you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you All right, good evening, everyone. Thank you all for being here on this beautiful afternoon. I actually apologize, you're all here in attendance on for the sake of this. But in any event, the time is now 5.32 and today is April 28th and on the agenda for this work session is we are going to discuss refining and possible amendments to the short-term rental ordinance. So the overview of at least this workshop is going to be to review the preliminary results from the community discussion that was held a few weeks back. And then the council will take the time to reflect and review how that process went, review some of the feedback that residents provided. And then here we'll take public comment at the end and hear any additional requests or recommendations for moving forward. So with that being said, I'll let Donna kick us off. Good afternoon. I guess it's almost evening. What I've done is put together a short term rental ordinance discussion data PowerPoint presentation. So the short term rental discussion was held on March 4th, 2025. It was a discussion about short term rentals. It was held at the community center and it was hosted by the center for mediation and collaboration. The goal statement was to afford residents the opportunity to articulate their point of view with respect to certain aspects of the ordinance as drafted, particularly with regard to what they believe the crafters got right and where they recommend that improvements or changes can be made. So basically that was what the whole idea of the round table discussion was about. So the summary, this summary was prepared by Carolyn Mark and Trisha Drischkel, who are both part of the center of mediation and collaboration. So this was sent to us, this is their data that they collected, and this was sent to us from both Caroline and Trisha. So the summary. At the request of the New York Cancer Town Council, Caroline Mark and Trisha Driscoll from the center of mediation and collaboration are I facilitated a community discussion regarding the short-term rental ordinance which had been crafted but not implemented for the purpose of gardener input from members of the public hearing, public regarding what in their view the crafters got right and what changes if any they would recommend be made regarding certain aspects of the ordinance The output of the discussion will be used to inform the next steps in the ordinance review process Slated to be a community workshop to be held later at a later date, which is today So this is the workshop members of the public for which there were approximately 90 people circulated through five small group discussions concerning five core questions. A parking lot was also provided for comments not specifically related to the five core questions below questions. Below are some key themes that emerge. But Please note, there are some, I'm sorry, there are some overlap across sections and not all comments are necessarily captured in these key themes. Specific and comprehensive feedback can be found in the verbatim write up on the flip charts and comments included at the end of the document. The original flip chart sheets have been also preserved. So they have the sheets preserved. I did include in the PowerPoint all the comments from all the charts that were written that particular evening. And I'm not gonna read all of those, but we have handouts to the PowerPoint presentation. OK, so in their opinion, the general overreaching themes were, while some believe the ordinance is sufficient and necessary, as is, others have questions, concerns, and recommendations for improvement, including, for example, streamlining the requirements so the ordinance doesn't overwhelm the town or property owners, taking into account seasonality and taking seasonality into account. There's a desire for transparency and an articulated rationale for all the decisions that are made with respect to the short term ordinances. They also found that there is interest in creating alignment with existing laws and rules and regulations rather than creating a new requirements specific to short term rentals. There are questions concerning, there are questions concerns regarding how all aspects of the ordinance will get enforced by whom at what cost to the town if fines and fees are related to the ordinance don't cover all the costs and how to determine what is an appropriate fine fee or fine. To accomplish the goals of the short term ordinance but to ease the transition for current residents and property owners there are questions as to whether these goals could be accomplished utilizing grant fathering, attrition, or limited growth. So those were the overall general overreaching themes that they came based on all the themes that came forward through the questions. So these are the themes that emerge for specific to each one of the discussion areas. As you remember there were five areas and these are, thank you. Probably easier for me to read it here. We would prefer that if you wait until after if you could just I'm sorry sure Sure. So as you, he's dealt with comments that he's not relevant to multiple years and other effectiveness or he's not relevant to all the parts of the community, but not relevant to all the community. This is strictly comments from the center of mediation based on the charts that they took with them that evening. It's everyone who participated. And it will be teased out at like additional workshops to follow. Yeah. You're welcome. OK. So applicability and general requirements. Now, I'm sorry. If I'm going to read it up there, I don't need my glass. If I going to read it here after my glass is on. The ordinance establishes the permitting requirement, a minimum number of nights, lack of transferability, and the expiration upon sale or transfer and inspection requirements. In your view, what about these sections? Did the crafters get right and are important to preserve? What revisions, if any, would you recommend be made and why? So that was the question number one that was given to all everyone at the tables. And they found that some of the themes where does the town have the legal ability to limit short-term rentals? If so, who decides and based on what? There is an interest in transparency and a sound rationale. Does it make sense to have limits in requirements for different seasons, et cetera? May, example, May to September and October to April. A seven-day rental is much more challenging in the off season, is what they found the people. May there be public purpose and differentiating between owner occupied and those that are not regarding minimum nights, fees, transferability, and renewals? Might there be public purpose and differentiating between owner occupied near a GANSAT residence, Rhode Island residence, and out of state residents. May there be public purpose and differentiating between residential neighborhoods and properties that are located in the business district. So these were things that were written and people had some concerns about and some things that they talked about on the charts. What is the right balance between, oh, I'm sorry. What is the right balance between ensuring safety and having inspections requirements that are too onerous for the owners? There's an interest in having transferability clarified and or reconsidered. How are the fees that will fees cover the cost of implementing and enforcing the ordinance or will additional taxpayer funds be required to cover a gap? How to balance the cost of the fees for owners while also ensuring that resources exist to pay for the ordinance implementation. It's a republic purpose to consider grandfathering in existing short term rentals, including pre-existing rental agreements and managing growth through future ordinance limits. Requirements regarding parking and bedroom size don't necessarily reflect the reality of the shared parking lots in older cottages. Is there an opportunity to align these requirements with requirements established elsewhere rather than create a new, unique standard? For example, if a bedroom is considered a legal bedroom, would it qualify as one under the ordinance no matter what its size? So those were the comments and the themes that they found throughout number one, the first question. Do you want to know? No, okay. No, I was just going to say if it's possible to do like a high level overview, you don't I don't think you have to read every single bullet unless anyone in the public makes a big thing. Would you prefer me? I mean, I I think a lot of the information's in here and you by all means go through it. This is your presentation. I'm just providing a recommendation that it is available to the public for review. So if there's any particular highlights that you want to cover, but if you want to just read everything, it's fine too. Well, I actually when I was going through this, I was looking for specific highlights, but I think all the information is so pertinent to that question that I thought it was important that everyone here what they found as their themes. I mean if if you want, I could pick and choose some, but I thought that it would be