go back to Easton's Beach, why the tree and open space commission does not recommend that location.

Yeah, well, first of all, that was the that's the emotional, that's the emotional wish.

Unfortunately, it's not practical.

And I'm sure that most everybody has been following the work, the great work that's been being done by the uh the group that's looking how to move Easton's Beach into the future so that we've got grounded and supported uh beach grasses and a protected water structure and a street.

You cannot put a mechanical, you cannot put something mechanically on that land and make the need for resiliency continue.

You just can't.

It's just not gonna work.

Neither, they're not a fit, they don't fit anymore, unfortunately.

So it is something that is not in the one of two recommendations that the committee for Easton's Beach has is given.

There are no mechanical buildings in there.

In fact, I think one of them is most of them are just drive away, and there is a shell of a building to um honor the old rotunda.

But um it's not an option anymore, unfortunately, and that's just not a choice, that's just reality with climate change.

And uh you just took a look at the Newport um parks and areas, but you did not look at Fort Adams or Brenton because they are state parks, correct?

We have that given to us as options a couple of times, but we that would be way out of our uh scope of work in order for us to have come up with a recommendation.

In never would we have had a conversation outside the city of Newport.

Um we weren't empowered to do that.

We weren't directed by you to do that.

So no, we did not have any conversations.

Um but they would also full transparency if we're going to be looking at a location outside of Newport on the island or with the state, they would have to be aware of the necessary requirements to that they would have to also have so um in getting it up and running.

This is not something that is individual to Newport, this is individual to the carousel, the needs for the dollars.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for coming to all of them.

Uh Maureen, quick question.

So obviously, this is a very sensitive subject for a lot of people, uh, especially new porters and generations of new borders.

Uh, when you talk about possibly selling the carousel, has there been any thought as who might want to buy it?

Has been anyone approach you about looking to purchase it?

And part two, do we know what approximately a price we could get for the well I unfortunately the only two conversations they were they were all hypothetical?

Um whether or not they were actual or not, I can't attest to.

They were people outside of the city area saying, Well, would you?

And I actually said that is not something I can answer.

That is city something that the council and city administration would need to answer.

Um it comes with a price tag to get it up and running.

So it would have to be someone that really wanted to put all of the work and the money and the time into it.

So no, no one has approached and said, Um, if I if I if I bring all of the trucks over and put all of the things in it, will I give you money for it?

No, we have not heard that.

And we did some research.

Um, I wouldn't call it scientific because um it wasn't scientific research, but it was just what's out there for carousels and how they're going.

Um truly historic carousels, which as much as ours has got a lot of emotion attached to it, it doesn't fit a historic, so it doesn't fit any of the historic grants that's out there.

That's why you'll notice we didn't call it historic.

That was a purposeful, that was a purposeful choice of words.

It doesn't fall under the category of historic where it would get any of the historic um grants that are out there for things like that.

So that's number one.

So it doesn't qualify for that.

Um, it doesn't qualify for any of the um fine arts or anything like that because it wasn't made particularly.

And you're finding that um most carousels now that are still in operation are the most successful when they are aligned with some other activity.

So, in other words, when they're just not isolated in in a space, they are part of something bigger, they're part of a recreation center, which is one of the reasons you know, we were thinking about the the void in the building.

Um, but they are they're usually associated, but aside from that, uh cities and towns across America seem to be making more of decision about spending and money and um new sports courts, field courts, inside games, the different games that are coming up in the sports that people are choosing.

So kind of, you know, Providence does have one down out in the area that they do very well, but they've got a historic grant to up with that.

I'm curious, can the carousel be made smaller?

Do we have to use all of the horses or how how it can it fit in a certain area better by making it smaller?

I don't think Eric is here tonight, but my understanding um and seeing the drawings um something that was interesting, very interesting, and the mechanicals of how it's one mechanical, it's a size, and so um it would it it would have to be that basically you'd be talking about something that add a couple more hundred thousand dollars to the bill.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chairman Sai, uh defer to my counselor, Councilman colleague.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, counselor.

Uh Maureen, thanks for the work and uh to the commission, of course.

Uh it is a job you do that obviously goes unrecognized and unappreciated most of the time.

Having said that, I will not support uh the city selling the carousel or relinquishing control of the carousel.

Unfortunately, this count, not this council, the city uh has little by little, I think, given up uh some of the amenities uh and the structures and the toys that we have had for years that in particular uh our little ones and our in the case I'm about to mention uh middle school and high schoolers take advantage of.

We did this by getting a writ getting rid of the snack shack, if you will, at first beach.

Uh we threw Barry and and his group out.

Barry.

Uh hundreds of young new porters who I just mentioned have come through there for employment.

Thousands of young new porters have enjoyed the carousel.

I simply will not, as I said, do anything to get rid of it because I'm certain that there is some solution out there somewhere.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Maurice, I know this is outside your immediate scope, but I'm wondering if you ran into any individuals or city philanthropic organizations that own large parcels of land that might be willing to serve as the next steward of the carousel to ensure that it stays in Newport future generations.

Any non any any large nonprofits want to take on the carousel that yeah, maybe have a lot of land or no one no one has stepped forward.

We made very clear to everybody what we were looking at, and we were open to talking to people and no one came forward.

And it didn't seem appropriate to start making advancements to people.

It didn't it it didn't feel right to do that.

That wasn't our change.

That wasn't our charge.

Thank you.

And I agree with my council colleague.

I think this is an important part of Newport's character and charm.

We have to operate within the financial limitations we have, and that this is probably going to require some sort of a partnership with a community organization that has the capacity to help support this and restore it back to its historic glory.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, Councilman.

Um thank you very much, Maureen, for all your hard work.

Really appreciate it.

And I don't take your recommendations lately because I know that this is your area of expertise in you.

Not a fun one to make.

Yeah, it's not fun.

Um but with that being said, I do also I understand that it's not historic um you know, piece of work, but there are multiple children and families in our community who would still get enjoyment from them.

You know, some adults without kids too.

Um, so I'd be interested in finding out how we can work alongside you to try to help find solutions so that the carousel can stay, because I do feel like um we are starting to lose like a lot of our charm.

Um that is newport bit by bit, and anything that we can do to preserve what we have left, I'd be more than willing to help figure that out.

It's it's it's very it's very straightforward.

Yeah, you know, it's so it isn't um the there's a lot of actually all acknowledged emotion attached to it.

Yeah.

But finding and keeping the carousel in count is very straightforward and requires parcel of land, it requires dollars and it requires it requires some work.

So you lay all that together, and it's absolutely possible.

Yeah.

Um but to us to look and see in parks right now, we didn't see it without some kind of um something that's different than it is.

And we initially had thought that the integration into the Martin Recreation Center was gonna take care of a lot of needs.

But once we saw the Martin Recreation Center, it's not in it's not in shape enough to take to take that.

But that would have fulfilled a lot of the needs.

It would have fulfilled um the safety, the security, the bathrooms, uh the party room, all of that.

So thank you.

Any other comments?

All right, Maureen, thank you so much, and thank you in the commission for all the hard work.

Thank you.

Okay, motion to approve a VITLING license expansion, extended hours, Broadway Mini Mart Corporation doing businesses Broadway Mini Mart third 316 Broadway to be extended hours daily between 4 a.m.

and 6 a.m.

This is a hearing that's continued from October 22nd.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and second and discussion.

Uh so uh how are you doing tonight?

Uh please state your name and address.

My name is Hamza Yaquit.

Um the business as uh 316 Broadway Newport Rhode Island, oh 204.

Okay.

Um so this was continued because um there wasn't anyone here for any questions our last meeting.

Um my question is, you know, you you want to extend your hours to between 4 a.m.

and 6 a.m.

So my my question is that it's um the zone you're at, obviously you have some residential um houses right behind you.

What is the purpose of looking to expend uh extent to the early hours?

So a lot of uh our customers over the time are are a lot of them are landscapers, you know, a lot of them work early in the morning, so they do come super early in the morning, or they go to their jobs to grab their coffee, cigarettes and bread and whatnot.

So over time we have had customers request us to open up earlier, but obviously couldn't because of certain like logistical situations and stuff like that, but over time we have had demand, and so we're just trying to meet that demand with our customers now.

Okay, so this is not for early morning deliveries, trucks coming in and that type of thing.

So we do because of our extended hours, it does make it easier for us to take our deliveries early in the morning, which we do.

Um we have two deliveries, like our mail comes early in the morning, and then our weekly deliveries with all of our regular inventory comes out every week on uh super early in the morning to around 5 30 in the morning, so it kind of does make it easier for us to read our business.

Um have you talked to your to the uh neighbors uh at all about this?

Uh we haven't.

I mean, but we haven't had any problems with anyone.

We've been here for almost 13 years now, so 16 years.

Time flies.

All right, any uh further comments or questions from the what are your hours now?

Yeah, we're scared what are the hours now?

4 a.m.

to midnight.

So 4 a.m.

till 12 in the morning.

So basically you're gonna be open 22 hours a day.

Yeah, correct.

Go ahead, counselor pinnake.

You said that you get early deliveries.

What what time did you say?

What time do your deliveries usually come?

Right so we have three deliveries that specifically come early in the morning.

So there's free release, they come at the end of the week, they come around five o'clock in the morning.

Uh we have our J Paul up delivery, which is our cigarettes and regular inventory, which comes every Thursdays.

They usually come around 4:30, 5 o'clock in the morning, and then we have our uh milk deliveries, which come uh on uh Mondays.

Uh they usually come around 4 35 in the morning, Tuesday, but this is already this is the time they this is the time they're coming right now.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

Yeah.

And those are normally smaller, like box trucks.

Uh I'm sorry, those are normally smaller box trucks.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, so they're not really taking much of the space.

So are you already operating from 4 a.m.

to to midnight?

Yes.

So I guess I'm confused as to what this ask would be if if that's what they're already doing.

Was that not official?

So are you there from four to and but not open until six or how what time do you actually open the doors?

Yeah, so he opens, yeah, he opens the door at four o'clock in the morning, and then he leaves it, and then we leave out midnight.

So is there a reason for applying for this now since this is what you've been doing?

Or was there a complaint?

Or no, well, we were asked to come here, so we didn't have any problems, and we he was informed that he got a call from somebody from City Hall saying that you guys have to attend this town hall meeting, and then that you guys have some questions for us.

Um, which is why we're here.

That's a pop off.

I want to understand this.

You have customers at 4 a.m.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, and you have business partners that come in to bring different items.

Absolutely, yeah.

They prefer coming early in the morning too.

Yeah, I know.

And it gets very complicated around nine o'clock.

Well, even eight o'clock or seven.

Yeah, exactly.

No, yeah.

All right.

Any other questions?

All right.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Uh any opposed?

I just have it.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Motion to approve an annual entertainment license new class A indoor Newport Protective Club doing business as protective club 596 Thames Street to have entertainment Monday through Friday from 11 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

And Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

This is a hearing, Mr.

Chair.

Uh we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion on the council?

Is anyone here?

Anyone from the public uh would would like to address this matter.

Glad to start off.

My name is Chuck Bolduck, 11 Dixon Street within the 200 foot radius.

And I was a little slow at getting my papers together, but I have my letter for file, which I can give to you all.

Motion received motion receive.

Second.

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Give you a second to look at that.

In the letter I noticed I I used a term that's sort of archaic, lowest Fame Street.

