Yes, uh Giovanna Grizzote.

I'm sorry if I botched that.

Come on up.

Good evening, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight and for hearing my request.

My name is Giovanna Grizzat, and next month on April 25th, I'll be marrying my high school sweetheart Jonah here in Newport.

Newport has always held a special place in our story.

I first visited Rosecliffe on a school field trip when I was younger, and from that moment on, I dreamed of getting married there someday.

When Jonah proposed to me, he remembered that dream and chose Rosecliffe as the place to ask me to marry him.

Our wedding will bring together family and friends traveling from near and far, including Brazil, Portugal, Florida, North Carolina, and throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well.

For many of them, it will be their first time visiting Newport, and we're so excited to share such a beautiful city with them.

We have been planning our wedding for over a year and a half and have also been in contact with Ocean State Pyrotechnics since last year.

The fire marshal has also reviewed and approved our plans.

Because this is such a once-in-a-lifetime moment for us, it would mean so much to include a brief fireworks display during our celebration at Rosecliffe.

I understand the responsibility that the council has in granting permits like this, and I kindly ask the council to consider allowing this display.

We would be happy to follow any conditions you feel are appropriate.

Thank you again for your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

That's the best way to do it.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Um before we get started with our meeting, we do have a proclamation that I'll read celebrating Irish Heritage Month.

Okay.

Counselor.

All right.

So whereas more than 30 million Americans claim Irish heritage and look back with pride on the achievements and contributions made by the ancestors.

The Irish who came to America endured many hardships but have prevailed to play important roles in the history of the United States.

And whereas Newport has been blessed by generations of Irish immigrants that settled here in the 1800s, drawn by the opportunity for work.

And whereas today many Irish American families still live and prosper in Newport, maintaining close ties with their ancestors in Ireland.

And whereas many organizations, including the Dennis E.

Collins Division No.

Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Irish Heritage Association, the Museum of Newport Irish History, the St.

Patrick's Day Parade Committee, and the Newport Waterfront Irish Festival continue to celebrate the great history of Irish Americans and their future.

And whereas the bond between Newport and Ireland was officially recognized with the signing of the twinning agreement between Kinsale, Ireland in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2024 on the 25th anniversary in Kinsale and once again in Newport last April.

And whereas delegations from both communities have visited each other, developing a cultural, ethnic, economic, and educational relationship based on mutual interest, including sailing, rugby, chef exchanges to name a few.

Now, therefore, be it that I, Charles Holder, mayor of the city of Newport and the state of Rhode Island do hereby proclaim the month of March as Irish Heritage Month in the city of Newport and call upon all citizens to join with me, our Irish friends and neighbors in the celebration of supporting the many events which will be held throughout the month to acquaint us with the customs and culture of that grand and noble island.

The city shall display the Irish flag from the mayor's balcony at City Hall during the month of March 2026.

Thank you.

The parade is on Saturday.

The parade is on Saturday.

Taken off at 11 o'clock.

So hopefully some sunshine.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Oh, Mr.

Carlin, do you have anything you want to remove from the consent calendar?

No.

Okay.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety with the exception of B3 and F.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Those in favor say aye.

Um motion to approve Shea and Cousins doing business as Easter Extravaganza, Newport Skate Park, April 4th, 2026 from 2 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

I make a motion that we continue this to the March 25th meeting.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor of the continuance say aye.

Aye.

Next um motion to receive and refer to city administration for recommendation, communication from bike and pedestrian advisory commission review of bicycle-related codes in the city of Newport's ordinances.

We have a second, second.

We have a motion and second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smythe.

Yeah, who's here from the commission?

Come on up.

Come on to the podium.

Hi, uh my name is Rachel Schmidt.

I'm uh Kyle Kozak for both on the BPEC.

Right.

Um I guess just summary of the rules.

It's mostly just clarifying and simplifying the existing laws.

Um almost everything involved was just very minor changes in uh simplifying language.

Um else.

Safety and making sure.

Um yeah, in there the um the e-bike uh minimum age of 16.

Um, and then so there was um one ordinance that was deleted, four new ones were added.

Um, some language was changed.

Um, and it's all um very clear what um bike newport and um the our police chief have worked very hard on and it's um very clear and we um do request that this addition of uh I think it was just definitions of the class system of e-bikes and the age restriction of 16, which is just copying directly from state law.

Um, and then that was the only thing about e-bikes uh in there.

And then I think there was also an elimination of uh there's an old law, like kind of an unenforced blue law about bicycle licenses and uh what was it registration with the police, which the police have never enforced.

Um, so that was completely eliminated.

I believe everything else is just clarifying definitions and very minor things.

All right, great.

Do you have any uh questions or comments from the did you say that there has to be that age 16 is the legal age for them to be on e-bikes?

Yes, yes, by state law, although Barry might be able to explain better than us, but it's uh are they required to have any kind of registration?

No, not under state law.

You know, that that's unfortunate.

It really is.

Yeah, um, what we hope is that there'll be an opportunity to present it's 20 ordinances that are being made clearer, added or eliminated.

And what we hope is to have the chance to go through them with you one by one.

Um any recommendation is based on best practices statewide, nationally, to mirror what's happening at the state, police department, uh, police chief Brian Duffy was involved in every single word of this.

Um there was just a great deal of work that went into this to make sure that we get it right.

Um, something like registration, we can answer in the context of what's happening um elsewhere.

Um, the 16 law got raised to the service because we have to address this, and where it was currently existing in state law was buried in a registration law.

You have to register all of these kinds of things except e-bikes because you have to be 16 to ride one.

It was like in a very strange spot.

So again, with the help of the police chief and working with the state police chiefs, we rewrote it, simplified it, took it out, made its own freestanding law, and that now went to the state, so that they're going to adapt it, and then we'll have the same thing.

So it's a lot of good thinking.

The way that the book is set up, which you've received, and which I assume you're gonna uh forward to uh council to look at together with the police department is in three sections.

The first section is what it is now, the section second section is what we recommend, and the third section is the annotated first section, so you can see exactly what was done, and then there's appendix with all of the best practices and why those recommendations were made.

So it's a really thorough presentation that you can reference back and forth, and that we can help to answer questions um like your as Councillor Napolitano.

I I think unless there's some regulations put in.

I can tell you, I can think of a half a dozen kids that I see on e-bikes that are not 16.

So there's real work going on between the school district, the city, the police department, and bike newport to make sure that the law is known that's already in place.

The police actually greet the kids at the high school.

They don't have their bikes taken away from them.

They're told what the law is.

They can come to bike newport and get a replacement, uh, analog bicycle until they're 16.

So there's a lot of work by the police not to be candidate to make sure that people know what the laws are, whether they're children or adults.

And you know, that's on us as a community, the city working with the police department or echoing the police department's wishes.

We're going to have a public campaign, so everybody knows what the rules are.

It's very informational, it's very collaborative.

The tourism board is involved, the business districts are involved.

You know, we're gonna be seeing more of that starting in the spring now.

And also includes not only the Newport Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, but Middletown and Portsmouth as well, so that we'll be able to have it all consistent across all three municipalities.

It's a lot of work going into it so that's easy to understand.

Everybody gets it, everybody is on the same page.

Oh, the other thing is that what you might be describing in terms of registration, if an e-bike has been touched to change what it's capable of doing, and it no longer is within the classifications of an e-bike, it is not an e-bike.

And that's when registration and licenses come into play.

All of that is addressed in this.

So the other thing is the safety of even the students or the kids that are riding them.

A lot of times, particularly at dawn or even at night, and they have black on, and the bike is black.

Yeah.

So all of that.

I mean, there are other efforts underway to get lights distributed, the police, and maybe uh chief or sergeant head can speak to it.

The police are working on ways for enforcement.

It's all working together.

This is one piece of it.

And frankly, e-bikes is one piece of what you have before you now.

But there's a lot of work going on to make the roads safer for everyone who's on them.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Council May.

Um, I just want to thank the the commission and bike newport and Chief Duffy for all your hard work that went into this and um, you know, to provide for a safer newport.

Um, I did have a quick question for the city manager, city solicitor.

What would be the next step once we receive communication like this to requesting to change our ordinances?

So uh this yes, this tonight is to receive and refer to the administration for recommendations.

So we will formally we've we've done it informally through the work with the commission and bike newport.

Now we will formally review the the 20 recommendations and then come back to count, we'll screen those through the city solicitor from a legal perspective, and then we will ultimately come back to council with our recommendation for which one of them we feel that should should that you should adopt or not adopt and have a rationale for all of those things, whatever the case may be.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, John Scroll.

Thank you.

Uh, I realize that everybody has put in a tremendous amount of hard work, including members on this day.

However, uh the bottom line is regardless of what the city of Newport desires, and let me remind all that uh the chairman, Mayor Holder sponsored a bicycle safety, very thorough bicycle safety resolution some years back, and I sponsored uh a similar not bicycle safety, but e-bike resolution in 2024.

Both counselor holders and my resolutions adopted unanimously by the past council, we're subject to what happens to us all the time, and happens to the other 38 municipalities in the state of Rhode Island.

We are subject to the discretion of what the General Assembly decides we can and cannot do.

And to a limited degree, Chairman Holder, Mayor Holder's resolution was deemed non-viable by the General Assembly.

To a 100% degree, my resolution was deemed non-viable by the General Assembly.

The General Assembly in its wisdom decided at the Senate level, the House passed the bill, but the Senate declined to pass the bill and declined to pass also the resolution uh which led to the bill that Councillor Holder originally sponsored.

The General Assembly decided as it relates to e-bike regulation and to a certain degree, non-e-bike, that is to say normal human-powered, if you will, bicycle regulation.

That will be the sole discretion for all intents and purposes of the Department of Environmental Management.

You might say, why?

What is that got to do with the regulation of bikes, particularly e-bikes with motorized opportunities?

And the answer is because of the trails in public parks that e-bikes are often used in.