better. That's right. Go ahead. I mean, there's really only five, so we're on two, so that's a good thing. No worries. Thank you. Okay. So number two was permitting limits, permitting limits. The ordinance established limits to the numbers of permits that shall be issued. In your view, what aspects of this section does crafters get right? And are important to preserve in the spirit or in actual number. And what revisions, if any, would you recommend be made and why? Okay, so the overreach, the themes that they thought came out of this, the second question, does the town have the legal ability to limit short-term rentals? If so, who decides and based on what? There's an interest in transparency and sound rationale. You can see that some of these are in the general overview that they came out with general based on what they were finding here. How to balance the need of residential community with the owner's property rights. Need to consider how to handle already greed upon leases in the event of a transfer or permit renewal issue. How to create a fear and equitable application process might permits with specific requirements and enforcement address the major concerns and limit short-term rentals without opposing limits. Might there be a public purpose in grandfathering in existing short-term rentals? Might future limits be achieved through attrition or what basis would future limits be set? Might there be public purpose in giving residents priority in the permitting process? Why reduce the number of permits over time? How will it be determined? Fairly, who keeps their permits and who doesn't? A cap on growth could be another approach. Excuse me, I'm so sorry. So based on the comments, that's what they pulled out of those comments. I need to do this. Okay. So number three was permit insurance, expiration and renewal. The question for those who were not there was that the ordinance establishes that once all residents requirements are met, the building official shall issue permits within established limits and that all permits shall expire on August 31st and must be renewed according to the established timeframe. In your view, what about this section did the crafters get right and are important to preserve? What revisions, if any, would you recommend be made and why? So what they found was that some of the questions were might there be a public purpose in allowing families to transfer properties and permits? Might there be a public purpose and grant fathering in existing properties and auto renewals when there is no issues, when there are no issues? Might short parental period be calendar year instead of expiring on August 31st. Concerns about getting a permit one year but not the next. Is there a balance to be struck between frequency and cost of inspections? My current landlords have the opportunity renew before the new applicants on the wait list. Might That renewal be easier when there's no infractions and inspections are complete. Need for clarity on inspection criteria and the time frame allowed to correct infractions. So those were what was pulled out of what people had written on the chart for that particular question. Two more. So the fourth one was operational requirements. Oh, sorry. The ordinance establishes certain operational requirements designed to protect residential character, to ensure that renters are fully informed of rental requirements and responsibilities, and I provided contact information. In your view, what about this section do the crafters get right, and are important to preserve? What revisions, if any, would you recommend and why? So some of the concerns, it was some consensus that the crafters of this section got it mostly right. There are some agreement surrounding the importance of providing short-term renters with the expectations of neighborly conduct ahead of the beginning of the rental, regardless of time. Is four hours response time reasonable? Revisit, exclude, revisit excluded activities and how this would be enforced. Do certain activities need to be excluded or allowable as long as they comply with other restrictions? If they're excluded from rentals, should they also be excluded from homeowners. To whom it is made known who the local representative is for a property. To whom is it made known who the local representative is for a property, the town, adjacent property owners. Revisit the purpose of the extensive posting requirements. Concern about what it means to preserve residential character is this non-inclusive language. What is the role of a host versus the town officials versus the police in responding to halting and preventing conduct? What is the role of the town in calling hosts 24-7 for non-serious issues? Ordinance should align with other legal contents. For example, if a bedroom is a legal bedroom, it square footage shouldn't matter. Certain prohibition, such as a such as the color of pink color of the house seems like an overreach. And last question that was asked that was on the table was fee and fines. The ordinance establishes resident and non-resident application and and permit fees as well as schedule of the fines for minor and major violations. In your view, what about this section did the cra- its crafters get right and are important to preserve what revisions if any would you recommend and be made- be made and why. Concerns that fees which seem high to some relative other towns won't support the true cross of the ordinance and that true cross will be borne by the residents. Conversely, if there is excess fees, where would the money go? Concerns about equity versus Rhode Island residents versus near-gancey residents. Need for strict leases, enforcement by landlords, head heavy fines. Possibly, oh my God, come, come, come, you say, how do you say that word? All right, with the seriousness of infraction Will there be an appeals process for fines and possible revocation of permits how high should fines be for not abiding by the short term ordinance? How will complaints be investigated to determine the ability the ability of the complaints? Will there be compliance officer investigation? To the extent that there are fines, will there be duplicative of the other fines such as violating a noise ordinance? How to streamline the application and permit process to make it efficient, cost effective, and less of burdensome. Should the ordinance requirements be in line with online travel agencies such as Verbo and Airbnb in terms of what qualifies as a contract and what is included? So the rest of the PowerPoint presentation is actual comments that were made by the residents as they circle through the tables. And these were all the sheets, all the charts, and this is everything that was written. We can get the actual charts if we need be, but this has been, they just took everything that was on the chart and put it in on here and so you can see it continues on and it talks about all each question and what the comments were I'm not going to go through them all you should have a PowerPoint but if you look at them this is everything that was put out by the residents at the table and at the forum. So with that being said, I'm just turning it over to you. Oh, thank you, Donna. And I do want to thank you for your assistance and collaboration and putting this together this very important community discussion. Part of the reason why I did not vote in favor of the rescinding of the ordinance was because I recognized how much time and effort work had gone into the creation of this ordinance and I greatly valued the feedback from the community. I think, I don't think any council member did not value the feedback from the community, but at least from where I sit, that's my perspective. And then a special thank you to Carolyn Mark and Trisha Driscoll for their collaboration and putting this discussion together and compiling these results. As a member of the council, you know, I do look at the results and I think some really good points have also been brought up as well. I too was a political science major and I look at survey results and not only the content in which it's being shared, but how it's being shared and what the makeup of those results look like. I do understand that the community discussion was to really look at and try to capture the overall themes and values of a short-term rental ordinance, what an ideal ordinance would look like. And I think there's a lot of content in here. I think if we're able to, at a later workshop or an additional community discussion, really get down to like the specific core content of what it is that the residents would like to see. I think it's a fair point to say, you know, I don't, again, I don't know. I wasn't, I admittedly was not there. But if we're able to capture better the responses from the residents or the resident landowners versus those out of towners who just may own property. And we're not trying to discredit anyone here, but it would be good to kind of highlight specific feedback from residents and resident landowners as well. And I think that's very important. I do think that there's a lot of good overlapping themes. Also, transparency and sound rationale seem to be in every aspect of this