We used to have a neighborhood organization simply because we had so many problems with party houses, short-term rentals, the neighborhood restaurants who wanted to be a New York City restaurant with loud music until one in the morning with garage doors open with nine-member bands further down Ames Street.

This is not the typical limited business area that's got more shops and more businesses.

This is primarily a residential area.

But the future is what we have to look at.

This is the only let me back up here.

This is the second third club.

We got the Hibernian just outside of the Wellington in the section.

And we have the IA further down.

The IA doesn't have regular bands.

Hibernian plays for events in a room that's soundproof with a few windows.

And here we have a small club that's never had a license.

Thank you.

The place is undergoing a zoning request to add even more space with glass to the rear.

Glass is a tympanic membrane.

It's going to be thumping when they have music.

Now if it's purely acoustic and it's now and then, I could see that.

And what's interesting about protective club, specs ownership of three generations lived upstairs.

They manage things.

Yeah, it was a very different club.

What they protected, I still am, I'm not sure of.

But the interesting thing is now it's an Airbnb system upstairs.

Not ownership, not management.

Why would that be?

The license holder is buried under LLCs.

I still am not completely sure how many places there are in Newport with his finger in them.

If it's purely business, that's not an appropriate to the intent of limited business, which says if you've got something that's big and something that's growing, it should be downtown in the general in the waterfront area.

It should be more of a limited business intent to have businesses that are for the neighborhood that meet the timing and the demeanor of the neighborhood.

So I'm gonna ask that you look over my last paragraph carefully.

If this is something that has to go through, I really want to make sure that we have some restrictions in place ahead of time rather than having to do battle in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't say your name and address, please.

Uh Matt Goldsmith, 604th Ames.

I'm within the uh 200 foot uh radius as well.

Um adding to the prior speaker's uh comments.

No, that the protective club has been you know a nice addition to the neighborhood.

It's actually a a nice gathering place.

Um but as many people who live there know, uh this area can get quite loud at night already, uh given how many salve students live there and in the summertime how many rentals there are.

But you know, just adding to that noise level with having bands playing till 1 a.m.

I think it's just gonna create even more noise uh for all those people who live around this area.

It's it's you know it's loud already, but it's it's manageable because it's not open too late.

But I think the bands are gonna are gonna be adding a level of uh sound that's going to be uh that's gonna be difficult for people who live around the area.

Thank you.

Any other I didn't know I was supposed to make copies.

I have two copies.

We got your email.

Yeah, we got your email.

So say your name and address, please.

To state your name and address.

My name is Gail Holmes, and I live at 281 Walcott Avenue in Middletown, but I own the property at 10 and 12 Dixon Street, which the Dixon and McAllister border each other.

And so the backyard of my property in the driveway is on the McAllister side, which is diagonally across from the back of the protective club.

So it's about 30 feet from the back of my property to the back of the building of the protective club.

So I doc wrote the email to document my objection to them having a entertainment license.

Primarily because also in couple with this, it's that um that um was already mentioned.

They put in a zoning request to build out the back of the building, and the entire back of the building is glass.

So a McAllister and on the side facing south, which is McAllister, and the side facing to the back is um the neighborhood, basically, of um McAllister Dixon ums and stuff like that, all up there till Spring Street, and every single bit of it is glass and sliding glass doors.

So for one, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that why they would want to build that out and make it all glass because right now what's back there is the dumpster and the parking lot.

So in the summertime, if they've got bands playing and they've got windows open, it's going to disverberate up into the neighborhood and be unbearable for the people that live there for my tenants and for other people.

A lot of people there live full-time or their owners, and they still at work, they got to get up in the morning and so seven days a week being up till one o'clock in the morning because of bands.

And I think the other gentleman also said that like the sound, the closeness of the property down there is such that noise disverberates off the houses.

So there's been complaints like from people way up on Spring Street, thinking that it's somebody down on Dixon Street that's making noise, and it's literally Dame Street people walking by and their voices just bounce up the streets into the neighborhood.

And so I just have a lot of concern that their plan of expanding um into the back area with all glass, which has no acoustic sound barrier capability, and then to put bands in there, and then you know, one of my neighbors said that they were actually talking to some patrons, and their long-term plan is then to expand into the dumpster area and create a beer garden.

So I just have a lot of concerns about what they're asking for, and it's coming from different angles.

I approach you for a liquor license, you know, for the um entertainment license, and then they're going to zoning to do an extension, and it's just um I don't know.

Um I just really would like you to Ms.

Holmes.

So do you live you say you live in the Middletowns, but do you stay in Newport as well?

No, I just have a I have rental property there.

Oh, right, okay.

Two two apartments.

I re primarily to Salva students, usually year-round, um, you know, through the summer and stuff like that.

It's the same kids.

Okay.

Um, but they're very studious, they've never gotten in trouble.

None of my tenants have owned the property for 35 years.

I've never had any violations, you know, I've never had noise violations from my kids and stuff like that.

So they're respectful of the neighborhood.

And I think that fact that used to own the protective club was very respective of the neighborhood.

You know, there was never any noise from the establishment, there was no parking issues.

It was you know, no problems.

And I just don't know that the new owners really respect the neighborhood and are live working toward the limited business.

All right, thank you very much.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Uh, please.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

No, no, no, please.

Sorry about that.

I I'm not a judge.

I'm just Dave.

I don't want to instruct you what to do.

If you want to sit down, you sit down.

Yeah.

I'm just wondering uh in your email to the council, which is a public document, so I'm not sharing anything that is uh not appropriately available to the public.

You mentioned that you were the former owner of uh some type of hospitality restaurant, yeah, yeah.

Rhino bar.

It was the rhino bar.

Did the rhino bar ever have uh an entertainment license?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Second thing, I think it's very important to note uh that with regard to what this establishment or any other establishment in the city of Newport might be planning that we rely on only what we see that they have proposed before the planning board, the zoning board, the historic district commission, or other city entities.

We should not be relying on, and I never have, I hope, uh, a word of mouth from anybody.

Uh we should, if we have questions about a potential beer garden or anything else, simply ask uh the owners.

And uh having said that, two things.

Number one, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment, and I appreciate all my uh constituents and neighbors' testimony this evening and yours, uh though you live in Middletown.

Uh, but I do appreciate the testimony.

However, I disagree with your assessment that the uh club's ownership, and I'll paraphrase does not have the concern for the neighborhood uh that one might expect.

Uh not only do they have that concern, but they have proved it in the last uh 21 months.

They proved it by like the Cardi brothers of Cardi's Furniture, virtually saying yes to every request.

And I use that as an example because everybody knows who they are.

You see them all over the place with regard to contributing to charities and other organizations which are important to Rhode Islanders.

I would suggest to you that the club and its ownership does so with regard to charities within the city of Newport and others who are in need and who have asked for help.

There are establishments in the city of Newport who have been here for dozens and dozens and dozens of years who do not do such uh or so, but yet the club does.

Having said all of that, I am the counselor for the third ward.

The club is located in the third ward.

And in order to uh appease my constituents' concerns and in order to give the club a fair opportunity, I think to meet in a separate session with the neighbors.

Mr.

Chairman, I would ask for a continuance and I seek a second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there a discussion?

Well, Mr.

Chair, I have other things that I would like to ask before we discuss the second.

I mean, before we discuss the continuance.

Is that okay?

Yes, I know we have the owner here, so I I would like to hear from them as well before we so I mean my to continue.

We can move to continue after we get more information if that's if that's okay.

Is that okay?

I'm I might my question actually it's uh uh out of a professional courtesy, yes, it it's okay with me.

But there's a proper motion on the floor, it's been properly seconded.

But I'm we should vote on that first.

We are having discussion on that to make so our comments will be limited to my request to continue then.

No, I have to do that.

We're gonna take a vote on the continuance first.

Okay, let's vote to continue.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh all those in favor to continue, please raise your right hand.

Those in favor to not continue, raise your hand.

So continue.

Is that four three?

Four three to continue.

Motion passes.

Okay.

All right.

But the problem is we don't have all the information.

Point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

It's over.

So motions continue.

We'll revisit it probably the next meeting in December.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Motion to approve the 2025-26 fitting license renewals list attached.

Um, the liquor uh motion to approve the liquor establishments on the list.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the non-liquor establishments on the list.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

I um the presentation by Elijah Mensa housing planner um concerning the Newport Housing Planning Update.

Uh, we will receive his um second information.

All right.

Uh we have a motion and a second to receive uh Newport Housing Planning Update.

Any discussion, Councilor Sai.

This is very briefly.

I know that Elijah has uh moved on to another professional opportunity.

He was a fellow uh that was part of our efforts to folks more on housing in part supported by the state.

Um, if there's one thing I think that is worth reading as we think about the longer term vision for housing in the city, um, it is this report.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in it, but an enormous amount of work within this.

That's the results of uh the planning department partnering with the state.

Uh, and I think it merits uh everybody taking some time to read through it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh any further discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh let's move on to communications from the city manager.

Uh action item 6470.

The city administration recommends approval of the first amendment to the lease agreement with the Newport Yacht Club.

The term lease is for a period of 30 years.

uh the planning department partnering with the state uh and i think it merits uh everybody taking some time to read through it thank you mr chair thank you uh any further discussion all in favor say aye aye uh let's move on to communications from the city manager uh action item 6470 the city administration recommends approval of the first amendment to the lease agreement with the newport yacht club the term lease is for a period of 30 years uh the first amendment to the lease agreement between the city of newport and the new york club yacht club provides for an additional 30 year term from november 1 2033 to october 31 20363 with annual payments in the current annual amount of 64,108 dollars which shall be adjusted and increased starting July 1 2025 and continuing on July 1 of each year thereafter by the percentage change in the CPI for Boston Massachusetts apply to the annual payment in addition to the CPI adjustments commencing on the first anniversary of the second extended term and continuing on each subsequential subsequent annual anniversary date until the fifth anniversary of the second term the annual payments shall be increased by amount of two percent of the prior annual payment I move approval second all right motion and second we have discussion uh council comes to borrowing how to recuse himself from this vote so uh any um discussion on the council no all right well all those in favor say aye aye any opposed i have it mark my says newport yacht club on behalf of the club on behalf of our flag officers and our members who are here tonight we really appreciate um not only the approval but the really thorough process that you went through it was uh great for all involved thank you very much thank you mark thank you action item is he coming oops sorry action item 651 the department of public services recommends approval of the contract to Bowman consulting company or consulting group of Lincoln Rhode Island to provide transportation engineering services to study the city's traffic network based on the submitted proposal for the not to exceed total amount of 199600 dollars I move approval second all right we have a motion and second uh do we have discussion chairman council carl thank you this was my original resolution I amended the original resolution that I submitted at the request of the city administration to include further components of the plan uh but at the last city council meeting when we continued it for the second time uh we asked the or suggested to the city manager that the director of public services reach out to the firm and uh renegotiate the bid to make the point clear to the firm that 199000 plus dollars is too much money uh from the perspective of the city or the city council for what we are trying to do here with the scope of course of the study being limited to about 11 to 13 streets having said that Mr.

Chairman Manager Kennedy did the director of public services do such he did uh I received uh uh a reply from him this morning uh that indicated the the firm respected the request but would not be able to continue at that price without uh adjustments to the scope of the project so they politely decline the request to lower the price Mr.

