Madam Clerk, anyone sign up for the citizens forum?

No, they have not.

Okay.

All right.

So before we get into the agenda tonight, myself and uh Councilor Pinnock and the rest of the city council have some citation recognizing community members for Black History Month.

We have a proclamation and some citations, and then we have a special gift as well.

So, Councilor Pinnock, I'll turn it over to you.

Thank you very much.

And when we call your name for the citation, if you will please come up to the podium to accept your citation and then stand there so we can have a group photo at the end as well.

And I'm gonna do it from the thank you for being here, everybody.

So nice to see so many faces.

Appreciate it.

So this is the City of Newport proclamation, whereas Black History Month was created in 1926 by Carter G.

Woodson and the Association for the Study of African American Life and History to highlight the contributions and accomplishments made to the history of our country.

The year 2026 marks 100 years of national commemorations of Black history.

And during the month of February, the nation takes pause to reflect on the struggles fought and overcome by African Americans throughout our nation's history.

And we celebrate the many achievements and contributions made by African Americans to our economic, cultural, spiritual, political development.

And whereas the centennial theme of Black History Month calls upon the nation and the world to explore the meaning and impact of Black History commemorations in transforming the status, self-understanding and lived experiences of Black peoples in the modern world.

And whereas in the year that also commemorates the 250th anniversary of the United States independence, it is especially vital to tell an inclusive and accurate history, one that acknowledges the indispensable contributions, struggles, and leadership of black Americans, and to recognize that black history's value lies not solely in its inclusion within mainstream narratives, but in its deep resonance within the lives and experiences of black people themselves.

And whereas persons of African heritage have lived, worked, and worshipped in Newport since the mid-17th century, Newport is home to God's Little Acre, America's oldest and largest cemetery for African Americans, and represents one of the nation's most independent historic sites.

Now, therefore be it resolved that Charles Holder, mayor of the City of Newport in the state of Rhode Island, do hereby proclaim the month of February as Black History Month.

In the city of Newport, and the city shall display the Black History flag from the mayor's balcony at City Hall during the month of February 2026 to encourage celebrations of the diverse heritage and cultural and culture of our residents.

It witnessed there whereof Charlie have hereon to set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Newport to be affixed this 25th day of February in the year of our Lord 2026.

So all of you wonderful people presented me with the bio that I asked for because not only do I need to know your accomplishments, and I feel like I do, but all of our residents here in Newport also need to know them.

So this very first one.

So I'm gonna read your bio and ask you to come and stand up to my left, please.

She's just 18 years old.

I've had the pleasure of knowing her her entire life and working with her at Fab Newport at Cross Point Church and a variety of other places.

She's so young to have so much wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

And if you know her, you know what a gift she is.

So this is for Gianna Michelle.

I am an 18-year-old community leader.

I am an 18-year.

I am an 18-year-old community leader committed to service leadership and youth empowerment.

Since earning my babysitting certification at age 11, I have provided child care for families within my church and my local community.

And if any of you have kids and have ever needed child care, then you know exactly what a gift that is to have someone reliable and dependable showing up for your children.

My dedication to giving back extends beyond caregiving.

I have actively participated in numerous community events, toy drives, and service initiatives through my youth.

I have been involved in student councils since fourth grade and probably served and proudly served as class president during my sophomore year at Rogers High School.

During my time here, I have helped plan and execute the school's first Black History Month celebration and helped found the DRC, working to create inclusive spaces within the school community.

Gianna's commitment to leadership and service was recognized because she was named Youth of the Year for Newport County and received recognition from the state.

Gian has also participated in summer camps and internships with Bab Newport and continues to stay involved through their after school program Heart Club.

In addition, Gianna has volunteered at the Boys and Girls Club of Newport County, has supported youth in development and in mentorship.

And with every opportunity, Gianna strives with compassion, initiative, and laughter, of course, and singing.

Oh, yeah.

Her community is her heart and a place where she feels the most home.

Yes.

So we will take a group photo at the very end.

And to prove that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, the next one coming up is actually Gianna's mother, Letitia Michelle.

Letitia has been a source of guidance, light, and love in my life since we were in kindergarten.

So today we recognize Letitia Michelle.

She's a trailblazon birth worker, advocate and community leader from Newport, Rhode Island, founder of Ready Set Latch Go, a Rhode Island Certified Perinatal Doula, certified certified lactation consultant and maternal health and child specialist.

Letia has profoundly impacted families across the state.

She is the first black Rhode Island certified perinatal doula.

And the first doula in the state to successively submit an insurance claim following the Rhode Island Doula bill in 2022, paving the way for equitable access to care for Medicaid eligible families.

Letitia is a strong advocate for black maternal and infant health.

She has led workforce development initiatives in lactation education and serves as co-chair of the Rhode Island Strategic Breastfeeding Plan and member of the Rhode Island Maternal Mental Health Task Force.

Advanced statewide policy and systems change, centered on equity, dignity, and community voice.

Letitia's work is deeply personal and generational.

She supported her first birth at 13 and later served as a dual for that mother and her daughter.

Reflecting the enduring legacy of black birth workers, grounded in her Christian faith.

She is devoted wife and mother of six, balancing family life with service, advocacy, and community healing.

Beyond her professional work, she hosts an annual giving tree in Newport's North End and has served multiple roles at Cross Point Church for 23 years, including community liaison and board member, and credits her accomplishments to her faith, family, and unwavering commitment to compassion and justice.

And this next one, Angela Lima.

Yep.

Angela was a former member of the Newport City Council, my predecessor, and is the second woman of color and the first queer woman from the LGBTQ plus community.

Council Lima has served on the council for the last six years and championed initiatives focused on environmental justice related to reducing carbon footprint, gas emissions, and implementing electric and solar initiatives.

Counselor Lima has also reallocated resources in the millions to focus on stormwater runoff in neighborhoods and surrounded businesses.

Focusing on urban development and zoning practices, Councilor Lima was the first in the state and the second in New England to bring zoning practices.

I'm sorry, equitable developed zoning into practice.

Council Lima also championed a two-tiered tax system, saving homeowners thousands of dollars.

Councilor Lima was also responsible for installing Rhode Island's first pride crosswalk.

Consul Lima is the Council of Liaison to five city commissions.

Wasn't he park, tree and open space, energy, environment commission, military affairs, U.S.

Navy, and Newport Chamber of Commerce Commission.

Counselor Lima is a member of the Naval War College Foundation, Leadership Rhode Island alumni and the women's funding network.

Since 2021, she has become she has women from across the state as a facilitator for the Women's Policy Institute leadership training with the Women's Fund of Rhode Island.

Miss Lima trains women to learn more about policy and advocacy at the statehouse level in her capacity as chief of government relations.

Miss Lima has been able to help with aid with pass and policy, budgetary needs related to voter access with the Let Rhode Island Vote Act, reproductive health care initiative such as Equit Equality for Abortion Coverage Act, Workplace Pregnancy Protection, Paid Family Leave, and the Fair Pay Act.

Miss Lima also implemented and coordinated the last gubernatorial public debate and has been asked for multiple events as public speaker.

Miss Lima has received awards such as the Leading Women of Distinction Award from the City of Providence and Girl Scouts of Southern New England, the Change Agent of the Year Award from Rhode Island Black Businesses Association and received citation from the Governor's Office for her advocacy work.

Counselor Lima lives in Newport, Rhode Island, is a mother of 24-year-old Ezra, who graduated Magna Cumble with a bachelor's economics from Howard University.

Ezra currently works for Oracle in Santa Monica, California.

These are some accomplished folks.

The next one, Miss Barbara Jenkins, would you please stand.

Miss Barbara Jenkins is a true pillar of the Newport community, born and raised in Newport.

She has dedicated more than 20 years to creating spaces rooted in love, unity, and celebration through her stewardship of the Pyramid Club, also known in our community as the Masons.

Ms.

Jenkins ensured there were ways, always a place where people could come together, feel welcomed, and build lasting memories.

Her commitment to community service has been reflected in her ongoing support of families through holiday assistance, back to school backpack drives, and community dinners that brought neighbors together around the table.

The Pyramid Club became more than a venue.

It was a gathering place for life's most meaningful moments, hosting birthdays, weddings, baby showers, countless celebrations that strengthen community bonds.

Beyond her community leadership, Miss Jenkins is a devoted grandmother of four and a proud great-grandmother of two.

Her legacy lives on only through her, not only through her family, but through the many lives that she has touched by opening her doors, her heart, and her unwavering dedication to the people of Newport.

Miss Barbara Jenkins' impact is lasting, and her contributions continue to be felt across generations.

Thank you, Miss Fargo.

All right.

Next, Miss Sierra Jones.

Founder of Luminary Luxurious Luminaries and Pour Your Heart Out Candlemaking Experience.

A Newport-based brand rooted in storytelling, craftsmanship, and community, born and raised on Equignate Island.

She built her business from the ground up, is a black woman entrepreneur, one of the first on Thame Street, the first.

One of the first.

One of the first.

First is in there.

Redivine invisibility and representation in Newport's creative economy.

Her work is inspired by Newport's coastal beauty and layered history, and through guidance from Reverend Riley of Mount Zion, AME Church.

She connects Martin Candlemakon to Newport's Black Cultural Legacy.

Sierra's work has been featured in Newport's Newport Neighbors Magazine, the Boston Globe, and Rhode Island Monthly.

She is the recipient of Newport Life Magazine's best of Newport County Awards for best new business and women-owned business and the great the Greater Newport Chamber of Commerce's Excellence in Business, Emerging Leader Award.

Through her work, she continues to honor history, build community, and expand space for black creativity and leadership.

All right.

Next, um, we have Mr.

Marlon de Cruz.

Marlin DeCruz is a transformative youth leader, musician, and mentor whose work bridges artistry, leadership, empowerment.

Born and raised in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

Marlon has dedicated his life to uplifting young people and strengthening communities across the state.

Since 2018, he has served the Newport community through his leadership at the Boys and Girls Club, where he currently holds the role of director of teens and music.

In Marlon's role, he has created the conditions for countless young people to transform themselves, direct their lives with intention, make healthy life choices, and use music as a powerful vehicle for expression, healing, and self-empowerment.

Beyond music, he has led and supported a wide workforce, he has led and supported a wide workforce.

Sorry.

Anyway, an enrichment initiative, introduced new programs and opportunity that have expanded access and impact for youth throughout his tenure.

Marlin is a graduate of the University of Rhode Island, where he studied accounting and demonstrated a strong commitment to leadership and service.

During his time at URI, he served as president and held many, held multiple leadership positions, helping to guide and empower his peers.

Following graduation, Marlin began his professional career at Price Waterhouse Cooper's, one of the world's world's big four accounting firms, where he developed a strong foundation in discipline, professionalism, and strategic thinking, and now brings his work.

Now brings into his work in youth development and leadership.

He currently serves as the mentor for East Bay Met School student leadership group, whose mission is to elevate student voice, empower students as authentic leaders, and uphold values of anti-bias and anti-racism.

Through his guidance, students develop the confidence, skills to lead with integrity, purpose, and courage.

He leads programs at Rogers High School and has become widely recognized as a steady and inspiring mentor who supports young people in their growth, both creatively and personally.

Marlin is also a professional musician and producer, known as Marlin on the Keys, a pianist since the age of eight.

He's developed love for music growing up in Cape Verdean household and grew his skills at the Boys and Girls Club.

Across every space he inhabits, Marlon is a work rooted in belief that music can unlock potential, build community, and help young people step fully into their power.

Okay.

Next is Cheryl Robinson.

Oh, that's not Cheryl.

So Cheryl is actually right.

Cheryl's actually traveling.

So Hakeem Cogan is going to accept for Cheryl as he has collaborated with Cheryl on multiple initiatives and continues to support her in her role.

So this is not Cheryl Robinson.

But I think most of you know Cheryl Robinson from Turnaround Ministries.

She graduated from North Carolina State University with a bachelor's of science degree in electrical engineering and was employed at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center for 37 years.

Over the years, she has been involved in several community service endeavors for the last 24 years through the NAACP Turnaround Ministries and Community Baptist Church.

She has coordinated the distribution of school supplies to children in need throughout Newport and Middletown, and for approximately 16 years, she worked weekly in the five-star super kitchen, which helps to provide meals to some of our most vulnerable in our community.

Ms.

Robinson has also been involved with purchasing Christmas gifts for families, be it through the NUWC, TAM, CBC, or the Rotary.

And for five years, she has served as the Youth Council Advisor for Newport County branch of the NAACP.

Ms.

Robinson is a member of Community Baptist Church, where she serves as a minister.

Outreach ministry coordinator and assistant treasurer, Ms.

Robinson is also a member of the Rotary Cup.

She's been married for 39 years to Angela Robinson and has a bonus daughter, Keon, and a son, Troy.

Six grandchildren as well as six great grandchildren.

She loves serving God and his people and feels that two things best describe how she feels about community service.

The Rotary's theme of service above self and the song If I can help somebody.

Yeah.

All right.

Miss Barbara Winters.

Miss Barbara Winters has dedicated her life to supporting vulnerable members of the Newport community.

Born in Brooklyn, New York, she moved to Newport in 1972 as a Vista volunteer, quickly becoming involved in grassroots efforts to assist those in need.

A wife and mother, Barbara has balanced family life with decades of service, demonstrating unwavering commitment to her neighbors.

As co-founder alongside Mr.

Jimmy Winters of the Newport Housing Hotline, Barbara has helped thousands of families face an eviction, homelessness, utility shutoffs, and other housing crises.

Her work is guided by a deep deep respect for human dignity, treating every person who seeks help as not as a client but as a neighbor.

She has tirelessly coordinated resources from donated furniture to low cost heat and fuel, all on a modest budget.

Miss Barbara earned her nursing degree for the community college of Rhode Island and has advocated for tenants' rights on the Board of Tenant Affairs.

She also served eight years on the Newport School Committee, contributing to initiatives such as Thomson Middle School Bond.

Her lifelong dedication has earned her numerous accolades, including the Newport Daily News 2014 Community Service Award and the Unsung Heroes Award from the Providence Chapter of Chums in October 2024.

Colleagues describe her as kind, selfless, resourceful, unwavering in her commitment to help others.

A philosophy, she simply summarizes by saying, Today you can have everything and tomorrow it can be gone.

That's why you help people.

Someday you may need it.

Next, we have Officer Mary Scott.

Officer Mary Scott's service to the city of Newport spans more than three decades and reflects a deep, unwavering commitment to community.

Officer Mary began her career with the City of Newport November 13, 1990, serving in municipal court for 16 years.

In 2007, she answered a new call to serve by joining the Newport Police Department.

She entered the police academy on March 19, 2007 and graduated on June 29, 2007, beginning a distinguished career in law enforcement.

On January 11, 2017, Officer Scott joined the community police unit, where she continues to build strong relationships throughout the city.

Over the course of her career, she has earned 30 letters of job well done, 10 letters of commendation, the chief's award, and was named Employee of the Year 2023.

In recognition of her service and impact, she was honored with an NAACP award on November 5th, 2025.

Officer Scott serves as the department's healthy agent liaison and works closely with Salve Regina University.

She's the DARE instructor, leads alcohol enforcement efforts and partners with local bars to ensure compliance with the law.

She is also an expert in fake ID detection.

So y'all be careful.

In training.

She is known for her generosity, always ready to lend a hand, including using her remarks, sewing skills to prepare uniforms and patches, flags, and hash marks.

You must be saving them some money.

I thought so.

Okay, Miss Fern Lima.

Miss Fern Lima is a lifelong Newport, Rhode Island resident, daughter of Lyle and Hannah Matthews, whose father worked at Quanzett for the U.S.

Navy and at Christie's and served as president of the NAACP at age 25 and again later.

Miss Fern graduated from Rogers High School and the Plus School of Business Business in Providence in community process and married John N.

Lima, junior in 1964, and is the mother of Renee, grandmother of Brittany and Jaden, and great grandmother of Jermaine and Phoenix Fern.

A lifetime member of the Community Baptist Church, she has served on the she has served on the Usher and Trustee Boards and continues to work with the Moore Hammonds Scholarship and Feed the Hungry programs.

Ms.

Fern completed 36 years completed 36 years of U.S.

government service, beginning as a computer operator in early card systems and becoming an instructor for Martin Personal Computer Systems, working in computer security, serving 10 years as an equal employment officer and consultant at the Naval Hospital.

And later as a security specialist at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center and in Washington, DC, overseeing foreign national access and earning numerous awards.

After retirement, she worked with Turnaround Ministry, supporting formerly incarcerated individuals and their families, mentored incarcerated women, and later worked five years at McLaughlin Research Enterprises in Middletown.

A lifelong civil rights advocate, active since childhood, she has served the NAACP as president for two years, vice president for four years, and treasurer for many years, and currently is a lifetime member, chaired with the chaired the committee with authored Newport's that authored Newport's affirmative action program and now serves as the city's affirmative action commissioner.

Okay, Miss Veronica, my cousin Bronny.

Veronico.

Huh?

Because like Colandro.

Which one you want me to use?

Borgette, okay.

See, I was gonna say Calandra too.

Miss Veronica Borgett has worked for over 30 years within our human services industry, changing lives and assisting many people in many ways.

She started in her teenage years at multiple agencies in Newport County, has always advocated with in the educational field, has advocated for our formerly incarcerated youth and behavioral health for children and adolescents, sitting on multiple committees, and is now the assistant director of Lucy's Hearth.

All right.

So we do have halfway through.

So next one is Miss Miss Pauline.

All right.

So we do have one um final honor.

Um, and this is a a big honor for me to be able to assist in presenting this young lady with this award.

Um I will read her bio, but like, I mean, I could have written anyone could have written pages about Miss Pauline Um Moye Perkins.

Miss Pauline um my God, she's so cute.

I think I can't even so adorable.