ordinance and the feedback that we had acquired. But getting down to a debate of the timing, the seasonality, seven nights versus three nights should be seven days between Memorial Day and Labor Day and three in the off season, I think that's going to be a debate for an additional work session at a later time. But I just want to thank you and all of the residents who came out for that very important community discussion because I think this really gets sets our footing, but by no means is it 100% of the way there that you know in regards to aligning on expectations for the town and for the council that this sets our footing, but where we go from here will probably be an additional workshop or community session, a community center or a town hall discussion where we can really get into the content and really engage with what the residents would like to see if anything. Because I do appreciate one of the questions or at least how it's framed and again framing and the order in which questions are asked can also influence the feedback as well. I do appreciate the opportunity for those who responded to provide feedback on where they think the ordinance got it right. And again that that was my belief when I did not vote in favor of rescinding the ordinance was that I believed that there was parts within the ordinance that was working. And how can we better improve those areas that need to be improved. But I will, you know, I'm very interested to hear the rest of the council's take on how the community discussion went. Any particular feedback on the presentation that Donna shared or any initial thoughts before reaching out to the public? I think that this was a great workshop. For instance, we've got an email from, we've got an email, I've got an email from, from both sides of the argument conceding to several issues regarding nights and certain things. So I'm impressed by that. It started a conversation. People are actually talking with each other, which is very nice. As we know, this ordinance is unenforceable as it is right now. We need conversation and try to find that middle ground. Councillor Torelli, thank you to everybody who came out on March 4th as well as coming out to the spend this tonight. Thank you for the opportunity to come out and have a good time. Thank you. Councillor Torelli. Thank you to everybody who came out on March 4th as well as coming up to the spend this tonight. Just the short or mental ordinance. Grateful to Carolyn and Trisha for running the session on March 4th. They've given us some great starting points on where to target our series of workshops. and I look forward to engaging in this dialogue with both Council and the public as well. Thank you. So if I could just say that I think the whole idea was bringing the community together to be able to have discussion. People see other points of view, other sides of the story. I think that in that way it was successful. I though think that we did do a exit survey, which I want to share with you. I think the majority of the people who were there found it, the people who did respond to our survey, found that it was. One of the questions was, what would you like to see more of this type of discussion take place in our community? I think you could see the results is somewhat interested, very interested, extremely interested, is more dominant than people who were not interested in all and not so interested. So I think it was good that people felt like their voices were being heard. And I believe that they felt like they could actually express themselves and hear other points of view. And I thought that was a great thing. We also asked, did you find value in this community discussion? And again, I think the results, you know, shows that most people did think that there was some value in doing what we did. And I so I think it was successful, definitely successful in that way. And again, I want to thank everyone who came out. I just sitting there that night or standing there that evening and watching people talk and seeing people who probably never spoke to another other person, you know that before and they were talking and exchanging ideas and and and having conversations We tried to move everyone around we left it pretty open so that people could self Self take you know do their thing and we didn't want to assign, we talked about assigning seats, we decided not to do that. We wanted people to be able to circulate around and meet other people and talk in different groups and that's why we left it kind of open. Again, like Alex said, you know, we were looking at this, we're going to go back and look at it, see how it was done. I mean, of course, there's always ways that we can improve things, but I think all in all, I'm very pleased with the way it turned out. And I appreciate you sharing that feedback and the exit survey results are positive, and I would be interested, I know the data's not in front of us here. I'd be interested to know how many actual residents or what the total number of people there was. I believe it was 37. That in total? That responded yes, but I just wasn't sure if I had a number. I believe it was 37 people responded out of the 90. Do you know how many in total approximately were in attendance for the community? Everyone because we took it off the email of people who... No, I mean do you know approximately if it was like 100 people were in attendance for the community discussion? 90, there were 90 people. There were 90, thank you. Yeah and there were other questions to be to be clear there were two other questions on the survey that were just you could just add a comment and I don't even remember what they were. I might have it, but it was just too involved. It was just something like what would you suggest? Would you like to do this again or what would you suggest could be done differently? It wasn't anything pertaining more to the actual thing. It was just more suggestion for us to help us for the next time what we would consider doing. And so because it was an answer, it just wasn't going to be, but we have that available. If anybody wants it, it's all available. We have all that results. And again, in the spirit of calling back to my education, my political science background, and maybe my own sense of biasness, you know, I understand that we all as individuals have a level of biasness and we have our own viewpoints. So I understand at least based on what was shared that there was one scribe per table. And it was up to that one individual to, it was up to that one individual to, oh, is that not how it happened? Okay. So basically what happened with there were charts on the table? People were asked to sit down and have a discussion and then write on the chart. Anyone could write on the chart. Yes. And then the only actual instruction was that if you agree with something that's on the chart, just place a check next to it, you didn't have to rewrite it. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Because that was literally where it's gonna be. I wouldn't expect you to write down 100% of however, I was feeling or any of the feedback that I was sharing because that's like a limitation in regards to translating what somebody else is thinking that if I myself am writing everything down I have the ability to provide that feedback and it sounds like that was the shared opportunity. That was what the direction for. Thank you. So with that being said, I'd be interested in opening up to the floor and when you come up I would encourage providing commentary on if you were present at the workshop I'd be very interested to hear what your thoughts and feedback were on it. Any recommendations on how we could improve workshops or work sessions moving forward regarding the short-term rental workshop. And anything in particular that you would like to see in a new short-term rental ordinance as well, just any additional thoughts so, Gail, please come forward. I have no idea, where is the preference? Do is it up here or is it, I don't know what that is. You should have to see it. It's fine. Thank you for the question. And just please say your name and address. Thank you. Gail Skokrop, 19 prospectav. Does that microphone work? It's on. It's on. Yeah, thank you. Gayle Scocroft, 19 Prospect, DAV. Does that microphone work? It's on. Thank you. It's on. I'm getting a full sense. Yeah, thank you. So unfortunately, I was out of the country and very disappointed I could not be at the workshop. And I'm not invalidating that people had an positive experience. However, your exit survey data is pretty meaningless, only a third of the participants responded, and those participants were self-selected, so the people that had good feelings would most likely have completed that survey. So I'm just cautioning you, I don't know how well your people understand surveys. It's data, but it's not data that you can really rely on very heavily because again, only a third of the participants completed that survey and it was a self-selection process. Just in the microphone. Self-selection means as people were leaving, they had an opportunity to complete that. No, it was emailed. Sent to all. Well, the same thing. It was a self-selection