Chairman solicitor bean would that then trigger the city's ability to go back to the state via the master uh agreement master plan agreement MPA uh and request a new bid i i think it's up to the council at this point i mean if for example you vote this down then yes we would have to and you still wanted the traffic study we'd have to do something different sorry i should have asked the question in a different manner uh would the state department of administration look favorably in your opinion on an on a decision by the city council to reject a contract proposal and therefore look for a new proposal because of what the manager just said with regard to the firm flatly denying our request for a lower bid price not sure why the department of administration would be involved where we're uh operating under the uh municipal bidding practices there is a state state has their own under the general laws but we follow the municipal um uh guidelines through the general assembly so uh I it's it's tough to

I'm not sure why the department of administration would be involved where we're uh operating under the uh municipal bidding practices.

There is a state state has their own under the general laws, but we follow the municipal um guidelines through the general assembly.

So uh I it's it's tough to I mean I think at this point both sides have probably reached the the point that they can in terms of negotiating that price.

So I think right now it's up to the council whether to uh accept it or uh reject it, and then it would have to go back, and I don't think there would be anything wrong with that.

And so you're asking someone with disfavor on that, whether we might have authority to look at this, and I would say no.

I'll be very brief in my explanation.

Thank you for your answer.

Uh I mentioned the Department of Administration, the Rhode Island Department of Administration, because it is in fact a controlling entity with regard to the master plan or master price agreement.

Uh the city manager has explained twice to the council that the city, the council, in order to do what we are doing because it is a service provided rather than, for example, a particular project that gets engineered, it is a service again that is provided.

Uh we must go through the state with regard to the master price agreement rules.

Uh the city of Newport does not have any control over the MPA, the master price agreement guidelines.

That is handled as I understand it completely by the State Department of Administration.

Would I be right about that?

Yes, if you're gonna use that.

But the manager told us we had to use that because we were uh looking for services rather than if if we don't have to use the MPA in our bid, why did we not expand our horizon much further uh than what we have before us?

Certainly we don't have to.

It it's it is the long-standing precedent of city procurement when it comes to uh professional services that involve complex subjects such as engineering sciences that go in them to to apply using the request for proposal process, and we do certainly leverage the uh master price agreement listing of firms when available because they are pre-vetted.

We we already know that the state has looked at services given and believes that prices and the both the range of services they would offer are fair.

So we we leverage that.

We are not required to use it, but we do leverage it and we have done so for several years.

That was not my understanding at the last council meeting.

If my colleagues understood differently, I apologize, but that was certainly not I pay very, very close attention, particularly to things that I have sponsored or to answers with regard to resolutions that I have sponsored, and I got no indication of that at the last council meeting.

Uh this is uh a high price, 200,000 for 11 to 13 streets.

If we have an alternative, which it it sounds as so we do, uh I once again suggest that that we use the alternative methods.

We need to get this traffic study done, uh, but at a price of 199,000, I feel as though we are being, as a council, uh put into uh a place between a rock and a hard space.

And uh though I I firmly wholeheartedly for lack of a better word support the desire of Hammond Street residents and others to have a traffic study done, which is why I sponsored the resolution, uh, especially considering what I've been told in the last five minutes here.

I don't think we have any choice from a responsible decision-making process by the council, but to go back and do this again.

It's an awful thing to put the Hammond Street residents and others through, but I don't think that the council has received the type of answers uh that we are receiving now, and I would respectfully suggest my colleagues consider that in deliberating this proposal.

Mr.

Chair, Council Seglist.

How do you know that this is a high price for this?

As you might remember from the last council meeting, I do not.

I asked the very same question uh or similar to the city manager.

I asked, how do we know that we are getting a good price?

Because the manager told us twice that we're getting a good price.

And I said, if we have nothing to compare it to, which we did not, how do we know we're getting a good price?

Very similar to what you just mentioned here.

How do we know we're getting a bad price?

How do we know we're getting a good price?

We don't.

But they had already negotiated down from the previous price, correct?

Correct.

The uh initial price was approximately $230,000 through uh through the negotiation with the uh with the fave the most favorable proposal, we were able to bring that down slightly less than $200,000.

Uh I would also call the council's attention to a memo uh per its request at the last meeting for some comparable studies.

Uh I have provided that it's at the end of the docket book.

It was inserted into this week's uh uh docket.

Uh we found several studies of comparable magnitude and scope uh in the region, and uh five of them in particular had had five or more of the seven characteristics that Bowman had chosen to look at.

And with the exception of one, all of them were over 200,000.

In fact, most of them well over uh 200,000.

Uh the only one that was under uh was a traffic oriented, I'm sorry, a parking-oriented study in East Brennish.

Uh that's that came in at around 100,000.

But again, the scope was was different.

It was largely parking oriented and not trans transit oriented.

So if if we were to go back and do this again, would we go through the municipal bonding process again so that we we wouldn't know what the other um applicants put forward?

That would be the recommendation.

Uh uh again when we're not we're not buying a particular item or uh we're not uh buying a single search, we're buying a range of services for a large project.

And and there's a lot of technical expertise that goes into that.

So we're complying with state law by doing this.

Yes, even though we don't have to, it's it's it's it's a valid technique to use, and we have for several years.

And it's for something that we've been doing for a long time.

This is our normal process, correct?

Right.

The other thing that I you know, I notice on here is um the result I think the motion that you made, uh Chair Holder, it was to see what uh would the cost would be if we were to extend the um the scope.

And I you know, I don't see anything on here concerning that, but I also feel that um looking at the traffic study, it is it singles out from memorial to Narragans as a as a system.

Morton and and well, Morton, I'm sorry.

So so it it's a system of roads that and I think that if we're going to look at a traffic study, we need to just do something like which would be considered a different system of roadways.

So I you know I think we should approve this.

I I think we've gone long enough with this.

I don't know how much a traffic study costs.

I mean, it seems like every track every study we've ever done has been at least this amount.

So I think we should move forward with it.

Mr.

Chair, Council Smythe.

Is there a scope of work with this with this job that that instead of going out with a master price agreement, go out through the regular RFP process with a scope of work to see what comes back?

Was any like uh a request for information sent out at any point in time in in lieu of going with the master price agreement just to see what the temperature is out there as far as who can do the work?

No, we we we to some extent we did that after the fact uh, you know, largely in response to you to council's inquiries.

Uh um, and that's where we were looking at similar scopes to make sure that that the price we were quoted was reasonable.

Um, and and we believe that it is.

It's the administration's opinion that not only is it reasonable, but most projects of this scope fall between 180,000 and 250,000.

We're actually a little bit below the median point.

Um, and that's largely uh uh attributable to the to the negotiation that the director of public services did to get them down to where they were.

Uh, I strongly feel it's a fair price.

I would also remind council that when adjusted for inflation, the costs of two previous seminal studies that the council approved and funded in some cases with the mix of grant and public funds, and in other cases solely by general fund.

Uh the North End Urban Plan and today's dollars was worth 381,000 and keeping the important transportation master plan was worth 468,000.

So these were much larger scope plans because they involved the whole city, but they weren't to the level of technical detail as a section of the streets were.

So when you compare the apples to apples as best as you can, I'm strongly confident that this is a fair price.

And I also do not believe that we would have any reasonable chance of significantly reducing it unless we consciously chose to significantly reduce the scope of what's been requested.

And Mr.

Chair, I'm sorry, but it could get worse.

Thank you for asking that.

That was the other element of the question that Director Riccio had this morning.

And the answer to that was yes, they would be happy to accommodate the city by moving uh some elements of the study so that the field collection, the field data collection could take place during the summer.

That uh confirmed would not affect the price.

It was the idea of trying to negotiate the price down, that was a non-starter.

Typically, would changing the period of performance of when you're going to do the study, would they have increase their costs?

Were they were they did they say no there was no increase just as a way of of negotiating with us, so to speak?

I mean, I I can't I can't speak for them.

Okay.

I don't want to speculate.

Um, but but what they did tell us is that uh we could only reduce the price if we rethought the scope of what was originally asked for in the RP.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, uh Council Crawl.

Thank you.

Thank you, Manager Kennedy.

Uh you said you are extremely well, paraphrase, you're very confident that uh this is a fair price.

Is that confidence based on uh the six five uh uh five or six examples that you gave with respect to uh Massachusetts and Connecticut as well as the previously mentioned East Greenwich awarded contracts?

It is, it is.

How many of those awarded contracts absent East Greenwich dealt with 11 to 13 streets?

Uh the Pittsfield, Massachusetts example, did that was a citywide safety action plan.

It was did you say citywide?

It was citywide.

How many streets do they have in Pittsfield, Massachusetts?

Thank you.

And the others, Massachusetts, the comprehensive plan.

Again, I don't know the size of Tickope.

It involved all streets in Chickape.

Uh this this it was a city safety action plan.

So streets it doesn't say all streets.

I don't I don't have that level.

If it's if it's a citywide plan for Chicopee, I assume it is.

Which others, please?

The Franklin, there was a conglomerate, there was a consolidated effort between the Franklin Council of Governments and An Tucket and the Martha's Vineyard Commission.

Um, they went in together on a uh uh a regional plan of again, I don't know this precise number of streets, but that that one cost about 575,000 larger area.

You don't know the precise number of streets for the pardon me.

You don't know the precise number of streets for the last one or the previous two, but you say uh that essentially we're using apples to apples comparisons here.

I would suggest to you that with 11 to 13 streets being proposed in this study, uh citywide proposals as you defined in the last three, are not apples to apples.

They're very much apples to oranges.

Uh I would agree with Councillor Smythe, we we should go to the RFP process for this, get a better bid so that we don't have to say we have a fair price when we are comparing prices that are nowhere similar.

Thank you.

The the scope compared was not based on number of streets, but on the methodology, project coordination, inventory, existing inventory of the existing commission, data collection, safety and operations analysis, development of alternatives, public engagement, approximately four meetings involved, and the recommendations in the final report.

When you compare those scopes to the fidelity of again, a large safety action plan for a city is not going to have the level of data fidelity on a street by street basis as a consolidated district study will have.

So that is where in the staff's professional judgment, these are as apples to apples as you will get.

Mr.

Manager, if if I am as well defined as those points are in terms of what they will study, if we use those points and we study an entire city, or in the case of Nantucket uh or the uh Cape Card example, uh two communities, if we use those seven points as well defined as they are, again, the larger the underlying study area is uh the more money it's gonna cost.

We're studying 11 to 13 streets, not an entire community, regardless of how well defined, again, for the third time I'll say uh the points of what you will study are.

We we're looking at a smaller, much smaller area of study.

The price should be far, far less.

But we don't, but we don't have that.

We this council doesn't have the expertise to know that.

The staff has the expertise to know what is in it within a certain range, particularly Mr.

Riccio, and I don't know if he's not he's not here tonight.

But the the so I don't know if we can really say, well, because it to us it just doesn't seem uh the the right price.

I I don't feel comfortable with that.

Plus, you know, we're talking about a system from Memorial to Morton, but we were also they're also having to look at how uh vehicles are going up to Bellevue, because the that's important as well.

So that's that's really a bigger space and just those streets from Thames to Spring, because all everything is connected there.

So I'm I'm I I'm not confident that an RFP price process is gonna give us anything different, and it could actually make us it could get give us something even worse.

To the contrary, madam vice chair, I think you have defined exactly why, as counselor smythe said we should go to the RFP process.

If we don't like what the RFP has determined, uh if it comes back with a higher price than the 200, if we're left with no other alternative, uh perhaps we we do default to what is before us, but uh I believe you have defined well why we should, although it's not your opinion, why we should go to the RFP process.