And the General Assembly decided we will yield to the Department of Environmental Management for what they think is appropriate, rather than yielding to the municipalities and saying we will give you authorizing opportunity to write your own local rules.

If Barrington wants one rule, Newport wants another, Middletown and Portsmouth want another, fine.

We'll let you do that.

As it relates to state parks, we will regulate that.

It was done backwards.

Mr.

Chairman, you did a lot of work on this.

I also did a little bit of work on this.

And uh I would uh once again remind our friends at the General Assembly uh that the municipalities know best, in my modest opinion, what is good for our municipality.

Let us regulate that by authorizing uh uh legislation.

Sorry for talking so much, Mr.

Chairman.

This bothers me.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councillor.

Anyone else?

All right.

Uh so all those in favor of seeing the communication, say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to um licenses and permits.

Motion to approve uh mobile food cart uh renewal, Newport Lobster Shack group cooperative 150 Long Wharf, Newport.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Motion to approve a mobile food cart new SW Food LLC doing business as Newport Sushi, 8 Garfield Street, Newport.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Um motion to approve a vitaling license, new owner route, uh Newport LLC doing business as Route 6 Broadway.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Yep, come on up.

Um the DBA listed on there is route.

Um, but I as I was um filing with the state for the fictitious business name, I was unable to acquire that name due to a conflicting um entity.

So I spoke with someone today, and I'm able to or should be able to acquire Route Newport.

Just I applied.

I just need to receive that.

Okay.

Okay, so it's a route newport R I L L C Yeah, and then like doing business as route newport.

Okay.

So motion to approve Vittling license, new owner, Route Newport.

Um, doing business as route newport, six Broadway.

Stand again.

Mr.

Sure.

Council Sai.

I believe you worked at Route for a while, right?

Yeah.

And I just I'm so excited that you are taking us over, keeping this great business going in our community.

We're all rooting for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm excited.

Sorry.

Any other uh comments or discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Communications from the city manager, action item 6567.

Uh, the ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.24 of the city of Newport's codified ordinances follows.

Two or three and four hour parking limits.

No motor vehicle or vehicle shall be parked for longer than three hours, Monday through Saturday between 6 a.m.

and 9 p.m.

And Sundays between 10 a.m.

and 9 p.m.

in the areas so designated and signed for three-hour parking in the library and recreation parking lot in Aquidnik Park.

From uh May 1 through September 30, only those vehicles bearing resident sticker parking stickers shall be allowed to park in this parking lot between the hours of 10 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

I move approval.

Second.

Uh motion and second.

And do we have anyone from administration that can come up or city manager would like to just kind of give us a little background on how we ended up with this?

Yeah, I can give you a quick background.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, I want to express my appreciation of Councillor Carlin.

Uh he was approached by Father Sariel at St.

Mary's Church uh uh in recognition of uh uh of a conundrum that his parishioners were facing on Sunday mornings when their own lot was overfilled, uh they would end up parking in the library lot and they were getting tickets.

And that's not something you should have to deal with when you go to church.

Uh so uh we were able to work out through the interdepartment of traffic committee along with uh uh some positive discussions with both uh St.

Mary's Church and with uh our own recreation division to come up with an appropriate time on Sunday mornings to begin the clock for the three-hour parking limit so that it expires at one o'clock when the library opens.

There go, if you now come to Mass at St.

Mary's Church, um, provided you get out of there before one p.m.

Uh you will not be ticketed.

So it also does not impact uh the operations at the hut, uh, which was one of the concerns, but those basketball games and other activities that they have there on Sunday mornings, this comports with with their use of that lot as well.

So it's a sensible solution, and I appreciate Councillor Carlin uh bringing it to the administration's attention.

And there's no effect on the library hours.

Correct.

Because of the library's opening time, um uh it has no impact on their operation.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Uh any opposed?

Action item 6568.

The ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.20 of the city of Newport's codified ordinances as follows 10.20170 towing by police division.

Any meter motor vehicle or other vehicle parked on any of the following designated streets, public right-of-ways or fire lanes during the hours when the parking therein is prohibited, provided that such street or part thereof public right-of-way or fire lane is marked or is uh signed as a tow zone.

Add Narragansett Avenue beginning 646 feet of Oaker Point Avenue, proceeding 60 feet east to its terminus while encompassing that street width of 34 feet.

I move approval.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

Any discussion.

All those in favor, say aye.

Action item 6569.

The ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.44 of the City of Newport's codified ordinance as follows.

Um multi-way stop signs designated after signs have been properly posted.

All vehicles approaching the following intersections shall come to a complete stop before proceeding.

Add Bedloe Avenue and Hillside Avenue.

I move approval.

Second.

All right, motion and second.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

Um, I just want to see if there's any residents that wanted to speak to this.

Uh I'm Lola Herrera, 59 Bedloe Avenue.

I think uh you know the problem that we have in that intersection, and when Spring is coming, then it's getting worse and worse.

Um also there are other problems like uh the flooding.

So um when there is flooding in that area, also the cars, there's an stop because there's no stops.

So um we were looking for um I I was talking with the neighbors and there were 30 signatures, and we went to the commission of uh traffic, and I think they are agree that that is a good solution.

So I I hope that that give us more uh tranquility in the neighborhood, and we can live better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, John Smith.

Um, I just want to thank the ATC and the Newport Police Department for all your hard work researching this and and the recommendations that you made.

So thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

John Spencer.

Yeah, I also just want to say thank you to Lola and the residents of that area who've advocated so hard um to try to get some traffic common measures there.

Appreciate it.

Um yeah, I just want to also thank everyone that was involved with this, where this is those one of one of those situations where you know residents and then city uh departments and administration can get together and make a smart decision on what goes on um as opposed to you know getting bogged down a lot of times in in studies and research and all these things where uh it takes 30 seconds to stand down that by stand at that intersection and realize uh the why isn't it not a stop sign here?

So um I'm glad cool heads prevailed and it worked out for everyone.

So thank you.

Um all those in favor say aye.

I action item six five seven zero.

Uh this is a staff presentation by Rob Schultz, general manager and chief engineer and Jim Nolan, Finance Director, uh recommending uh how to uh fund the primary clarifiers.

I'm could um Mr.

Schultz come up and discuss this.

Um motion to approve.

Second motion and second.

Do we have uh do we council have questions for the department heads or financial director?

Do you chairman?

Yes, okay, just give us a brief statement of what it is that you want to do or proposing.

Certainly, I'll have uh director Nolan uh finance director take the take the lead and then uh director Schultz will also be available for any questions that relate Mr.

Chairman along the vice chair's line.

Uh first of all, council let's note please that uh councillor Kamza Varvong uh has refused.

Thank you.

Uh second, uh along uh the vice chair's lines.

Can we please have an explanation for the public uh as to what a bridge loan is, what the intent, I'm sure you're going to do this anyway, what the intent of the bridge loan is, what the obligation for the city will be, and what the relation to the reserve will be to reserve funds that the city now has.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Hi, uh good evening, Jim Nolan, Finance Director.

Um just as a little background.

Um, this is going back to our um uh try to use general fund um borrowings to fund the primary clarifiers.

Uh uh that did not pass, and this is an alternative funding source.

And we what we need to do is we need to bridge a gap um from currently trying to get this project underway and constructed uh to a final decision by RIB as far as if funding will be available through that avenue.

Uh in order to do so, we're proposing that uh we use six million dollars of our unassigned fund balance as uh as an interfund loan at a zero percent interest rate, and that will be either paid back if RIB is successful and we can go that avenue will be paid paid back through those proceeds.

If that is not an avenue that we can receive those funds back to the general fund, it will be uh 15-year zero percent loan coming back from uh utilities.

Thank you.

Any uh discussion?

And I and to carn to counselors Carlin, um, as far as the impact of fund balance, that six million dollar usage of unassigned fund balance will uh take us from thirty percent uh of uh total expenditures and transfers uh down to about twenty-five percent of total expenditures and transfers, which still puts us in a favorable position uh as very strong as um SP may may view us.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Uh Director Nolan, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Director, can you please uh explain to my colleagues and to the public uh what a bridge loan is and you outlined it to a certain degree, but should we need to go the route, what the length of the loan from the city of Newport's budget balance or from the city of Newport's reserve funds from our surplus to the city of Newport via the utilities department uh will be.

And appreciate you mentioning the acronym for the the folks we're looking for the loan ultimately from, but can you explain to the public uh what that acron acronym means, please?

Sure, RIB is the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank.

Um, and that's uh really the the primary funding source for for these types of projects, uh simply because they're favorable interest rates um and put and potentially um uh some reimbursement uh along the way as well.

Uh but that's those are all unknowns as far as where those are just potential.

Um but that bridge loan, that six million dollars will be used uh will be will have to be paid back within 15 years at a zero percent rate.

Um and those those funding terms would we we it would just be a straight line.

So we take that six million dollars and divide it over over uh 15 years.

Uh thank you, Jim.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, last question.

To be clear, should we go the bridge loan route and take the money from our budget surplus?

We would be using approximately six million of the roughly thirty-two and a half million dollars that the city has in reserve, correct?

Uh that what we have in reserve currently is uh about thirty-six million.

We are now at thirty-six million.

And that's still that 32.

That was as of June 30th, 2024.

Uh we is that unaudited or audited?

No, that's audited.

That's correct.

So that's through June 30, 2025.

Okay.

Our most current audit.

So we would be approximately at a 30 million dollar level should the loan from RIB uh not be approved.

Should we need to go that that route?

That's Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

Any further questions?

Thank you, Director.

All right, but no further questions.

Uh take a uh show of hands.

All those in favor, raise your right hand.

Six zero.

Okay.

Action item six five seven one.

Uh it is recommended that the council award a contract under Massachusetts Mass Um purchasing agreement to fire tech and safety of New England Incorporated, located at 100 Business Park Drive, Tingsboro, Massachusetts, to procure needed fire hose and firefighting water supply appliances at a cost of 140,100.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

We have a motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Moving on to ordinances.

Um, make a motion to um amend section 5.04.070 entitled holiday selling.