process means that you didn't have a random trial of any kind. It was people who wanted to complete the survey, completed the survey. Sure. I mean, you can't force anyone to take a survey can't. So that's just making the same in that all exit surveys are flawed in general because you're normally going to provide a positive response or not. Yes, but if you read about exit surveys, most likely it's a people that had a positive effect from it are going to be the ones that fill the survey out. Sure, but I would prefer to at least have some sort of an indication at least to some people in attendance. It's better to have it than to not, right? As I said, it's not a major deal. I just wanted to caution you. I appreciate it. I'll do the forward making decisions. Absolutely. Thank you. So in terms of the short-term rental ordinance itself, I sat in this room through multiple meetings as the short-term rental ordinance was hammered out. The public, many of the public were able to speak and offer their opinions. And then that was in the first year, the first iteration of that short-term rental ordinance when it was the previous council. And then the council before yours took up that ball and ran with it, and they hired attorneys that had the expertise in this arena, the Decystle Law firm, to help develop that ordinance, and then they hired Granicus, who is one of the national leaders in understanding the complexities of short-term rentals, to develop the ordinance, and then and fact-checked by the attorneys. So we have a solid short-term rental ordinance that would stand the legal test of time. I understand there are property owners, some residents, some not residents that might want to see some changes made, and I'm not opposed to seeing changes made. I'm not, you know, I'm not in that camp, but I do think that it's really important to understand the amount of work that went into those and I have to say none of you were in those meetings because I was in everyone and I know I never saw any of you in those meetings. So to wholesale They'll want to throw out something that so many residents have already participated in is in font is ill-founded in my opinion. So I appreciate that you had this workshop. I'm, again, I'm really sorry that I wasn't there, but before changes are made, I'm really glad President Menzies that you are going to have another workshop so that residents can come and I really think it's important that the residents and the resident property owners voices are the voices that go into making this decision. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. President, just one point of order on this. This will be posted on the town's website by tomorrow. And anyone here this evening didn't get a copy. If you'd like an email to you, just a sheet of paper and a pen at the door. We'll send them out to you in the morning. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Anyone else wish to come forward to provide some feedback on the community discussion or what they would like to see on an an ideal short-term rental ordinance And please state your name and address Hi Ron Katens I was 17 Atlanta cab I I did participate and It was good. I'll say that that professionally run. No, I've done many of those and my profession is well and attended many of those, but I think it served the purpose. And I think you heard from people who didn't necessarily come out to all the meetings that say Gail went to because a lot of people won't react until something is in front of them and then they know they have to abide by it and then all of a sudden they take an interest in it and then they want to learn more and figure it out and kind of do that thing. So from that it's good. I think all of you received an email from the NTIRA today and what we learned because there were probably four or five members of the NTIRA present and we specifically scattered ourselves. today and what we learned because there were probably four or five members of the NTIRA president and we specifically scattered ourselves around, tried to get on tables with a lot of the Narragansett resident landlord owners as well because those are the people we wanted to hear from too and we had lots of discussions with them and some even after the thing and so we offered in our letter three places where you were looking for some me, a summary of what the key things were coming from the residents. That letter based on the four or five folks from the NTIRA was what we took back from the Narragansett resident landlords and then some subsequent conversations with some of the NTIRA board members and other Narragansett resident landlord landlords as well. So I think that could help us in terms of moving forward as well because there's some small changes in there but I would reiterate what Gail said is that there's been a lot of heavy, expensive legal work and work done by Granicus and Desisto that we absolutely do have an ordinance that can be enforced and is workable. So I would be careful about town council members maybe making statements that might be 100% true on that type of thing. But let's work from. council members maybe making statements that might be 100% true on that type of thing. But let's work from that base, look at those changes and at least from our standpoint, if it helps you guys, that was some of the summaries from the Narragans of Residentland Lois. Okay, thank you. Really appreciate it. Anyone else wish to come forward? And yes? Hi, yeah. John Hanley, 10 world in a scribe. Sitting here, I don't get toothpicks up my fingernails. I went to the thing in March, and I thought it was good. I thought it was good. People on both sides sitting at the same table, you can be congenial, you can talk, you can try and understand. The only thing that I thought was really missing, and to me it is the most important facet of what this is, is how many people are gonna let stay in a house overnight or for three days or for a week? What are the occupancy limits gonna be? I had done this a couple of years ago and I did it actually yesterday again. I got on VRBO and I got on, what's the other one? Airbnb. And I went through my neighborhood, the Village at Point Judith, and looked up everything that was for rent this summer. And it was very similar to the thing a couple of years ago, where basically three bedroom houses. I got houses that advertise in 16, 17 people a night. $6,000 a week, $1,000 a night. People still making money regardless of all of this stuff. So I just hope this, whatever this turns out to be, it appears that there's gonna be something. So I hope it's reasonable. I hope it's limits occupancy to what is in the ordinance now because that is fair. And certainly, I hope it's enforceable and you choose to enforce it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes please come forward. Good evening. Good evening. I am Rachel Laramie, 110 South Bay Drive. I went I was at the the town hall meeting and I thought it was a nice opportunity to have discussion with like-minded people and with people who had different viewpoints. You know, instead of sitting and meeting, listening to people one by one, it was back and forth conversation, which I thought was beneficial. I own, I live in town, I've lived here my entire life. My husband and I have saved up, worked really hard, were both teachers. We've bought two properties, both in town, and we live a little nomadically between both and my mom's house, which is also in town. So a little like nomads, but 365 days in there against it. We have chosen to go the short-term route because we tried academic and I never want to rent people under 25 and that's what you get with students. Because I'm local because I live in town. I care not only about the properties that I have heavily invested everything that I've I've earned into, but I'm also invested in the neighborhoods. I'm invested in the neighbors. Some of the neighbors are some of our best friends. Our neighbors even rented our house for their sister for our party last weekend. So it provides opportunity for things like that for people who don't want to stay in a hotel every time they travel. I know I don't want to stay in a hotel when I travel. You know, I want to have a kitchen and a bedroom that I can shut the door. I am very much on board with having an ordinance. I think as written, it's very long, it's very lengthy, and I'm a rule follower. I don't want to, I lose sleep at night if I know that I'm breaking rules. So I want something that I know that I can follow, that I can help other people follow. Because there's a whole group of us that our friends that all do this together and we all help each other out. So, you know, if you're having houses that have 16, 17 people sleeping in a three bedroom house, so I think that's wrong. I think weed out bad landlords through enforcement, but having something that is easier to enforce because it is more clear cut is I think going to be more successful. A big theme that keeps coming up is the nightly minimum. I think having rules, regulations, fines, and stipulations for so many other aspects of short-term rentals almost negates the fact for having a minimum. Now, personally, I