So I'm gonna read in your bio, and then our mayor, uh, Mr.

Charles Holder will take over.

Don't read the bio.

Well, this probably isn't the whole thing.

Tired?

Okay.

All right.

She doesn't want me to read the whole thing, but it's really hard.

Um, I believe, and in given plot in flowers while people can still smell them.

And not hide in your light under a bushel.

Um so I'll try to do it quickly.

Is that okay?

All right, thank you.

Don't want to do anything she wouldn't want me to do.

I'd now be in trouble.

Miss Pauline Moyer Perkins is a dedicated community leader, human services professional, and lifelong advocate for social justice, empowerment, and anti-poverty initiatives with a career spanning over five decades.

Ms.

Perkins, Mrs.

Perkins has devoted herself to improving the lives of low-income families, seniors, and diverse intergenerational populations in Newport, Rhode Island.

Since 1969, she has served, she had served in New Visions for Newport County since 1969, and later the Newport Housing Authority, where she still is, in leadership roles that include director of community organizations, social services, and director of residential social services.

In these positions, Ms.

Pauline has administered and supervised social service programs, coordinated community outreach, supported low-income residents in access and resources enforced resident empowerment through education, training, and advocacy.

Ms.

Pauline's work has included direct service such as rental and medical assistance, counseling for seniors, and legal referrals, as well as preparing state reports and collaborating with the city, state, and federal offices.

Ms.

Pauline holds a bachelor's of science in human services from New Hampshire College, School of Human Services, and a family development credential from Salve Regina University, in addition to extensive training in areas including welfare reform, housing law, elder care, and poverty issues.

She also serves as a trustee and vice chair at Community Baptist Church, participates in its choir and volunteers at Newport Hospital, and also works at the Five Star Super Kitchen.

A devoted wife, mother, and grandmother, great grandmother, Miss Perkins.

Enjoys hosting family gatherings, gardening, cooking, writing poetry, and mentoring children and seniors.

So first off, Miss Pauline, don't think it was a notice that you sat in the back and slow walked your way up here so you can get a longer applause.

So smart move.

As gratitude for all the work you've done for not just the African American community in Newport, but for the community as a whole in many, many decades, and we hope for many, many more.

I want to give you the key to the city of Newport.

All my doings that I do, I give it to God.

And they gave him a key to the city of Newport.

I thought, well.

Now we have a kid.

He comes from Chicago.

I got my key in Newport.

Thank you very much.

Yes.

Mr.

Jesse is smiling down.

I just want to thank everyone for showing up.

Um it has been an honor and a privilege to have the support of my fellow counselors to be able to do this and to have the support of Mayor Holer Holder with getting the key to the city for Miss Pauline, a woman where I don't feel like there are enough words to talk about what she means to me, what she means to Newport, and what she means to all of you.

Um sitting here.

She is truly a giant, and we stand on her shoulders.

Um and I just want to say thank you all very much for coming out.

And uh being here for all these beautiful, amazing people.

And we're celebrating Black History Month.

Um, and we call it that so people understand the contributions of people forced into the margins, but I do want to tell you that this is your history too, and these people here work just as hard for you as they do for me.

So thank you very much for coming.

Thank you, Chair.

Oh, myself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Of course I got a phone call.

My son by having time.

They don't care where you're no no, he didn't.

All right.

Uh Council Carlin.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Councilor Pinnock.

How beautiful.

Thank you so very much.

Very, very briefly.

Uh in the nineteen seventies, eighties and nineties.

My father worked closely with former school committee member and community servant uh Ms.

Winters, Mrs.

Winters, and also with Ms.

Pauline.

Congratulations, of course, to everybody who received an honor tonight, but in particular, I remember how fond my father was of both of you.

And to my former colleague, my friend, and one who has guided me on many issues.

Uh to Angela Lima.

Uh I'm so proud of you for what you've done.

Not just for the community, but at the State House.

Congratulations.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Good.

All right.

Under the public hearing.

Okay, next we're going to go into a um open a public hearing for the zoning ordinance amendments.

Do I have a second to second?

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

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

First we have a recommendation from the planning board and uh parking changes, chapter 17.04 entitled General Provisions First Reading, and Chapter 17.104 entitled Parking and Loading First Reading.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and second.

Any discussion on uh the general provisions under the parking changes.

It's a public hearing.

So we need to hear from the is there anyone here from the public that would like to uh make any comments.

May we please have comments or discussion by the council.

Uh we good with that.

In my opinion, it's a public hearing you should have the public hearing first, and then the council discusses it.

Sounds good.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Solicitor, if I might, is it not appropriate at least to before receiving public comment, introduce and discuss the matter before us?

You if you would like you can if you need clarification from the staff, the zoning offices here, myself, if you want the staff to give a overview of it or to answer any questions that the council might have, but at some point my advice is to if the council before the council starts into a discussion relative to a vote they're going to take on first reading that they have the public hearing for us.

Allow members of the public to address the council.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Solicitor.

And I would certainly hope that my council colleagues are as well.

But perhaps the public is not.

So I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that uh at least we have an explanation before we accept public comment as to what we are doing.

That is to say what we are voting on, Mr.

Chairman.

Um who's we have uh Mr.

Manager, do you want to take this?

Do we or do we have to do that?

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair.

I'll invite uh our zoning officer, Mr.

Nick Armor up.

Uh he can briefly summarize the recommendation that was made from the planning board and also go through the uh ordinance changes for parking uh definitions and special use permit proposals Good evening, council.

Uh so first on your docket is uh A is recommendation from the planning board.

That is just a recommendation that was passed on from their hearing that they had, whether this was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

In summary, they found it was consistent with the comprehensive plan.

That's in essence what A is on here.

Um so I will take in more detail uh B, which is regarding parking changes.

Um we were asked to present some options for the council.

One of the things that we looked at was uh how to reduce zoning variants is essentially the going to the um the zoning board.

In particular, uh we have modified the general provisions or proposed to modify the general provisions section in order to um clarify a section that right now in the code, if you are changing the use of a property, there is uh the term we use is a parking credit presented to that property owner who is changing the the use that would essentially give them uh a credit of whatever the parking was required for the current use, and they have to make up the difference in parking to have the new use.

The proposal that we have, which is on page four of the general provisions section says that this will not apply to guest house conversions.

Essentially, that guest houses that uh new guest houses will have to provide all of the parking on the property regardless of what the prior use was in whatever parking credit may have been associated with that property.

So that's the basic of that piece.

Uh secondarily, this is a little bit of a nuance that may be better to deal with more in detail later.

Um but right now in the the zoning uh the zoning districts that require a special use permit for a guest house, there is a requirement to have an on-site manager while also requiring an on-site manager parking space in addition to the parking space required for their dwelling unit.

We've actually found that this kind of double requires a parking space, so we're trying to clarify that if there is a zone that requires a special use permit for a guest house, will not double require a parking space.

There will be a space required for the dwelling for the manager, and if that space is provided on the property, they do not need to provide another parking space for the manager parking space.

Uh so that is the parking change uh in summary.

Um do you have any questions on that before I move on to the definitional change?

I mean you might want to under the definition address that last um sentence of the definition proposed definition, which also deals with parking.

Sure.

Um so we we added the change to parking um in two sections.

One was the general provisions, which I've already gone over.

And then also in the definitions chapter, the last sentence we've added in is that all on-site parking requirements for the guest house use must be provided on the property regardless of previous uses.

It's essentially just clarifying it in two places that all of the parking must be provided for the guest house.

The other changes we made in the guest house definition is that we added in a clarity, which is that a manager on the property that's required to reside on the property must do so within a long-term residential dwelling unit.

In practice, this is how it's been done, but we wanted to clarify it in the code that if a manager is required to live on-site, they have to be within a long-term residential unit.

So they can't be a short-term tenant or a kind of 30-day tenant of a property.

It needs to be a long-term tenant for the span of that short-term rental for the year.

The other clarity or other added uh piece here is that we have found a couple instances where people have converted ground level commercial space to either a guest house use or the on-site manager dwelling use for the guest house that's occurring in other units within that building.

We have added in that no guest house unit or manager dwelling unit shall be created through the conversion of an existing ground floor commercial space.

This is to maintain our commercial corridor.

We often see this on spring or themes where people are considering eliminating a retail or food establishment unit in order to create a guest house unit within that space.

And our proposal is to not uh allow that anymore.

Uh so that's the definitional changes.

Uh lastly, uh item D is about special use permits.

So right now, the limited business zone requires a special use permit for a guest house use.

In the waterfront business and general business, it's an allowed by right use.

Our proposal is for both of those districts, the WB and GB zones, to require a special use permit, essentially adding them on to the limited business type of guest house use.

That does have the implication of requiring an on-site manager to live on that property in a long-term residential unit.

And similarly, as we've changed in the definition, they will be required to have all of the on-site parking on the property.

Because this is being added in the definitions section, uh, it is considered to be a an expressly conditioned type of use in our code, which they would not be able to uh request a parking variance from.

We see I would say two to three parking variants requests for guest house conversions at every zoning meeting these days.

Uh the proposal here, adding it to the definition would not allow that.

It would no longer be considered a dimensional variance that you could request relief from.

You have to provide all of the parking on the property, or you cannot have the guest house use at that property.

So that's the summary of the changes we have proposed.

Any questions for Rector?

Council Cromlin.

Sorry about that.

Not used to these microphones, I guess.

Beautiful.

Beautiful facility, but different microphones.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Armor, thank you.

I sponsored the original resolution in this council.

That is to say, the council that was elected in November 24 and took office on December 1, 2024.

There were prior similar resolutions, proposals put before the council.

But the one that is before us this evening was essentially sponsored by me, definitely sponsored by me, uh, but essentially similar to those proposals sponsored in the past.

So the reason that I asked the chairman, and I thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for an explanation by Mr.

Armor or whoever, Mr.

Armor in this case, did a great job.

It's because while I and my colleagues, as I said earlier, are intimately familiar with the details of the proposal.

I would venture, I would wager to say most of the public is not.

Your explanation was a good one.

I yield the floor.

Do any of do any of these proposed changes impact an existing owner operator of a short-term rental?

No.

All of the existing ones would uh would be grandfathered in for lack of a better term.

Uh if you have an existing license or have been approved, uh you can maintain the use as you have had it for a year, 10 years, however long you've had it.

This is only for new guest house uses or changes to existing properties that have guest house uses.

So if there's, let's say a property that only has three bedrooms for guest house use, and then they're now proposing to increase that to five, they would have to abide by the current the proposed changes here.

But if there are no changes to a property, it would be maintained as long as that property owner maintains their their yearly license.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the council?

Can I go ahead and go ahead, council?

What constitutes a guest house?

Sure.

So in our code in the definitions section, we have four different uses that are all classified under the umbrella of guest facility.

This includes transient guest facilities, which we commonly think of as hotels and bed and breakfasts, uh historic guest houses, which is kind of a historic bed and breakfast, vacation guest facilities, which are 10 unit or more buildings that all have individual uh rental units, short-term rental units.

And lastly, and the most common is a guest house, which is typically seen in a single family unit.

It might be a condo that's in a multifamily property or a single family house that's in a general business zone, that the whole house or unit is converted to short-term renting.

Um it's in the code allowed to have up to five bedrooms on a single property uh within a single building.

Uh that is the limit.

The transient guest and vacation guest facilities have different limits to them.

Um but we're really focused today on the guest house uh uses here.

Um I did want to clarify one other change we did propose.

I'm sorry I missed this, is in the general business and waterfront business, um making vacation guest facilities a requirement to get a special use permit to do that, as well as uh in the general business, we've proposed to add historic guest houses, so a historic inn uh for some reason in our code was not allowed in the general business but was in the waterfront business.

But one of the requirements of a historic guest house is it must be in the historic district and within a nationally registered historic building.

No properties in the waterfront business meet that because no properties in the waterfront business are in the local historic district, but there are many properties in the general business that would meet that qualification and could potentially benefit under a special use permit requirement.

But guest houses is the primary changes here of the of the definitions and requirements.

Thank you.

Council Segwick.

Um Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Um this um uh change came up, it was sort of advertised as um a way of banning short-term rentals in the general and limited business zones.

So how is what we're doing here any different from the original intent?

So if we were to ban them, we would actually be removing them from the permitted uses either by right or through a special use permit category.

We did not propose to do that.

We proposed to move them into a slightly harder category, which is a special use permit category.

There are specific requirements in the code for each type of special use permit, and this would have to abide by that.

It would have to go in front of the zoning board to get the special use permit.

Um and as long as they have the parking on the property, they most likely would meet the standards necessary to open a or continue a guest house.

Um but we did not propose an outright ban, which would have been prohibiting them from all of the different districts.

But essentially what we're doing is making it extremely difficult for someone to be able to use a property as a guest house or a short-term rental.

True.

If they if that property does not have uh the space for all of the parking, then it would be hard to do so.

Typically is their parking for these properties that you know going forward.

So and is the reason for doing this to try to put more um year-round residents in those to be create to create more year-round umits.

Uh you know, what what is the reason for doing this?

And um uh I I the thing that concerns me is if we make this so difficult that we're not going to um be we're gonna make these hurdles so difficult that and then we're gonna be pushing uh residential units into these business zones that those business zones in the residential zones are really not compatible.

And so look at the problems we have, for instance, with certain streets like Dixon Street or or um even like the FastNet.

Um there, you know, people complain about the noise.

So it's like, are they compatible and are we actually aiming for um affordable housing by doing this?

I I don't know if that I don't see any evidence of that.

So I'm just those are my concerns about this.

Um I can't do Mr.

Chairman.

Just the point of order, please.

Uh appreciate that, Vice Chair Segley.

When you asked Mr.

Amor, what is the purpose for doing this?

Mr.

Rahmer was not the sponsor of the resolution.

I was along with uh three others who supported it.

I I don't think it's appropriate for Mr.

Armor to answer uh your first question, which is what is the purpose for doing this?

Mr.

Amor can certainly uh answer any questions as it relates to uh the underlying effects of the proposal.

But the question of what is the purpose for this resolution is not appropriate for Mr.

Armor.

It is appropriate for me.

Secondly, Mr.

Chairman, if I might.

With great respect to Mr.

Amor, uh the best expert, in my opinion here is Mr.

Bean, with regard to the overall question and frankly any matter legally that relates to zoning planning, historic district, or just about anything else that the city uh is is dealing with.

Uh so I would respectfully ask my colleagues and the public for that matter, uh not necessarily here tonight, but certainly from my colleagues here tonight.

If you have any legal questions, any questions about what we can or can't do, uh address them please to our city solicitor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Anyone can speak up as far as I'm concerned.

So uh just just to before Nick I'll let you go.

The resolution asks the administration to look into quote unquote banning short-term rentals, not allowing any new short-term rentals in the commission zone.

So as our zoning officer, I think you know, I think you're more than qualified to answer any questions that any council member might have.

If you're not, then we can turn it to Solicitor BN or whoever you think might be more appropriate.

But uh if you can go ahead and answer that, thank you.

Well, I I can speak to the question about the compatibility in these districts.

Um the general business, waterfront business, and limited business zones all allow single family and two family uses.

Some allow multifamily uses through the right uh legal process.

Um almost all short-term rentals that we see, guest houses are conversions from longer-term residential units to short-term residential units.

So, in a in a sense, by restricting in some ways or making it harder to obtain that, it does maintain the existing housing stock that we have.

We don't see a lot of people that are developing a brand new property as strictly a guest house use.

They're almost all conversions of an existing unit out.

So the city councils in the past have clearly made uh through the uses allowed in these districts, the compatibility argument has already been made because they all allow residential uses and commercial uses amongst themselves, even sometimes on a singular property.

Um so this uh you know that I would say in that sense, we're not um we're just maintaining the existing housing stock.

Yeah.

I guess the theory though, when we first started discussing this, was that somehow this was going to create uh affordable housing for people in these in these residents uh residents, these areas.

And I uh I I'm not sure that that's true considering our housing market right now.

Um uh as I said, I I do worry about the compatibility because we have trouble with res in residential areas that are considered residential near general business with noise, and and so it would just exacerbate that, I think.

So um I I'm I'm just throwing out my thoughts on this.

Um other people can think something else.

That's fine.

I'm just needed to let that be known.

Uh any other comments?

So I'd like to turn open it up to the public.

So anyone from the public would like to come up and make a comment.

Um to state your name and address, please.

Good evening.

Uh I've appeared before you before.

My name is uh Mitchell Edwards.

I am an attorney for the Rhode Island Short-Term Rental Association and also the Newport Property Rights Association.

And first, let me say on a side note, I'm really glad you moved the meeting uh to today as opposed to when it was previously scheduled, because I got to see that wonderful award ceremony.

And so I'm grateful, I guess, for all the snow that I got to see that.

Excuse me.

Turning though to the to the topic at hand, I'm here really to share with you the opinion of the in the interests of the short-term rental community.

And I guess there's two issues I want to focus on.

I know I have limited time.

I understand not on those that already exist, and I appreciate that question and the answer.

I'll get to that in a second.

But on new new short-term rentals.

The whole idea behind the short-term rentals is you might have three, four, or five bedrooms because families are trying to come in for an alternative to the hotel concept where you might have one room with you know kids, and instead you'd like to have multiple guest rooms, et cetera.

That would mean you'd need two, three, four parking spaces for those kind of guests.

And that is untenable given the type of properties we're talking about, the type of space that's provided for in these short-term rentals.

And so that's how it becomes a constructive ban because it really in words on the page, it doesn't look like it, but in reality, at least from the interest that I represent, that's practically what they're dealing with.

And you you don't have to take my word for it, you're probably here from some others.

So on the parking issue, it really presents some really practical problems to ultimately be able to get the special use permit that you heard about.

Again, understanding that we're talking about new potential short-term rentals.

But there's there are there's value to short-term rentals.