Well, I don't know, I don't know we're not gonna have to no we're not gonna have a two-way discussion.

So if you want to Mr.

Chair, I just want to say something ask.

I just want to ask us host.

I just have to council said we go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

We have left this on the docket now three times.

I think this is unfair to the residents of that area.

I think that we need to make a decision.

I I don't I don't believe that this is something that should just be keep hanging on.

There are people who are having a problem on Hammond Street.

There are who knows if there are other problems that people would want to talk about.

I I think that we need to move forward with this.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

I agree with you, counselor Segley.

It is very unfair to the residents of Hammond Street and others who want it.

And I blame the administration for such any other discussion.

All right, so I look.

I think my colleagues' frustration is very well founded.

And and I agree with you on that.

Um I I will look at this in a very high-level way, though.

Talking about a 200,000 dollar study, you spread that over the cost of residents across the city, 24,000 year-round residents, maybe more.

It's about eight dollars a head.

And so the math I do in my head, which albeit is not perfect and it should be a lot better than it is, had we got harder pressures.

Would I, as a resident, pay eight dollars for traffic to move a little bit better through that section of the city?

Absolutely.

And I don't have to live with it every single day because I don't live in that immediate neighborhood.

And that is imperfect math.

The math should be better on that.

And my colleagues are right to be frustrated.

But at this point in time, I'm at that point where yeah, I'd pay eight dollars to move quicker through that neighborhood if we could.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Bennett.

I just wonder if there are any residents from the area in the audience who might like to speak.

Yeah, come on up.

You're not from there.

Uh Mr.

Rice, you want to you come first?

Yeah, come.

I'm not immediately uh affected by uh the boundaries of the study, other than uh it doesn't include me.

I think uh I think uh it's ill considered uh what you're studying.

I don't think uh intelligent decision was made uh on the study boundaries.

We started with a uh uh worrying about the people on Hammond Street and expanded to some larger area.

Uh why not an even larger area why why this size?

Why doesn't it go all the way to Ruggles?

For example, Ruggles is a hurting uh hurting uh road.

Uh no sidewalks, brand new school, lots of traffic.

Uh I don't see uh uh I don't see why it isn't included if you're gonna do this thing.

But I think the the whole thing is uh uh ill considered, and you're spending lots of time worrying about money.

Uh I don't think you've got a proper uh uh study directive, if you will.

You don't know what you want.

Um what do you think you're gonna get out of Mr.

Sure?

It reminds me of uh um used to be in the Navy, uh used to watch airplane movies, uh top gun uh Maverick gets the uh it's the airplane in bad shape, goose sitting in the back, and uh he yells at uh Maverick and said, No hurry up, do some of that pilot stuff, get us out of that's where you get you've gotten in down in a hole.

So you're gonna how are you gonna get out of it?

Well, you're gonna go do a study.

The study is a terrific way to postpone a decision.

There's a lot of intelligent uh well paid uh engineers and city staff who could probably do a quicker job, I'm sure, of uh uh alleviating traffic in the area if there is a problem.

Uh then uh 200,000 and two years and lots of uh coffee clutches with the neighbors uh to make us feel good about the thing.

Just go do it.

Uh I don't you're wasting a lot of time uh with this and a lot of uh uh brain power, a lot of experts could be doing lots of other things.

This is this needs a rethink of whether you need this or not.

Uh it's gone from Hammond Street to this big or should be this big if you're gonna do it at all.

Thank you, Ms.

Royce.

Mr.

Chair, um I've thought about this quite a bit, and uh you know, a master transportation plan specified a uh study in the area between Memorial and Morton, and because that is considered one system.

The I'm not saying that Ruggles should not be studied at some point along with that their system of of Harrison and Old Fort, and uh, you know, I'm not uh that's that's a separate thing.

But this is a very tightly grouped number of streets that and they all depend on each other, and it's like a domino effect.

The domino effect, the domino effect, excuse me, the domino effect does not extend to ruggles.

Um, and so I think that we need to look at this particular area, and then if there is a need, we can look at the ruggles, which I think there is a need.

I think there's a lot of speeding on ruggles.

I think that we, you know, we need to do something there to to help with with that uh issue.

But this, I believe the limited scope is something that our own transportation plan has recommended.

All right, we have the next uh gentlady in the back, please good evening.

Um, I'm Jessica Choci.

I'm at 24 Hammond Street.

Uh good evening, council members.

Um, I'm here to ask for one clear action and to approve this traffic study today.

Uh residents on Hammond have been dealing with serious safety concerns since the reversal of Dixon last year.

Uh speeding cut through traffic, near miss accidents, um, that could easily be tragedies.

Every day, every delay, excuse me, um, increases the risk of people of the people who live here.

Last meeting, as we're talking now, um, it was discussed to incorporate a larger citywide traffic study, and I'm not in favor of that today.

We're talking about a vital part of the downtown area.

We talk about 11 and 13 streets, but really it is the heart of Newport and the traffic as talking about this domino effect.

It is one ever for every action there is a reaction, and we are feeling that day in and day out from morning till night um in our streets on Hammond Street and surrounding.

We want this to better our neighbors, um, not just looking for us in particular at Hammond, but the whole downtown area.

So you know this targeted study here is the best use of time and resources.

And it's the only way to move towards solutions right now.

That's how I see it.

Our residents deserve more safety now and not after any more delays, please.

And given this new uh supporting information of the cost of the projects and the comps that we've seen that you've you know were laid tonight, it seems to be in the scope of what we're looking for within the budget.

Uh, you know, I'll leave the the final to you, but it seems as though the information that you've gone through in the follow-up from our last meetings are portrayed tonight, and uh the evidence is here tonight.

So thank you for um listening.

I respectfully urge you to just approve this traffic study today.

Thank you.

Uh Carlin Jessica, you're right.

Uh and despite or notwithstanding my commentary regarding how I think the city administration handled this process of bidding on this the wrong way.

Um initially, I thought we should perhaps look to what Stephanie what counselor Smythe uh suggested, which is the RFP process.

But if there is uh a choice between uh voting for an expensive study, which was put forward in a manner that I I don't like or continuing this via going to an RFP to an indefinite uh time in the future.

I'm gonna side with paying for this study, getting it done now, albeit it was handled by the administration in a bad way.

I am sorry for what the Hammond Street residents and others have had to go through uh with regard to the continuances.

I promised friends of ours on Hammond Street that I would get this that the council would see to it that this gets done.

I intend to vote for this.

Thank you.

Smythe.

Um please refresh my memory.

Did the ITC review what was happening on Hammond Street and provide a recommendation?

No, there was there was no ITC involvement in in any Hammond Street activity activity.

Okay, how come it didn't go to the ITC to take a look at what was happening with Hammond Street?

I know when we go when you go back to Dixon Street, that did come in front of the ITC, was ultimately overruled by council respectfully.

Right.

Uh concerned citizens request from Hammond submitted through the ITC.

Uh, we did receive the resolution from from this body.

Uh I think it was back in in May or June, and then we went to work on was there.

Oh, okay.

So I'm I'm sorry, I'm mistaken.

There was a CCR from Hammond Street, uh, but uh it it didn't have a nexus to this issue.

It was just about routine traffic enforcement.

So it was under it was it was for Hammond Street, but unrelated to the connection and the and the nexus to the system as a whole.

Because I have to I have to agree with uh what Mr.

Rice said that that we do have a traffic issue throughout this entire city from from Admiral Calfus to to Ruggles, the the main thoroughfare through our city.

Um to me, it doesn't make sense that we keep piecemealing studies and then sort of not even bringing them all together to see what it is that we're looking at.

I feel like if we did more of a a citywide study, that we would probably save some money here and there and and referring this item with Hammond Street, given the urgency to the residents that if it went to the ITC first, um, so that we could figure out I I understand that that master price agreements and and blanket purchase agreements are are typically an easier way to do business when when you're trying to have sort of a quick fix with contracting um versus the RFP process.

Um but but I just feel like we we sort of skipped a bunch of steps here and and could have potentially saved some money by by focusing on Hammond Street up front.

Um, and then maybe doing a a citywide of the the major streets in Newport just to see what it is that we're dealing with.

Mr.

Chair.

That's that's my personal opinion.

I'm sure there's gonna be counselors that will agree uh disagree with that.

So but I I just wanted to to put that out there.

But if uh if if there is an urgency, then obviously we we want our our residents to be safe, we want safe traffic.

But I just feel as though we we definitely put the cart before the horse on this one.

And so I I do recommend that if this does pass that going forward that we look at things a little bit more mindfully as to how we can cover more basis and and follow more stricter policies, I suppose.

Thank you.

Council, Mr.

Sherman, uh with the utmost respect to my colleagues and in agreement with almost everything that's been said this evening.

This is our now third meeting on this study.

Uh we've now debated this item for I think well over 20 minutes.

I'd like to requestly move the question.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Uh and so we'll take our vote.

Uh, all is in favor of approving the study, please raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

Aye south.

Finally.

Oh gosh, thank God.

All right.

So now uh we're I'm gonna make a motion that we take uh number nine uh before we take number eight on the communications from the city manager.

Uh do I have a second to move that uh motion and second?

Any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Um action item 6522.

The utilities department recommends that the city council approve the city's pursuit of a revenue pledged borrowing through the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank for an amount not to exceed 20 million dollars.

This uh funding will cover the cost of the primary clarifier replacement project.

The 20 million dollars includes the town of Middletown's portion.

Um I move approval.

Second.

All right, motion and second.

Any discussion?

Yes.

Um I would like to know why uh we are looking at the infrastructure bank now when the original proposal was for us to use the general obligation bonds.

Uh I mean if this is an emergency, uh, why wouldn't we use the money that would be more readily available to us?

I would have told you to approve both items on the agenda tonight.

We're gonna be back in January with the contract amendment.

Hopefully, uh the RIB path has additional uh questions and concerns with that, uh including uh acceptance of the existing competitive procurement or going through a sole source justification, either way, both avenues are non-binding and trying to get us ready for uh a January contract.

So uh I can't come before you in January not knowing where money's gonna come from until you approve it.

And so I would have happily had you approve both.

Right.

So and we might have to use general obligation bonds also in order to because we have to front money for this, correct?

We we may since the last meeting we've been uh exploring all the additional options.

There's uh quite a bit of additional administrative um and paperwork and that uh we haven't got a definitive answer back on what path they're gonna accept.

I can tell you ultimately we will get there, how much of a lift it's gonna be and what that timeline looks like, I do not know.

Um I'm viewing it as either financing path is insurance against that emergency.

If that emergency happens, you're looking at significant fines, and it'll probably happen during wet weather.

We're ahead of that, and we want to stay ahead of it.

Right.

So um the difference between the the paying back of the bond and the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank.

How from what I remember the conversation at the last meeting was that the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank would put some threat of um monies paid by the ratepayer who is the taxpayer.

I I mean that there, but that the bond would not.

Is that correct?

Ultimately, the infrastructure uh bank is gonna give us a revenue bond, so it's gonna be paid back from the enterprise fund.

Uh right now we don't want to go and incur new debt and have to increase those revenues.

So there's ways that we will most likely be able to structure it again.

Right now, I can't definitively say that what that's gonna be.

We had a path we presented last time that eliminated some of these questions.

Uh the feedback from council wasn't there, and so we came back with with dual options.

And so we came back with with dual options.

Uh and we're going to continue to come back in whatever way.

Uh that may include me being back here with my staff and saying we recommend a contract and we don't know how we're paying for it.