would never have a one night minimum because I also think that that attracts parties. But in the off season, we get a lot of two night rentals. We get a lot of URI parents coming to visit. We get funerals. We get baptisms. We get people coming in for road races, like the race last weekend. And so I think that there's a need for either a flexible minimum or an off-season minimum. I personally, I would do seven nights in the summer, but it doesn't always work for everybody. People don't always have the opportunity to take a whole week vacation. And as somebody who takes care of my own houses, sometimes we need a couple days to get in there and get some stuff done, schedule services to come and work on the houses. And if you have seven nights back to back, that doesn't work. There's no downtime. So it's I think sometimes better to kind of have a few days midweek for it to clear out if that works for your property. What I liked about the frown table was that it gave people a voice to talk to people that they wouldn't normally have had the opportunity to interact with. I went with quite a few other resident landlords that I know. Some of them I know, because I've been friends with them forever, and some I've met through these events. But I liked that it gave that opportunity, and I'd like to see more of that with short term, but also with other aspects happening in town. That's it. Thank you so much. Yes please support. Good evening. evening. Joseph Volpy, 21 Haber Island Road. I attended the roundtable. I think I was very complimentary at one of the meetings. In fact, I'm in a small group with Rachel. That's how we met. To give you a little bit of history and it's a little bit overwhelming to talk about all the things that we need to talk about. So I just texted Kate, my fiance, I said I'm overwhelmed with all the stuff we got to talk about. She said focus on two things. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to listen to her. Right. But I just want to give a little history of how this group started. At the last council, their goal was to do something with short-term rentals. I'm a resident landlord. My short-term rental sits 35 feet away from me. I also own a couple of year-round homes. Very hard to attain what I got. Never had a four-star review. We've been doing this since 2009. People like Rachel and I, we do it right. But at the last hearing, we didn't feel heard. Young woman came up earlier and said that there was a hearing already that this was vetted, and you're right, there was a hearing. At that hearing, 36 or 40 people were adamantly opposed to the seven-night minimum as well as the licensing, those were two of the biggies that came up. The history a little bit about the Seven-night minimum comes from the former council comparing Narragansk to a couple of other coastal communities, two of them being Jamestown and Westelley. I'm not going to mention names, but I spoke to that point that the comparison was that they had 30-day minimums and they did not. That never existed. I mentioned that at a council meeting. I also want to work with the town. I require seven nights in a summer like Rachel. That's with the market dictates. But we got to be clear that this seven night thing we talk about it as if it's assumed that it's done throughout the state. It's not. No other municipality has a two-night minimum, let alone a seven. Now, I'm well aware what happens in Newport. Newport has their restrictions and it's a completely different animal in their zoning areas. But of their legal ones, there's 550 of them. There's a zero-night minimum. Someone said, well, Cumberland, Bandamol, get all together. My answer to that is, I don't think anyone even cares enough to fight it in Cumberland. Cumberland is not an arrogance. Cumberland is not where people want to be. And maybe they're breaking the law. The bottom line is the law says, and the state says explicitly, that we're allowed to advertise on Airbnb and VRBO. Okay? says nothing about a minimum. So I sat at this microphone and I recommended seven nights in the summer. It was part of the crane report. I also suggested that it should be more like two or three in the office season at the time, at the time. Because again, I am a resident. That's what the market dictates. The other thing I can tell you is we don't have 60 hotels like Newport. We have three boutique motels. Mr. Durkins being one of them. The break, the shore house, the one on Ocean Road and Lindsay's cute place. Right? I'm not even going to talk about the village in, okay? Another thing we need to think about is the amount of short-term rentals shrink dramatically in the off season because a lot of people rent to students in the summer, all right? So this pool of short-term rentals goes down substantially, and I think it's 5% per the crane report. So the two things I want to talk about is one, we weren't heard in the past. Ninety percent of the people said they were against it. This went to court and we now have a frivolous lawsuit. So let's not assume the seven nights is something that's done. It's not done anywhere in the state. But I wanted here because I want to work with the residents. I'm a resident for I'm a firefighter first, then I'm a resident and now I'm a landlord. Okay. I'm raising the daughter in the school system. Right. So the seven nights is not let's not assume it. It's something I think we can have, but the summer is not May to October. Let's get that out the window. The summer season is the middle of June to Labor Day. Those are the seven, that's the seven night minimum window. When the kids get out of school to Labor Day, because if you take away the spring and the fall, you're taking away weddings, the art festival, you are our graduation, Kalamari Festival. The times when the delight of the visitors is to come here for two or three nights. So I just wanna be clear, let's not assume seven nights is something that happens across the board. It happens nowhere in the state of Rhode Island, nowhere. But I'm all for it because I want to, again, come up with something when we can work together on. Just bear with me here. I feel like I'm on the captain's test over here with the pan on front of me. Safety. I was a health and safety officer for this town, for the fire department, for 15 years. I encourage inspections. I think that short-term rentals are a bit different than year-round rentals. I have both of them. I go to my year-round rental and I tell them this is where the extinguishes are. These are the means of regress. They all know who is in that house on a daily basis, and they do that. I go there once a year. When you have, let's call it 10 weeks in the summer, 10 different families, I just want you to picture going to Block Island. I go to a group of three different families. Excuse me. One o'clock in the morning on some night, I don't know where one of the couples is. They could be at, you know, they could be dancing at kittens for all I know. So if something happens, my point is the emergency responders need to know where people are. That's an example of one of the reasons that separates the short-term rental. The other thing too is to short-term rental people, again, don't know where the extinguishes are. They don't know the means of egress. They wake up in an emergency. It's a different than being in your own home. So it's almost a different class. And I can tell you that the fire marshal has developed very reasonably a new class and that's the short-term rental. Alright, so there are new regulations for short-term rentals that the fire marshal has developed. So we need to acknowledge that and acknowledge that these homes need to be inspected. All right, I'm all for it. The permitting process, I can talk more about at another time, but we want to work, we are residents, we want to work with the residents, but some of the residents need to work with us. I think part of the purview of the past ordinance was to create a burden so bad that it was going to make me do one of three things. It's going to make me sell my house, rent year-round without any incentive, or rent to college students, which you don't want. They don't want students either. So tell me what I'm allowed to do. It's very frustrating because I want to work with the residents, but they have to work with me. Okay? I want to work with them, but they have to work with me. I'm not renting to college students. And I don't want to be bullied into doing anything. I think that's why we're in this lawsuit because it went too far. And I employ you not to go too far. That's why I'm bringing up these things that we can have a discussion with and work together. But to put a burden on one group with the hopes, with the hopes that one of those three things would happen, actually four things that I mentioned at this microphone. They were going to fight it. they were going to rent to college students. They sell the house, yeah, I'll sell my house for $1.6 million. There's no family coming in and buying my house. And I mean that without anybody's houses work that much, okay? And I gave my word to my neighbors. And my neighbors wrote letters on my behalf in order for me to attain the properties