Um this ordinance would uh not require holiday selling licenses in the city.

Uh believe the state removed that.

So I'm motion to approve.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Uh motion to amend 10.32 point zero two zero entitled definitions.

This is a second reading.

Uh, this has to do with uh the parking.

Yes.

This is a first, I'm sorry, this is a first reading.

Okay, thank you.

Um, do we want to um the residential parking program?

We gotta go to go through all of these together, or are we gonna do them separately?

Um I would I would like to just do them since we have them um listed all separately.

I would like to do them separately, however, um for public comment period.

Um if anyone is here to uh comment publicly on uh on this resident parking uh program.

Uh I ask you to uh will do all the public comment at one time.

Um also could one person at a time, not all at once, but sorry, but could I also get a second on amending section 10 points?

Second uh motion and second, any discussion.

Uh so we do the public comment.

Each person can come up, say your name and address.

You'll be uh allowed you three minutes.

Um so if you hear the buzzer go, then that's your three-minute mark, and then we ask you to quickly wrap it up.

Um that allows us to get as many people in as possible.

Um after the public comment, uh, then we'll have discussion or questions uh from the council.

Okay.

Uh so we'll be looking at there's uh three uh amendments we're looking at um the definitions and then the um parking permits and visitor passes along with temporary permits and then the relocation of permits.

So is anyone from the public that would like to come up and make any comment?

No.

No one.

Beautiful.

Okay.

So we have any.

Oh, okay.

I uh Michael Katsanakis with uh 58 Washington Street.

Uh the question that my wife and I have, uh we have a business that we have in East Greenwich, and it's a car dealership, so we drive our own drive vehicles from the car dealership, different dealership, they're different cars pretty much every day.

And we were offered a pass that was a fleet pass last year.

When I understand um, even though we're residents, we live here, we have driver's licenses here, but we don't have any cars registered in Newport.

That that would be an issue being able to park on the street, which is our only option.

Is that something that's still up for discussion where we would not be able to have a pass or so the the fleet pass program is is not part of the ordinances that are being uh looked at tonight?

There's no one immediately and there's no immediate intent to claim that uh section of the ordinary.

This is only about the standard residential parking permits, so ancillary items like fleet passes, guest passes, none of that is under.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh any comment from or discussion from the panel from the uh council?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, colleagues, and thank you, Manager Kennedy, for your earlier uh remarks regarding St.

Mary's Church, etc.

Uh question.

As I understand the current situation with the city.

About 96% of the current sticker holders, resident parking sticker holders within the city of Newport.

Are those who have two or fewer cars?

Am I correct with that uh assumption?

Hold on, I'll let Jim has some data, but just as he comes up, uh 94%.

When we initially had proposed a cap of two uh per uh app per registrant, uh we we did ran the data based on last year's data and and coupled it with addresses and found that that would not have affected 94% of uh parking permit holders.

If you increase that cap to three percent, or I'm sorry, increase that cap to three vehicles, then it goes all the way up to 98 percent.

Um we ultimately landed at three based on community feedback, and and that would not affect 98 percent based on last year's application data.

Thank you.

So that the public understands I've researched this myself, as I'm sure my colleagues have, as I'm sure member members of the public have, many members of the public.

Uh but uh so that we can clarify and so that I can make sure my numbers are correct, because I just uh incorrectly suggested 96 versus 94 percent.

Tell me please, uh Mr.

Manager, how many who currently have resident stickers?

That is to say, how many stickers are assigned to individuals where three stickers or more three or more stickers are associated with the same household?

How many folks?

Uh I know the number of vehicles that a cap of two, meaning that that would that would remove from the program.

That number is one thousand four hundred and thirty-two.

Now that does not include the two that everybody would still be entitled to.

It's whatever the excess is over that, whether you had three, four, eight, twelve stickers last year, that that delta cumulatively comes to one thousand four hundred and thirty-two.

With my apology, let me rephrase and let's move backward.

Let's start by telling the public how many stickers have been assigned in fiscal year twenty-six?

None yet because the oh fiscal twenty-six, the current the current year based on last year's sixteen thousand.

I don't have that here.

Let me find it.

I got it.

It's over sixteen thousand.

I could get it for five.

I think this is confusing.

It's about sixteen thousand five hundred.

About sixteen thousand five hundred stickers have been assigned in fiscal twenty-six.

Correct.

Of those sixteen thousand five hundred stickers.

How many of those stickers belong to households with one or two vehicles?

If you subtract one thousand four hundred and thirty-two from sixteen thousand, that's somewhere in the ballpark of fifteen thousand.

That's impossible.

Fifteen thousand is completely impossible based on the numbers you just gave me.

Total total permits issued last year were approximately sixteen thousand five hundred.

I'm I'm sorry.

I I apologize.

W what you mean with respect to it doesn't have to be an exact number, but with respect to what I was just asking.

How many of those stickers assigned are for three or more vehicles?

So three or more vehicles.

So I think we'd have to run some math there.

We we have all the statistics.

Um Surely, I just just to cut through and to make my uh question and your answer, my questions and your answers quicker.

Uh let's cut out one and two cars.

Let's even cut out three cars.

How many permits or stickers that were issued in fiscal 26 apply to those who have four or more cars associated with the address in terms of the total 16,500?

And that's where I had a little problem earlier with respect to uh the 15,000 figure you gave.

How many again of the 16,500 stickers which were issued, were issued to those residents or those addresses which have more than three vehicles.

I I can't tell you the number of addresses.

What I can tell you is that the fourth and up vehicles summed to 485 in that scenario.

485 out of roughly 16,500 permits issued, correct?

Correct.

Do you know what that percentage is overall?

It's right, it's right around 3%.

Thank you.

Yes.

So I I mean, I was the first one to offer comment here.

I'm not sure if my colleagues have anything to offer, but I will ask this question and then yield to any comments from my colleagues.

We are essentially rewriting uh the parking permit ordinances on the basis of a problem that exists with the numbers you just described, which is an extraordinarily minimal percentage of the permits issued, if I am correct.

I you're correct.

I would I would, but I would caution to characterize it quite that way.

Uh don't forget, we only have about 3,800 actual residential parking spaces on our residential parking streets.

So many of these stickers we know are used by members of the public solely for the purpose of going to Easton's Beach or getting three hours of free parking, or occasionally happening to park at a friend's home in a residential uh district.

So, really, we're talking about 3800 spaces of concern.

So that now that you're lowering the numerator closer to the denominator makes makes it more significant.

Moreover, it probably won't have an impact on most people, but if your neighbor happens to have 10 vehicles, it really matters to you.

And so that's that's where the caps come into play is really guarding against those those extreme situations that are that are that are clustered in certain neighborhoods and being really unneighborly.

So, Mr.

Chairman, uh thank you, and thank you for the answer.

But I will once again repeat my concern on my question, which you don't have to answer again.

Uh that is to say, in the example that the manager just used, which is your neighbor potentially having 10 stickers.

We didn't even address 10 or I didn't address 10 in my comments.

I addressed uh far less than that.

More than three, but I didn't again reference 10.

So while we're at it, how many have 10 stickers?

So let's um I think at this point this will be good time.

Director Nolan, would you uh mind kind of just discussing how we got here?

Sure.

And why would why we're doing this whole lookup program?

And I have a I have a prepared really brief that I can get through very, very quickly that will really just highlight the points as to why why we're here.

Um so tonight we're presenting revisions to the residential parking program designed to address significant overissuance to better prioritize year-round Newport residents while addressing the many resident sticker complaints over the years to counselors and city administration that has prompted two workshops in the past.

Currently, approximately 13 or excuse me, 16,000 residential parking permits have been issued for fewer than 4,000 available on on-street spaces.

The existing program has no cap on permits and relies on an outdated database and outdated processes, including automatic renewals with limited verification.

This imbalance has created parking pressure in many residential neighborhoods.

The proposed revisions accomplish five key objectives.

First, the ordinance establishes two clearly defined residential categories.

Those categories are resident category one, which includes primary Newport residents and active military and active duty military stationed in Newport, includes any registrant with a Rhode Island license with a Newport address and a Rhode Island vehicle registration with a new port address.

Resident category two includes non-resident property owner registrants and tenant registrants with a residential lease greater than seven months but less than a year.

Second, the proposed strengthens documentation requirements.

All applicants must provide proof of residency through specific documentation such as vehicle registration and driver license with annual renewal and updated verification.

Third, the ordinance introduces caps, permit caps.

R1 residents may receive up to three permits per individual registrant, our two applicants are limited to one permit per individual registrant.

LLCs and trusts are limited to two per to two permits per property.

Fourth, the program modernizes administration through a digital parking management system, linking permits to license plates and improving enforcement capabilities.

And finally, the ordinance clarifies enforcement authority, allowing denial, suspension, or revocation of permits for fraud.

The annual registration puts an emphasis on the prevention of fraud and prevents the issuance to unqualified applicants.

Overall, these revisions are intended to restore fairness, improve accountability, and ensure that limited on street parking is prioritized for Newport's year-round residents.

Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, uh, Director Nolan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Jim.

If Ellen received the parking uh permit by mail last year, counselor Pinnock, I should say, and I received one on my wife and I received one.

Under this proposal, would we receive another one automatically next year?

Well, automatically, we you would have to apply each year.

So if you had have a new if you have a uh license with a Newport address and a vehicle registration with a new pet add Newport address, you are eligible for three free passes.

Assuming that your name is is on those on the license and and the registration or download registration.

Thank you, Jim.

Thank you, Director.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll I'll stop with the following comment or comments.

Um and there are many, many more questions I could ask and comments I could make, but I won't.

Uh I'll simply say that I think the proposal is uh to redesign the parking permit system within the city of Newport at the expense of approximately 98% of those who have parking permits now, mostly Newport residents.

That is to say, those who live here seven months and one day or more of the year.

Um it also, as I just mentioned, does so by requiring those residents, those permit holders to prove year after year after year, uh that they are indeed the type of residents that they are in fiscal 26, and that most have been for many years in the past.