But we have to make sure that you have the money because this is a dire situation.

We need to get this switch.

This is an emergency, right?

There are there are several different ways that we can look at this.

Um, I think it it tells the story of us modernizing our department and using data as it comes in and not sticking with with anything being static.

Uh, if we left the assumptions on the table that the life was going to be good, we wouldn't be here, and we would have been in an emergency response.

Right.

Now that we're well ahead of that.

Um can most likely stay ahead of that.

I can't tell you when it'll fail.

If it does fail, our stuff doesn't fail quietly.

So something at the plant when it fails, most likely happened during wet weather.

You'll have a discharge, we'll wind up uh with a violation and go through that process.

It'll cost more and take longer.

Right.

So the 10.6, though, that is on the list for the the obligation bond projects.

What were you looking to use that 10.6 for?

That's fluid.

So you if you go back two years ago plus when we were putting that together, there was uh just the general item than the staff was requested at the time to put certain projects forward to give context and clarity um for the public so they knew what they were doing uh or what we were trying to do with that.

At that time, we were using it as a portion of down payment for two different projects.

Both of those were going to be heavily grant funded with the changes at the federal level.

That money is not on the table right now.

We're still advancing both of those designs for uh daylighting Elizabeth Brook, but that's a much more expensive process, and this was a down payment on one phase of it, and the other one was a portion of the Easton's Pond project, which is split between the kind of stormwater side and drinking water side.

This would have completely taken care of the drinking water side and allowed us to do the rest with a grant through uh those those projects are not um null and void.

They uh there's just a it's a prioritization of the money, right?

So uh we we have to make sure that we get the that money is set aside for matching grants, it's not set aside.

It we don't have that's not the total money for the projects, but what you're trying to do is get the projects shovel ready in order for what if those grants come through based on the that's been a political landscape.

We that's been a general change in the position of the apartment and trying to be more modern is as we see things that are predictable and foreseeable in near term or midterm, we go to get those shovel ready.

So if an opportunity comes up, we can.

Uh we then have the downside of the infrastructure gap and aging infrastructure that when something happens and it's much more of a known and measurable, and that time is more definite, we don't have the option to not act.

And so that's where we are now.

Uh you're gonna find from the shovel ready.

We probably have half a dozen different projects that we're continuing to advance and work on.

Uh all of that money gets adjusted depending on need.

Right.

So what which plan costs this the ratepayers more?

They're probably negligible between the two.

Okay.

Councilman Paul's on.

Yes, Director Schultz, can I hear you correctly?

That you stated we should approve you would hope we'd approve both items.

You could in tandem.

You couldn't.

Uh there we're not committing to everything.

What we're doing is setting up the path going forward so we can come back and have some clarity with that contract.

Coming coming forward with a contract and saying we don't have the path to pay for it, or trying to do those things in lieu.

I don't know of a contractor that's gonna volunteer to sign 25 million dollars, and then the payments come due.

We are in a okay position, but we do not have that type of money hanging around at the city or the uh fund level, and there's a bunch of other fiscal stuff that Jim could get into that'll complicate it.

Um either of those options allow us flexibility and can act as insurance going forward.

We will get there with RIB what the lift is and what that timeline looks like.

Um, you know, I would have loved after the last meeting where we were kind of split as to what direction we were gonna go.

Um to have RIB and DEM say absolutely no problem.

Everything you said made sense, and we're we're going.

We're on several weeks and not there.

Right.

We can't delay it any more than tonight.

So either way, we're gonna continue those those paths.

So uh the office and staff is gonna continue working regardless of what the financing is.

I'm gonna talk to Jim and Colin and team and what other options do we have.

We will be back here in January.

Um, you know, so you have overlapping issues, Mr.

Uh Manager.

Is it a problem for us to approve both of these funding sources?

I don't now that now that the in the in the manner in which the director has proposed it, uh, I don't think there is.

Uh he makes a good point.

We're not committing to any contracts tonight.

We're just basically committing to two avenues of potential funding or a mix therein.

Uh, I suppose at worst we could uh because what this particular item, item number nine about RIV is essentially authorizing the staff to pursue it.

Um, and which we would request your blessing on with the bond reallocation, we could either approve that or just simply continue it and decide on it another day, knowing that it is an option.

My only question, and I think this is something I would like Director Nolan to opine on.

I I know we were planning on going to bond issuing bonds in January, and he needs to know how much to how many out bonds to issue.

So at a certain point you will need that information.

Correct.

Uh that that plays into the calculus.

Jim Nolan, Director of Finance.

Uh that is correct.

Uh we have started the process as far as our first tranche of general obligation uh borrowings.

Um, and we plan to so really we're we're just we're at the very beginning stages of it.

We're going out for RFP for underwriter.

So we're at the very beginning of the process.

Um January, we're really gonna have to nail down exactly how much we are going to go out to bar.

So although we do have time, there's not a lot of time that we have with council.

So um, so that that's that's really where we are right now, Mr.

Chairman.

All right, Council Carl.

Thank you, thank you, Director Nolan.

Uh uh question, please, Jim.

Thank you.

Questions or that leads to it.

Um with regard to what you need to know in terms of the dollar amount for bonding.

We have this proposal before us is to take an already agreed upon dollar amount and to shift it to another project.

So I'm confused as to why the city would need to know the dollar amount for bonding when we have already made that clear as a council and by way of the voters.

Well, it's it's really timing.

Uh, we we're not we will not go out to borrow money that we do not need for a year or two years.

All right.

So just we we wouldn't want to pay interest on that.

So that's really when we we want to nail down and make sure that we have a clear, definitive um answer on which projects are gonna be included at what cost.

Understood.

And thank you for that detailed response.

The uh other two concerns that I'll set, Jim.

Thank you very much.

The other two not concerns, but uh observations I have about uh this item number nine before us is uh number one, uh Councillor Kamzavorovan recused himself for reasons uh that are specific to item number nine.

Counselor Kam Zavorovan can speak for himself, but uh I do not believe he intends to recuse himself from item number eight.

So we should very much be giving counselor Kamza Varavine the opportunity to vote on number eight, even though he can't vote on or has recused himself from number nine.

For that reason, I suggest to my colleagues uh, regardless of what was said, not combining uh numbers eight and nine.

And then uh three uh I wouldn't uh vote to approve the two of them anyway, because uh doing so would run contrary to what I did at the last meeting and what counselor Smythe and Councillor Pinnock did, which is which was to reject the idea of taking money, which the council had said was for two specific projects and now putting it towards another project.

Well, I think that the uh underlying reasons for item number nine are important, and I think I will support number nine.

Uh let's keep them separate, please.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, Council Segley.

I don't believe that uh we're taking money away from those other two projects.

I think that they're just being delayed.

I think that this is just a restructuring of monies that we are in need of right now for an emergency situation.

Um and you are getting those uh shovel ready, and we're gonna need a lot more money than what is being allocated and the the list of for the bond projects.

It's gonna be a lot more money that that's those are just matching funds.

We yeah, we haven't been shy about that.

Um I I've said the quiet part out loud on behalf of the utilities for a few years now.

Um, there is gonna be some uh vision and priority that has to come from council down to us.

Uh you'll definitely have recommendations on where that return on uh the investment or management or what it uh equates to with compliance or legoratory standards or public health and safety.

Plus, you know, I think we need to look at that list in a different way.

I think that there's nothing on that list that is sacrosanct.

I mean, there's some of that list went out to the voters and said these are example projects and blah, blah, blah.

Okay.

But in the in the resolution, all it says is improving infrastructure.

It's like it's very general.

It's not, I mean, but from a PR standpoint, I guess we put out things to say, well, these are the kinds of projects that we would need money for.

So I don't think we should be beholden to that list necessarily.

I think the the entire list is important, uh uh obviously, but I think that we also have to look at the reality of certain situations and be more practical.

We always want to take uh take whatever the uh the path is.

I take my uh word or statements uh with with a lot of value.

We don't want to not deliver on any project, but I'm not gonna tell you something that isn't reality.

So uh both of those other projects are on the list to be done.

Um hopefully sooner rather than later.

Uh I I wouldn't suggest combining them.

It was basically to point out that if you approve bro, neither a binding.

So it gives us flexibility from how we go.

Uh in some ways, the one that's actually before you now, that's why it's set up with a resolution and ordinance.

The ordinance is required as part of the RIB package, but right now we have nothing to go to RIB and say that the council has agreed to or even approved it.

And so we're trying to truncate that timeline as much as possible.

Could we go to RIB for um projects such as the um Easton's Pond?

Uh they're uh phenomenal group.

There's different buckets of money in several different programs.

Uh they could also be funded uh through different ways.

So you you have a lot uh a lot of different measures for financing.

What they do very well is infrastructure.

It also comes with uh different requirements depending on what pot you're gonna come out of.

Council Paul Tone.

Uh yeah, but the public, could you please explain uh the emergency with the clarifiers and what would happen if we have a failure?

So it's uh it's a matter of uh when that failure occurs.

Every once in a while we get lucky and it happens on a nice day.

Uh that is not what I would would bet on.

It'll most likely happen during wet wet weather, high flow, and so you're gonna have that catastrophic.

Is it gonna happen in the next month or two?

We don't know.

We saw indications that we had to go back and do some pretty heavy uh investigation and in detail material testing.

That was before the council.

I don't know, while time blurs together.

Um, and so we're trying to stay ahead of that.

What we don't want to have happen is that failure.

If that failure happens, untreated flow will go out.

How much?

I don't know.

Uh, we would most likely get a violation from uh DEM, if not EPA, and the emergency response doesn't get any approval.

We just start calling people, and that casual register runs.

And so we're trying to stay ahead of all of that.

Uh typically, if you're gonna look at it in heavy construction or utility engineering, I would give you uh it's four to six times the cost if you do a merge.

So four to six times what it would cost.

Uh so ballpark guess if it happened during a wet weather event all in, you'd be seven and a half to ten million dollars to fix whatever the immediate cause was, and we'd be right back here for uh 20 to 25 million.

No emergency response is cheap or well, we're happy you found it early.

So Mr.

Chair.

I just wanted to say thank you to Director Schultz for looking for other avenues for the funding.

Um, I always appreciate being heard in and um, especially when it comes to the concerns of my situants.

So I just wanted to say um thank you for that, and I do support this um number nine.

All right.

Um so should we approve the uh the RIB loan?

We're uh that's gonna take as we uh had talked about before four to six months or so.

Correct.

Are we able to sustain any financial benefits or any financial needs through that time?

Yes.

Exactly what that looks like, we don't know.

Right.

Uh I'm gonna be back here next month uh again because that ordinance is up for the second passing, and I'll have an update then.

Uh right now it's an ongoing conversation.

So I'm hoping that they will agree and and say that the previous competitive procurement works.

If not, uh we'll be doing a lot of sole source documentation.

Um but could we Mr.

Count Mr.

Cheko would you use um some of the obligation funds to fill in that gap?

Uh or does you have to come to the council?

No.

Okay.

So uh right now they're slated for something else, even with the obligation bond bonds and coming to you in January.

We had a gap that we were doing some uh fiscal year adjustments.

But Mr.

Chair, but what about the the 10.6 that is sitting there as that's allocated for utilities?

I mean, can't we we're not gonna go out for that 10.6 right now because we're not ready.

So we probably include 2.8.

And and we we cannot mix the two.