There's economic value to them in terms of what they provide to municipalities and the state around the state, both for tourism purposes, economic purposes.

The traveler who wants to have a short-term rental, if it's unavailable here, means it's very likely they're not coming to Newport.

It means it's very likely they're going to go somewhere else.

You're in a competition to have people come to your city.

I think it's a wonderful city.

I don't live here, but I do think it's a wonderful city, and we candidly saw that just a few minutes ago.

So the second issue I want to raise is the on-site manager issue.

Because again, that creates all sorts of um economic problems, practical problems.

Sometimes you'll have someone who lives in Newport, who has a short-term rental, doesn't necessarily live on the property but lives close by, they can handle the emergencies.

There's no reason to have therefore an on someone they have to hire on site.

And sometimes you'll have someone who candidly lives outside of Newport.

I know that issue has come up many times before this body.

And they either have someone nearby who can deal with it.

But to have the requirement that they be on site creates logistical problems, financial problems, things they they might not therefore be able to have.

There's alternatives.

I guess my point is there's all practical alternatives that might be able to meet the need that I think I understand you're trying to get at, which is there might be some crisis or urgent issue that comes up, and my God, no one's on the property.

Well, there's other ways to skin that cat candidly than requiring a major economic hurdle.

Um, with my time I know being limited, I would ask that you really reconsider those two issues.

Um it it places huge hurdles.

And I guess the final thing I would say, the 10 seconds to go to Sai's question, excuse me.

You would create I think decompression among the community if you actually put in the ordinance that which you heard tonight, which is it's prospective.

I understand what the law is, but I'm just telling you, if you put in the ordinance, this does not apply to those who currently meet the short-term rental, have short-term rentals, are all up to date in their obligations.

Prospective, it it if they transfer or sell the property, it's grandfathered, it would it would be able to be transferred and sold, so they didn't have to go through this process.

Things we heard, I think at the last meeting in that some of which you heard today.

So I would also ask, again, if you're going to go forward in some form with this, you add that to the ordinance because it would give great comfort to your constituents and those who own property uh in Newport.

So thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Sure.

Didn't the uh legislature just approve uh additional fees for whole uh whole um uh house rentals short-term rentals?

I am embarrassed to say I don't know the answer to that.

Okay.

And I I don't want to misspeak.

Because we we could be hurting ourselves by not receiving some of that income.

Certainly, if if your premise is correct, and I have no reason to believe it's not, then yes, with without a doubt.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Crollen.

Uh first, thank you, Councillor Segley, for raising that point.

Uh the legislature in the 2024 uh 25 session uh did indeed effective July 1st, 2026, enact legislation which would institute taxes both to the benefit of municipalities and in the long run uh to the state for certain entities, not the least of which uh are hotels and those classified as such.

So to answer your question, uh I know a little bit about a little bit, uh just enough to be dangerous.

Uh but the answer is yes.

No, the answer is not yes.

Yes, it is.

Sounds like the answer is not yes the way my colleague described it.

The answer is yes to 90 percent of the way my colleague described it.

Uh all that being said, you're an excellent advocate uh for your clients, and I appreciate you being here.

And excellent advocates often uh in courtrooms and other places will focus the attention on the argument that the excellent advocate on behalf of their client wants uh the members of the judiciary uh members of the judiciary, or uh in other instances, members of the legislative body to pay attention to.

All that said, uh I would like to have Mr.

Bean, our uh city solicitor through you, Mr.

Chairman, answer a question as it uh relates to what was brought up by the excellent advocate.

Uh Spean, can you can you tell us with respect to I want to put this in a in a good way?

Uh Spian, does the State of Rhode Island effectively give as it is in current law, effectively give municipalities the authority to do what the City of Newport has proposed to the council this evening.

It's a legislative act which is allowed under the zoning enabling act.

And based on that, even though there's arguments of constructive, it's a constructive ban or instead of an outright ban, um, yes, the I believe the council can enact these ordinances.

Now, in terms of a policy decision on it, that's a different story.

But yes, we have other provisions in our zoning code, such as a home occupation, which is allowed in all of our districts, including the commercial districts.

So there is avenues for the renting of rooms in a much limited basis, but there are avenues for that.

So we have not, even if we did a complete uh prohibition, where instead of doing all of this, we just said the use is unallowed in those districts, the waterfront business commission district and also the uh general business, we would still have that provision for the home occupation where there could be the renting of at least two rooms.

Um just leave it on keep it on the voice carries, we can hear you.

Yeah, we'll we'll take them one at a time since I know there's gonna be some in-depth conversation on each each one.

So we're on the parking changes right now.

Is there anyone else that would like to I I just want to say thank you.

Thank you so much, appreciate it.

Uh anyone else from the public.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Pinnock.

Uh as the solicitor mentioned, uh there are certain rights which are guaranteed not only by state law, but further by the U.S.

Constitution or the U.S.

Federal laws and perhaps the Constitution, as I understand from prior explanations from uh Solicitor Ban and others.

This has been something that I and my colleagues have been working on uh for two and a half plus years.

But as it relates to what I just said, uh Mr.

Bian, I understand that a property once given either special use permits, variances or any of the like continues from owner to future owner, so long as there are not significant changes in said property variances and rights which were granted.

However, as it relates to what the counselor and we have been discussing, those rights are non existent for parking privileges, if I am correct.

Parking privileges, which we are dealing with now, as the chairman just clarified or just confirmed, are the exclusive right of the municipality.

Am I right, Mr.

Bean?

No.

I mean, if so if you had a guess house use now existing in the waterfront business or the general business zone, and they had uh it's legally existing and they had no parking, then the fact that they had no parking, they would be allowed to continue with that you know, the as an element of their use.

So the no the parking, whatever they have existing right now is grandfathered in.

Now, I would say uh um there was a request that uh which I think is an easy easy fix, that um at second reading.

Well, depending on what the council does tonight on a second reading, could we uh insert some language uh amending providing another section that says that um existing uses are in effect grandfathered in, yes, we could do that.

We could do that.

Uh that language is not uh issue to include in in it, and if that helps some of the people out there with existing uses, then uh I think that's that's fine to do.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Bean.

Two things as a follow-up, Mr.

Chairman.

First of all, uh I don't think this council is under any obligation uh to clarify uh something like you just mentioned.

If there is a problem with what is if it is passed on first reading this evening, and those who have a differing opinion don't like what the council passed and want, as you suggested, language guaranteeing certain things, uh well, uh perhaps they can take us to court, or perhaps they can politically fight us going forward.

And I don't want to say fight us, but you know what I mean.

Uh second, uh what we realize thanks to your explanation and thanks to what's been discussed, is that there are certain rights that existing properties and by way of properties, property owners have that can't be taken away with them, or can't be taken away from them.

Uh but I did not ask my question the correct way three or four minutes ago.

My question would better have been stated by asking you, notwithstanding the rights that exist regarding property and what variances, et cetera, have been granted to them, to the entities, to the owners, to the entities.

Generally speaking, with respect to requirements for parking, parking permits, guest passes, and any of the alike.

That is not a constitutional issue or a property rights issue.

That is an issue controlled by the individual municipality, correct?

Yes, you're talking about just general on-street parking that applies to um everyone.

Not just general on-street parking.

The issuance of guest passes, the issuance of any related matter regarding the privilege of parking in the city of Newport.

Am I to understand that it is a constitutional issue, or is it an issue that the city has virtually exclusive control over?

Well, yes.

Speaking in a general matter, that's not a zoning issue, that's a parking issue that's handled by our ordinances, and uh which include uh parking permits, parking so-called parking stickers, uh parking passes, guest passes, and all of that is totally outside of this.

Thank you, mr.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Bean.

So uh tell please help me understand and and my colleagues, all of whom are smarter than me.

Uh but help me understand, as the chairman said, we are separating these issues one by one as it relates to the proposed uh ordinance changes.

Help me understand why then uh would there be any argument, and you don't have to represent the the opposite side here, but on the one hand, we're dealing with an issue apparently protected by the Constitution, which is a property right, and on the other hand, an issue which apparently is the exclusive right of the municipality uh to define who gets the park where.

Tell me why the parking issue, which we're dealing with now, would even be a concern for us from a legal or constitutional perspective.

No, it's it's it's I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but certainly the provision of parking on site is of course something that zoning deals with has been dealing with since zoning came on the scene a century ago that the uh parking and it deals with on-site parking.

It deals with providing parking uh off of the street uh on the property itself.

So that's the parking we're talking about.

And just so we we divided this up into three areas more for the ease of of the council.

The parking basically can be summed up as now any future guest house conversions are going to have to have the required parking on site.

And then the second one's uh the ones dealing with the the definition uh one is the one dealing with the with the uh uh that you have to uh you can't convert a ground floor commercial space and that the the owner uh the own owner residence unit has to be uh a dwelling um unit.

And then the third one is whether we allow change to existing um use, guess house use in the waterfront business and in the uh general business whether we uh now make them a special use permit.

So the council at each stage you might decide to do something different on those.

So that's why instead of having them all lumped together, that's the only reason why we broke them out that way.

I completely appreciate the breaking out.

I uh I don't disagree with the breaking out of the issues.

I simply wanted a clarification from the chairman, and your clarification was great, uh, that we are indeed breaking out the individual issues.

Last two questions.

Uh Mr.

Bean, please.

Mr.

Chairman, okay?

Mr.

Bean, uh would you agree or disagree that uh in the last several years the zoning board of review in the city has allowed for short-term rentals which do not have the appropriate parking on site have been granted the authority by the zoning board to provide parking in areas sometimes much farther away from the site that the short-term rental is located?

You agree with that.

There have been there have been some cases where the zoning board probably heard evidence, so they the the use was allowed and the only thing they needed relief from was parking, and that property owner probably being wise, came before the board and said instead of saying I just can't uh provide it, they said I'm gonna provide it.

I have uh can park them a certain distance away.

Uh I've made accommodations this way for that type of park at this location, and the zoning board thought that was reasonable.

But you know, you have to realize that parking variances pursuant to established law they they are tough for the zoning board to deny.

And I know a lot of people have been upset by uh with these conversions, especially in some of the commercial zones with the variances that have been granted.

Um but still uh the zoning board, I think was doing its job um and I think you could support almost all of their decisions on that.

I promised I'd only have two more questions, but I didn't promise I wouldn't have a comment on the answer.

Second question, Mr.

Bean, uh in the last uh six years, have there been dozens of said approvals?

And you don't have to know the exact amount of approvals providing these variances, but have there been dozens of these approvals by the zoning board of review for uh short-term rental owners who apply for such relief?

Is the zoning officer here this evening?

Thank you, Mr.

Armor.

Mr.

Chairman, in the last six years, Mr.

Armour, how many of these requested variances to be specific?

How many short-term rental operators unable to provide parking at their facility have asked for relief to allow their clients to park elsewhere, sometimes long distances from the location of the sick of the short-term rental in the last six years?

I was not the zoning officer six years ago, so I cannot speak to that.

I know that how long have you been in the zoning officer?

Uh three years now.

How many of those variances have been requested in the last three years?

Probably between a dozen and twenty.

Um the idea of the off-site but off-street parking spaces as part of this.

So essentially finding a parking space off of the property, but within a reasonable area, there have probably again been about a dozen, maybe 20 of those.

Uh they have been very strict about how far away they can be.

Um it started with about a quarter mile, and it has capped off at one-half mile away from the property.

But as Mr.

Bean said, the variance standards that have to be applied are state standards, and oftentimes these property owners would meet those standards regardless if they had found a place to lease parking from.

The zoning board has felt more comfortable in approving them because it has reduced the associated impact to the neighborhood by not just saying, all right, you don't have to have any parking, but instead saying you must provide parking within a half mile, provide the city a lease of that parking every year upon your renewal of that short-term rental, and that in that sense, typically it's been one or two spaces on a given property that has been allowed again through the variance process, has been found to be acceptable from the variance standpoint that there's been a hardship on the property, um, and they've met the rest of the standards, and then on top of that, they've found a place to lease one space or a couple spaces depending on the property.

Who creates the hardship?

Did the city create the hardship, or is the hardship created because a owner for whatever reason, a conversion or an existence decides that the property will be a short-term rental, or will at least provide short-term rentals.

Is that a hardship that the city has created?

No, under under our understanding of state law, that's not a what's called a self-created hardship.

Um the dimensions of the property not being able to actually have the parking is the hardship of the property.

Typically it's because these properties are substandard in size, have no existing driveways uh to put parking, and they have existed oftentimes as a single family residence that has no parking, and they're just now converting to a guest house that would also have no parking, but maybe because of the bedroom count, need to add technically under the code an additional parking space.

But our advice from our solicitor has been that that is not considered a self-created hardship that we could deny a project on because they're changing the use from one allowable use to another allowable use in the code.

Under existing ordinances, correct?

Correct.

However, Mr.

Bean, should the ordinance proposal become effective by way of the council?

That will change, correct?

In term uh by way of adopting what's before the council.

Right.

If we are to adopt it this evening and on second reading, what the Mr.

Armor just described in his last statement will be rendered moot, correct?

It will be not totally moot because they cannot file for a dimensional variance.

This is only in the uh in commercial districts and relating to guest houses, they could still seek a use variance, which is extremely difficult to get.

They'd have to show that there's no reasonable other reasonable use of the property, which is obviously would not be the case.

It obviously would not.

Thank you for the answer.

But in addition to that, such requests for relief cannot be based on financial gain, correct, Mr.

Bean?

That's one of the uh standards of the uh dimensional variance.

Thank you.

Mr.

Armor and my colleagues and Mr.

Bean, thank you and to the public.

Thank you for indulging me in my many concerns.

Uh this is one of the most important matters for me as a counselor and as the council member from the third ward, because of such feedback from not just third ward residents uh but others.

So forgive me and thank you.

Uh forgive me for for the lent, Mr.

Armor, please.

Uh and and thank you for indulging me.

Question.

When a short-term rental operator, I'm pleased that the members of the audience think this is funny because I don't.

Uh when uh a short-term rental operator comes to the zoning board and asks for relief specifically for parking and provides parking or promises to provide parking for the short-term rental locations guest, guests.

And hypothetically says I have a private agreement as the operator of the short-term rental.

I have a private agreement with a parking lot owner with a property owner, whomever it might be, a quarter of a mile from the location of my short-term rental.

And that is where my customers, my guests, will park their car, each and every night, when they're out exploring our wonderful city, whatever it might be.

How does the city guarantee that that agreement is upheld?

That is to say, how do we make certain that that agreement is not violated and that that customer by no fault of herself himself doesn't simply say, you know, I know that the owner of the short-term rental is providing me parking a quarter of a mile away.

But we just got three feet of snow.

And I'm going to use another parking space, which is forty feet, forty yards from the short-term rental.

Who is guaranteeing that that variance approved by the zoning board is being enforced properly and that our residents.

If I'm wrong, uh tell me I'm out of order.

I will surely No, no, I'm I'm asking just uh so we can we can get to the point because what we're discussing right now is the the change for a new short-term rental parking requirements.

I I appreciate that.

I appreciate the question and the concern you have, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I don't apologize uh for what I'm asking.

Uh if I'm way out of bounds, if if I asked what the weather was going to be.

I think my questions speak for themselves.

But it is what you're asking is is about current parking situations, not what we're doing.

That's up to you to determine not to meet what this is.

I feel comfortable with the questions I'm asking.

Uh if you disagree, then uh overrule me.

But I I would like to know an answer to as it relates to the question that the council is dealing with, and specifically parking, I'd like uh uh an answer to my question.

In short, we do not have an enforcement team big enough to be able to monitor every single short-term rental every single night of the year.

Uh we do require them to provide us a lease that is a legal contract that they have signed between a separate property owner uh and the short-term rental operator.

I uh require that lease to be provided to me in advance so that I can maintain uh understand the location that they're proposing to potentially place these leased parking spaces to ensure that those locations have an excess number of spaces that they are not giving up required spaces for their own use without having enough parking on their property.

But we do not have the ability to go out and check every single guest house uh unit and guest that they are parking at those locations.

We rely on the on the guest house operators.

Thank you very much.

Uh last on this for now, two things.

Uh how many times have you or the city issued a violation uh to either the owner or the guest uh for not meeting set obligation?

And what penalties uh what teeth in the required well, in what the the zoning board has granted by way of a variance, what teeth does the city institute for violating that or doing what I described three minutes ago.

So I'm unaware of any citations we have issued related to not abiding by the parking lease requirement, but because they have been granted a variance, and this is a condition of approval of the variance.

If they do not abide by that and do not provide us with the yearly lease every year, they have violated their variance, and then their variance is null and void, and they are not allowed to continue that use.

So that is the teeth that we have.

And just to clarify, we have never uh enacted or enforced what you just described, correct?

We have not been made aware that anybody.

Have we ever enforced it?

No.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, colleagues, Nick, Mr.

Bean, thank you.

Uh do we have anyone from the public that wants to comment on the parking uh change ordinance?

Uh Nicholas DeRosa, 246th Ames Street.

Nicholas DeRosa, 246th Ames Street, Newport.

Um I think Counselor uh Solicitor Bean's point about clarifying that all of the things that you're proposing are for new developments, would really help if we could have a show of hands like the people who own and operate these properties right now and are afraid that our way of lives are going to be ripped from us after all of our hard work and the support that we give to the tourism industry in this town.

Um I don't see any reason why that can't be put into black and white.

And so there wouldn't be a slippery slope going forward that someone would say all of these things apply across the board to every STR.

Um and then we as one property owner managers would then have to go to court and spend money that we don't have fighting for a right that we were that the property has had for 150 years because it's 150-year-old property.

Um I would say that clear indication that none of this applies to existing operators would be very helpful to the industry that's abiding by the rules and always has.

And I would say that we would like to see that for all of these proposals, whether it's the on-site manager, the parking, or um the I forget what the other one was.