We are inconveniencing 98 percent of our residents for the expense of a problem that is created by just a few hundred.

I urge my colleagues to reject this.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, I just have one question.

Um Director Nolan, so if like myself, my daughter, and then a third person in my house all have vehicles, but they're all registered to us as individuals.

What happens then?

So if you have a license, a Rhode Island license with a Newport address, and you have that car registered with the address of Newport, you would be eligible for each one in your household would be eligible for three free stickers.

Okay, not for permits, excuse me.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question also.

Um, the matter of trusts, a lot of people have homes in revocable or irrevocable trusts.

You said that uh would that be two free stickers per person on the trust, or how does that work?

That would be capped at two per trust.

Well, yes, but a lot of full-time residents will have their house titled in a irrevocable trust or a um revocable trust.

And what would happen in that case?

More than likely, they would have a license with a new port address on it, and the vehicle um registered to that newport um uh residence.

So they would fall into category one.

Now, if they weren't uh for LLCs and people with trust that didn't fall into that, they would get up to two.

Okay.

And so we need to possibly even with the with the trusts, even trusts, they could still qualify for the R1.

Okay.

LLC would be different.

Okay, thank you.

Um and uh the other one thing that I had an issue with on this is the annual renewal.

I think that that is a bit cumbersome.

Yeah.

I'm wondering if the council would consider amending to have and maybe a two or three-year renewal process.

Um it's just it's just it's just a thought.

Um, so the proposal by the council would be to provide three free stickers per person on a deed with a license that matches that that address, right?

No, not exactly.

It's it's all per individual.

So three people reside.

It doesn't matter where they reside.

If they if they have a newport driver's license and a newport registration, they are entitled to up to three vehicles.

Okay.

Thank you.

But up to, I mean, you're you might not apply for three.

You might only need one, right?

So I mean, but this is I'm eligible for three.

My wife's eligible for three, my daughter's eligible for three.

We don't need nine, but but that's the way that it works.

I also just wanted to make two clarifying points.

One is uh with the three-cap limit of the 450 or so vehicles that are off the street, there are only 3800 residential parking spaces.

And a lot of these who have been overissued are in neighborhoods where where we see a lot of them.

And then just sorry, just the pieces that the actual digital permitting system, including the renewal process and all of that, uh, was approved by council last year.

So that that piece of it is is here, the digital piece and the enforcement.

Um and that enforcement side's also gonna help this problem because the enforcement's gonna be so much more efficient.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, I I I do agree with that.

And I I think that you know, this this sticker parking program has been going on for a very long time.

And and uh, you know, there is an outdated data database, and I think that that is really the crux of a lot of this.

Um, people getting stickers who really shouldn't be getting stickers and who don't live here anymore.

So be surprised.

Would you be surprised to know that 25% of last year's sticker issuances went to individuals with out of state plates?

That's 4,000 stickers.

So it's it, I think that underscores part of the problem.

Some of these based on old motor vehicle excise tax roles were getting just mailed out regardless of whether a person moved to Tiverton or to Hartford, Connecticut, you know, four years ago.

So yeah, yeah, I mean you have it.

You have to update a database, I mean, obviously, and I think that this is the way to do it.

But you know, I do I do wonder if the yearly thing is cumbersome, but we'll see what the other counselors think.

Don't support.

Yeah, I was just gonna say I agree with counselor Segley.

Perhaps every two years, um, you know, every year could be really fairly redundant, probably more accurate, but every two years, so that you know, they they get a breather one year.

Uh three years is a little bit too long.

And certainly the reason we got into this problem is because we don't have updated data, which I believe we have now.

Exactly.

Well, that's what we're gonna garner over the next year exactly.

Uh a two or three year.

Yeah, only reason we kept it one year this time is because we anticipate, based on all the data, the geofencing data, all the enforcement data that we're gonna be able to collect with this new system that we're going to be able to, you know, own the program.

And I think people get a little confused as to what that tag represents.

It means that you can get some free if you qualify, you can get free parking at city lots or spaces, but not paid lots.

So there's no guarantee you're going to have enough availability and parking to actually use it, maybe at the time you want to use it.

Um it's just an extra benefit for the residents.

So I, you know, I think people are overthinking this.

Um, but we do have to have updated data uh to make it work and work for everybody.

Plus they get free beach parking.

Yes.

Pardon?

Plus free beach parking.

Absolutely.

So it it makes it very uh nice to have.

Yeah.

Like I'd like to I'd like to add one point also about applications.

Uh, we are moving to the ability to apply online, provided you have the ability to take a picture of your documentation and send that in.

Uh gone will be the days of being required to come to City Hall to make the application.

So I know there's some concern about repeated applications, but uh if you have the ability with your phone, you could do this from your pajamas um at 6 a.m.

uh from your living room.

So we'd like to make that easier for a resident.

We'll also have a for those that do like to come to City Hall or have other business here.

We'll also have a kiosk set up in the collections office to make it easier for folks to walk through the process.

Council Sai.

First of all, the use of data here is exactly the type of thing we should be doing as a city, and so I commend you for that portion of it.

And this AI tool that you've developed is a very interesting application of how AI can actually help clarify what's going on in government.

So on the issue of data, we know that there are 400 some odd households that are the problematic permits, if you will.

Or is it four to permits or 400 households?

Permits for permits.

And in excess of three had the capital.

So four or more.

So that's about a hundred households.

And so here's my question to my colleagues' point earlier.

If we know the hundred households that are problematic, or fewer, we know it's a hundred or fewer, just mathematically.

Can we agree on that, right?

Rather than asking the other 98% to go through an administrative rigor mole, right?

When life is quite frankly, people that work here work multiple jobs, it is very hard to make it here year-round.

Why don't we just automatically issue those permits and just reject the permits for those that we buy the data can identify and know are the problem violators under this ordinance?

So we could scrap all these verification requirements and go right to the point of the issue that we're trying to get at using the data and technology that we have.

Maybe easier said than done, but I will defer to my to my team uh for for any thoughts on that.

I think 25%.

Yeah.

So I I think we're really what we're talking about is that that data collection is in particular that first year is really going to be critical.

We could certainly um excellent point.

We could we could take the existing data that we have, we could exclude um those that are out of state or some of the problematic um addresses.

We certainly could do that.

Um I just I don't know exactly what that would look like right now.

Well, if I may, some of the issue is with the existing audit definition of resident qualifies is extensive.

It gets into commercial.

So you would have to, we would have to revise this the audit.

It would have some significant changes to the rest of the school and go out, but they would have to be some change probably at least the definition, which we've done here, and also the the um the caps in terms of the issuance.

I think if we're using technology to zero in on what the problem is, we're looking at data to quantify the size of that problem.

We should be able to actually seek to make the administrative burden less for residents.

So for example, just if like we said, you know, that 98% of residents qualify, mail out that 98%, their three permits.

And the other reason it's not just about making residents' lives easier.

City administration staff works extraordinarily hard.

We looked at the sheer toll of the administrative burden for the resident tax deduction, and it's a lot, it's a lot down in that department.

If we flip that the other way and use technology and just went after those problem actors rather than the other 98%, I I know that's a late breaking concept here, right?

And I know that we're looking at overhauling the system, but we are we can't keep building more of a burden for residents, more of a burden for the administration.

If we're trying to get at the problem, let's just go directly at the problem.

Exactly.

I mean, I agree.

One of one of the goals of this was to reduce administrative burden and uh you know, Lori and certainly speak to that.

I think we feel like this is going to be less of an administrative burden on them because everything's consolidated in one place, applications come in for review.

Um, you know, as far as sending out stickers to those 98% of people, the problem is we're then we're still missing the data.

The people who have moved, the people have changed addresses, people have changed registrations, all this kind of information that is really gonna serve us well in creating those efficiencies.

Council Sugley.

Yeah, uh, I was just gonna say is the the a data that we are referencing to tonight is that old data.

I mean, exactly and that's the problem, right?

Totally the problem.

Um, and also mailing out those stickers, and let's say we're mailing out you know, hundreds more.

It's very expensive to mail out those stickers.

So um, and it's time consuming for the staff to do that.

So, and I think we do want to eventually go sticker less.

Um eventually, not this year, but the following year.

So that will um take the burden off of staff and it will be a financial benefit as well.

So I mean, I I think that this needs to be looked at further.

And um, you know, as far as the stickers themselves and getting an updated database, I think is very important.

What we've been doing is it's a little too lax, I suppose.

So thank you.

Council Paul Tone.

Uh, yeah, I I don't look at getting a sticker as a burden.

I look at it, I'm a citizen as a benefit.

And hey, so you have to do some paperwork.

I think that's legitimate, considering the problem we're trying to address, all these stickers that people have that maybe don't live there.

So, you know, at least to get the program off the ground.

I think it you've done a tremendous amount of work, but it's important that we keep this information updated.

Because if we don't, we'll find ourselves in the same position three years from now.

Definitely.

And I will say that the portal is just very simplistic.

I mean, you put the information in there, you upload your three qualifying documents and submit and you're done.

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

What is the data that we're collecting?

So we will be collecting geographic enforcement data.

Um, we will be collecting issuance data, uh, utilization, lots, meters, uh, identification of problem areas, because we'll have the geofencing on the on the uh digital enforcement, um uh operating costs, which we never were which we kind of honestly have guessed at.

Um and uh, you know, the the I think the enforcement side's really kind of the only piece here.

I think that that's really gonna ramp up so much with a vehicle that we're driving by and scanning plates, um, that it's really gonna deter potential violators and make that 98%, you know, make that all much more impactful.

So let me just clarify what is the data you're looking for from applicants.

Oh, I'm sorry, that that is really just typically if they're Newport residents and they have a Newport license and a Newport registration, that is all their application, their license, their registration.

If they are not and they fall into some of the other classes, then there's you know different requirements, obviously, deeds, mortgages if they're non-uh resident property owners, we need them named the deed or or uh under the orders of the corporation.