that I have. I gave my word that I wouldn't rent to college students. And I'm not doing it. I like the delight of seeing families have a good time in something that I created. That's what I like. I like that better. And if someone has an issue with a house with 13 people and it then fix it, then enforce it. I'm all about the regulation. And that brings me to, sorry Kate, this is the third plot. Enforcement. None of this works without enforcing it. I am sickened over the bad landlords, frankly. And it's not to say that an out-of-state landlord can hire someone or have someone like Rachel or myself managing their properties. But enforcement is key. I recommended the current compliance officer that we have. I sat at the state house, Mr. Durkin was there, and I recommended that this should be mandated in every town in the state. I went to compliance officer is great. But I don't want to hear parking, trash, noise, hire someone else. We have 26 community service officers, 26 walking around town, and this is not against the chief of police chief, but there's 26 of them. If our rental compliance offers a needs help this summer, or even segueing into the fall when the natives get restless, when the college kids get back for six months, then hire them. Because we need to enforce these regulations or it means nothing. We need to enforce the parking, the trash, the noise, all that. We'll get to the parking. I have an answer for that as well. We'll get to the noise. We'll get to all that. But I'm done, Kate. That's three. If any one of you have any questions about how I run my property, how I attain my properties, how I vet my tenants, anything at all feel free to ask. Thank you. anyone else from the public wish to come forward and speak on really, I mean, the floor is wide open. So, anything to do with the short-term rental ordinance, maybe some feedback that has come to mind of what you would like to see in a new ordinance or even reflections on the first community of discussion. Yes, Rupert. Good evening. Good evening Councilmember. Rupert Friday 113 Montauk Road. As I think all even though I attended the forum. And I think when I came away from the forum with having the discussions at five tables, is I think there's an opportunity for consensus on an awful lot of what's in the short-term rental ordinance. And I think I would encourage you, either to have a similar form with a facilitator to build consensus, either ideally a facilitator at each table. You could identify here's where there's consensus, here's where there's not consensus. and maybe create a work group. And I guess where I thought there was consensus was between the residents and the rental property owners that live in town like Joe. I think I heard an awful lot of consensus about what would work in the ordinance. And I think if you created an advisory group with folks from the town, both the rental property owners that live here and the residents, where there is not a agreement, I think you could have a rich discussion to build consensus about a lot of things. The discussion tonight's been about the seven day issue. I think there's some strategies that could be there, but you can't discuss strategies in a form like this that really needs to be around a table with a give and take among those groups. And then if you haven't read the crane report, I really encourage you to look at that. I think it's important. It has two recommendations related to the crane report for affordable housing for those that aren't familiar with it. Has two recommendations related to this one? As Mr. Volpe said, a seven-day rental period, and the other is encouraging landlords to rent on a year-on-base. I think there's some strategies for dealing with the seven days that address the issues that Joe and others have raised, but you can't. You can't work them out in a form like this. You really need to work them out in a discussion with those stakeholders working together. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, please come forward. Hi, my name is Maureen Barney. I live at 146. Noesway extension. And I have a rental property one street over. I just feel that when I bought that home, the rental property, of course, I live one street away. So of course I was concerned about taking care of the property and my neighbors and my daughter happens to own the house next door. It was in disrepair. It was just a mess. So I beautified the street and brought all of the property values up on that street by by replacing the roof, replacing the windows, putting in a new heating system. The home I live in now, which is my permanent residence, was my summer residence from 1984 to 2018, at which time I demolished it and built a new home on the same property. And it's a lot of substandard size. So it's not one of these behemoth homes, you see, on a small lot. As such, the rental home is a small ranch. The bedroom size of 70 square feet is only allowed for one, is for one person and it has to be 120 in order to accommodate two people. I think it's unreasonable. A lot of these homes, older homes, I think it was built in 1954. I think the bedroom is about eight and a half by 11. I have a double bed in it, it has a closet, of course, because it's a bedroom, it has a bureau, it has two nightstands. And yet, under this regulation, I would only be able to have one person in that room. That doesn't make sense to me because you've got a minimum for two people of 120 square feet. A lot of the homes have bedrooms much smaller than 120 square feet and they're accommodating, you know, it accommodates a double bed. So two people can sleep in a double bed. The other one that concerns me a little bit is the parking. A 10 by 20 for two cars, I believe you're saying. I think that's a little bit of an overreach too. I have a driveway that accommodates to cars, whether or not it's 10 feet wide, I'm not completely sure. I think I had it redone last summer to comply with these regulations and I believe I did it because of this regulation. But maybe not everyone can do that. And before it was just stone, but now I've cleaned it up a bit. So I'm a great, like the people before me, I'm a great landlord. I do rent to students, but only to students. I do rent in the summer and I do have a seven day minimum. But in May and June, I agree that those, that seven day minimum should be brought down a bit, to, you know, even three. I don't rent less than three days, because I clean my own homes. And I'm not going to be doing that every other day. So those are just some, the fees I think are exorbitant. $400. I had, what was it? $52. Fill out the application in $350. A lot of us are residents right in town and we're doing this like we have been fortunate enough and we're tired enough to be able to afford a second property and I almost feel like we're being penalized for being good landlords. I would say if the enforcement part is big if you've We've got people who are causing problems in their neighborhoods, then go after those people. But, you know, leave me alone. I'm doing a great job. Everyone in on my street is pleased and we've brought up the neighborhood. So it's just something to consider because we feel like we're really being made scapegoats for some reason. When we're only doing good things for the community and the housing. That's it, thanks. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. I saw Mr. Frandy's hand first and then we'll come to you. Yes. Good evening Councilmembers and thank you. I got here a little bit late. I'll just name and I'll just Stephen Ferrandi, 44, Sylvan Rowe. Thank you sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'muse himself for this meeting? Or did he notify the town? I don't see a solicitor here, so I don't know if they were here to require that. I can't speak on behalf of Mr. Durkin as a business is his own, but in my personal discussions with the board of ethics was that there was no violation of anyone who has any perceived ethics violation for them to be sitting in the audience and there is no vote being taken tonight. It was my recommendation that Mr. Durkin sit out into the audience but again it was his own decision at the end of the day. Okay so it's not not an official. It's not an official. It's a refusal. Even though last time it was, and officially said, he was, still I said he said he would add to recuse. Okay, thank you. You know, there's so much to say about this ordinance, but I'd like to reiterate the point that there was a lot of data already gone over for this. And I realize that there's a few sticking points. I can understand that even in some of the meetings we had. But we did have, and this ordinance itself had actually become public four different times in the last six months before it was produced. You can look at every iteration that basically all about the same. And it actually was vetted out by the town. A government there was even a fact sheet. You know, I noticed a lot of people about the size of bedroom to size of this, but a lot of a lot of what is in there has to go by the state law. You know, a 10 by 7 bedroom is a minimum amount of bedroom you can have according to the state, and we're trying to