Um then the other thing I would say is you know, if the city and the people who run the city just want to ban short-term rentals, I think you should just say it instead of you know chasing our tails and saying it's one thing and another.

So I would just say put a proposal together and say you want to ban it.

And then we can fight in court instead of doing it in this opaque way.

Transparency is what we pay for in government and we expect.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, please, question for the uh Go ahead, counselor.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate you being here.

Do you live at the property?

No.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Marielle Claire.

I'm a resident of 12th George Street in Newport.

My husband and I are both sixth generation Newporters, more specifically fifth warders or third ward that you've referred to, Mr.

Carlin.

We've grown up here, we've been here our entire lives.

We're both Rogers High School graduates of 2020 2008, and we're raising our three boys here in Newport.

Newport's not just where we live, it's our home, it's our history, it's our community.

We, like many families here, have deep roots.

We take pride in being New Porters and contributing to the place that's given so much to us.

We worked hard recently to position ourselves to recently purchase a property in the general business zone in downtown Newport with the intention of operating very well managed short-term rental property.

Um this has been a goal of ours for many years.

And we see this not just as a business opportunity, but a way to share the city we love with all the visitors that come here from around the world to experience Newport, the waterfront, our mansions, our shops, our restaurants, the tennis hall of fame, the culture, the history, um, and everything that we're proud of to represent Newport.

And you know, we feel like Newport is uh tourism has always been uh what our city is built on here.

Um protecting residential areas for families and long-term residents is important, uh but the properties that we're being discussed here tonight are not located in residential zones.

These are general business and waterfront business districts.

Like many locals, we fully support keeping short-term rentals out of residential neighborhoods.

Your average constituent is not concerned about short-term rental activity in downtown Newport.

There's a reason why we have different zoning codes in the general business and waterfront business codes are designed to promote these businesses and economic activity.

These zones ex exist specifically to allow people to operate business by right.

The proposed changes violate these rights, and furthermore, they don't do anything to improve the housing conditions for our local population.

Changing the rules now to prohibit short-term rentals in these commercial areas, it takes away opportunities from local residents like us.

We're simply trying to operate a small business within the zoning that already exists.

It's important to note that while the property may not technically prohibit short-term rentals in these districts, the requirements here effectively make them impractical for owners and will function in practice as a limitation.

This also raises an important question about fairness.

Newport's tourism economy is thriving, but if short-term rentals are restricted in commercial zones, we're effectively creating a situation where hotels benefit from our tourism industry while local small business family-run businesses are asked to just sit back and watch.

This doesn't feel like a balanced or equitable approach.

Additionally, limiting short-term rentals in the general business in waterfront business districts will not create affordable housing.

If you follow the real estate market, you'll understand that any property in these districts in downtown Newport is valued well above a million dollars.

These properties typically don't include parking, they don't have backyards, and most of them are in significant need of repair.

Restricting their use will not suddenly make them accessible housing for local families.

What it will do instead is to push these properties towards being used as second and third homes.

These properties will then sit empty for much of the year rather than running as active, well-managed businesses that contribute to the local economy and support our tourism.

We're seeking the opportunity to operate responsibly within the zoning that already allows businesses to exist.

Like many others in the community, we care deeply about Newport, and we want to be part of its future while honoring its traditions.

I respectfully ask that you consider the impact these changes could have on local families, small business owners, and the character of our downtown business districts.

Should the city vote to limit the rights of the commercial business properties, we plan to fully support the legal efforts of RISTRA and seek a fair resolution.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Council Side.

Thank you so much for coming in this evening.

I have two questions for you.

One, um, you referred to the commercial use of the property.

The intended use of these properties is for commercial purposes.

Do you believe they should be taxed as commercial properties under the commercial tax rate in the city?

Yes.

Second question.

What was the prior use of the property that you intend to convert right now?

Single family.

It was it was not it wasn't currently being lived in, so it's sort of a property that's been in disrepair for some time.

So essentially an eyesore, a situation that really needs to be fixed to improve the uh downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

State your name and address, please.

Alexandria Turan, 515 Thame Street.

I'm sorry, what's the last name?

Turan, Tia's and Tom, E R A N.

I'm a student at Salva Regina University.

I'd like to consider Newport now my home.

And on top of that, I'd like to discuss more about the affordable housing here.

I was running some quick numbers as I am an accounting student, so I'm going to focus there more so than anything else.

When you're looking at switching the parking variances, my house itself does not have the adequate amount of parking for where we live, which means we're required to get on street parking passes for the months that we're busy.

For us, it's September through October, and then again in May, we're required to continue them.

Now I've been looking to live here over the summer.

And for anyone who does not own a home or is not in a year lease, it's near impossible.

I believe it's recommended by most people financially to not spend more than 30% of your income.

Does that sound right?

Well, one property I was looking at today to two bedroom.

It's $92,000.

Do you have any idea how much I would have to be making to live in that?

I'm a college student.

I haven't graduated yet.

I haven't earned my CPA yet.

I'm not earning $27,000 a month.

I will not be earning that probably till I'm 50, if I'm lucky and invest.

So how am I supposed to live here in the summer to work to build a life year?

A family maybe for when I graduate.

What I'm asking is for you to look at short-term rentals as not an opportunity just for businesses, but instead an opportunity also for students.

We are here September through May.

Where I currently reside, it's $3,600 a month.

In the summer, it's $10,000 in June, $15,000 in July and August.

That brings us to $40,000 that they make in less than three months.

What happens when we take short-term rentals where people can make $40,000 in three months and keep the rent low elsewhere?

I decided to run a couple of quick numbers and compare them to the Marriott.

In July on a Sunday, for a two-bedroom queen.

It's $899 before tax.

With tax, it's $1,200.

A similar property I found on Airbnb.

Let's put it on the high end because they do vary month to month.

It's $500 a night.

If I was a family staying here who needed to cook for myself, my husband, maybe my two kids I was traveling with, I would most likely want to stay at the Airbnb.

Where not only would I not have to worry about my children running around screaming at people in the Marriott, but I would also have an area where they could be safe at night and that we could cook and we could have family time.

On top of that, we resided on a place like Thames for those couple of days.

We wouldn't have to take our car.

Can go down to O'Brien's, I can go to Wally's.

The red parrot isn't far.

I can walk all the way down to the White House Black Market, which is on the other side down by the Marriott.

And I do not need a car.

So I don't believe that short-term rentals are the problem when it comes to parking.

When you look at someone who's staying a month, they have to park there.

Not every place is going to be rented out every night.

And on top of that, you cannot obtain a parking pass for the city of Newport for the summer months if you're here under, I believe it's nine months.

You need to be a resident.

Which means people are street parking.

They're finding their own parking spots anyway.

Short term would at least guarantee that if under the current variances, if they cannot provide the parking on-site, that they provide it off-site within 0.5 of a mile.5 of a mile is not a far walk.

Again, doing some math, going from Wally's Wieners to CVS by car is 0.5 a mile.

That's not a hard walk to ask anyone to do.

So back to as I was saying before.

With $899 a night to stay at the Marriott for one night, and $500 to stay at a two-bedroom property with a kitchen.

That property is making $46,000 for 92 nights, which is our on season from June to August.

Now, in that, it's important to note that Newport is now for a transient guest facility requiring a 5% tax.

The city of Newport gets to see that income.

I'm sorry, Alexa, we're gonna have to get this wrapped up because we're on the time limit for the public comment.

So if we just wanted to give you like another 20 seconds.

Yeah.

Basically to say that they make 46,000 there, and in order for them to make that same amount of money in those three months, you're looking at a property that then becomes 15,333 a night.

What I am scared of as a student is that people aren't going to take that and go ahead and go June through August with $15,000.

They're going to look to push their season longer into May and September.

May and September where students are looking for housing and need housing in order to live here in order to be here.

That means that it's nine uh nine hundred nine thousand and two hundred dollars for five months.

As a student, I cannot afford that.

So I urge you to look at short-term rental as a way to, although it might increase for June through August, it helps keep the prices lower September through May.

For students like myself, for even teachers who come here who summer elsewhere and then come here and rent for us to be able to you know live more affordably instead of risking pushing, you know, now seasons being rented October through through April only.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And anyone else from the public?

No.

All right.

So we don't um any last one other person.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Good evening.

Uh Lynn Sanzo on Spring Street.

Um I just wanted to respond to the comment that um implementing these um changes as presented this evening would be a disservice to your constituents.

Um I disagree with that.

Uh first of all, many of these owners of short-term rentals are not residents of Newport.

They're not even people, they're LLCs.

And so I think that it's a very strong outside in uh interest that's advocating for these change for for keeping things and the way they are and not implementing these changes.

Um I think what we see here with uh the pushback against these changes is the uh tendency to privatize the profits and socialize the problems.

As was just mentioned, these are very lucrative opportunities.

I think if they weren't so lucrative, you wouldn't be getting the pushback that you're getting.

But I think it is um undeniable that for people who are your constituents and live here uh all the time, that the influence of short-term rentals um tends to be a negative.

I I understand there are economic pluses, but for people living in Newport, not involved in the short-term rental business.

Um, there are noise considerations, there are parking considerations that we're looking at now.

Um it's also destructive to the fabric of neighborhoods.

Um I think the whole issue of short-term rentals being responsible uh for lack of housing is a red herring.

If you get rid of short-term rentals, you're you're not magically going to have workforce housing.

It's a much more complicated uh problem, as I'm sure you recognize.

Um I would suggest, I would hope that you would um continue pursuing these changes so that um the folks who live here can have uh, especially during the high season, a more reasonable existence.

Uh that we're not you know constantly um impacted by the commercial aspects of our town.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, yeah, I just want to remind folks that a couple of years ago we banned uh short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods.

That we're talking about business zones.

Right.

But with the inadequate parking, those uh problems spill over and intrude into residential areas.

And with the extreme lack of of parking, you know, I it's confusing to me how somebody can look at a property and say, I want to do this as a short-term rental, even though it has inadequate parking.

And I know I have to provide as a business owner um to this parking, or else it's not gonna work.

I I think that if it weren't so lucrative, then people wouldn't be changing so many properties into short-term rentals.

But Mr.

Chairman, hold on.

Well, I was just going to say that, yeah, I think it was a great start to ban them from residential.

There's no the question that these are commercial enterprises.

Um I don't know of any uh guest facility that doesn't have a manager on the premises.

It's only short-term rentals that that don't have some kind of uh oversight for their for their enterprise.

So I don't understand why the pushback, because every other guest facility has like on-site management.

Thank you, Council Colin.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Lynn, thank you for being here.

Thank you all for your testimony.

Lynn, uh what counselor Lynn, uh Vice Chair Segley said, uh, is indeed correct to a certain extent.

Uh the uh there is a prohibition on operating a short-term rental in residential residential districts.

Uh Lynn, you and dozens and dozens of others, a hundred plus others in your neighborhood live in a mixed-use zoning area, correct?

You don't live in a residential area.

Am I correct?

I do.

I'm an R3.

Yeah.

What what dominates in your area?

Uh residential specific zoning or mixed?

Um well, Spring Street is the dividing line between the commercial and the residential.

So on the residential side, it's residential.

Uh we know our neighbors, we we know their names.

Of course, but but yet uh what is currently permitted is permitted where many of our vo where many of our residents uh live.

Yes.

Despite the fact that it is at face value a residential neighborhood.

Yeah.

It's classified as as mixed.

Uh so you are having to deal with uh let me back up and ask a sarcastic but serious question.

The more conversions to short-term rentals in your neighborhood and in the neighborhoods surrounding you that are allowed now, does that make the parking situation easier or more difficult for you as Newport residents?

Oh, it's extremely difficult.

I think that you mr.

That's why we're talking to them.

Just a couple guys, you can have a seat, Lynn.

I'm not gonna ask you a question.

Um, I will, but I'll ask her.

Two things.

One, um, we're on item 1A, it's been two hours.

And I think that after five minutes from now, we should reassess the balance of our agenda and how we're gonna handle that, just in fairness, those that are here on other items.

Second, I think what we're talking about is theory versus practice.

If you walked here this evening or took public transit, we please raise your hand.

One person.

And so what we're talking about here is the theory that if people come and visit that they will use off-site parking and that they'll park there and then walk in versus the reality that our residents are experiencing right now, which is that even with the best of intents of the owner, the occupant themselves, the user isn't required to do that.

Even if they might, in theory, want to do that.

Do I believe that a family of three with a baby and all the things that come with that are going to park a half a mile away and then walk in?

I don't.

I don't.

And I'm gonna be split on these items.

I'm gonna be supportive of saying expressly that this is not gonna affect pre-existing uses.

I'm gonna have opposition to other portions of this as well.

But I think when it comes to the issue of parking, the reality that of our our residents are experiencing is demonstrated here tonight, where one person, only one person walked to a meeting that is within a mile radius of probably many of the people that are here tonight, including somebody that we heard this evening speak about the fact that it's not that far to walk.

And so I just think we have to deal with the reality of what is actually occurring in our city and what our residents are experiencing.

And I think that that is what my colleague was trying to get at previously.

But Mr.

Chair, I don't think it's fair to ask about this proxy this location as being Rogers High School, which is like in the in a in a much more rural area, and people don't tend to walk to Rogers High School unless they live very very close to it.

I mean you're you're talking Spring Street to you know talking Spring Street to the downtown area, it's an entirely different thing.

I mean, I bet you if you ask that question at City Hall, that would have been a different result.

Well, we're about half a mile from the district that we're talking about right now.

We're within the range where somebody could have a parking space lease to be walking in front.

But I can tell you who does walk.

If you get up early in the morning, if you go home late at night, the people that walk are the people who are living in these apartments right now.

And they may not have experienced the gentrification that we think.

The highest and best use of those properties may be a commercial use in the future.

But the reality that we heard from our housing study in this city is between 20 and 30 people a year who live in these apartments, which yes, may not be the most glamorous use of the property, are relying on them to be their homes, and they are walking to work.

They are taking a bike to work.

They are walking to classes, because that is what the historic use of these properties were.

This is the concept of the multifamily home where you've got a commercial use on the first floor and then residential on the second and third, because this is a city, and this is how cities operate uh in their highest and best use.

And so I'm gonna split on these items, and so nobody's gonna be happy with my ultimate decisions, I guess.

But I do want to preface this with just the reality of what we're experiencing in our neighborhoods right now.

Mr.

Chairman, point of information, please.

Yes.

Um and thank you for clarifying earlier that we were discussing uh subsection B only.

Is it your intent uh that we should be voting on subsection B, uh subsection C and Subsection D separately?

Yes, uh because I do uh echo Councillor Kamza Vorovang's concern that there's a lengthy agenda tonight, uh and we should be in fact mindful not only of the issues we're dealing with before us now, but of the entire agenda.

So what I'm saying, uh and Councillor Kamza Vorovang uh is is far better at speaking uh to his concerns than I ever could be.

Uh but what shall we do, Mr.

Chairman?

Shall we allow for potentially and I support this.

I support staying here till three in the morning.

We can't, but that's sometimes what they do upstate.

Uh we need to hear from everybody who wants to talk about on this issue alone, uh subsection B, uh which we just heard subsection C and subsection D.

Uh not to mention uh frankly, we need to hear from our residents and and others about the entire uh agenda this evening.

Let's openly consider that because should we proceed, and 90 percent of this to date is my fault, but I I do not apologize for it.

I simply say it's my fault.

Uh because uh I'm speaking to what my constituents are concerned about.

But if we continue at this pace, we will indeed be here till three in the morning.

Well, I I respect that, Council Connell, but as mentioned, 90 percent of this is because the amount of time that you spend talking on the microphone all for well-intentioned purposes.

Um I just want to make sure that that's remembered as well.

I would this is a very important subject.

That's why there's so many people here, and that's why there is so much discussion on it.

So and I know there are two readings to this, and I'm taking that into consideration.

But I don't want to just blow through this because I think that's a disingenuous to everyone that is here, or everyone that's gonna be listening to this tomorrow or reading it on a social media app or in the paper or however they get their information when they read it tomorrow, they want to know what what's going on.

And I think that's that's more important than um the time cons uh constraint right now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Then with that said, and I sincerely appreciate that explanation and your intent, uh I would respectfully request of my colleagues uh that we do in fact vote on these subsections uh separately.

I would ask Mr.

Chairman to move the question uh specifically separated.

I would respectfully ask that we move the question uh on item number one uh subsection B, and I would ask for a second for that recommendation.

Second we'll we we'll have to, Mr.

Chairman.

We're not point of order point of order, please.

Perhaps those uh in the audience who are objecting did not understand what I was saying.

Uh what I am saying is I'm asking my colleagues to vote on one portion of what is before us here at the public hearing regarding a zoning ordinance change proposal.

Uh I am asking that we vote on the subject that we just discussed, and we'll go from there.

Excuse me, Mr.

Chairman.

Um I've made a motion, it was seconded, so I asked for a vote.

Yeah, so we're gonna take a vote again.

We have the we have other parts that we're gonna get to.

This is just the the one part 17.04 entitled the general provisions.

There is a second reading next Wednesday as well.

If there are if there is more input for public more time for public input.

So we will you will be heard.

You here's the problem.

I mean, there's a public hearing, and we're not sure that everyone has spoken on A, because a lot of times the council is uh, you know, you get distracted on this.

It's probably best to ask everyone to come up and speak.

They can not only at this time speak on A, but all of them if they want.

So they don't have to come up a second and third time.

That'd be a waste of time.

But I I think there's others out there, so we need to make sure that the public hearing that people who want to be heard are heard at this time.

Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate uh Solicitor B and comments.

Uh and I rely on solicitor being and I trust solicitor being uh but in this particular instance, certainly I trust him, and uh his legal expertise is far beyond anybody's in this audience, especially mine, you know uh or anybody on this council, especially mine.