Yeah, but but right now you know if somebody's a resident, right?

If they've applied, so that box is checked, even without them having to provide proof of residency.

Part two is the registration should be publicly available information from RIDEM.

I just what I'm wondering here is if we're gonna use technology, we're gonna dive in on this and use it.

We should be using it to make people's lives easier, right?

And not increasing the administrative burden.

So I think all the data collection you're talking about, the new system is gonna be awesome.

Like I'm just trying to figure out is there a quicker way to get there that puts the onus and the burden on the violators that we're concerned about going after rather than the 98% of everybody else.

Yeah, I think there is actually uh, and I know we kind of lost over it this time around as we're trying to just get this rolled out.

I think there's DMV connector uh through passport.

We can the data.

Yeah, that's yeah, we can use the updated.

So, yeah, definitely.

There's there's options, and I think that that's what's gonna happen.

It's gonna get more and more streamlined.

We were just we were just confirming over here that DMV database.

We used to have access to it when we had when we had responsibilities involved with the motor vehicle program, but we do not have access to that database anymore.

Mr.

Chair, Council Smith.

Um, I just want to apologize first.

I'm hoping that I can articulate this properly.

I I can appreciate what counselor comes of Vorabang is is saying and recommending.

Um I can appreciate all the hard work that you all did.

I know that you spent a very long time, months running the numbers, looking into things, finding the best way to get a handle on our parking or the the sticker permit issue.

Um this came before council for the first time in January.

And then, you know, it's only been a couple of months that that we have had to digest what was presented in January to receive information from some of the public that attended that workshop, and then now it's brought before us again now.

I know that we continued this from last week.

Um I don't feel comfortable making a decision on this with the amount of time that we haven't had to fully digest and really communicate to the to the public what this entails.

So when I hear that there's only a small amount of individuals that that are the problem children in this equation, and we have a very robust system that we're trying to get a handle on.

And I know that our our parking sticker season starts within a couple of weeks.

So I understand the urgency here, but I just feel as though we need some more time to really talk about this and to weigh perhaps even some potential options that that may not have been thought about yet, but also to get the community engagement because when I see 40 emails over the course of a day that come in that they're concerned and they're worried about what this means.

To me, that's saying that we need some more time with this.

And I and I think that you're on the right path.

And I appreciate your work and and this is something that we really need to consider.

So I can appreciate what uh the counselor recommended, but I can't speak for the rest of council.

I I don't want to I don't want to vote against this because I feel like you guys are on to something, but I'm also not prepared to vote on this tonight.

So I I don't know if that that means having another workshop.

Let me jump in here for a few quick second, if we don't mind.

So we've had two workshops on this uh one with the previous council as well.

So we've had plenty of time, and unfortunately, those workshops were not very well attended by the public.

We're here tonight with with this proposal because the last workshop that we had, we had asked city administration to come up with a plan.

And the plan was at that time, residents would get one sticker for free and pay 100 for every sticker after that.

Okay.

We look we took that information in.

We're like, that's we heard some lot of feedback.

That's not what we wanted.

Go back to the drawing board, and that's where we're at with this proposal now, which is each resident gets three up to three free stickers, which is much better than the last plan that was put in front of us.

So we get a lot of feedback from from the public because there's some lot of misinformation that was put out on social media that people read or maybe they read the headlines and don't read the information, and now we're we're here because there's a lot of questions.

It's not it shouldn't be that complicated that uh with and with all due respect, counselor, that we need another workshop on this because we do have another reading in two weeks after this, um, unless it gets continued or something of that that nature.

But one thing I want to point out too, the misnomer, the 485 people that have over that need more than three stickers, they're not necessarily the bad apples.

They're just not getting a free sticker after the third one.

And then we have as a council have to come up with what is that cost for every sticker after the third one.

So I don't want I want to be really careful that we're not we're not pigeonholing certain people into a hey you have more than three cars, or you need more than three stickers, or you're a bad person, you're screwing up the system.

That's not it.

The system that we're trying to fix is one that has been outdated.

And lucky we're working on some new technology that will help us streamline it and and eventually make it better for all residents, and um, and we can make some amendments to to these um suggestions as well to these amendments to these changes in the ordinance.

Um, for instance, the state of Rhode Island gives new new registration stickers every two years.

Right.

No, I think that's we could maybe piggyback on that plan.

So along with your you know, registering your car, you can register for the for the parking sticker or the whatever it's gonna be at that point.

I don't know if we're gonna get chips in people or what we're gonna do, but um, there's a lot of things we can do with with the technology because this will be the only year we'll have a physical sticker planning at least because after this it's gonna be just license plates reader, license plate readers, right?

Correct, and and this year's stickers is actually just you know, to kind of reduce the shock of change sticker doesn't actually mean anything.

Your your plate has to be registered.

Right, Mr.

Chair, and the other point was the administration part of it that we're that we've been dealing with, you know, when we're giving away these free stickers, it's still a lot of a lot of work on our departments and our our staff, and that's what we're trying to minimize.

So I I think this plan as a whole is where we're headed and where we want to go.

There's there's a couple tweaks we'll we'll definitely need.

Um, but I don't think we need to go back to the drawing board and start all over again.

We can see what happened uh how this works after one year and go back and make changes as as needed.

So I just want to have make sure we keep that in mind.

Council Segley.

Yes.

How would we update the database without doing this?

You can't.

We can't really.

The only way to do it, and this was a huge discussion point when we were first starting this.

We we went back and forth, we tried to figure out a million ways to to do what you were saying and keep the existing people who had permits and bring them into the new system, and and there was just no way to do it.

You just you have to scrap them and and have everyone register.

Right.

And as I stated before, the the staff does a lot of work when it comes to these stickers, does a lot of work that it costs a tremendous amount to the city.

I realize that we're gonna go stickerless eventually, but you know, I mean, if we don't approve this on first reading, let's say we won't be able to update that database.

We will we will just be keep doing what we're doing, right?

Well, so we we've when you actually approved the the digital permitting system and the LPR enforcement stuff.

That that was the plan, whether the ordinance got changed or not is to go to the to the digital permit in order to do that, we can't use that old data.

So people will have to register, but we won't be able to set our caps or fees or any of these to right to verify um residency, Mr.

Chairman.

Council Crown.

No I yield to Council of Napoleon.

Council Paul's okay.

Yeah, I I just want to repeat this is a benefit to the residents.

You should be informed, and it should be in the paper tomorrow and on the radio and everything else.

Um the staff has worked a lot on this, trying to bring it to fruition.

We really need to cooperate.

It's not that difficult when you really want a sticker to write out the information and help the city know the people that have the stickers are the ones that should have it.

And if you're playing games, we'll probably find out.

So I just think you know, we're not asking for a lot.

We're asking or we're trying to give a benefit.

And all it requires is you filling out three pieces of information from what I understand.

Mr.

Chair, I was expecting I yield to the vice chair.

Okay, I was expecting this uh council chamber to be packed with people concerned about this program.

And there's no one here is anyone here want to speak on this?

We already went over that.

I know, but I'm just asking again, like now that you've heard all of this, where is the outrage?

Where I I mean, uh obviously databases need to be updated.

We need to do something different with this.

We have too many parkings, too many parking stickers going out for too few spaces.

What's the problem?

Council Carlin, last time, last chance.

I guess we will uh to councillor Segley's point.

I I guess we'll find out in November uh where the outrage is.

Uh but I have heard uh that one of the reasons among the many reasons that we are attempting to overhaul, or the administration is attempting to overhaul the parking permit system is because as counselor Napolitano alluded to a moment or so ago, perhaps there are folks out there who are receiving permits, stickers uh who are not entitled to them, who don't deserve them.

Uh Mr.

Nolan, question, please.

Mr.

Chairman, question for Mr.

Nolan.

Mr.

Nolan.

Uh is there teeth in the local resident property tax ordinance that allows the city of Newport to take action, specifically criminal action if need be, against those who say they deserve the city's residential tax discount, but really do not.

Yes, there is uh perhaps the simple answer to this overall question is to put some teeth into this proposed ordinance, which does not exist as it was presented to the council, which would in fact make it illegal to say you deserve a permit when in fact you don't.

If we are concerned about many folks getting permits who should not be getting it, then do as we do with respect to our property tax rules and ordinances and make it a criminal act or something similar to say you deserve it when you don't.

Again, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, Council Side.

I'll defer to the vice chair.

I just want to say I don't think we should be making decisions based on an election in November.

I think we have to do what's right for the city, not what's right for our own personal benefit.

Thank you.

Council Slay.

Just back to the data again.

When I get my sticker this year, it's gonna have my license plate on it.

Right?

Like the it says, you know, my license plate number right on it.

Not this year.

We're dropping that.

Why are we have that information though?

We have it, it's in the system.

So your registration is with your name in the in the permit.

By registration and my name are in the system, and it's getting sent my address.

Those are the three pieces of information we need essentially to determine whether or not there's a vehicle who that vehicle belongs to, whether that's a resident.

So what I'm trying to understand is what is the new data we're trying to collect through an application process.

So a lot of it will be enforced.

First of all, the database is way outdated.

Way way out.

It's old registrations with all applicant information, old addresses, former residences, et cetera, et cetera.

Also uh uh on the enforcement side, we will be able to see where problem areas are, where people are parking all the time who are who do not have resident stickers and where the system's being abused.

We'll be able to see um you know the types of permits because we've we've built them out.

So we will be able to see how many people are R1s, how many people are your primary?

I have a Newport license, I have a Newport registration.

That's that category of of your constituents.

And then the other category is non non uh non-resident owners and short-term printers.

So I just write right now, right?

For example, if the address I give is not the right address, the sticker will go out and it'll bounce back just like any other piece of mail from the city.

And that's that's really how we maintain the the old, I say the old database, the outdated database.

So that's really those stickers will go out.

Um, they'll be return mail, and what we do is we take those off of the off of the the list off of the database.