follow that. And you need 120 for two people in there. That's not the town doing this. That's the state. So, you know, there's a lot of good answers in there. And I know when we were discussing it before, we had a pause, people could come in and ask questions, and it generated a bunch of questions that the building inspector, Mr. Pimentel, had put on the website about answers, and it went about a lot of the technical things, even if I do a short term, do I have to do a regular rent registration list. So all of those things were kind of vetted out. There's information on all that already. Now it never came to light because you know, low and behold, and I'm I'm glad that you reconsidered and just did line out a whole ordinance and make it you know, to be honest, we are very immature as a new council and very disrespectful for the towns. Now, cooler heads have prevailed here, so now we've got a chance to vet this a little bit. According to your guys rules, you know, you went through the work session. That's what you find, you know, but you know, Granicus did give us a whole information packet on this and at the time, those 1100 unique short term rentals there was, you know, about 94% single-family units. It gave us the whole rundown. $520 a night per bedroom was the highest reading estate at the time. So, you know, and the discussions were, but people gave their, we got it in, and then we gave what we thought each council person sent into the town manager along with the solicitor they crafted this ordinance. And, you know, one of the issues is about the limits, but if there is no limits, where it grows unabatedly, that's a question to be discussed and talked about. You know, as far as the amount, there was information that I received in reports I got that that's where I was at with the amount that was there and probably other council people. So I just want to just reiterate this, there's a lot of good information already in here, a lot spend vetted out, you know, and there's talk about, you know, there's not enough hotel rooms. Well, you know, you can look at one of these things and you can look at these 1100 short term rentals now and basically you can call them many boutique hotels in the neighborhood because that's how they act and they're a business and I get it I understand there's nothing wrong with people making money and you know maybe the people that have properties now that live in town a lot, a lot of them feel that they're part of the community and I understand all of that. But they're basically everybody's looking like this like a business. And that's what they are. And then they're not taxed that way. That's a whole nother talk. So I just wanted to bring that up. And a lot of what's said has been vetted out could be answered. But when you start off with lining a whole ordinance, and then you went your own way with your own mediator, which wasn't hired by the town, which was someone that Miss Vignale knew, how can it really be an official record of this town? That's not how it operates. Just if you're going to do something like that, you should be putting it out the bid and act like the council should be acting. Be a little more formal. Do your diligence. You know, don't get influenced by one member, two members, say because of the, you know, you heard people. I mean, you would think you heard every person you talked to on the campaign trail was against a short-term rental ordinance. A lot of people probably had no opinion on it. So anyway, that's all. You know, give it a pause like you've done. I realize I'm not completely, you know, the information is for what it's worth, it's who shows up at the meeting. But you know, you guys have to dig in deep on this. Like the rest of these councils did and understand it. Understand that there was a lot of information it was vetted to the town. People have their opinions, you know, and be reasonable about it. Okay, thank you. So I had to appreciate it. Oh, one other question. We're gonna see, I just hope there's not another, there'll be a blue sheet with all the changes on this. And then public hearing to say, okay, this is not put down. Are there, you know. This is going to be another, so the plan is at a later meeting, regularly scheduled meeting, there will ideally be an agenda item, a discussion scheduling to plan another work session or community discussion. Yeah, because it's you know you're running on time also you know with the seasonal rentals I mean the rental registration you know and I the rental registration starts in September so you know time's ticking as far as to get something going if it's simultaneously the town is already vetted out. We've vetted it out the inspections. Then you get a of what the house is. Just putting a blueprint on something that we have the most in the whole state. It's only right that this is done. Thank you. Thank you. And I saw this young lady next. Thank you. No, one second. Okay. Sorry. So I don't know why there's any confusion, but I am recusing myself. Yeah, I think it was just the matter of an official recuse, I think was special. I think it was official now. Okay, thank you. I have the right to sit in the audience. Yes, yes you do. Thank you. And now please come forward. Oh, you can also use this microphone too. I'm going to use that microphone. That's right. So now I'm Elizabeth Franca. I live at 60 Central Street. I wasn't originally going to speak, but I'm a resident, and I don't own any rental properties here, so I feel like I'm representing the non-landlord population a little bit. I do think there's a big difference in between resident landlords and non-resident landlords. You know the people have spoken here who are resident landlords. I know they're part of this community and they spoke very passionately about maintaining their properties and being good neighbor. And I don't doubt that that's true. I think it's a very different one. It's non-resident landlords. I've had those landlords in my neighborhood before, not anymore so much. And I just would like there to be an awareness. Obviously, there are people who want to buy these properties who are not community members. I get phone calls or text all the time. People interested in buying my house. I had a guest come visit me last fall and she lives in California and she has an investment group and she's like, what do you think if we come in and buy one of the houses here as an investment property? I'm like, no, please do not do that. So people do want to come in. You've got people, our company is like Blackstone, that now on, I think one third, the third largest single home residential rental market, I mean houses. So these big companies are buying up home. So I think the people who are here speaking passionately who are landlords, they're one thing, but then we have to be cognizant of whatever law we pass that we're not going to somehow open the floodgates to other people coming in, buying up properties, non-residents, and then we have a lot of non-resident landlords, which as a resident I would rather not have. That's all I wanted to say. And also, I wasn't able to be here at the last workshop, so I hope I can participate in the next one. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes, please come forward. Is this on? Hi. This is Beth Sanford, a non-resident landlord. I live in South Kingston. It's my house that I own on 9 Dessana Drive is closer to me than somebody who lives in bonnet shores. That's 5.1 miles from bonnet shores. I'm four miles from the house. I also know along with a lot of non-resident landlords, we know our neighbors. We know the people who are in our house, we vet them as much as resident landlords, and we look after our properties as much. It's specific people who don't, but please do not put us all in one bucket. Number one, number two, we care about this town. As I said, I'm in South Kingston. I come to lots of events. I love the bands at the gazebo. I eat my, I have go out to dine here all the time. This is a sister town. With that being said, I do believe that there's lots of other non-resident landlords who feel like this is their home also. They just have, they can't be here all the time. They do hire people like Mr. Dothin to take care of their places and be their mouthpieces and be there for them. This ordinance overall has some really good things about it and then there's some overwhelming things. And it's person by person. So please keep working, keep listening to all of us. We are all taxpayers. We all love this town. So please, I love the transparency that you guys have had. I wasn't able to get to the work the previous workshop, but I will make it a point to attend the other ones. And if you only hold them in the winter, then many non-resident landlords cannot be heard. And one of the reasons why we're here doing this is because we were not heard. I thank you all for keeping the open communication. Thank you. Great night. You too. Anyone else? Yes, please come forward. Hello, my name is Dave Kiggles, 85 Kenyan Farms Road. I'm going to make it clear that the house is a rental and I'm here opposing the ordinance as written anyway. I did attend the recent workshop. I thought it was