So if it's a revenue if it's a revenue pledged bond through RIB, that's gonna be through the enterprise fund.

We cannot use general obligation bonding to the bill.

So we cannot mix them.

Yeah.

Any further questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Council Paul Thomas.

Are you saying that we can't use both of them?

No.

No.

So we're we're looking at two different paths right now.

Right.

So when when we look at at general obligation, that's gonna be through the taxpayer base.

Right.

Right?

Okay, yeah.

So RIB, that's gonna be revenue pledged through the tax through through the rate payers.

Right.

All right.

So so we cannot say, hey, we have revenue pledged borrowing, all right, through RIB and pay it through a general obligation bond.

It's it's gonna have to come from the rate payers, not the taxpayers.

So you cannot mix the two.

Got it.

Got it.

Thank you.

So sorry.

So you're saying it has to come from the rate payers.

No, no, no, no.

I'm not saying that.

So if we if we take that path, it either has to be general obligation.

Yeah.

So if we go general obligation, that will that will be paid through the tax base.

Yes, right.

So that that's that's one avenue.

Right.

We we just can't mix the two avenues.

Right, but the the rib loan comes from the rate payers.

That's correct.

Yes, through the So are we going to have to increase the sticker shock on the utilities?

I I'm gonna defer to Rob.

I mean I said it would be negligible, but time because there's gonna be debt that's gonna be expiring in water pushes.

Right, right in the next couple years.

So we we may be able to defer.

There may be some interest payments that we're gonna have to pay.

Um, but I don't see I don't think that's sticker shock but but the but the chance of putting the the sticker shock on the there is a chance of putting it on the ratepayers for a short amount of time.

There's absolutely gonna be an increase.

What that what we're gonna do and how we're structuring it is basically we're not coming in uh for an increase in July 1.

Until what we're not doing it for this upcoming fiscal year.

So we already we already had the two.

Um that said, how that actually comes out and what that cost is will be more because we do not have the revenue to support the full amount.

And so we're looking forward and knowing we have certain debt that expires, and so we're be structuring the loan longer than we typically would and have costs in there to not do that.

But we have all my stuff's clear as mud.

So we have overlapping issue.

Um the the rate study is going on, we're gonna have recommendations for that.

None of those are needed, but we want to have uh more fairness on those rates.

Uh affordability has been a concern on my entire tenure here.

And so you you have all of those aligning that we will pay more, um, but there's nothing realistically from that revenue increase.

So we're we're borrowing from the future instead of paying it now.

What that cost is, I don't know.

Right.

Um frankly, I would be more comfortable paying it through the obligation bond.

But you know, I understand this we're in a critical mass here.

So Mr.

Chairman, Scroll.

Director Schultz, hang in there.

I want to appreciate as muddy as it might be.

Uh you do a hell of a job.

Yeah.

With what you do.

We have uh we have a great team here.

Um, and and it does get.

I mean, no one you want the fossil to work, the toilet to flush and the ponding to go away within the tide cycle, right?

From from time to time a lot here.

From time to time, I have to vote against your proposals, but that doesn't mean that I don't uh think what I just said.

You you do a hell of a job at what you do.

Uh having said that, I disagree with councillor Segley.

Uh, in that you yourself just said we could push this off until July.

In fact, we will push any uh increased rate obligations off till July.

The council has from now until July, should rate increases be necessary to shift the burden uh to larger commercial rate payers.

I voted against the water and sewer increase uh uh on uh June roughly 20th of last year.

Uh I would do so again if it meant increasing dramatically rates on the average residential homeowner uh or ratepayer.

It includes, of course, other communities, but I would certainly not be opposed to shifting uh a lot of this burden over to larger commercial ratepayers who make a lot of money uh based on the services, the utility services that the city of Newport offers.

I'm thinking in particular of hotels and other like properties.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Director Schultz.

Um I was just gonna say when you there's a saying, I can't remember who said it, but like when you reach the end of your rope, you tie a knot in it and hang on.

So I haven't given up.

I'm pretty stubborn.

I actually think I'm uh I'm um I made the joke when I was at Salvay talking to their uh one class.

It was it was actually the best part of my my day a few weeks ago, and I said younger me would think I'm messed.

Um, but uh you know, we want to be a lifelong learner.

One of the biggest things that I'm not allowed to, my girlfriend's mad time I say it, but engineers are not great on communicating, and so we keep trying to figure out how to communicate it.

And all we're doing here is we need a path forward.

We know we need to pay for it, and we're trying to keep that timeline as short as possible.

Appreciate it.

So, yeah, we're in a situation.

I I like to try to keep things as simple as possible.

If we don't get this thing fixed as soon as possible, then we're gonna pay for it down the road.

And for too many years, too long of a time.

That's what's been done on a lot of things, especially in the utility field.

So um I for one am in favor of uh going to the infrastructure bank and trying to get this money and get this thing going because I don't want to be in the bay when this happens and those clarifiers go down.

So um, so we'll take a uh we'll take a vote here on uh raise your right hand if you are in favor of this request.

And all those against nay, and I'm voting nay, not because I don't want it fixed, I'm voting nay because I think we should use the bonds.

I think it's a better way.

So thank you.

Motion passes.

You go back to eight, yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Now we got to go back to eight.

Um action item six five two one.

The department of utilities recommends approval of the attached resolution to uh reallocate existing general obligation bond funding to advance the primary clarifier rehabilitation project at the water at the Newport Water Pollution Control Plant, funding allocations for Easton's Pond Hardening, 5 million 375,000 and the Elizabeth Brook North End.

Um North End uh funding.

I'm sorry, North End stormwater, 5 million 375,000.

Projects are recommended to be reallocated to uh the primary clarifier reliabilitation project.

Mr.

Chairman Second.

All right, we have a motion of second.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman, given the discussion and the approval on number nine, and given what the council was split on at the last meeting regarding what's before us now.

I move to table and I seek a second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Why would we not just withdraw?

All the motion is to table.

Uh all is in favor, raise your right hand.

All is opposed, raise your right hand.

Motion and table passes.

Okay.

Action item 6523.

The city manager along with the IT department recommends the council approve the award of a contract to Environmental Systems Research Institute for a total not to exceed 126,000 for a three-term licensing agreement to utilize ESRI's ARC GIS mapping and geospatial platform.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item 6524.

The Department of Resilience and Sustainability recommends an additional allocation of funds in the amount of $13,500 to support an extension of the contract to four Leaf Inc.

of Foxboro, Massachusetts with a fee schedule for certified building official services at 135 per hour for 100 hours.

This will increase the total contract amount with four leaf to 27,000.

These services will be delivered to the city as requested in four-hour minimum increments with the option to extend only with council approval if needs of the building inspections divisions requires more than 100 hours authorized in this extension.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Um city manager.

So just uh for some clarification on here.

We have a we hired in the new budget the uh full-time building inspector and we approved the assistant building inspector.

Keeping this company on for um the uh building official services is only to basically close a gap until we can find the assistant.

That's right, Mr.

Chair.

Uh we have we're asking for a hundred more hours of essentially what amounts to flexibility for some of those peak periods when our building uh official gets a little bit when his stack gets a little thick, uh, while we continue to post and ultimately hire the position for uh what what was called in the budget building inspector.

I like to think of him as an assistant building official, one and the same.

And can you just give us an update on where we are with that hiring?

Yes, if we have I haven't checked the HR listings in the last week, but if we have not already, the posting of that position is imminent.

That the reason for the delay uh we've been negotiating with our local uh chapter of council 94 to make sure the position description and where the uh where that position would ultimately fit uh within their body uh is copacetic.

Uh so it's been a it's been a healthy discussion, and uh they have subsequently agreed to uh putting the position under their umbrella, and we will now be posting it.

But that's that's the reason for the delay.

All right, thank you.

All right, uh any other discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Action item six five two five.

The department of public services recommends awarding the unit pricing quotation for the purchase of bulk rock salt for the fiscal year 2026 winter season to Eastern Salt Company of Lowell Mass for the delivered price of $76.45 per ton for a total projected cost of not to exceed $135,000.

This is currently budgeted.

Well, you know, we're not gonna have any snow this year, so you know we probably won't wait.

It's actually the ice that is the biggest issue.

Yeah, yeah, I see.

We have a motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item six five two six.

The department of public services recommends the purchase and installation of auto lift equipment via the source.

Well, master price agreement contract number uh one two one two two three-snp from Snap on Industrial Manufacture of Kenosha, Wisconsin for a total cost of 123,571 dollars and seven cents.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item six five two seven.

Uh the ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.

Oh, wait, we were gonna um these oh no, we're good.

We're good.

Yeah, we're good.

We're we're good.

Okay.

The ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.24 of the city of Newport's codified ordinance as follows.

Uh 10.24.010, parking prohibited at all times in designated places.

No person shall park a vehicle at any time upon the following streets.

Add Broadway, East Side, beginning 229 feet north of Vernon Avenue and proceeding a distance of 370 feet.

Uh, I move approval.

Second.

All right, motion and second, any discussion.

Uh yes, sir.

Paul come up.

Yes, please.

My name is Paul Donovan.

I live at 530 Broadway, the one mile corner.

Um, I'd like to uh thank Sergeant Jason Head and the other ITC members for submitting this resolution.

It is the first time I've seen a proactive approach to address the potential parking problems related to the 525 Broadway project.

However, I still have concerns, so I'm gonna take a minute and reiterate what I said to you on the September 15th meeting at Bell School.

You don't mind.

The project will only have 41 on-site parking spaces for 38 apartments.

This resolution states there is a potential risk for overflow parking on Broadway near the busy intersection of one mile corner, and no additional parking will be allowed on the east side of Broadway, which I completely agree with.

That's a two-lane shot to the intersection, definitely necessary.

Can't change it.

Unfortunately, if tenants and visitors do seek overflow parking, it will have to be across the street on the west side of Broadway and on the neighborhood side streets, Cananicus Avenue, Curry Street, and Rowland Road.

Any tenants or visitors crossing this busy section of Broadway on foot, especially in the shadows of night, will be at a high risk going back and forth to their vehicles.

To me, being proactive and protecting people's lives for the future is so much more important than maximizing the number of housing units at this single location by allowing an insufficient number of parking spaces on site.

Whereas the 525 Broadway project, from what I'm told, is going to require the city of Newport to pay for substantial changes to the southbound lane coming into Newport.

I believe the ITC and the City Council have a right and an obligation to work with the planning department and suggest they make changes to the on-site parking requirements that is currently proposed, create the pen the uh potential to endanger people's lives.

I'm very concerned with this.

I have nothing to gain.

My driveways on Calvis Road, I come in and out, I don't need the parking, I don't see it.

I'm looking out for the neighborhood.

I've been there a long time.

And I'll just throw in real quick back in uh August of 2024, Chief Duppy's Jeffy submitted a resolution to have a uh sign added to a crosswalk at Broadway and Bedloe Avenue.

And I'm just gonna steal a couple uh sentences of that uh resolution that the uh chief had proposed at that time, which was approved.

It states the above location's proximity to Jesus Savior Catholic Church and Innovate Newport, a record of 14 motor vehicle crashes in that area since August 6, 2021.

Observed limited street lighting in the vicinity, and Broadway's overall reputation for pedestrian strikes, 13 since 2020, make the crossing at Broadway and Bell Bedlow Avenue a sensible candidate for a crosswalk sign.

That location bedloe is further away from the impact area that I'm discussing, so it can only be worse.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Paul, thanks.