Um, but that's not to say that there's stickers going to a particular house that that a registration or or that permit may not be valid, but that that that's going out to a uh a house, that person potentially could use it uh illegally.

There's no doubt about that.

Um so that that's really what we're trying to do in updating this this this data.

I and I think the the intent is right, and I think that the like I said, that the use of the framing and data and the technology, these are all useful things that we'll be able to use in the future for all sorts of public policy applications.

Um I'm just trying to really kind of project where I am in the moment right now.

If we're able to use all this information and data and eye technology to get us to this point, we should enroll out a program like this also do it in a way that puts the burden on who we believe the wrongdoers are, not on the 98% of the population.

It's just a lot, unless there's there is another possibility here, right?

And this is the unspoken possibility that this isn't about 400 people who have or 100 people who have four more vehicles.

This is about fleshing out a whole nother portion of the population.

And if that's the case, we should just say it outright, right?

But I if this is just about the data, you have all that data right now.

If there are flaws in that data, those need to get flushed out.

You have my name, you have my address, you have my vehicle registration.

And that's the same type of information that's gonna get so when the car scanner goes by, it's gonna look at my license plate.

And so I don't know why, in addition to that, I have to provide additional identifying information into yet another government database that exists in other government databases.

You're not providing any information other than what you just stated.

You you you will you will go to this portal, you will fill out the application there.

It's your name, your address, etc.

It is your license plate number.

You will upload your registration and a picture of your license.

And then only at that point will that application be approved and a sticker be built.

Which I I get, right?

But my question is why?

If the city already has it all, why am I having to do that again?

We don't have it all.

It's it's one, it's inaccurate.

And two, it's um not it's it's literally in an Excel spreadsheet.

So I mean, that's the city's data keeping problem then.

So let me ask you this.

If you didn't have that information, how would I get a sticker this year under the old system?

You you you probably would because you're probably in there correct.

It would just take that entire Excel spreadsheet and send out 16,000 stickers to those addresses.

Right.

But if it was wrong and it wasn't accurate, it would bounce back, which we just heard.

Yes, if that if you truly had moved, um but anecdotally, a lot of what we're seeing.

A good case of case in point.

We had an individual who used to be 17 years old, used to get a sticker, uh, graduated from high school, uh, moved to Tiverton.

The sticker went to their parents' address, parent immediately forwards it to their son or daughter in Tiverton.

Now you have a non-resident and a non-resident using the sticker.

So we're seeing a lot of that, and those are more difficult to clean up.

Hi.

Um my name is Lori Kenny.

I'm the tax collector for the city, and I've been here 20 years and overseeing this program for 20 years.

So I just want the opportunity to very quickly and succinctly tell you what I feel we have right now.

The database that I have right now that we operate on, um, it's not as antiquated as you would think.

That database is constantly worked throughout the season.

I personally purge it for three months myself over the winter.

And what this database consists of right now, every record in that database is someone who qualified for a sticker last year.

I can break it out by was it a free mass mail sticker, or was it what we call the the $10 non-resident sticker?

So that's initially how I got the data.

I took it from the database and I exported it to a spreadsheet.

Basically, what happens is typically every March my office would do that 14,000 mass mailing.

Once that mass mailing goes out, what happens at that point?

Then the floodgates also open for hundreds to come back.

They don't just sit in a mail tray.

My staff and myself take the pains of going through them.

If something came back NDAA, it gets set aside until we have a little more time.

If it is someone who had a new port address on the envelope and now it says Middletown or Portsmouth, we go right into the database.

We take that sticker number out.

So this isn't a case of dead records sitting in there.

If you were to ask me right now, is the database you have current?

I I absolutely stand behind it, and it absolutely is current.

I myself think that what passes and what doesn't, I'm not worried about right now.

The demographic that has more than three resident stickers, they're low-hanging fruit, easy to identify, which we've already identified them.

So whether we move forward with if you're an R1, you get three free ones.

All that has to happen with the demographic that has needs to be capped, is simply that.

They get capped.

So you won't get your four and five and six and seven.

You'll get three.

Pick your cars.

I mean, it's as easy as that.

You know, we can only make them so entitled, so to speak.

Um, but all those stickers that do come back, whether they're NDAA or whether a bat address, my staff and I spend weeks upon weeks at also very busy times of year, taking that stuff out of the database.

So this database, I stand behind the database, of course.

I do feel the need, absolutely, we need a better database.

This one that I've been working with since 2005 is when we used to bill for car taxes.

And at that point, our software people would pull from the DMV, upload new records.

These records could sit in that database and not even ever have a sticker, you know, issued against them.

What we do is constantly purge the database.

We purge it.

I completely understand your point exactly as far as saying, okay, so we have 14,000 people that we would mass mail a resident sticker to.

I have myself and a staff of three to process 16,000 online applications.

Good luck with that, right?

We'll do the best we can.

Um, but but the but the data that's in there right now, these are people when when that sticker gets mass mailed, there's a cover letter.

You all know, you've all gotten them.

And that cover letter clearly asks if you've transferred your plate from one car to another, write it down here.

Or every sticker parking email comes to me personally.

If you've transferred the plate from one car to another, if you have a sticker, you don't need any more.

The minute those floodgates open in March, my office and I are we're completely inundated with changes, changes.

And with every change is worked, and the database is purged and kept as current as can be.

I do believe strongly we need a better newer database.

We're not even with the software company that you know, the old database was provided to us by.

Have a great summer.

That's just truly how I feel.

As far as the application applying online, I would rather my office and I, I think I think my senior clerk is back there also.

We would rather process online than have weeks and weeks of people in the hallway glaring at us, humming and hawing and being just very disgruntled when they come to the counter.

I'm not completely staffed for that this year.

Again, me and three people.

Um, but I would rather move forward with an online platform.

I just think that we do need to work out what are we requiring this first year?

Uh you know, I get the pushback too.

People are saying, you've given me a residence sticker every year for five years, and now you're making me prove that I'm a resident.

It's a slippery slope.

Do you want more current and accurate information?

Of course we do.

Do we want 14,000 people to have to reapply?

Maybe not a dream scenario for them.

You know, I I don't have all the answers, but I can tell you that, you know, every return that's ever come back is worked, and that database right now with all those thousands of records is as current and crisp as it was as it ended last year.

So we just have to figure you know something out.

I mean, we'll move forward with you know whatever we have, but I just wanted to make it noted that there is a great deal of diligence on my little collections office.

Um, what we try to do to redirect and work and purge.

So I think with the online portal, I I absolutely think it is necessary.

I'm very concerned about the timeline.

Um, even though I'm not in charge of this, when the stickers aren't received in time, it'll be me in my office that will get the brunt of it.

Um, so whether we think about if we move forward, is May one realistic?

It's a big ask for us to process 14,000 online applications.

We're good.

Hopefully, we're that good.

I don't know.

We'll certainly try.

Um, but do have confidence in the data that was given.

Um, it wasn't from an old antiquated database, it was from a database that is constantly every day by all of us and absolutely by me, every day purged and gone through.

Um I would stand behind it, you know, as of right now.

Mr.

Thank you, Ms.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I wish you were up here half an hour ago.

We've got a thing.

Can I just ask your question?

Council Segley.

Miss Kenny, could I just ask you a question?

Sorry.

Sorry.

Um, you said that there are people who have six, seven, eight stickers.

How much is that an issue?

It's just in that small demographic of the data.

Um, manageable enough that uh, you know, I can see it in the database.

And when I export the to the spreadsheet so they have the data, you can identify them easy breezy.

It would be nothing.

It is not this, you know, a massive problem.

It's a very small demographic.

And one of my hopes when this whole thing started was just can we just cap it?

So that Jean Ree, you've called me in the summer.

Oh my god, Lori, what's going on?

My name, you know, why doesn't you just call?

Why do these people have 10 stickers?

It's just a matter of just taking that low-hanging fruit and capping them.

But you you think that it's important for the council to vote on a cap.

I I do, yes.

I do.

I feel very strongly about that, even though that demographic might not be a high one.

The people that have like there's someone that lives on Prospect Hill, uh a new property owner.

He gets 16.

I'd sure like to see that chopped down to like maybe three.

Sixteen active.

We have some out of town property owners that get six and seven and eight.

It's a smaller demographic, but if you live on that street, you're the one that's gonna be getting the phone call.

We've danced this dance, you and I, right?

Yeah, because they're frustrated that you know, I I know my neighbor, they live in Connecticut, they have six cars parked on their street.

Let's go to Newport.

All the adult kids drive one of the cars registered to me that has a free sticker.

So while I don't think it's a major city wide problem, I feel very strongly that I think to be fair and consistent, I think everyone should be capped.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Lori.

Very well.

Uh, question, please.

If you can answer it, if not, uh I'll do my best.

The manager can answer it.

Uh he made a comment a few minutes ago that uh in the case that he used there was a young man from Tiverton who was a senior or a 17-year-old here in Newport who had a sticker, moved to Tiverton, and then the sticker being automatically delivered to his previous address was taken by the parents and used, presumably, uh by either the parents or by uh the young man who no longer lived in Newport.

The manager said uh that we are seeing that, and I'll paraphrase quite a bit now.

He said of the 16,500 permits, roughly that are given.

The manager said we're seeing that quite a bit.

How much how much of that are we seeing of those 16,500?

For me, quite a bit would represent at least a significant percentage of the total 16,500.

So I assume that's a common occurrence.

It's it's a common occurrence because Newport is very transient.

How many?

What many of the either percentage-wise or I could just give you a number on how the returns that we work.

I would probably say, would you say, Carrie?

100 or 200 that come back that were Newport and Wool.

Well, you know what?

It's probably not fair of me to ask that question of you.

Mr.

Manager, when you said we're seeing that quite a lot of the 16,500 permits issued, define what you mean by quite a lot in the example you used.

I did say anecdotally, I don't, you know, we're we're seeing it.

I I don't have a quantifiable number of that.

Well, I can tell you that about 200 envelopes per season will come back.

And the the biggest benefit we have going for us, believe it or not, is USPS.