Uh but what I'm asking for specifically right now is not for the com for the council to render its opinion uh on subsection A of item one.

That is still an open item.

I am asking the council to specifically vote uh on subsection B of item one because the the chairman asked, would there is there anyone else who would like to speak specifically regarding to or regarding subsection B of item one?

And there was nobody in the audience who said yes.

Uh so again, I I I had uh Mr.

Chairman, please can we have order?

Can we pass vote?

I asked for a vote on subsection B of item one.

That's all I asked for a vote on.

Subsection A, as as a larger issue is still open.

A is all right.

We're gonna I'm gonna keep the public hearing going.

So anyone wants to come up.

Mr.

Chairman, can we have a vote?

There was a motion made by me and there was a second made by you.

Can we have a vote, please, on my request to vote on subsection B.

We've discussed subsection B.

Nobody else wants to, when the chairman asked for So we still have the public hearing open.

So well, can can we at least vote on?

I mean, if you even if we're out voted, if I'm outvoted six to one, fine.

Uh I don't want that to happen, but I have asked for, I made the motion for, and it was seconded, a vote on subsection B of item one.

And I'd like to vote.

No.

It's properly before us.

As far as I know, Mr.

Chairman, you make the ruling, not anybody else in the city staff.

We're gonna continue the uh public comment.

Uh I appeal the ruling of the chair.

And I'd like a second.

Okay, can we go ahead with the public comment?

Uh thank you, Council members.

Uh thank you, Charlie.

Uh Zai, congratulations.

I just want you know you have my vote.

Um first I'd like to address.

Uh my name is Shane Cooper.

I am a resident of 10 Woodhaven Road.

Uh and um uh I do not currently live here.

I work here every day and I'm planning to live here and would in fact like to get a uh two-unit for me and my fiance are getting married in April, and uh like to move here and rent out one unit.

That was our plan.

Uh that may not happen now, but uh we'll see what happens.

Um but the main reason I wanted to get up here was to talk about property rights.

I mean, at the end of the day, I understand that uh we we would own and we understand like property is just so important to the fabric of our society and um changing what we can and can't do with it is a major um major like uh consideration to how people spend their money and where they work, and you know, then sorry.

Uh the this city is is a tourism-based economy.

I think we can all agree on that.

We're not biomed.

We're not an IT hub.

We're we're a tourism-based economy, and we have a naval base, but I mean, besides that, that's essentially what we are.

And you know this proposed change would kind of upend my family's plan, at least um, and the ability to like move forward with that.

But um, you know, what what I will say is sorry, I'm getting off track here.

Um I am for keeping the shops and small businesses on the first floors.

All right.

That's a fabric of the town.

Tourism is a fabric of this town.

And these are the things we need to uh talk more about.

But when it comes to the parking, which is uh a large portion of what we've been talking about right here, right now.

The parking is a tourism-based issue.

We have people that come around from different parts of the of New England, different parts of this state to come here because Newport is awesome.

It's got great food, great entertainment, and this is where we want to be.

Whether it's for coming in to stay at an overnight hotel or uh short-term rental.

Banning this isn't going to change that.

Uh there are going to be people coming in no matter what.

And I think what the real issue here is figuring out a way to add more parking.

People spend more of their time driving around in circles for in this town looking for parking than actually parking or doing anything else.

So I think this town should be talking more about figuring out ways to add additional parking.

We have some great lots in this town, such as the Mary Street lot that could benefit from a second level, third level, underground level.

Point being additional parking.

This town could issue a bond.

People could pay to park in it, and the bond could be repaid in a matter of a few years if that was the desire of this town.

That would solve the issue of parking, decrease the traffic driving around looking for parking, and honestly, improve the quality of life of this town and at the same time provide a way to generate additional revenue.

And instead, we're going to sit here and talk about banning short-term rentals and wasting all this brain space here tonight when we could be doing something that actually matters.

And that's what I find to be somewhat annoying.

And there's just got to be a better way to go about this where people can get along and we can all agree on something.

And I leave it to you guys to come up with a better plan, but I don't think this is it, guys.

Thank you.

That's what I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin, point of order.

I'm I'm that uh Mr.

Chairman, point of order, please.

No, I want to hear from the public.

Mr.

Chairman, point of order.

Um, listen, I'm hearing from the public, please.

Nicholas DeRo.

Chairman, I have a point of order.

Council Carlin, I'm we're we're on a public comment right now.

So you you refuse to recognize a councilman's point of order.

Okay, thank you.

To keep it brief and on point about parking, um, short-term rental, my specific building.

We have three one bedroom units.

Year-round residents would be have a right to six parking spaces.

If you have a husband, wife, two people living in a one-bed unit.

That's six parking spaces.

My short-term people come, and that's 365 days a year.

My short-term people typically occupy my building for 12 to 13 nights a month in the summer, much fewer than that in the winter.

And it's one car.

So short-term rental has a much lower impact and requirement on the public parking.

And my people don't park on the street because they can't.

They park in the pay lots and at the paid meters, generating revenue for the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, what are we what are we addressing here, please?

What portion of item one are we addressing?

Ma'am, you like to come up?

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Carlin.

Um Mr.

Chairman, wait.

Will you please tell me as a council member what we are discussing here?

Discussing what we I asked you many, many an hour plus ago parking changes.

Thank you.

Go ahead, ma'am name and address, please.

Uh, my name is Breta McBride.

I am the public policy manager for Airbnb here in New England.

Um point of clarification, Mr.

Chair.

I am going to be speaking about a couple of different provisions, if I may proceed.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

As I said, I'm Britain McBride.

I am here as the public policy manager for Airbnb in New England.

And I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the council tonight.

I'm here to implore the council to reconsider the zoning ordinance regarding short-term rentals before you.

I represent those who call Newport home on a full and part-time basis and use our peer-to-peer platform to rent their homes.

Many others who, like me, have been a visitor to Newport, use the platform to be able to spend time and money here.

For every hundred dollars spent on a booking, those visitors spend an average of 161 dollars on non-accommodations like restaurants and entertainment.

The effect of the draft ordinance is a de facto ban on future STRs, as others have said in the general business and waterfront zones.

A particular concern is a new requirement of long-term accommodations for an on-site manager and the new requirement of a special use permit in these zones.

Both put up significant financial and operational barriers to being able to use the home as an STR.

At a minimum, we would ask that the council reconsider those provisions.

A decision to pass this ordinance is drafted will undercut state efforts to fund housing and homelessness prevention programs at a time when those resources are most needed.

It also sends a clear message to tourists and tourism-based businesses.

As you are aware, because it was discussed previously, last year, as part of the state budget, the legislature extended the 5% statewide occupancy tax that apply to hotels to apply to whole home strs, effective actually in January.

The revenue from that tax is earmarked, with 50% of it going to the housing resources and homelessness restricted receipt account, 25% to municipalities where the STR is located, and 25% to the regional tourism district where the STR is located.

The state's analysis anticipates that an FY26, the housing account will receive $1 million from that change.

Newport's estimated contribution to that revenue in FY 2027 is over half a million dollars if the number of whole home short-term rentals in the city remains stable.

The council's decision on STRs now and in the future has a direct impact on funding available to the HRH account.

And that does not include revenues generated from the statewide sales tax on those STRs or local occupancy taxes.

In addition, this ordinance has drafted telegraphs to tourists that they are not wanted here.

A ban on STRs takes away an important accommodation option for people and for families, as mentioned by others.

Families for whom a hotel room or two are prohibitively expensive or does not fit their needs will choose to go elsewhere as rental options shrink.

Maybe that is what's intended.

But local restaurants and shops, recreational facilities and attractions, special event producers like music festivals and wedding planners, and necessary service providers like cleaners, landscapers, and tradespeople who live here in Newport will feel that impact.

In closing, the council has an opportunity to think differently about this ordinance.

Targeted reasonable regulations that address concrete issues are understandable.

But regulations that operate as a de facto ban are punitive.

And the people punished are Newport hosts, many of whom are here, guests.

I'm one of them, and the businesses that they support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, question, please.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Appreciate you being here.

Thank you for what you said.

Uh what you testified to.

You mentioned the financial benefit to Newport and two other communities who also benefit from uh the changes in state law.

As you mentioned the $500,000 figure, which is a great figure.

It's actually an underestimate.

Yeah, it's quite an underestimate, but that's fine.

That's even better for the city of Newport.

But what you mentioned regarding the revenue that the city of Newport will derive from the existing existing STRs.

The proposal this evening will not change unless the owners of the existing properties change the designation of those properties.

That will not change uh hopefully the financial benefit to the city of Newport.

In other words, we are not going to be shifting to the point where we will receive less money because of this ordinance should it pass or this proposal should it pass?

You agree with that?

I don't.

And the reason for that is because the barriers that are put in place here for hosts, like folks who are sitting in this audience, those are barriers that may make it so it's more difficult to operate.

And that's in in an aggregate, right?

With other regulations that may be in place.

You may have people who decide.

They decide I'm not going to do this anymore, I'm not going to do it in Newport, I'm going to do it somewhere else.

And then that could end up resulting in a loss of that short-term rental.

It may not remain stable.

So that's why talking about today as things stand and prospectively, if there continue to be further restrictions and regulations, it could have that impact on people's behavior, right?

Let's behavioral economics.

Am I going to do it here or am I going to choose to do it elsewhere?

I appreciate that answer.

First, I'm going to ask Mr.

Bean a question, then I'm going to follow up with you.

Mr.

Bean, did you effectively tell, essentially tell the council this evening, the audience this evening, and the council in the past that should these proposed res should this proposed ordinance change become effective?

It would not, it would not affect current.

It would not affect property owners or the properties that are currently allowed to do so, correct?

It's prospective in operation.

So I don't know how many times I I can say that, but it will not affect any existing legal uses unless they're abandoned or there are significant changes to them.

Mr.

Bean is saying if you already are operating, and I'm not putting words in his mouth, but I am.

Uh if you're already operating a legal STR, essentially you will not be affected by this.

So if the city realizes less revenue because of this proposal, it is only because those who operate STRs legally under the existing ordinance have chosen to do something else, not because what the city of Newport might, by way of the city council, do this evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I understand that legally that is true.

Uh and understandably, legally, that is true.

But what I'm talking about are hosts that may make decisions because of the difficulty in trying to pursue, and it's an aggregate.

It's right.

It's it's these provisions that could go into effect plus other provisions and what that means for them to be able to operate going into the future.

And so you very well could have people, I think you've heard from people who may make a decision to say, I'm not going to do that in Newport.

I'm going to move to a different community and do that.

That's fine, and I appreciate that.

And thank you again for your answer.

I trust our legal counsel who has said that this will not, should it pass, affect those who are legally doing business now.

So should your clients decide I'm going to do business elsewhere, uh, even though I am legally doing business now and will not be affected by the changes, that is their decision to do so.

It is not an effect of what this council might vote to approve.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair, can I ask a question?

I'll side.

Thanks for the um points on this.

I want to and I want to just catch you while you're up here on this one issue.

On-site managers, on-site managers, as I understand it right now, are required, but one of the changes that's been made here is that they have to reside in a long-term dwelling unit.

I think of a lot of these STRs, especially in this area we're talking about in multi-unit structures, you know, two to four units.

And I have heard that occasionally somebody will float between those which unit they consider home in any given time.

So for example, um, if they have one unit that's three bedrooms, one at the two bedrooms, and one that's one bedroom, depending on the guest that comes in, they may just shift to whichever unit is not occupied.

Do you see that type of flexibility being used by your property owners that are operating STRs, or do you find that they naturally end up migrating to one unit that they reside in your term long term?

I'm sorry, I don't have uh I don't think the adequate background or information to be able to answer that, and I wouldn't want to guess or or surmise.

Thank you.

Any uh further public comment.

Come on.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tina Brownell.

I live at 15 Florence Aff.

And I'm just gonna disagree with a woman maybe three speakers ago, where she said that many people are not residents, many of us also are residents.

I'm a lifelong resident.

I've been a teacher in Newport public schools for 32 years.

I've been an operator of a short-term rental for many years, long before Newport was discovered during COVID.

It's the only way I could afford to keep my house and to keep my family in Newport.

That house is what's keeping my family here or started what's allowing my family to stay in Newport.

So before you make any decisions tonight, I have a few questions and I would like you to consider a few things.

Going back to why are you making this process of operating short-term rentals so difficult?

Since I started doing this, the changes have been nonstop.

The increase in fees have been nonstop.

You are making it difficult for people.

And so, with that, what is the real purpose here?

If your purpose is to stop short-term rental, why?

If you think it's going to fix the affordable housing problem, it's not.

Look at the data.

Read the research.

And so what I ask you to do is to look at specific data, not assumptions, not people who come up here and say, oh, our neighborhood is noisy.

I respect that comment, but you asked how many citations were given for people who did not who parked in the wrong place?

The answer was none.

I ask you how many noise violations have been given.

I don't know.

Think about that before you make these decisions.

And other data-driven, like the woman who just spoke.

She's the first person I heard.

Give some hard numbers.

Think about that before you make decisions.

And finally, parking as a criteria.

Why are we having parking being such the issue that's making the decision?

Can't we think forward thinking as a community?

We have a giant public parking lot that was built right when you come off the Newport Bridge.

There is no sign there that says park here, shuttle in.

There will be.

Okay.

And that's what should be happening.

We have a too many cars in our community.

Never mind parking at short-term rentals.

We have too many cars on the street.

We need to fix that.

Short-term rental is not the problem of that.

Zai, when you said, you know, how many people walked here tonight?

No one would walk here tonight.

We have a parking lot.

We don't need to walk here tonight.

You know, I don't um don't mean to make light of it, but there's sometimes when you would walk and sometimes when you wouldn't.

If we had a lot with public transit that was advertised widely, I think that would help.

And finally, ask I ask how many of you have stayed in Airbnbs or short-term rentals.

I have four children.

I have eight grandchildren.

We often travel as a family.

We rent giant Airbnbs.

We would never be able to do that if we had to stay in a hotel, nor would the hotel want us there.

So I just think, you know, imagine what that would look like.

The difference between staying in a hotel and the opportunity to stay in an Airbnb with a kitchen with opportunity for kids to do whatever they want to do.

The experience would I'm trying to read this, sorry.

This is the same experience that a family, that families who travel to Newport face.

That's the decision they have to make.

Do they want to stay at the Marriott or somewhere else, or do they want to stay in an Airbnb?

And if we limit the growth of short-term rentals, we are pushing people to travel elsewhere.

They're not going to stay in Newport.

And tourism is a business.

They're going to go somewhere else if they can't stay here and do it comfortably.

And so I urge you to think about all that comprehensively before you make your decisions tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Just really quickly because it's these are imperfect decisions and really appreciate coming out for every work in the schools.

When we think about our community's responsibility from an affordability perspective, do you think we have a higher responsibility to your fellow teachers, our firefighters, the people that make this community work to being affordable for them to live here, or do you think we owe that responsibility to guests and visitors and families who are coming to enjoy the special place?

I think a combination.

So we have to be responsible to that and recognize that.

That's how we've made our money in Newport for years.

That's how I put myself to college and all my kids through college and my grandchildren now because of the tourism.

So I think that we there's a balance there.

We need to think about both sides of that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, I appreciate your comments.

Um part of the reason we're here is because we have I think a total of parking spaces, 700 about local spaces.

How many spaces, street spaces do we have for parking?

In in the resident this we'll talk about this later tonight, but in the residential parking districts, it's about 3,800.

On the residential parking streets.

Okay.

And I think we had 18,000 passes.

Uh some somewhere short of seven, somewhere over 16,000 were issued.

16,000.

I mean, it's so obvious that the problem really is the amount of cars that are parking on residential streets.

And I think the people here tonight understand that, but there are some people that don't, which probably is why this was promoted.

But the other thing I would like to address is having a manager on site.

I think that's kind of onerous.

I thought years ago we had passed a um ordinance that said a manager had to be within 15 minutes if there's an emergency.

And I think that would be more appropriate to have somebody that you know can be there in case of and we've had some emergency.

So those are the two things that are kind of bothering me about this.

Um as far as the parking goes, uh I can tell you there was a citation.

And it's because I called the police for some woman I had to go down.

She had a doctor's appointment.

She knocked on the door next door.

She goes, I don't know who lives here.

Bunch of kids.

They parked in front of her driveway.

And she had a doctor's appointment.

I go down there, I knock on the door, he shuts the door on my face.

I got on my phone and called the police, and he was sighted.

He was sighted.

You know, this is a little ridiculous, particularly in the summertime.

It does.

It's really onerous with the parking.

And to have 18,000 passes out.

We couldn't possibly accommodate that in the city of Newport.

So I would suggest to that.

The problem is the number of people we are inviting to Newport without the infrastructure infrastructure to support it.

It's not short-term rental problem.

Right.

Okay.

And so perhaps we need to be thinking about our public transportation and use of the lots and other things, not just trying to shut down uh short-term rentals any which way you can and call it something else.

I that's what's I feel is happening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Council Sai.

Yeah, just uh Mary Street lots come up a couple times.

I'm not sure if any of you remember this, but there have been proposals to build a garage there that the community shot down.

Jimmy, you probably remember that.

Question though.

I put it out.

Are there any spots in Mary Street Lot or the Totoro Street Lot, which I believe are the two closest ones to the district impacted here that are rented out, or are they all purely transient?

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

I don't want to confuse the two issues here.

We're I mean, we're talking about short, we're talking about essentially banning short-term rentals, and that these short-term rentals have an obligation to have parking spaces and and sometimes have the ability to park up on in another spot.

So we're going to be dealing with the parking issue that pertains to the residential neighborhoods later.

So I just I just don't want to confuse the the two issues.

Um Michelle Briggs, I live at um 6 Amford Street, um, which is in the point, and I would have walked if we were at City Hall.