Uh you don't have to come back up with respect to this particular proposal before us.

Do you want us to vote yes on this or no on this?

No, I definitely want this yes.

Okay, thank you.

Because that it just definitely finds that there's no parking on that each line in front of the property.

So that leaves these people that are expected to be between 20 and 40 years old to find alternate spaces to park on the overflow.

And the only place available is across Broadway.

And that breaking traffic coming down, et cetera, is just waiting for an accident to happen, and then it'll be no.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Action item 6528.

The ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.52 of the city of Newport's codified ordinance as follows.

10.52.010, no through streets.

Signs required upon the following streets and parts of streets.

Uh no through commercial buses and trucks with a tar weight in excess of 5,005 pounds, shall be permitted, and sufficient signs shall be erected and maintained by the city to provide adequate notice to more motorists at Bedloe Avenue, Hillside Avenue between Bedloe Avenue and Admiral Talfus.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Yes, Mr.

Chance.

Uh I'm going to vote for this because I I know that this is what the residents want.

But uh, and I did speak to one of the residents on Bedloe.

Um, this is no guarantee that there will be no trucks and buses on your street.

I mean, this is extremely difficult to enforce.

And apparently there might be coming down the pike, there might be some technology that uh will help us with this, but the police can't be there all the time to to check out these um restricted streets.

I deal with it on a daily basis on Annandale, and uh the expectation for the residents is that there will be no trucks or buses over 550 pounds, it's not gonna happen.

So just you know, I know you it's just gonna add to more frustration, but if it helps even just a little bit, then fine.

But I but please, you know, good luck.

And I just um I you know it's it's a it's difficult, it's very, very difficult.

Mr.

Chair, Council Penn.

Um this might be a question for Sergeant Head.

Is there a way to enforce this more Sergeant Head ITC chair?

I'm sorry, I missed it.

Oh no, I was so um the ordinance that's in front of our ordinance revision that's in front of us for bedloe and old areas with no trucks, no through streets.

Is there a way to enforce that?

That's correct.

There's a uh Rhode Island General Law Statute of Obedience to devices, uh, which is a hundred dollar fine.

Okay, but it's difficult to enforce.

You have to see the the fine.

I mean, you have to see that's with any type of uh traffic violation.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

Um, so I'm gonna vote to approve this because I think it's at least a good idea to have something in place that gives us sort of a leg up with with trying to enforce it.

I mean, better better to have a sign in place and be able to somewhat enforce it here and there than to not have a sign in place and not be able to enforce it.

And and if there is technology down the road that can help us with the determining weight issues, then this at least starts the process for us.

So I think it's a great idea.

I'm gonna support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Balto?

Yes, I I would imagine it excludes moving vans.

No, it uh they have to have a purpose to be on that street.

So if you so if a moving man is has a purpose to move on that street, uh then yes, uh it would exclude uh, but if they're just traveling through there, then any other traffic uh equipment machinery.

If they have business, yeah, if they have business on the street, they'd be there.

Absolutely.

I only say this because everybody would love to have their streets without the trucks and the buses, and I had somebody complain to me about a school bus on Bedloe.

I gotta tell you, you know how are your kids gonna get to school?

I I'm on Malbow Road, I see it all, and we have the trucks and we have some of the buses and the big tour buses now that are actually two buses.

That bothers me.

But um, you know, this is every street in Newport.

Our streets are small, and it's every street in Newport.

I don't see, you know, and we have a limited police department.

I just want to mention it in terms of uh NANPAL, Mr.

Chair, Council.

Um, but the um I I was talking to City Manager about this, and he was saying that there could be some technology that could come could be available at some like down the road.

I it's not available now, but you know, possibly to um you know take pictures of trucks that are on these streets or whatever, uh you know, sort of like we do with the speed cameras.

But I I don't know.

I mean, have you heard about any of that?

I have not, but it doesn't surprise me.

I think we have noise cameras out there now, so if I do that automated system along with speed camera, so this anything's possible.

Because it would really be helpful on Anandale, you know.

Mr.

Chair, uh Council Pennett.

Um, thank you, Sergeant Head.

I I do think any step is a step forward.

Um as most people know, 74% of school age children live in ward one, and that area in particular has quite a bit of kids crossing um and bedlow.

Like I haven't driven down that street one time without having to pull over um one way or the other.

So I do appreciate this.

Um, and I do think that there will be there will be some impact, positive impact, and it will be effective.

I'm hopeful.

Anyway, uh thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then um also on the street at some point we're hoping to get a stop sign put in at the corner of uh Hillside and Bedloe as well.

Um a three-way stop there.

So I know that's been working on.

Uh all right.

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

Aye.

the item is properly before us uh it is a bad item from my point of view uh it is an item which uh again in my point of view uh would um give preference to a business at the expense of our residents and those in particular who have fought very hard uh for access to the waterfront here in the council Carl we have a uh do you think we have a continuation no no no i the there was a motion to continue there was a second both properly before us this is discussion I am discussing this item to continue and I am suggesting we simply not continue it but rather vote it down let's send a message these type of items what is the point of continuing it these type of items are not good policy for the city of Newport vote against this item vote against the continuance okay so we have a motion to continue and we have a second uh all is in favor to the continuance item please raise your right hand I'm raising my hand button um and so we have I didn't get to see is that four yeah all those to continue raise your hand um I didn't mean to I didn't want to continue I'm sorry it's uh madam Mr.

Chairman Madam Clerk can can I have a uh accounting of who voted for this request to continue please counselor Segley Councilor Politano and Counselor Camps of Oravon can I have a request for who voted against the request to continue please well that would be councilor Carlin Councilor Pinnock Chairholder and Counselor Smythe.

Thank you I uh I will be recusing myself from this so does your continuance vote it fit it's it doesn't count it's gonna it will die no matter what there's three against okay it's gonna it's not gonna matter okay yeah so it's gonna die yeah so so we it's not continued right yeah so the matter is before us am I correct yes okay I'd like a vote on the matter madam chair I'm I'm assuming yeah I I'm I'm confused I mean why would we not want more information on this I don't understand it's a bad proposal it's properly before us I want it voted down if you disagree with me vote but I don't know if it's a bad proposal because I don't understand I don't I don't know what this proposal really is.

I I I don't understand it.

Madam Madam Chair I don't know what to tell you uh I think I'm being very clear on what I want uh if you don't understand I I'm sorry I would like just more information that's all so that I can make an I believe we have some people from the public here thank you well's here but I think uh Tom gives him to bring some word from um the proposal is a city's proposal I'd like to hear the city you know uh it went through the ITC so what we have here are two linked uh proposals to uh change the parking rules on Lee Wharf uh Lee's wharf has a has a long history of um regulatory involvement uh the uh the story really starts I wasn't prepared to argue the merch tonight I thought it was going to be continued but I will uh the story at least wharf starts with the erection uh blockages from for utilities uh from the Brown and Howard project going back to the early 90s and in aught so we had blockages um and uh attempts to screen them with uh with foliage um and then uh a complaint was was entered by CRMC and the Rhode Island Attorney General's office against the city of Newport and against the uh uh abutting property owners uh and that resulted in a settlement in 2021 to relocate the utilities out of the right of way um and to restore it to what the condition you see it today it's paved it's wide open you can see all the way down from thame street to the uh to the waterfront it's we consider it a success story um but there's some other approvals that'll went along the way there that is a CRMC designated right of way that they have special rules applying to them so CRMC has an interest in protecting CRMC designated rights of way it's one of 26 in the city um it's subject to additional provisions in that settlement agreement so that's another piece of CRMC jurisdiction finally it has one of the most tightly written CRMC assents for building the hotel that I've seen including uh provisions that apply to the entire right of way not just the hotel site um so so I don't believe and I'll I can let Sergeant head speak for himself I don't believe the ITC was fully informed of all these things when they brought the proposal forward okay um we don't want to see that right of way blocked and if the the vote tonight is up or down on the on the two amendments that are before you we would say to oppose those two amendments if we're gonna do that.

Finally, it has one of the most tightly written CRMC assents for building the hotel that I've seen, including uh provisions that apply to the entire right-of-way, not just the hotel site.

Um, so so I don't believe, and I'll I can let Sergeant Head speak for himself.

I don't believe the ITC was fully informed of all these things when they brought the proposal forward.

Okay.

Um we don't want to see that right-of-way blocked.

And if the the vote tonight is up or down on the on the two amendments that are before you, we would say to oppose those two amendments if we're going to do that.

Uh there's some other considerations here.

When the uh project was considered by the zoning board, they did consider both parking and loading zones.

And as a condition of their approval from the zoning board, they were required to designate two areas on site 40 by 12 for loading zones for the purpose of loading unloading, whatever comes into the facility.

Um those loading zones were also included in the plans that were improved as part of the CRMC permits, uh their public record.

There is an unrelated request now for some additional changes at the property down there to um uh to improve the deck.

We all we we've all been there for drinks and it gets pretty hot during sunset, so they're gonna go and improve that upper level deck there, but the plans are submitted currently to the zoning officer eliminate the two on-site loading zones.

They're no longer indicated in the drawings.

So there's a lot going on at that site right now.

Um I don't believe the ITC had all of this information before them when they considered it.

Okay.

Um, and if this is now properly before you tonight would urge you to uh to reject it.

Okay, thank you.

That's the information I wanted.

Thank you very much.

Okay, are we ready to vote on this?

All in favor, all opposed.

Aye.

Okay.

All right.

Action item uh 6530.

The ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.24 of the City of Newport's codified ordinance as follows.

One hour parking limit.

Add F, no person shall park a vehicle for longer than one hour at any time between 9 a.m.

and nine 8 a.m.

and 9 p.m.

on Lee's Wharf South Side beginning 34 feet west of Narragansett.

I'm sorry, west of Thame Street and proceeding west uh 23 feet.

I think I'm getting tired.

Uh 10.24.030.

Special parking limits during certain hours on certain streets, Adlee's wharf, south side beginning 234 feet of uh fame street and proceeding west 40 feet to be designated a 30-minute parking zone between the hours of 8 a.m.

and 9 p.m.

I move approval.

Second discussion, madam chair for many of the same reasons.

I recommend my colleagues reject this outright.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Any other discussion?

No.

All right, let's take a vote.

Uh all in favor, all opposed.

Okay.

All right, Charlie, who come back.

I can get it started.

Action item 6531.

Uh, it is recommended that the extension of the agreement with Capital Communications Group LLC for government relations and advocacy for services be approved at a cost of 4,500 per month for the period of January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

I motion a second, any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next under ordinances amending chapter 12.28.071 of the codified ordinance is entitled Mooring Permit Classification and Quotas.

This is a first reading, Mr.

Chair.

Um I move approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion of second on the first reading.

Any discussion.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

Um, I have a question on behalf of a resident that wanted to know would this only be able to cover them for one year.

In what the in terms of uh providing it by February 28th.

Yes.

Okay.

So what what we're attempting to do, the language will take care of uh a number of commercial mooring permit holders who use another business, a mooring business to manage their moorings and inspect them and and so forth and so on.

Um after the last workshop, we did a lot of the comments that were made.

We did consult uh uh the uh insurance uh person I was going to consult happened to also be the insurance provider of some of these businesses.

So we did come to the conclusion that those types of businesses under their insurance can add the city of Newport and the permit holder as additional insurance.

Okay, so that will now be allowed under the ordinance for them to do that.

The others will have until February 28.

However, during that time, we'll continue to look at the insurance requirement.