Because what happens is that resident sticker is in the applicant's name, not their parents.

That sticker's gonna go out to John Smith at his newport address.

If John Smith moves and he's put his mail forward in, that would be one of hundreds that comes back.

The minute we either see NDAA, we take the sticker number out of the database, or if we see Newport on the envelope, but that now the yellow label says anywhere other than Newport, it's removed from the database completely.

Okay, so thank you very much for your answer, and thank you, Colin, for your answer.

Uh you said about 200.

So with regard anecdotally, you said about 200.

Yes.

So with regard to the 16,500 permits that are issued each year, uh, what I am looking at is a proposal for the council to revamp our entire system, potentially making it burdensome for again uh 98% of our residents because 1.3 in part because 1.3% of the total stickers sent out came back.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Council.

So a question, thank you so much uh for not only presenting this, but your cheery mentality about this.

Yeah, because we know how hard you and your entire team's job is.

Why can't we just upload that spreadsheet that you have been cleaning for years up and do the cap and just say, look, you cap at three, but everybody that's under that cap, you're automatically gonna get your sticker this year for the database we've been using for the past number of years.

We absolutely could.

I mean, when I exported the the data from the database to the spreadsheet, it was I formatted it so it was an alpha order, which is the easiest way to see, you know, this name with three, four, five.

Honestly, to to identify that very small demographic would probably take me half an hour.

This isn't anything that you know the the data is what the data is.

You pull a spreadsheet, it's in alpha order, that's how I format it.

So you can easily see that that small demographic that I feel has just been allowed to get too many residents.

And that would drastically reduce your work burden, it would accelerate the implementation of this program and allow us to focus on the problem actors.

It would.

I mean, I like I said, I it would it affect a lot of people, no, but for the those residents that are on those streets and want to come home after a day of work, especially in the summer, and they can't find a place to park, that they're the ones that would benefit from that, as they should.

Thank you.

Miss Okay.

Um I I do I have a question, and I just want to make a comment if counsel could bear with me.

Did you did you say that this process starts this month?

And it goes, you only have about a month to pull this off.

Yeah, I mean historically sticker parking always begins May 1, which is why my office would always do the mass mailing mid-March.

Right.

We'd work full on for six weeks to give people six weeks ahead of that May one date to say, oh my gosh, I don't have that car anymore.

Or, you know, they'll mail the stickers back or they'll give us changes.

So that six-week cushion gave them time before.

You know, May 1st will be here before you know it.

And uh because I've managed this program for so long, it's crucial to me for it to continue to be a success.

It's a lot of work, it is very labor intensive, but at the same time, you know, I'm very concerned about that that big of an ask.

Like my staff in three, with I'm sure I can get some other help, but yeah, you know, at the very minimum, you're automatically looking at 14,000 people applying online.

Right.

Is there a reason why we don't start this process earlier?

Well, this process right now is new.

Normally, those stickers would have already been out in the mail.

Okay.

I'd be done.

You know, I'd be very happily done.

Um that always went out in mid-March.

And like I said, the reason for getting those 16,000 mailed was to give people plenty of time to, oh, wait, I have a new car.

You know, it gives them six weeks to come in, look at you know the sticker.

Oh, my plate changed.

I got an antique car and a plate now.

So we always did it that way.

So you know, my concern is simply that.

I mean, usually I'm on a very tight timeline that I adhere to.

Now we've got May one coming up, and we're really all the wrinkles haven't been ironed out yet.

Um, so I just want to preemptively put that out there that depending on how we move forward, that's something that might have to be addressed too.

Right.

No, no, I thank you.

I appreciate that.

Don't want to spend the nights here.

Yeah.

We'll give the days and the weekends that you know, we'll do the best we can, but it is a very tight timeline.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um if I could we do have um we do have staff that is available to jump in uh outside of the collections office to make sure that that we meet our dates that we meet our deadlines.

Okay.

So we we have that ready to ready to go.

Great, thank you.

Um you know, this this is the first of two other ordinances that we still have to go through to discuss.

Uh, I know we're we're we're an hour into this conversation.

Um, and because this is the first reading and we're talking about the the definitions ordinance.

I'm inclined to approve that based upon it being the first reading, and it's the definition.

So I I'd like to request that we move forward with a vote because we still have two other ordinances to go through.

All right, we have a uh a motion and a second uh to call for a vote.

Um, but just before that, um just remember we we continue this from last meeting, which is why this is the first reading because I remember that.

I remember that.

Uh okay, so uh by show of hands, all those in favor uh of the amended resolution, uh amended ordinance, raise your right hand.

All is opposed four three for it.

Uh I think it's five five all those for it, raise your right hand.

I should change it.

Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Miss Laurie.

Yes, you're over there.

Hi.

Um I need to make it just wanted to take a second and um say thank you very much for um your passion that came across for what you do.

You don't see that often in the tax collector now.

I don't think so.

Um so thank you for that.

Thank you for your very detailed explanation.

And uh I see you, girl.

Happy women's history month.

Thank you.

I really appreciate that.

Thank you for that.

International, yes.

So um next, I'm gonna um make a motion to amend section 10.32 point zero seven zero entitled Residential Parking Permits, Visitor Passes, Temporary Permits on First Reading.

Second, motion is second in discussion.

All those in favor, raise your right hand.

Oh, the posed.

Hold on, do you want to do that again?

Yeah, can we can we do that again?

Um, I'm sorry.

If you want to proceed on the vote, or we're on the the next ordinance maybe change.

Okay, okay.

And and this is right.

I'm sorry, this is the one that includes the cap.

Correct.

Yes, okay.

For resident, I mean for guest passes, right?

Yeah, this is 12.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

So we got a we got a motion of a second.

Do we have any discussion on this amendment change?

Oh, all those in favor, raise your right hand.

All those opposed.

Five two.

Motion to amend um section 10.32 point uh zero one zero entitled revocation of permits on first reading.

All right, motion and second.

Uh any discussion.

All is in favor, raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

Okay, next.

Um Mr.

Chairman, uh, just a quick point of order.

Can we have uh recap of the last three votes?

That is to say if I'm correct, five to two, five to two, four to three, correct?

Yep.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Okay, so next um we're going, I make a motion to amend section 17.04.050 entitled general provisions.

This is on um, this is on second reading.

But um, Mr.

Chair, you do the second.

Yes, uh, motion second and discussion.

Yes, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this is a uh very big issue having to do with major ordinance changes to short-term rentals.

And um I think that we need to work the move this to a workshop.

Um you know, we banned short-term rentals in residential districts.

Um, but this is different.

And um, no matter how we dress it up, basically what we're asking for is a ban on short-term rentals.

So um we would make just making the hurdles very difficult.

I as we're gonna consider something uh that strong, I believe that we should have a workshop and talk about this in more detail.

Uh I'm we just talked about the this parking thing, and you know, it and we had a workshop for that.

We didn't have a workshop for this.

So thank you.

I make a motion that we continue.

Second from uh that would be uh number 14 through 19 would be continued.

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

Uh making sure we have a workshop for that before the we vote on the second this because this is the second reading of this.

Um so do we have any discussion on the continuous?

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, uh, between the first time that this or very similar uh ordinance changes were offered in 2023 until uh this very moment now.

Uh we have had 17 between the Newport City Council and the Newport Planning Board.

Uh we have had 17 open meetings where the public is not only invit uh allowed to, but certainly invited to comment uh on uh the proposed changes.

Um the first time the council to councillor Segley's point, the first time the council saw what we just voted on uh was just some few weeks ago.

Uh and the first time we voted on it was this evening.

Uh we had three public hearings on what we voted on uh just a few minutes ago.

So I would urge my colleagues, given the fact that there is absolutely no question that we have given the public, the members of the council and anybody else for that matter.

Um when I say the public, I specifically mean uh the residents of the city of Newport, but in a larger context, the public also means non-residents who own short-term rentals.

We have given all of those folks, including us, as I mentioned, uh, the opportunity through those public meetings and hearings to discuss this issue.

I would ask my colleagues to please reject counselor Segley's request to continue.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Any other comment?

Council Smythe.

Um, thank you.

I I I can certainly appreciate where Councillor Carlin is coming from.

Um I I do feel as though there is still whether it's misinformation or confusion related to this item that that I think needs to be cleared up.

Um, you know, I could appreciate what people said last week that that they don't believe short-term rentals are the cause of our housing issues.

Um I'm inclined to agree.

I I feel as though our housing issues are very vast, and that that's just a a short piece of the puzzle.

Um, I do support owner-occupied short-term rentals, but but I do think that our short-term rental program has gotten a little out of control for lack of a better term.

And because this is a second reading, um, I I'm inclined to agree with counselor Segley that I think that that we need to give the public another opportunity just to at least speak to their concerns so that that way if if anything within this needs to be revised, needs to be tweaked a little bit, that that we still have another opportunity to do that.

So I I will support um a workshop.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Chair, I just want to say um we we want to be presented with the facts on this.

This is not just suppositions and what we think and how we feel.

Uh I believe that the the planning department and zoning has the answers that we need in order to make an equated decision on this.

So um I appreciate your um support of this.

Thank you.

Mr.

Sherman.

Council Bennett.

Um, yeah, I second what Steph, uh what counselor Smythe just said uh honestly, after multiple hours at the last meeting, I was confused.

Um myself, and I was it was easy, some difficulty.

Um I had a lot of I have a phone call today, I've had a bunch of emails.

People are very confused um about if we were banning something, if this was about parking, if this was about um, you know, the manager having to be on site.

So I think the more information um the better.

It allows people to make informed, educated um decisions.

And this is such a like a hot topic in our community.

And I I also felt like during the last meeting, we heard a lot from one side, um, and hardly anything from the other side.

And I would appreciate having the opportunity to hear more from our experts.

I'm gonna make a motion to call this to a vote.

I have a second.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I got a motion, a second.

Discussion on the discussion on the question to call up for a vote, please.

Yeah, go ahead.