Um and I also own a short-term rental on Goodwin Street.

And focusing solely on the parking situation, Goodwin Street is a residential parking zone.

And as far as I'm aware, they took away any guest pass that can be given to a short-term rental.

So nobody who is renting my property can be parking on the street.

Um so that is, I think a non-issue.

Nobody, I think, in a short-term rental can receive a guest parking pass to park in a residential area.

Stickers cannot be given out to people in short-term rentals.

You have to be living um in the area for nine months or whatever the criteria is.

So I don't see how this is actually impacting any of the on-street parking that we're talking about here, and what the difference is if uh uh uh parking space is obtained someplace else um rather than on the property.

And I think as we've heard before, it is actually a constructive um ban here on short-term rentals because all of the properties in these areas where short-term rentals are allowed by right that we're talking about changing now in the waterfront business and the business district, don't have lots that will ever have the parking that will conform.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um more last one.

Thank you, Council.

Linda Pereira, three Goodwin Street.

Um I have also been running a legally everything in order short-term rental for many years.

Um I basically supplement my income completely.

I'm a single person.

I am not married.

Most of my income is generated from my short-term rental.

I've never had any problems on my street on Goodwin.

No one has ever had issues with noise.

All the owners are very responsible and respectful to all the letter to the law of everything that's required by us.

And I just think that this is really unfair, as the other woman also spoke earlier.

It's been nothing but jumping through hoops since day one.

And it's very unfair for a resident of 27 years to have to go through the stress, the anxiety of dealing with this every single year.

Something else comes up.

And honestly, it is a parking issue, and that parking lot at the end of the bridge, use it.

Why don't we build something there that's not in anyone's backyard?

It's basically unused space.

There's where a parking garage can go, and that's where trolleys could come in and make it you know an attractive option for tourists as they come into town to use that lot and we trolley them downtown, and there's trolleys that circle.

It wouldn't be very expensive to offer an option like that.

But I I just, you know, I'm just very disappointed that each year some other issue comes up.

I've spoken to many of you.

Many of you are my friends, and you know, we've known each other for many years, and you know, I just hope that you can see that you're impacting actual residents, people that have lived there for many years, and you're impacting our means of surviving and being able to afford our community and and continue to live here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

All right.

Motion uh and a second to close the public hearing.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

So uh as you made it explicitly clear earlier, we were continuing to discuss uh the uh the parking changes.

Uh are we by closing the public hearing are we effectively uh ignoring anybody who wants to just discuss the definitional changes or the special use uh permit proposal as a part of this overall discussion?

Or are we simply enveloping that in uh the overall discussion?

Yeah, so we can just close a public hearing on the on all the amendments.

So we're gonna go through each one and vote on each each one separately.

Mr.

Chairman, I asked earlier that we we do just that.

You you said no.

So are are you now changing your mind?

Are we voting on specifically subsection B of item one?

We're gonna start on uh subsection A item one subsection A of the record of item one planning board is uh is simply acceptance of the planning board's recommendations.

Am I correct?

Yes.

So we have to accept it.

I I I beg your pardon, Mr.

Chairman, and I have great respect for you, but uh you're you you're contradicting yourself.

Thank you.

Probably is not the first time or the last time.

Okay.

Motion to uh uh accept the recommendations of the planning board.

No, we've got to close the public.

Oh, we have to close the public hearing.

All right.

So uh all those in favor of closing public hearing, raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

Public hearings closed.

All right.

Motion to accept the recommendations from the planning board.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Mr.

Chair, if I could um just before we get into items B, C and D, regardless of the outcome of those, I would like to request that the solicitor draft and the council consider at the second reading language that expressly makes clear that any of these changes are only prospective looking forward and do not impact current operators of these properties.

Do we need a vote?

Are we okay?

Uh no, I'd like discussion on this, please.

Yeah.

First of all, I'd like to uh made a motion, so we got a second.

We do.

Yes.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh discussion first, Mr.

Chairman, please.

Sure, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Counselor Komzovorovank.

I appreciate that.

Uh given do you not have confidence and this is in part a sarcastic question.

Uh we have a very fine solicitor who has all but assured us uh that those who are in the condition that you just described uh are legally safe.

Uh why do we need to do the job as a counsel uh that should be done by private attorneys in that if there's an issue with what we pass, uh let uh let those those folks who disagree with us or perhaps who want stronger language uh take that on for themselves?

I agree with you that I don't agree with your your recommendation or your proposed amendment, uh, but I agree with your underlying concept, if I might, and I agree with the solicitors uh contention that they're protected, and it is not fair uh even by it is not fair to retroactively impose in a condition like this uh restrictions on those who already have certain guarantees.

Why do you feel as though we need to give what would essentially be a council guarantee by way of a change that the solicitor would draw up if said guarantees are already in uh in existence?

Why why would we need to say can you can we answer the question?

I think you I think you got your question across.

But why why would we need to to repeat something that is already guaranteed?

Yeah, and I think that's a fair question.

I know you understand the uh the elegance of legislative drafting and purely on that point, I agree with your your point here.

The intent here and the reason behind it is that sometimes going above and beyond, even if it's a restatement of the law carries value when that value is clarity that gives existing residents and operators who are relying on a predictable business environment, the certainty they need uh to have confidence and continue to operate businesses that do drive value for the city.

I think there's some value there.

When the interest is in the efficiency of the addition of language, which while it may add to the overall bulk of the legislative text, it nonetheless helps us avoid challenges in the form of litigation.

I will always choose to try and more thoroughly legislate our intent here rather than have that fleshed out in a court of law.

We're quite frankly, none of us will be at the table.

Uh maybe Mr.

Bean will.

Um but we won't.

And so that's my intent there.

I agree with you from a pure legislative structure and drafting perspective.

My intent here though is to try and alleviate some of the concerns and to the point that I think council was very fair in making earlier, decompress a lot of the stress that is raised uh from these these these changes.

Mr.

Chairman.

Councilman.

Outstanding point, uh, Councillor Kamzavorovang, uh one which I sincerely appreciate uh your making clear to me, and I will completely support that.

So to clarify that as you said, this will not affect them, and they will not have to go through the process of litigating.

I hope uh I completely again support you.

Can we uh Counselor Kamzvarovang, Mr.

Chairman, uh make this your proposed amendment uh a part of of the first reading this evening, or as you you mentioned earlier, do you specifically want this upon further review, if you will, to be done by the the solicitor.

If you were to amend what you just said in the form of a motion, again, I would support what you recommend uh and support those folks who are currently doing business legally the way uh that some of my constituents in your constituents have described tonight.

Would you consider that, Ms.

uh Councilor Kamzavarovang?

I I think it's a thoughtful recommendation.

My intent here though, I and I believe with the amendment getting made, we're able to make that amendment and vote on the next meeting without a second reading.

Um I would rather have the text in front of me for the completely understood.

You would rather give the time uh for solicitor being to put that in writing, correct?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor.

I support you 100 percent.

Thank you.

So we have a motion.

Uh all is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any pose?

What was the for the next reading?

Oh, okay.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Excuse me.

Can I just have a show of hands going forward for these votes?

Thank you.

And and Mr.

Chairman, if you might please clarify exactly what we're voting on.

Uh I believe we are voting on Councillor Kamzovarovank's uh proposal and not the underlying proposals before us.

Am I correct, Mr.

Chair?

Mr.

Council Comzavarvan.

That we just voted on them on uh Council uh size motion.

So she just needs a show of hands.

So those in favor, raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

Okay, so we're moving to um motion to approve the parking changes and chap Chapter 17.04 entitled general provisions first reading.

Do you have a second?

I motion and second.

Uh so we're gonna be voting on the change uh in the general provisions, uh Chapter 17.04.

Um please correct me if I'm wrong, uh, but this is the section where the guest house conversions, in which case all parking must be provided on property, regardless of the previous use of the unit or units or property.

Correct.

Any discussion.

All right.

Uh all is in favor, uh, raise your right hand.

Any opposed 43, I think.

Is that 4-3?

Okay.

Um motion to approve uh parking changes in chapter 17.104 entitled parking and loading, first reading.

I have a second.

Second, a motion and second voting on uh the change in 17.104 uh that says uh won't there will be one space for the manager unless the manager parking space has been accounted for due to on-site manager dwelling unit parking.

Um discussion.

All those in favor, raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

Um I could just clarify.

That provision actually alleviates an existing parking requirement for current STRs.

Right.

So if before you're required to have a space for your manager and the unit itself, it actually eliminates the requirement for one of those units.

Right.

Okay.

Just make sure that's clear.

Motion to approve Chapter 17.08.

Madam Vice Chair, I apologize for the interruption, Madam Chair, uh, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Councilor Kamzavarovang is three steps ahead of me as usual.

Uh I understood I think what you meant.

Uh but could the city solicitor put that in English for us.

What it what is uh Councilor Kamzavora of who I agree with what he said, but what is he essentially referring to?

It's a technical revision to make sure there wasn't double double counting.

Thank you.

That's what I thought.

Thank you, Councillor Kamzavarov.

So just to clarify, if if you voted against that last motion, you were voting in favor of a higher requirement of parking for STRs than currently exists, which just logically would have been the exact opposite of the prior vote.

Which just logically would have been the exact opposite of the prior vote.

Just making that clear.

I didn't know if that was fully clear for my colleagues who voted on that.

I appreciate that.

And I completely have two readings on these, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Definitional change.

Uh Chapter 17.08 entitled Definitions first reading.

Do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and second.

Uh so on this definition, uh, we're took looking at basically having the uh the word guest houses.

Um having the house, the guest house property within a long-term residential dwelling unit.

Um guest house unit or manager dwelling unit shall be created through the through the conversion of existing ground floor commercial space and all on-site parking requirements for the guest house use must be provided on the property regardless of previous uses.

We have discussion.

Council Paulitano.

Yeah, I had stated before.

I I think this is I really wish they'd give us a cheat sheet so that we knew exactly everybody in layman's terms what we're voting on.

Uh I think it's onerous to try and uh create a place for the manager if you're renting two or three rooms.

I mean, I I just don't see that uh being a restriction.

Uh should they be within uh calling distance 15, 20 minutes away?

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I live through that experience where uh there was problem down on Thame Street.

And you know, it was just it should be the responsibility of those who rent Airbnbs and other entities to have somebody that we can call in case of an emergency.

So if that's what this if that's the definition that we're voting on.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Council Sai.

A clarification point for the zoning officer, probably on this.

That I'm really getting at what I think is the crux of it.

Right now, the STRs that are being addressed by this definitional change are required to have an on-site manager.

Is that correct?

Limited business zone guest houses already require to have an on-site manager.

So the differential here is we're saying rather than that manager being able to float between what unit they're calling home, they've got to lock in a specific unit that is designated for them to live in year-round, correct?

So not exactly.

Um requirements, you have to actually identify the unit that is being rented as a short-term basis and the unit that is being rented as the manager unit.

So right now we don't, in effect, allow a floating of which unit you're using for the short term and which unit you're using for the long term.

Right now, every guest house is required to have a manager.

Uh they have to register who their manager is and a contact information for that when they submit the registration to the city.

Uh, but only in the districts that require a special use permit for a guest house, which right now is only the limited business, does that manager have to reside on the property?

Uh the definitional clarification we're making is it's never been clear that it has to be within a long-term residential unit, though in practice it has always had to operate in that way.

So we're just trying to clarify in the code there that the manager it, you know, again, you don't have to make the change later that you're going to consider about the special use permit for G B and WB, but right now the limited business already requires an on-site manager, and people have to abide by that when they get their special use permit in front of the zoning board.

I guess what I'm trying to understand here is if functionally there is no way for them.

I mean, if they have to live on the property.

And every unit in the property, if it's going to be used as an STR has to be registered as an STR.

Where are they living right now?

So effectively, you can only operate in the limited business zone with a short-term rental if you have another unit on that property that a long-term manager can live in.

So if you have only two units on the property, effectively one of those has to be the long-term manager and one can be the short-term.

If you have multiple units, one of them is the manager, and you could have potentially multiple short-term rental units on that same property.

That's as we ex as we as we live today.

So what is the definitional change we're considering here do?

It just clarifies in the code that it has to be in a long-term residential unit.

We have people that try to propose uh 30-day renters as a manager for a short-term rental that operates all year round and that is not practical because that manager could hypothetically change every month and we have to keep obtaining that information about the manager.

It also is a way potentially to lock in a long-term residential unit or a rental unit that the person there doesn't have to be a Airbnb manager as their full-time job but they are a renter there that also operates as the manager and is compensated in some way either by way of getting paid every month or having some amount of money off their rent every month that has been clear from any uh zoning board decision that is put that uh stipulation in place I appreciate that clarification um I know this isn't a perfect summary of it but basically what we're doing here is legislating something that is functionally operationally happening correct on on that one piece yeah okay Mr.

Chairman thank you Mr.

Amor I appreciate that uh I'll direct my questions to Mr.

Bean uh first and Nick uh Mr.

Amor uh you put in an enormous amount of work into this proposed uh ordinance uh as did Mr.

Bean but he is our legal advisor first Mr.

Bean uh do you concur with with what Mr.

Armor just said regarding Councillor Kamza Varvang's question and second uh the question that the counselor asked and the answer that uh Mr.

Amor gave uh does that have anything to do with or does what we are voting on uh have anything to do with the prohibition on uh allowing the ground level uh portion of a facility of an entity of a building from becoming uh if you will the either home of the manager or uh available unit for for a short term renter um so um I would agree with uh Mr.

Armor's um well how we explain the present practice of how we interpret the requirement for an on-site manager uh that it has to be in a existing dwelling unit um so I agree with that I believe the counselor's questions were pertinent to we we are codifying that interpretation and so there were concerns about you know maybe there was some um arrangements made that people are moving from place to place to in order to um to address that uh requirement but you do have the other two requirements in this definitional that we don't want commercial space on the first floor to be used for either a manager's unit or for a um short term rental uh and then finally it's got the other provision about the parking it again reaffirms that all parking has to be on site Mr.

Chairman thank you mr thank you chairman thank you mr bean thank you mr rahmer and thank you counselor common for that excellent question um any other discussion uh um i'd like i want to make two amendments um if i could two separate amendments um and take them well take them separately so my first amendment i would like to to make a motion is to uh i want to withdraw the that first term of within a long-term residential dwelling unit when discussing uh the manager uh the manager's residence um i think we've had this discussion with some of the people that came up uh I think this creates a hardship uh for the for the STR owners um and I think it uh it it creates a higher cost high administrative costs uh for using the property as an STR especially if you're dealing with a unit that only has or a uh a property that has two units um so and I would like to have that uh um a separate amendment to another one I want to bring up as well second I have a motion a second any discussion yes Mr.

So again, colleagues, please vote against uh the chairman's proposed amendment.

It effectively renders useless uh one of the most powerful tools of the ordinance change, effectively again, one-third of what we're proposing.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair, can I just make sure so everyone's under the same impression here and understands this?

That this provision does not require mandate the manager unit.

That's done in the special use permit uh in uh on that end of it.

This just says if a manager's unit is required, it has to be in a long-term dwelling unit.

Right.

So if say, for example, you don't change in the the coming up um section uh on the uh uses, if you don't make the short-term, the guest house use, uh if you don't make it uh by special use in the waterfront business or the general business, and you keep it as is, then they're not required to have a manager's unit unit anymore.

Correct.

So that might be your mind on your amendment.

I don't know if that will that what that vote will be when we get to that one.

So Mr.

Bean, uh oh, I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Bean, uh I I agree with you.

Uh your proposed ordinance uh and that which Mr.

Armer worked very hard on, as I said earlier.

Uh as you just described.

Uh it's it's not apples and oranges, but your description is is is perfect and my understanding of the chair's amendment, I hope is accurate.

But regardless of what you just said, uh Solicitor Bean, should the chairman's amendment be passed, it doesn't matter uh what portion of the ordinance changes it's applicable to.

If the chairman's amendment passes, the chairman's amendment becomes effective of on the first reading.

Should it pass in its entirety on the second reading, it becomes local law.

Uh so regardless of uh you're right and Charlie's uh and the mayor's, I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairman, the mayor's description uh uh uh of why he wants the proposed ordinance, or the mayor's explanation is right as well.

But both of you are right.

But if we vote yes, it doesn't matter what portion of law you put it under, if there are two except if there are two ordinance readings with a yes on that, it's law.

Again, I urge my colleagues to reject this.

Thank you.

Council.

Chair, just because I know who's done third is hard to track at this hour.

Um to reiterate what I talked with Mr.

Armor about earlier.

This is cleanup language on this portion.

If we accept your amendment, it doesn't undo the onsite manager requirement.

Um what it does functionally, your amendment, and the reason I'm considering it is it addresses the concern we heard earlier that if you're operating in this space right now, you get hit with changes like constantly.

And so if we can minimize the amount of change that's happening, if it actually isn't functionally or legally changing anything, it's a helpful thing.

I think we're gonna get to the next part, which which is the requirement of an on-site manager with the provisions that the solicitors outlined on requiring these to be special use.

But for this purpose right here, this language right here that you're proposing is additional language that much like the additional language I added earlier to help clarify things, I think is intended to help clarify, but actually confuses Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

Could you please repeat your amendment?

Uh yes.

So I want to take out that first um in that first sentence the words uh within a long-term residential dwelling unit.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, please.

Mr.

As it relates to what we talked about earlier, as Mr.

Bean and Mr.

Amor explained, 30-day renter, acting effectively as the manager, though that is not at all what the city expectations are.

Having said that, Mr.

Bean, can you tell us again in layman's terms?

Should the Chairman's amendment pass, how much damage will be done to the overall intent of the resolution, the proposed ordinances.

How much damage will be done if the chairman's amendment passes?

I I don't know if I can pass on damage to the resolution.

I mean, what would happen if it doesn't if it if it passes, then that provision would be taken out.