Um a big focus will be on the ones that only have one mooring because to provide the insurance is going to cost the ranges we were quoting before 600 or so, it's probably more in the $1,500 range.

So what we're gonna try to do is to see if we can come up with an option or work during that time to come up with an option to maybe have it so we can it might be something a hybrid uh on it.

But we'll we'll look at that, we'll continue it, we'll consult with uh insurance providers to see if we can if there's a product out there that would be a little more reasonable in terms of cost.

So we'll continue to work on that.

That's why we were originally talking about extending it to December 31st, and said, why don't we give it a little more time so we can so we can work on this?

So this should give um them some breathing room, and they can still renew, they can renew now, and I think Mr.

Land will confirm that most of them have and that insurance, and as counselor collin was concerned, he wanted, and I agree that it should be in the ordinance that they're able to do that.

It's extended to February 28th, so that's why we put that in there.

Okay.

The last element we are next uh this December, you're gonna have we're gonna go back to the uh the moorings held by yacht clubs, and there was a question about whether they are going to be uh subject to the same insurance requirements.

Yes, we're gonna propose a uh uh a change in that ordinance to make sure they have to also comply with the insurance.

Okay.

So thank you.

So this isn't the end of it.

I just you know, it's just gonna buy some time to address some of the smaller holders, you know, the one or two uh moorings.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh Jack Grant, 26 Mourn Avenue.

Um, my concern with the insurance, and it was the same um point I expressed when we had the workshop, is that we have the ordinance differentiates between transient moorings and seasonal moorings.

They're both rental, but transient as defined by the ordinance is a uh vessel that stays at a mooring for less than 30 days.

A seasonal mooring is a vessel that stays has a contract to stay on that mooring.

Also, the ordinance, as currently is exists, excuse me, requires that seasonal vessels on a mooring have insurance.

If if we would continue with the um discussion in the way the um amendment that you're voting on tonight, that would require that a seasonal mooring not only require the vessel to have insurance, it would require that the mooring permit holder myself to have insurance.

So now it's dual coverage on it.

So my hope would be is that, and Chris, I'm glad you know you were talking about still working on it, is if part of the discussions going on with this time frame that we have, and I'm not sure if it's with where it is with the administration or is it with the waterfront commission, et cetera, but that we can have a full discussion on how this insurance is going to be applied and can work it out and come back with um with some alternatives.

That's that's some of the issues that we're uh we're looking looking at.

Okay.

I can't promise where it might go, but definitely we're definitely looking at that.

That's one of the uh issues in the pipeline.

And we we are gonna try to uh we'll be working on it this year and not leaving it to a couple of weeks before it and we hope to get those types of proposals out to the um mooring holders so they can see and also participate at the waterfront commission when they look at it.

Thank you, any other public comment?

Any further discussion on the council?

Uh again, this is the first reading uh of amending the ordinance, so uh all is in favor, please raise your uh Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Uh, might we please give Ms.

Grant an opportunity?

I saw she wanted to come up, but uh if she still does, thank you.

Um first I'd like to thank Harbormaster Land and his team, they do keep good watch on our harbor.

Um, but I'm a little bit not happy about this whole insurance issue, and then there were some comments made during the workshop, which I sat there and I didn't say anything, but tonight, if you give me the opportunity, there were some comments made, which I think the council might think that we who have some of these rental moorings are renting them to mega yachts at $50,000 a season.

That's not the truth.

Most of the moorings that I know of and my friends, they're between 20 feet and 45 feet.

The going rate is 150 dollars a foot.

Steve um commented it was 140.

I charge much less than that.

And I think if you polled the individual mooring holders that are one-s or twours, they're not charging the going rate, they're renting these to their friends or their family.

They're giving a placeholder in many cases for Newport people.

So now to add the increase that the permit was increased, the fee this year, plus 600.

That's 700.

And that cost obviously going to get passed on.

So we now are making our harbor much much more expensive to be to keep your boats in.

And a lot of these people that are affected are Newport people.

It's not out-of-towners.

I mean, obviously, there are people of out of town, but you're increasing the cost.

And I it's just and the biggest question that I'd love to know, two actually.

One is what did precipitate this, other than that it was a rule on the books.

Um, and the other is we've yet to define what activity means.

So, what is activity?

What are we trying to insure?

Our boats that are on our moorings are insured, our people who take care of our moorings, the companies are insured and they inspect the tackle and they insure all that tackle.

So I'm not sure what is left to be insured.

Um, so that's my piece.

Thanks for letting me speak, but I don't have any presence for you tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Matt.

All right.

Any further discussion?

No further questions from the public or comments.

All right.

Okay, so uh all those in favor of amending uh the ordinance chapter, please raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

Yeah, all right to next we have a resolution approving the revolutionary hydrant project.

I'm gonna read some of this um resolution.

Whereas the city of Newport, Rhode Island holds a proud place in the history of the American Revolution as a deeply uh as a community deeply connected to the ideals of liberty, independence, and democracy, and whereas the year 2026 will mark the 2025th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America, a milestone worthy of reflection, commemoration, and community celebration, and whereas the Edward King Senior Center, a long-standing nonprofit organization dedicated to the enrichment engagement and well-being of older adults in the community has proposed a public art initiative entitled The Revolutionary Hydrants Project.

And whereas this project seeks to artistically transform select fire hydrants throughout the city of Newport into painted representations of notable figures connected to Newport's revolutionary war history, including local history, local heroes, historical leaders, and allies who contributed to America's independence.

And whereas the project will engage local artists and volunteers, foster civic pride, promote historical education and beautify public spaces in keeping with Newport's reputation for creativity, cultural vitality, and community spirit.

Resolved that this the Council of the City of Newport here by grants its support and permission for the Edward King Senior Center to move forward with the revolutionary hydrants project in coordination with appropriate city departments and be it further resolved that the council commends the Edward King House Senior Center for its leadership in developing creative educational and community building projects that honor Newport's history and celebrate our nation's 250th anniversary.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Smythe.

Good evening.

My name is Penny Fitch.

And this was my idea that I've been had in my back of my mind for a long time.

A variety of people through the city hall and through our nonprofits in the city have been very encouraging.

I went to the first meeting recently of the Newport 250 committee, where there were about 25 different nonprofit organizations talking about what they will be doing next summer.

All of them were thrilled.

Many of them came up to me afterwards and said, How can I help you?

So I haven't gone ahead and done anything formal until I have this resolution because I don't want to approach somebody as just me or just Edward King House.

This is going to be a volunteer project.

The only expenses will be paint and etc.

that the King House will cover.

And if it doesn't, Carmen and I will seek some kind of contribution, so it's not going to cost the city anything.

And Carm made the last suggestion to be to put a QR code on the top of each register, each one, so that when you're looking at the caricature, perhaps of George Washington, if you put your QR code on it, it will talk about what he did here.

That he declared our freedom from England two months before the rest of the colonies, that kind of thing.

So I'm delighted that this may go forward.

It's a big project, but I have time, and I'm gonna see it through.

Great, thank you.

Council Carlin.

Thank you very much, Penny.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you, Penny, for reaching out to Councillor Segley and to myself and to me, asking for sponsorship of this resolution.

Thank you, Council Vice Chair Lynn Sagley.

You perhaps have been the most involved of any sitting council member, with the possible exception of uh former mayor Napolitano with the Edward King House.

So thank you, Lynn, for sponsoring this.

Thank you, Carmela.

Thank you, Chief Duffy.

Chief, well, thanks.

Chief Duffy, I'll throw you in there too.

Why not?

Thank you, Chief Donnelly.

Uh, I wholeheartedly support this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Council Segwe.

Yes, Penny, I'd like to thank you.

And I'd like to.

It's okay.

She can go.

She can go.

Go ahead.

I'd like to volunteer a hydrant on Malbone Road.

If it's okay with the chief.

My first project is going to be deciding with the help of some city employees, uh, how many hydrants we have in the colonial area, and then deciding how how many can be painted.

But if at all possible, we will we'll uh help you.

I think it's a great idea.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Um Penny, I you know, I sponsored this, so of course, you know, I think it's a great idea.

I just want to make sure that over the course of time that these um hydrants will be kept up, or when they can't be kept up anymore, that they will be repainted back to their um you know, yellow color, whatever.

I'm glad you brought that up because that was one of my concerns.

Uh from summer until a few weeks ago, I sat at my computer and did a lot of lists and a lot of looking things up, and that's one of the probably first five or ten things on my list was uh the last thing we want is a few years down the road for them all to look shabby and awful.

Right, you know, so and we want we want we want the citizens of Newport and the tourists to be proud of what they represent.

And one of my biggest concerns is our children are growing up without a whole lot of of history, and so I think this is gonna check off a lot of boxes and things they care about.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Vice Chair.

Edward Kinghouse, uh executive director.

The the promise is full circle.

So it's either keeping up the hydrant as it is, or if it's the will of the council ten years from now, although I may not be there at the time.

I will promise on behalf of whoever the executive maker is at that time.

Um, that if it's the will of the council to bring them back to their regular color, okay.

Okay, more than happy to do that.

That was that was my really my only concern.

So you know, thank you.

Director Schultz, did you I saw you director Schultz?

No, Rob behind you.

I ran over.

Oh, you ran over.

Um most likely the utility will wind up picking up the paint.

There's certain requirements and whatnot.

Spoke briefly about it.

Uh I gotta make sure that we can get it in all the colors they will probably need, but it's not regular paint.

So there's three or four different brands that will apply to the majority of our hydrants.

And so it makes it cleaner, easier for us to document that colour.

Just one thing just to perfect thank you.

Thank you.

The last thing I'd like to say is throughout all the my work with the Edward King House.

I'm probably the most flexible person anybody did what dealt with.

So if somebody says to me you can't have your shade of green, I'm not gonna throw a fit.

No problem.

Let's let's go with what you have.

So this you do want to make sure that it's with city approval, whatever's done, the design.

Because this starts getting into that the flag issues.

If we just allow it to make an amendment, you want to put anything up there, you could have all kinds of stuff.

So uh should there be a list of people that they would be putting.

I think the resolutions okay.

It's coordination with the city and and so forth.

So it'll be good, but I just just a reminder it's no different than the sign policy resolution we adopted where the city uh approves whatever's gonna be blown or yeah, approves whatever's gonna be on the hydrant.

There's a lot more work ahead of us moving forward.

Okay.

Answer science uh question.

We can't answer that question as of yet.

We are actively working with the 250th committee and all of those.

All the individuals that you just mentioned, or are on that committee.

Yep.

Um the intent is I just want to make this perfectly clear.

We are not going to paint every hydrant in the city.

That's we know what our limitations are.

Um, but the intent is to see what hydrants in that particular, as we put it, the colonial uh area section of the of the city, how many of them we do have to work with, and then from there we want to ensure that the folks that are represented on those hydrants are as diverse as our city is.

Uh so that that's a big part of uh thank you.

Yeah, and we'd like to keep it as positive as possible.

Just let me know where my hydrant is, please, Carmilla.

I'm a reporting secretary for the cemetery commission, and I've learned a lot about history over the months I've worked with them.

And there's a hydrant across the street from my house, and I can tell you it's gonna be a woman.

A woman from history.

There you go.

Well, I'm making history.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Right.

All right.

Without further discussion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

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

Motion to approve the consent.

Oh, go ahead.

Motion and second and discussion.

All the favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

Motion is second and discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh the motion to approve.