Uh, question from my colleagues.

Uh Council Smythe.

Um, how did you vote on this last week?

I vote similar to to what we just did with the parking permits, that because it was the first reading, I voted to move it forward so that we could have further discussion.

Council Pinak, how did you vote on this last week?

Same as Counselor Smyth.

Thank you both.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

All right.

Um, all those in favor of the continuance with the workshop, please raise your right hand.

All those opposed.

Five, two.

Moving on to respect Mr.

Chairman.

Can I ask that uh the manager?

Well thank you.

The manager or somebody, when they put these amendments down, if they can give a short uh statement on it, what it, you know, because these get very confusing after a while to know what we're voting on.

Thank you.

Absolutely, we can we'll do that for the next time it's on the docket.

Thank you.

As long as we're continuing to talk about it once we voted on the next custom manager.

Yes, uh motion uh to authorize is a resolution the authorizing the general obligation bond, Mr.

Mr.

City Manager.

Second.

Second motion and second.

So uh this is uh this is the we're we're prepared for our first, we're calling it a tranche, our first tranche of borrowing, uh, which we hope to complete uh uh later in March or early April at the latest.

And what this uh uh what this resolution does is it it clarifies exactly what items are being borrowed for and how they how they have a nexus to the initial allocations that were made by council by resolution last year.

So this is merely affirming that we are putting the dollars toward what the council has authorized and giving us permission to borrow.

Also, there's a caveat uh because no such price imagined two or three years ago ever stays exactly the same.

There's a caveat that allows for a 10% plus or minus wiggle room uh in terms of the cost of the project vis-a-vis the uh vis-a-vis the bond allocation where the city manager can simply make the adjustment if necessary outside of a 10% plus or minus, it would require us to come back to council for a reauthorization.

Council, just a question, and I'll be supporting this.

And but my my question is under resolutions.

I always think of these as things that are being put forth by a counselor.

And oftentimes we will have resolutions and other parts of our agenda that comment um as a you know communication from the manager as part of an ordinance.

Do we have any rules that govern where something like this falls, whether it's under that prior section or under resolutions, or is it just is this just form you know or substance?

That's a great question.

I had not thought about that.

Okay, no, no, we don't need to dwell on it.

I was just curious thinking about it.

Fair not uh comments.

Okay, all right.

All those in favor uh of the resolution, raise your right hand.

All is opposed, six to one resolution creating an ad hoc resilience and sustainability fund steering committee.

Uh this is for counselor Smythe.

Thank you.

I'll just read the resolves.

Oh, yeah, motion to approve.

Sorry.

Second.

Council Smythe.

Resolve that the city council hereby establishes an ad hoc resilience and sustainability fund steering committee that will serve in an advisory capacity to the city council for the purpose of recommendations regarding the creation of a municipal resilience and sustainability fund.

And be it further resolved that the committee shall evaluate the feasibility of utilizing a conveyance fee on the sale of investment property as a potential funding source.

As a potential funding source, we'll analyze the potential impacts of such a fee on housing affordability, rental markets, property values, and local real estate activity, and will identify alternative or complementary funding mechanisms, if appropriate, and be it further resolved that the committee shall develop and implement a robust community engagement strategy to ensure broad public participation, which may include public workshops, stakeholder roundtable discussions with residents, tenants, property owners, real estate professionals, business leaders, environmental advocates, and community organizations, and be it further resolved, up to seven members shall be nominated, appointed, or removed by the a majority vote of city council and to qualify for appointment must fall under one or more of the following financial and legal experts, housing and/or real estate professionals, environmental and sustainability advocates, and or at-large community members, and be it further resolved that city administration shall provide technical and administrative support as needed, and be it further resolved that the committee shall present an initial framework and engagement plan to the city council within 120 days of its formation and present a comprehensive report, including findings, community feedback, and formal recommendations within nine months of its first meeting, and be it further resolved that the committee shall dissolve upon submission and presentation of its final report unless extended by further action of the city council.

Motion to approve.

Motion to approve.

Second.

So we have a motion, a second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilor Smythe for introducing this.

I strongly disagree with this.

Uh it's simply a fancy way to extend upon uh what was put before us prior, which was the direct request of the General Assembly to authorize the city of Newport to once again uh tax our own residents who may be selling their homes and moving elsewhere in Newport.

It is startling to me, startling uh that uh we would support a resolution like this, which will ultimately lead to a conveyance tax to attacks on those residents of Newport selling their homes to perhaps move elsewhere in the city of Newport.

It's startling that we would do this, allow for the potential of a conveyance tax, a tax on our residents, but that we would not protect our residents from those who don't live here and take advantage of Newport in many instances via the short-term rental market.

I simply can't understand the logic of my colleagues, and I will be voting no uh against this eventual tax increase for our residents, Mr.

Chair, Council.

Uh yeah, just just one part of that.

So the proposal that was that was put in front of us that led to this resolution.

Um in that that fee structure, if you are a Newport resident, you do not pay it.

Plain and simple.

If you buy property in Newport as a resident, you're you're omitted from this fee.

So there's no tax on the residents.

Council Sugley.

Yeah, I'm uh a little confused.

When I first read this, I was like, why are we doing this if we haven't approved it yet?

Um but but I understand possibly that this is really more for gathering information for the council and for um you know, more well more accurate information and to see how the public really feels about this.

Okay.

I I understand now.

So yeah, because what we would be would have had to approve is sending it to the General Assembly.

So we're we're not approving this.

No, this this fee to happen.

We're just this is just to have before we do that, we need to make sure what we propose to uh to our legislators uh is accurate, and we know exactly where we're coming from, and we need people in these different professional um pools, if you will, whether it's real estate, whether it's business, finance, residents, what have you.

So again, I want to sit at the table so we can have a proper discussion.

This is how we got to the two-tier taxes.

Don't forget we put this ad hoc committee together, and that worked out very well for the from what I gather from the majority of our residents.

So this is no different than that.

Mr.

Chair, Councilman.

No, go ahead.

I just wanted to say, like in Newport, I think we're we're on the front lines for employment risk.

Um, and I think that we have a responsibility to start planning proactively instead of always responding in an emergency, like you know, responding with emergency solutions.

We should already have things in place.

And I feel like this is going to lead us to that place.

So Smith, did you want to go?

Uh yeah, I just wanted to um respond to Counselor Segley, Counselor Carlin.

Um, that yes, this this is designed to to provide for more community engagement, more transparency, more feedback so that the council can make um a decision.

And much like the previous few items on short-term rentals that I voted to go to a workshop.

It's to provide more transparency and engagement with our community.

We are here representing them, but it's it's their voices that we need to hear um in order to make our decisions.

And to me, that's only gonna happen if we properly engage them and hear how they are going to be negatively or positively impacted from a quality of life perspective.

So that that is the primary goal of this this um ad hoc commission is to be able to provide proper community engagement.

So in the timeline, you I'm assuming consulted with our uh administration, correct?

Um that that was a timeline, sort of a boilerplate timeline that did I pulled together when I was doing this resolution.

I actually spoke to Harp about it, um, Chief Donnelly about it, uh briefly.

I'm okay with changing that if it needs to.

That's why I put the words within um 120 days within 90 days, because I figured, you know, how however quickly we can get this committee formed and they meet and and come to a decision as to what they want to advise council on.

That that could be a month, it could be a couple of months, but that would be technically up to the committee to be able to determine.

Uh, for the manager.

This is very closely related to the concept of a stormwater district, another type of fee that the city is considering right now for a similar purpose.

We authorized that study over a year ago.

Is that correct?

Uh it's approximately a year ago.

Uh it's about it's about wrapped up.

We just had our second community engagement workshop uh a week weeks ago today.

Um, and it's very close to uh having a recommendation ready to be made.

Great.

And so that was a process led by a professional consultant at a pretty substantial cost, right?

It was that was uh uh ref tellus, and yes, that was in the seven figures ultimately.

If we're gonna look at this, should we also be considering resourcing for this type of a committee?

Uh I mean, that's a policy decision for council to recommend or suggest, but uh it's certainly an argument to be made.

I um the the reason I am supporting this, and I commend my colleagues for pulling it together, is not for the conveyance fee portion.

To be honest, I'm I'm not sure where I fall in this concept of conveyance fee.

There's so many loopholes through this, I'm not exactly sure what it captures.

But I will say this.

Our administration um and our resiliency director and our fire chief have really done a good job of honing in on the resiliency challenge that we have.

Um and we have to find some way to pay for this stuff.

And whether it is fee for me, the language that hooked me into this vote is alternative alternative or complementary funding mechanisms.

And I really hope that this committee explores that.

If you look at the timeline on this, it means this will be one of the first major reports that the next council receives.

Uh, and I think this will frame that discussion, hopefully in a very positive way.

But this is if you think that a professionally led process took a full year to get to the point where we're thinking about recommendations.

We have to think this is going to be at least as big a task and be realistic about that.

And I hope that um this council will invest resources, ensuring that we do things that are not gonna irreparably damage our economy and the important housing market that we have here.

So I appreciate the work that went into this, and I will be supporting it.

Any further discussion?

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

All opposed, six to one.

Motion to adjourn is council and convene as board of licensed commissioners.

Um moving on to license.

Most of the second any discussion, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh, under licensing permits, motion to approve Sunday selling licenses, class A liquor stores, um, Bellevue Wine and Spirits LLC doing business as Bell V Wine and Spirits, 181 Bellevue Avenue.

We have a second.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve Shiva Corporation doing business as downtown liquors 202 Thames Street.

We have a second.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve Harry S.

Carrie Nicholas Incorporated doing business as Harry's liquor store 199 Connell Highway.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve Shiv Wine Corp doing business as Thames Wine and Spirits 433 Thames Street, Unit 2.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

Those in favor, say aye.

Motion to approve Kat and Trav LLC doing business as Vickers Liquors 274 Bellevue Avenue.

Do you have a second?

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to adjourn, Mr.

Chair.

Second.

Motion and second any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Oh.