I think Mr.

Armor would still interpret the requirement of having a manager on site to be that of someone in a long-term dwelling unit.

I think this language just clearly tells anyone looking at the ordinance that that is the case.

That is to say the proposed language before us.

Yes, not the chairman's and with great respect to Nick or to uh Mr.

Amor and the zoning department, the planning department, and the legal department.

Uh and and I learned this from you, Mr.

Bean.

Uh because you're a great city solicitor and attorney, of course.

It doesn't matter what we interpret, what Mr.

Amor interprets, it's what the court interprets, correct?

Yes.

Thank you.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Any further discussion?

All is in favor, raise your right hand on the uh proposed amendment.

All is opposed.

Um this uh my second amendment uh refers to the next um topic in this paragraph.

It's actually the uh the only thing I I'm actually in favor of for this entire change of of the zoning ordinance is that no guest unit or managed dwelling unit shall be created through the conversion of an existing ground floor commercial space.

Um I would like my amendment is to take this out and have it as a separate um unit if that's possible.

So if this does if this whole ordinance does pass, we can still keep um or sorry, if this this does fail, we can keep that as separate.

So we don't have a change of a commercial property.

So the commercial property will stay, it will cannot be changed to an STR under any circumstances.

Second.

Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I'll be very brief.

Did all my last comments uh I do not see the need if your intent is not to effectively uh what limit the if what I'm saying is should this ordinance fail after two readings, right?

I still want to make sure that we can vote on making sure that those commercial units stay as commercial units and not get changed to uh a short-term rental or uh on-site manager unit.

I with great respect, state law uh allows for such, but gives the authority to cities and towns to enact their own local ordinances as it relates to zoning and land use ordinances.

Uh should we enact your amendment and uh uh allow for not the status quo, but uh should we do nothing?

Should we enact your amendment uh if in fact the overall proposal fails, uh then my my suggestion, my my thought is that uh state law uh trumps because we we are not enacting a land use change in that case.

Uh and I have separate concerns about uh whether we can simply enact this or simply adopt this uh proposed amendment without going through the uh appropriate process by which we send our recommendation or the board or I'm sorry, the uh the city's recommendation to the planning board and then advertising it as such and having the planning board come back to the council as as we have done over the course of the last uh now two months or two years and and two months.

So I have a couple of concerns there, but uh uh.

All that said why expose ourselves, Mr.

Chairman ourselves uh to the potential of not strengthening the local land use regulations and leaving it uh to the governance of the state when the state allows us uh to properly dictate by ordinance what our our land use to a certain degree what our land use regulations will be.

Long and the short of it.

Uh why?

Why this?

Yeah, I just want to make sure that that commercial property stays as a commercial property, depending on what happens with this with this ordinance.

So can I just wasn't following the amendment.

No, I don't know.

I I need a clarification myself.

So you want to you got an amendment to remove that language about the first four floor commercial and you want to do one.

I want to put on it as a as its own separate item from this from this one uh because we're talking about just this one chapter.

So I want to separate that.

You want it you want to take it out and then act that would come up at a what at the end of the owner.

Okay.

But uh Mr.

Chairman, please.

Uh Mr.

Bean.

We we can't effectively legally, we can do whatever we want, uh, but certainly the courts will disagree.

We haven't properly advertised the chairman's proposal.

That in effect is its own proposal requiring planning board review and proper advertising.

Uh no, I would disagree.

I I think it's still a provision that the planning board reviewed.

It's still a provision that was advertised.

All he's doing instead of instead of voting on it, uh he's removing it so it stands on its own.

And I I think this board is this council is well within their rights to uh process it that way.

But as I understand it, the chairman's reasoning for the amendment is should the proposed ordinance change fail, then the amendment would be in effect separate from the proposed ordinance change.

Is that correct?

He wants to remove it and have it stand on its own.

So it would be taken up.

There would be essentially no vote on the merits of it.

So what we would be doing is by the council voting on his amendment, we would be addressing not we in part we'd be addressing the entire uh motion before us or the entire ordinance change before us, but we'd be specifically saying yes or no to a change that I support that the chairman proposes saying you can't do this, which is a part of the overall ordinance change proposal.

And then regardless of whether that amendment is successful or not, we would move on to voting on the entire proposed ordinance change.

Uh as my counsel colleague, the council of Comp Savarvang, I think said earlier, or maybe Charlie, or maybe the mayor said it that you know these these things, especially at this hour become very confusing even to me uh or to everybody.

You know, I I was the one who was most involved with writing the original resolution, but am I correct?

Are we essentially saying let's separate this?

Let's vote on this, regardless of whether the overall proposal passes.

And if the overall proposal does not pass, at least if we pass the mayor's amendment, we have that strength of law if it passes on the second reading.

Mr.

Chair, anyone can vote against it.

That's not my question.

So I mean, you vote the way you want to vote.

I mean, I don't know if I'm missing something, but he's just trying to take it out of there.

And we've done that in the past.

Moved around our docket to maybe push something further out because you were going to take up something else that might have some bearing on the way the council would vote on that other item.

So I think that's how I see it.

So it's still going to be there for the merits.

It's still going to be there for the council to vote on.

You know, even after this amendment.

So I would take it, Mr.

Chair.

You're talking about after we have on the docket.

Excuse me.

Would be after item D.

It would be essentially another like a E.

Correct.

Okay.

I I see nothing wrong with that.

I mean, it's actually I mean, it's up to the council process.

That's well within its discretion.

Council Sai.

I I respectfully disagree with the solicitor.

I understand the intent and the intent is look.

This is a non-controversial thing, everybody pretty much agrees on, so let's break it out separately so it can be voted on.

But when we look at this section of the ordinance itself, we define guest houses, historic guest houses, transient guest facilities, vacation guest facilities, and then we're sort of like carving out this portion.

And I know the intent here is that when it comes to council rules allowing us to separate out a portion for separate standalone vote, it has to be separable text that we're trying.

That's what we're trying to get at.

Just for for me, when we look at the structure of the ordinance and the language in it itself, to the person that looks back at this in two years or four years, I think they're gonna be like, why was this one thing broken out?

This doesn't make sense.

So I'm I'm probably not gonna support this just to be fully transparent.

That's fine.

Mr.

Chairman, Donald Scarling.

Thank you, Councillor Kamza Varvong.

I echo two of your comments.

First, uh well, you didn't say it, but you implied it.

The solicitor knows what he's talking about.

I I just disagree on this one.

And second, uh, I'm against this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.

All right.

Uh show of hands, raise your right hand.

All in favor of the amendment of pulling out uh no guest house unit or managed dwelling unit shall be created through the conversion of existing ground floor commercial space.

Raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

Amendment fails.

Uh now we're trying to vote.

Um special use permit.

Do we have to now we need to do the definition, right?

We still need to do 17.08 as amended.

As amended.

As uh as amended, yes.

Second.

All right, motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor uh uh as uh for the amended chapter 17.08 definitions.

Raise your right hand okay.

Um next we uh motion to approve uh chapter 17.14 entitled permit uses 17.56 entitled waterfront business and chapter 17.60 entitled general business on first reading.

Second all right, motion and second, any discussion.

All right, all those in favor of the changes of the special use permit.

Raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

No, we did close the bottom.

Sorry, excuse me.

Second.

You're uh now you have to vote on 17.56 and then 17.60.

They're all within D.

Or are we?

Mr.

Chairman, by way of the amendments, did we not do that?

Or is it necessary?

Didn't we just vote on this?

Did we just vote on D in its entirety?

I thought so.

We voted on everything.

Voted on it.

On all of it, yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

On to licenses and permits.

Motion to approve the farmer's market license, aquidnick community table, memorial boulevard between Edwards Street and Edgar Street, I'm sorry, and Chapel Street.

Wednesdays beginning uh May 2nd, 2026 through October 28, 2026 from 2 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor, raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Six to one.

Motion to approve a fitting license, new ocean and fifth LLC, doing business as ocean and fifth, seven Carroll Avenue.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Very briefly.

Very, very briefly.

Congratulations to this new great establishment.

Ocean and fifth here in the fifth ward.

What a wonderful concept.

Great owners.

Awesome opening day ceremony.

Congratulations if he's still here with us.

I know the owner came as a courtesy to the council.

Mr.

Chair, though, may I are you finished?

I I'd like to continue for another half hour or so.

No, I'm done.

Yeah, congratulations.

I I do want to make um a point though that I know that this um vote was uh delayed because of the snowstorm, and it would have the bittling license would have been approved before the opening, but unfortunately the opening happened before the license was um approved, and I just don't want to make this a uh reoccurring happening, and I am really implore people to put their license applications in well before you know a month before they um need to be approved because that we could have another blizzard, you never know.

And um, and so just to be sure that you open properly.

Uh I just want to, you know, that it's it you should be asking well before the um time time of opening.

Mr.

Chairman, uh Council Carlin.

I take full responsibility for that.

I advise the owner of the wrong way.

I apologize to councillor, vice chair, segly, and to the council.

The owner had nothing to do with that.

That's my fault.

I I am I am so looking forward to this business, and I am planning on certainly being a customer.

It's just uh food for thought.

Right.

All those in favor say aye.

I motion to approve a vittling license, new mortadel ahead of uh Newport LLC doing business as Mordadell ahead, 476 Thame Street Second Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye motion to approve a fittling license expansion, Newport Waterfront Landing Inc.

doing business as the landing 30 Bowen Swarf to recognize the addition of third 1,320 square feet of outdoor service area and 310 square feet accessory bar structure in conjunction with the liquor license expansion.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve uh the following mobile cart license renewals, royal suites and treats, LLC doing business as Royal Suites and Treats, one Dudley Avenue, Middletown, Rhode Island.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve WW Newport LLC doing business as Wally's hot dog cart 252, Middletown, Rhode Island.

Second.

Motion second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the following mobile food truck license renewals.

Umano LLC doing business as Amano, Pizza and Gelato, 181 Bellevue Avenue.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve Wiener Wagon LLC doing business as Wiener Wagon 250, uh, West Main Road, Middletown.

Second.

Motion second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve 1899 LLC doing business as La Costa, Lobster, and Tacos 186 Bellevue Avenue.

Newport.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve Cluck Truck.

LLC doing business as Cluck Truck 256 Maple Avenue, Newport.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next we're on to appointments to boards and commissions, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

We have one appointment uh on the Discover Newport board is Nicole Canning to a three-year term expiring 2 25, 2029.

Uh should we replacing um Connor?

And I just want to uh give it a little shot of gratitude out to Sean all the hard work he's done um for uh the hospitality industry for the city of Newport and uh for Discover Newport.

He has uh moved out of state, uh but hopefully we'll be back at some point down the road.

So I just want to uh thank him for all the work he's done.

Second uh motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, communications from the city manager, action item six, five, six, one, uh, extension of agreement, strategic plan assistance.

Um this is a motion to approve an extension to the professional services agreement between RAF Tell us Financial Consultants Inc.

and the City of Newport for ongoing strategic planning assistance.

This is currently budgeted.

Uh I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh a question for the city manager, please.

Or the deputy.

Thank you, deputy for being at the microphone at the podium.

How much more money will this cost the residents, if anything?

Uh an amount not to exceed $6,500 to essentially good enough.

Thank you.

Good, uh, Deputy City Manager.

So uh as you know, the city's been working with RAF Tellis uh since 2023 supporting the development and implementation of our strict uh strategic plan uh over the past year in the year 2025.

Our staff has worked very hard to continue advancing that work.

Uh we've been tracking that work, um, implementing uh outcome area tracking systems, um collecting that data and um essentially passing that along to our consultant RAF Tell us.

Um what we're asking to do here is we're proposing that they limit an extension of the previous agreement from 2024.

Um focus solely on closing the loop on the progress uh on the process uh and the progress that we've already started.

Um the idea with RAF Tell us is to uh have this defined into two phases or structured in a way of two phases.

The first consisting of implementation update reporting documentation, which is tracking that progress that I spoke about that we've made, all of our outcome areas and our staff over the in the year 2025, and the second would be to actually update the strategic plan document itself, so we have something tangible to actually put our hands on and to share with the and to share with the public.

Um so uh it essentially we're trying to close the loop on this right now, and um in the future we we would look to engage with the RAF TELLUS again uh to including a plan to support um uh support additional work in developing list of new priorities, goals, and objectives down the road um sometime in the end of 2026.

But uh we don't want to go there yet.

We want to close the loop in the work that we've already done, and this would be our opportunity.

Thank you.

Uh any discussion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Action item six five six two.

Uh the administration recommends repealing section five point zero four point zero seven zero of the codified ordinances entitled Holiday Selling during the twenty twenty-five legislative session.

The General Assembly repealed the state law regulating holiday selling businesses effective January 1 2026.

Second, all right.

We have a motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Action item six five six three, the grants office of the department of resilience and sustainability in collaboration with the director of finance, recommend awarding civic support and civic service grant awards as outlined in the roster of recommended awards for fiscal year 2027.

I move approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

I we do have two recusals.

Yeah, and if I could ask that you take um items one, two six and seven.

Separately.

So the motion uh would be to approve with the exception of those items, then we'll recuse the course.

Mr.

Chairman, so moved.

Please, a second.

Second, second motion and a second, uh to remove those items one, two, six, and seven, which is connectsion latina newport, Fab Newport, Newport Bridge, and Newport Classical.

Mr.

Chairman, pause, please.

Pause.

Thirty-second break, please.

Oh I take it back.

Okay.

I apologize.

I Mr.

Chairman.

I nope.

I I was waiting for all opposed.

Sorry.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh long night, my doing.

Are we simply voting to remove those four items?

And then we will discuss the underlying yeah.

So we're gonna we're gonna vote on one, two, six, and seven separately.

But we've we'll approve all of the others.

Okay.

What I'd like to speak of uh is all of the others as well as those four items mentioned, but I just wasn't sure how you uh wanted to conduct the vote.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, so I'm gonna allow the fellow counselors to recuse on four items.

Of course, absolutely.

Yep.

That's that's right away.

Okay, so are we approving all of these except for one two six and seven?

Are we right now?

Yes.

Okay.

So that's the vote now.

No, no, no.

We are approving one, two, six, and seven now, so that my colleagues can have the opportunity to vote on a remainder.

Yes, okay.

Motion to approve Connexian Latina uh Newport, uh the for the community grant program in the amount of uh 7500.

Second.

Mr.

Chairman, yes.

Are we taking one say all four together?

Uh why not?

Yeah.

Uh my comment will be the same first.

Motion to approve Fab Newport um for um one eleven thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, and um motion to approve Newport Bridge.

Um that is for two thousand dollars and Newport Classical for $7500.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman Council Carlin.

I yield to Council Napoleon.

Um, my question is um where is this money coming from?

Is it coming from the Sears grant?

Uh the Sears Trust?

The bulk of it, there's there's is it four total funds, I think, Jim?

Or is it all Sears Trust?

So I'm gonna make sure I get it right.

The total recommended for all 18 requests is for 151,780.

That's coming from the public improvement fund, which is uh monies that are transferred from the Sears Trust.

But that it's the public improvement fund.

Similar similar, it's very similar to what we've done in the past.

So same as last year, same as uh the previous years.

Yeah, but is this public improvement fund a new fund?

No, no, it's not.

It's just it's the same.

It's basically when the disbursements from the Sears Trust happen, they get broken into fifths, and a fifth of that income goes into the public improvement fund.

Okay.

So that's so we do have the money to cover that's not taxpayer dollars.

It is not taxpayer dollars.

No.

Thank you.

Well, it can if I can just clarify that when you look at that, that's one through eighteen.

That 151,000 is not taxpayer dollar.

Okay.

When you look at 19 um all the way to the end through visiting nurses, that is taxpayer money.

So if you recall last year, it's very similar to the model that we used last year, um, and that we split some of the the civic really service applicants um into really contract services through the general fund.

Are you saying we're adding four more entities?

No, uh I'm I'm just I'm suggesting I'm really what I'm just saying that the model that we used last year as far as where the money is coming from is really consistent with how the funding is is happening or being proposed right now.

It's very similar.

Okay.

I guess my understanding was it always came from the Sears, not the tax.

Well, and that that was the case until in up until last year.

But last year we we deviated from that a bit in that there were some with the Edward King House and some of the other um awards that were made that came through what we will call contract services through the general fund.

And this this you may recall, counselor, was because we took a close look at the precepts of the Sears Trust, and we were getting a little too far out of bounds with how those funds were being used in terms of the initial intent of the trust, the the trust grantor.

So that's why number one through eighteen have a direct nexus to what the trust was designed to pay for.

Um but nineteen through thirty were too much of a stretch.

And so that is why those shifted over to contract services uh funded through the general fund.

Um we didn't have to use much general fund during the ARPA days when we were flushed with cash, but as those as those ARPA funds uh slowly faded and expired, it left a hole to fill in last year's budget.

The council agreed to fill that with those those types of entities with general fund dollars.

I guess you know, I think everybody's worried about the economy, and I'm just wondering was that proper direction suddenly put it on the docket.

I guess and it's not that I would want to deny any of the organizations.

I know they work hard, but you know, I'm just I'm I'm speaking on behalf of the residents of tax papers.

Um it wasn't as obvious to me if that's how we discussed here.

If I may, Counselor, sure.

So uh last year, so these civic service applicants, and when we deviated from this, like Mr.

Nolan said, uh the civic service applicants uh that we have identified in the latter half being funded, these entities being funded with general funds, um, are essentially entities within the city that in council's opinion last year were services being provided to these organizations that perhaps otherwise should have been the obligation or should have been services that the city of Newport should have been providing.

Uh Edward King House is a perfect example.

Um elderly residents.

Um the the opinion again last year in these discussions um in the in the community grant uh grant program um recommendations that we made, uh the opinion in uh over discussions last year was that these are organizations that are deeply rooted within the community and that the city should be taking some responsibility in assisting um in funding because the these are essentially obligations that the city has to these specific organizations.

So that's why it was divided up that way.

Um the support applicants, civic support applicants continue to fall under uh under the Sears Trust or an element of the Sears Trust, and we divided out these service applicants or these contract service app at applications or grants um as more of a uh more of a city um obligation to support the well I'll briefly put it another way.

I I I agree with the deputy.

Another way to look at this is the city of Newport does not have a municipal social services program.

We rely very heavily on community partners, and so this is one of the ways in which we fill a gap that we're otherwise not responsible for.

If we were Providence, we have a municipal social services agency built into our government.

Newport does not, and so this is this is the way that that we help bridge that gaps.

Um I just ask the Edward King House, there is a trust, right?

For senior trusts?

Yeah, yes, there is.

So does uh the thirty thousand does that come from or is that that's another separate separate trancha?

That's correct.

Yeah, got it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, uh thank you.

First, I want to uh thank Councilor Napolitano.

Uh there is nobody in this room who knows more about the history of uh granting be it the Sears Trust or City funds uh than she does.

In fact, I think when we as a city first established not the last round, but first established these rules many years ago, uh Council Napolitano was uh an integral part of that.

So I thank her for that and for uh helping me understand the process.

I have a question for Mr.

Nolan or the city manager or anybody uh within city government who can answer this.

The four the four specific proposals that we are voting on now, uh yes or no, will those come in any way from city revenue?

Will those come uh from taxpayer money?

No, they will not.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so all those in favor of approving uh team and well let's say one through eighteen, you want to do that?

One, two, one.

No, because they're gonna come back and we're gonna do Oh, oh right, uh my own.

Uh one, two, six, and seven.

All those in favor say aye.

I any opposed?

Okay.

I have it.

Are they coming back?

Hurry up.

It's late.

Uh okay.

Now motion to approve um three, four, five, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen.

Second.

Motion and second.

Second.

All those in favor.

Yeah, sorry.

Uh, unlike what I did with the last four items that were before us, because the items that are before us now do involve uh city money.

I'm yet to see what the course they do.

It's 19 through 19 through 30, which do it's uh four through eighteen do not.

That's those are from the Sears Trust.

Madam Vice Chair, I respect and appreciate and trust you.

Uh I would like an official confirmation from the city that what the vice chair, what the vice mayor just said is true.

Is accurate.

Is accurate.

It it is.

We've already voted on one, two, six, and seven by way of the recusal process.

So the remainder is three, four, five, and eight through eighteen.

Uh none of those will touch any taxpayer funding.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Manager Kennedy, and thank you, Vice Chair Segley.

Any other discussion?

All right.

So again, these are just for the remaining civic support applicants.

So all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I have it.

Motion to approve um items 19 through 30 of a second.

Second.

All right.

Motion is second.

Uh, these are the civic service uh applicants.

So these are taxpayer funded um or taxpayer funding.

So we have a motion and second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Uh as I alluded to, but was appropriately corrected on the last few items we voted on were not city taxpayer supported dollars being used.

Uh these are.

Uh unlike last year in the discussion of the budget that we are operating under now, fiscal year 2026.

Uh we did not put the cart before the horse.

We were able, as a council to see what the budget proposal looked like before we decided whether we would support uh items like this, which although all are very fine organizations, entities, causes, etc.

We raised taxes.

The council raised taxes to virtually the maximum amount allowable in this year's operating budget.

On June the 28th of 2025, uh we voted to raise taxes by approximately 3.96%, almost uh the maximum 4% allowed.

But we did so.

I voted against it.

Uh but we did so knowing what was contained in the budget.

Amongst which were these type of suggested expenses.

We haven't seen the budget yet.

I don't know what the budget's going to look like.

And as a result, I simply won't vote for these expenditures before I see the budget.

If I see a budget that has an effectively decent tax proposal for our residents, sure.

Uh if we have enough money, of course I'd be willing to support great organizations, causes, entities like these.

But I'm not going to vote for this first and then take a look at the budget and see what we have in front of us.

I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair, how much would 98,000 dollars add to the budget of 133 million?

Going off of last year's number, uh one percent of levy was approximately 900,000.

So you'd be I'm ballparking it here.

We're probably talking about 0.1%.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Slide.

What is the what is the date of payment for these awards that we're talking about here?

Peter, can I get an assist with that one?

Uh Peter Pramonte grants officer.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

What's the date of actual payment on these grant awards?

Uh for the ones that are before us, items 19 through 30.

I'm so having a hard time hearing you.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, yeah.

What is the date of payment for these proposed grant awards?

Is it in this current fiscal year or is it next month?

No, this is for fiscal year 27.

So once the budget is approved and adopted, these award notices would go out pending any changes that you determined to make.

So these grant awards we're looking at here are contingent on our approval of the budget.

Of the fiscal twenty-seven budget.

Correct.

And so in the fiscal twenty-seven budget, we will again be asked to approve these amounts.

Correct.

And just for edification, um this total aggregate amount that we're talking about from tax funds is approximately $7,000 less than the current fiscal year that you funded in awards and total awards.

So it's about 105,000.

If that's helpful.

It definitely is.

I um I actually don't disagree with Councilor Carlin in terms of this being a budgetary decision.

I do think that given the work that's been done here.

I think by the way, I think all these causes are excellent.

And I think that most of my colleagues would agree as well.

But we are going to be looking at a situation very similar to what we were last year at the end of the year where we've got to close a gap of some sort.

I'm just, you know, it always seems to come down to half a million dollars of expenditures.

And we're saying, all right, do we want four more DPW employees or do we want something else instead?

And so, well, it may not seem like a large amount of money in this moment in time.

This is usually what we're debating over at the end.

Um I actually understand my colleagues' concern about approving this allocation separate of the budgeting process, even if it has gone through a very thoughtful uh process for actual proposed awards.

That's my thought at 10 o'clock at night.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

I seek an amendment, please, for the council's consideration.

It's an oral amendment.

Uh I actually, Mr.

Chairman, let me take that back.

Uh I seek my counselor, my council colleagues' permission to address this recommendation.

Uh after the council has seen the proposed FY27 budget, and I asked for a second.

Second.

Second.

Uh we have a motion and a second on uh Council Carlin's amendment.

Um can I council Carlton just repeat that amendment again?

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman.

It's actually not an amendment.

I apologize.

Uh I would ask my colleagues uh permission for a continuance of this recommendation until the council has seen the proposed FY27 budget.

Okay.

So we have a um a motion for continuance.

Um I know it's fine, Mr.

Kennedy.

I didn't mean that's not your insult intended.

All right.

Uh all in favor of continuing uh the civic service application uh applicant uh funding until we see the budget.

Uh raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

All right, we uh we will continue that next.

Where are we?

Um sorry.

Action item six five six four, the Harbor Department recommends awarding the contract associated with the architecture and engineering services of the rebuild of the Parate Park Harbor Master Building under RFQ number 2026, March 003 to the company with the most responsive and value-driven proposal, BIA studio of Boston, Massachusetts.

Um based on the submitted proposal for the associated work, the cost of the project will not exceed the total amount of six hundred thirty thousand five hundred forty-eight dollars and will be funded by the approved municipal bond for capital projects.

Um this is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor say aye.

Uh any opposed.

Action item 6565.

The finance department recommends the council pass the attached resolution to adopt in concept the recommended fiscal year 2027 to 2031 capital improvement program.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

I'll be voting no on this, even though it's in concept.

There are many, many, many millions of dollars uh in the proposed CIP, the capital improvement plan, uh, which are not as important as ensuring that our residents do not see again the maximum tax increase.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

All in favor, raise your right hand.

All opposed?

Five and two.

Um motion to respond to the first.

I believe the uh city clerk has a point.

I'm sorry.

Um you said it was five to two.

I just I know councillor Carlin, uh, Councilor Pinock was okay.

Thank you.

Action item 6566, uh the recommendation that the city council amend chapter 10.32 of the codified ordinances to establish two residential parking classification, R1 and R2 and clarify definitions and eligibility standards to revise permit eligibility requirements, documentation standards, permit cap um fee authority and administrative procedures, and three strengthen enforcement provisions and penalties for misuse or forgulent uh applications.

Um I move approval.

Second.

All right, motion and second any discussion.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

I don't think we can give this a fair hearing tonight, and I'm wondering if my colleagues would be interested in continuing this.

I will certainly uh second that uh Madam Vice Chair, if in the form of a motion.

Yes.

Uh make a motion to continue this item.

Mr.

Chairman, I second the vice chair's a few.

We have a motion and a second to continue the item.

Any discussion.

Oh I believe there's a a motion on the floor in a second.

Uh so let's vote on that and let the administration figure it out after our vote.

Mr.

Chairman, I call the vote.

I I want I want to uh hear from um Mr.

Nolan.

Just uh so we have all the facts before we make make the motion to continue in case it's something that we have to vote on tonight.

Um I my I guess my concern is obviously time uh as we we push towards the the uh the parking season.

Um that's that's what myself and Chief Duffy were just uh speaking up.

That's our only concern.

Would what if we were to discuss this next week and continue this to the can we continue this to next week?

Or would have to be the following the meeting?

No, we we we could.

Um I mean it would require uh the city clerk to amend that docket.

Uh but I think more more importantly is then the second reading would be pushed to March 25th, which is only five days, six days before the season starts.

So that would give the collections office a very limited amount of time to respond to any changes.

Madam Vice Chair, Mr.

Chairman.

Madam Vice Chair.

Do you understand?

I I certainly don't, and and you know many times I don't.

I think this is a good thing.

But do you understand what the what the what the manager just said by we would have to amend that docket?

We don't have a docket for the next meeting yet.

What are we amending?

Well, there is one that's gonna be coming out tomorrow.

But why would we have to amend it?

Today it came out today, right?

So you know, I just think this is a very important and controversial issue, and I I think that we we just need to give it a full hearing, and at 1035, I'm not sure we can do that.

So um I completely agree with you, uh, Madam Vice Chair, as I said earlier, and the council has every right to amend as long as we abide by state law uh any document that we put out.

We do not need eight days notice.

We need by state law 48 hours business notice to amend any document.

I didn't realize the docket was out, Mr.

Chair, Madam Vice Chair, uh for next week's meeting already, but I think your point is excellent, uh Madam Vice Chair.

This is too important a matter to discuss at 1035 at night.

Let's discuss it at the next meeting.

Let's appropriately amend the docket.

Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, Smith.

Um I I support Councilor Segley's uh motion strictly because council received 30 to 40 emails throughout the day today.

I don't know about the rest of council, but I did not have a chance to go through those, especially during my work day.

So I would like some time to actually go through those emails and and see what the residents' concerns are.

Would it be amenable to have a special meeting just to talk about this particular issue?

I thought you would never ask counseling um that that would uh I certainly that would be very welcome if it's possible.

Uh so that after the meeting on the 11th, say on the 18th, we could discuss it.

That would give the collections office some time to pivot.

Um that would be very much appreciated.

So we're talking, I'm sorry, I'm not sure.

Um hold on one quick second.

So if we try to do it on the 18th, it'll be we will not have a quorum.

Yeah.

Because there's a uh Oh, yep, sure.

Yep.

Well, I just picked that date out because I knew it was a Wednesday, but but we couldn't.

Well, we could do it another day.

Right, right.

Any any help would be greatly appreciated in that regard.

What about early next week?

Like Monday or Tuesday.

Uh for the first reading?

Uh yeah.

We could I mean uh what day today?

Wednesday, so we posted There are some interviews, I believe, that have just been scheduled, either for Monday or Tuesday for the applicants to the HDC.

I I can't tell you exactly what date would be best.

But um but could we piggyback on some of those interviews?

Uh because we're going to be at City Hall anyway.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smythe.

Um for the email that we received earlier, it is scheduled those interviews for Tuesday, March 10th.

Yeah.

So what time?

If we got notice five o'clock.

Five o'clock.

So we could go if we got notice out tomorrow, we could go Monday.

If we got or we could go after the interviews on Tuesday, since many of you will already be in City Hall anyway.

I mean, we could reschedule the interviews.

If you want to get this meeting done.

There's still folks that want to.

Let's just vote.

There's been a motion by the vice chair.

It's been seconded.

Our motion was to continue.

The administration gets paid to figure this stuff out with the council's approval.

Let's let's vote on it.

I mean by default, it's going to go to the next one.

No meeting anyhow.

All right.

So all those in favor of continuing, please raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, you're punishment over here, huh?

All right.

Not be on the 19th.

Motion to amend section 12.28.071 of the codified ordinances entitled Mooring Permit Classification and Quotas.

This is a second reading, Mr.

Chair.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

On to resolution, speed camera revenue, uh school restricted fund.

I'm going to ask for one more continuance on this because I'm waiting for some information.

I apologize, Lynn.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next uh resolution, uh, Councillor Smythe.

Uh I'll just read the resolves.

Um resolved by the Newport City Council that the beach commission is authorized to enter into a partnership with Salvae Regina University for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive economic impact study of Easton's Beach.

And be it further resolved that the study shall evaluate the full economic fiscal and community impacts of Easton's Beach operations, including both quantitative and qualitative factors, and shall examine impacts generated by consumer activity and beach related expenditures throughout the calendar year.

And be it further resolved that upon completion the findings of the study shall be presented to the Newport Beach Commission and the City Council and shall be used to inform future policy decisions, capital improvement planning, operational funding considerations, and strategic management of Easton's beach facilities.

Do I have a second?

Second.

We have a motion of second and discussion.

Yes, I think.

Because of the student thing.

That seems kind of far way off.

I guess it's something that we can we can discuss with them to see if did you read the study?

I I did.

I read the the um submittal that they gave to the the beach commission.

Okay.

All right.

And and I think the intent was to um the start of the school year.

Well, they said right in the report either that or next spring.

So you know, that I'm just asking.

Okay.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Um motion to adjourn as council and convenus board of licensed code.

Madam Chair, no, Madam Vice Chair.

Oh.

Oh.

Thank you.

Um motion to okay.

This is a resolution opposing Governor McKee's proposal to increase cruise ship passenger fees.

Counselor Smythe.

Resolve that the Newport City Council formally opposes the governor's proposed ten dollar increase to cruise ship passenger fees, and be it further resolved that the city council urges the governor and the Rhode Island General Assembly to engage in meaningful dialogue with the city of Newport and other affected municipalities prior to implementing any changes to cruise ship fee structures, and be it further resolved that the city council requests a comprehensive economic and operational impact analysis of any fee increases before such measures are enacted.

And be it further resolved that the City Council requests a comprehensive economic and operational impact analysis of any fee increases before such measures are enacted.

And be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to Governor Daniel J.

McKee, the President of the Rhode Island Senate, the Speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives, and Newport's delegation to the General Assembly.

Do I have a second?

I have a motion and a second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carroll.

First of all, thank you, Councillor Smythe, for introducing this.

Secondly, uh, Governor, uh, I speak to you directly.

Uh or and or to your staff.

Uh the office monitors all municipal council meetings.

Governor, we we very much appreciate uh your dedication to Newport and what you have supported for Newport, uh, particularly in the current fiscal year that uh uh we are abiding by, in which the city of Newport will realize millions of dollars in additional revenue because of the governor's and the legislature's enacted budget.

Uh we are grateful for everything you've done.

Uh but there comes a time when you need to fight for your own family, and Council Smythe's resolution does just that.

We appreciate you, Governor.

We don't oppose uh in general, the philosophies you have with your budgeting.

But on this, uh I join Councillor Smythe in strongly opposing uh the state scooping up dollars, which Newport is ultimately deserving of.

And the reason is because we pay for the underlying infrastructure, resources, etc.

The chief of police is here, the chief of fire is here, they among other people know how much the city puts out with respect to our visitors from cruise ships.

So again, Governor, we appreciate you.

Uh we hope that through Councilor Smythe's resolution, the legislature will listen to us and reject this budget proposal, which by the way, uh is underway.

Uh it is uh fast and furious, as we all know, at the State House.

Council Smythe, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Council Paul Tono.

Yes.

Um, I'd like to point out that it takes two years to schedule the trips, the cruises.

Um if in fact the cruise association was told that Newport will, you know, implement this and half of it goes up state.

Really?

We can lose all sorts of tourism business.

We could lose the cruise ship business.

So I I just think it's ridiculous at this point, late in the game.

I'm not into power grabs of money of any kind from any other project.

And I just think it's wrong.

And I was really upset about it.

And I do like governor the key, but this is not the right he didn't consult anybody.

It was like we got snapped right after we got it.

So m Mr.

Chair, also I think the revenue on the extra money would only amount to about a million dollars for the state.

Which for the city is a lot of a lot of money, but for the state it's not, so I don't see why it is even worth it.

So we have a whole infrastructure that we're building.

We're building up the piers, the wharfs, the walls, and a new harbor center.

All to accommodate this group of people.

I just think it's wrong.

All right.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn its council and conveners board of licensed commissioners.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Second.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Motion to approve uh Newport Waterfront Landing Inc.

Doing business as the landing, 30 Bowens Wharf, holder of a class B V alcoholic beverage license to expand.

The license premises by recognizing the addition of 1,320 square feet outdoor service area and 310 square feet accessory bar structure.

Second, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, uh, I'd like to note that uh before I took liberty of telling uh the owner of the property that he probably shouldn't wait for what I expected would be another couple of hours of the meeting.

Uh he patiently was here as he always is in asking things of the council.

So uh I appreciate that uh owner and the establishment in question.

So uh I appreciate that uh owner and the establishment in question but he does have representation here so I guess we'll let you know of course Tanner sitting there on the uh any further discussion we have a motion and second any further discussion all in favor say aye aye motion to adjourn second motion second any discussion all in favor say aye aye aye