very useful. I want to make it clear that the that house is a rental and I'm here opposing you know, apposing the ordinance as written anyway. But I've got a chance to hear what a lot of the complaints were about short-term rentals at that workshop from, you know, residents who are concerned about it. And it seemed that there was a lot of consensus that there are real problem properties, problem landlords that are really the biggest problem. And enforcement against those is really what's the most critical thing. And so that was my biggest takeaway from it. I wanted to address a few points that were brought up by various people earlier. One of them is that since a lot of work went into this ordinance, we should keep it as is because it was vetted and there's a lot of work put into it. Well, a lot of work was put into making it very specifically, against short-term rentals, significantly limit them. It wasn't, it was heavily biased and it wasn't just some balanced process. So just because a lot of work went into it doesn't mean we should just keep it wholesale and the notion that it was really well vetted, well then why is it held up in court now? I mean, it clearly things wrong with with it. It needs to be fixed. They're, I want to address the issue of occupancy elements in room size. The room size is also an issue for us. A lot of our cottages, I should just say that my family's own property here in New York ants it for like a century. And it's been rented out as short term rentals for that entire time a lot of those cottages. We have a long history here and some of us have been our residents full time and others are not somewhere out of state. But these old cottages a lot of their rooms don't meet the requirements. My understanding is that the requirements, you know, the current requirements, 70 square feet for one and 120 square feet for two that are, you know, outside of just what this ordinance says, are for new construction, specifically. Like you can't build a new house that has a thrums that are too small. But it doesn't mean that suddenly those rooms are illegal and all the houses that have already been built. So that just doesn't make any sense. You need to grandfather, you know, the older houses, these old small cottages for their room size. And I think not only that, but it should go beyond just the bedrooms and how large they are. For example, the cottage at 85 Pena and Farms Road has been advertised for ages. It's a two-bedroom one bath and it's been advertised as, you know, as sleeps four in bedrooms and two pull-ups, you know, sofa in a common area. So it's advertised as privacy for four, sleep six. And it's often rendered just a two or four people, but a lot of times there are families that come and want to stay there with a few kids and it's fine and they don't know not bothering anybody. So even just going by the, even if it met the room size requirements, not being able to even have anyone in a common area is a problem. I think there should be some allowance for that as well. I think it's utterly ridiculous to have 17 people in a small house, especially looking at a big party, that's a real problem, we need stop that. But a cottage that has plenty of safe space for even six people in a relatively small space, they should be allowed to do it if it's safe and there's egress, etc. That needs to be considered. We can't list it on say Airbnb for as sleeping six and someone goes to search on there with their family. They want to bring four kids. They're not even going to find the cottage. It's not going to show up in the results. It's not going to be an option. They're not going to say, well, I guess I'm okay with putting a couple of kids on a sleeper sofa because the option won't even be presented to them. So we need to be able to advertise it that way. point, I don't want to brought up that was brought up earlier. And it's just a minor point, but I just want you to understand. This notion that there's this self-selection bias in the survey results, right? Yes, suppose that's true. People decide they want to respond to the survey or they don't, but the notion that that means that it's going to have pos-mostly positive feedback is nonsense, because a lot of people that are motivated to respond to surveys are people who are upset and angry and Reviews online lots of them are terrible reviews. It's not like people are only motivated to leave positive feedback So that doesn't make any sense just want to point that out and I want to say that I am a non-resident not even in state You know my primary residence is in Florida and before that you know, I know there states and I grew up in Connecticut, but I grew up spending a lot of the time in the summer and pre and postseason working on the cottages and I get here a few months a year to take care of the property. I feel like I'm part of the community and it's just depressing, really, to hear some of the sentiment against just generalizing people that are out of state is just necessarily being bad. I understand that there are definitely some out of state landlords that don't care about the properties, you know, care what happens because they're not there. And that needs to be taken care of with enforcement in various measures. But the general sentiment against people around the state, or just don't even live in air, is just wrong. We're not the enemy. And just there's a point here. This really stuck out to me when I was reading through this earlier today, all these points that were left on the paper. And there's one here that says, residents should be paying a lot less than stated as they are already paying taxes. Somebody said that. Now let's think about that for a minute. There's various kinds of taxes that people are paying whether residents are non-residents. One of them is property taxes. Now obviously, it's the same, property taxes. Non-residents are paying property taxes. So what's the point here? State income taxes. If anybody is making a profit on the property here in Rhode Island in Erie Ancet, they're going to owe the state of Rhode Island income taxes on the profit from that property because that's the state it's in even if they live out of state. So they're paying state income taxes just like the residents would on it. They're also paying state sales tax because most things that are purchased to go for the property, construction materials, furniture, whatever else is mostly going to be purchased in state in Rhode Island for properties in New York, so there's a notion that there's a difference in the taxes that residents and non-residents are paying is just silly. It doesn't make sense, But that's the kind of argument that's being used against non-residents. So I just want to keep that in mind that there's not really good arguments to penalize non-residents, to charge them of exorbitant fees, higher fees, and treat them as second-class citizens or really not citizens at all since they don't get to vote. So I just want you to keep in mind. That's most of the points I wanted to make, so thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak who hasn't spoken already? Yes, please come forward. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put opinions on this actually. You know I was listening at home and this is about money. Oh sorry just name and address. Paul's on for low seven when we're circle. Thank you. about money. Oh, sorry, just name and address. Paul's on for low, seven, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, one, So this is about money. Plain and simple. The people coming up here and, you know, I love the sob stories. Oh, I love the community. Oh, I fixed the roof on my house. I mean, on average, and I'll have some data to back this up. People make between $1500 and $10000 a year cash flow on these properties. So there's a tremendous amount of money that's made. They also make money through depreciation and write ups on their taxes. And if you're not making that kind of money then, you know, I don't know how you run your business. But they are businesses and they have unlimited upside. And when you're an entrepreneur, right, in order to get that upside, there's gotta be risks. So I don't blame them to come in here and complain about every single rule and regulation. I don't blame the people that come in here and try and protect their generational wealth. It really doesn't matter how many years you've been renting or if you grew up renting cottages or, you know, whatever your story is. The bottom line is people are making money. Some are grinding it out, making money. Some are really raking it in a well organized. And the thing is that it's really the question of what kind of town do we want to have. And people keep talking about, oh, back in the day, it was so different. When I was a kid and people rented down here, you sent your check-in in January. You rented for at least two weeks. And then you showed up and that was it. You can't really compare the past to what's going on right now because you've turned every single house in this town potentially into a hotel. And I heard a lot about first communions and all these other things that people are coming in for and renting. I mean, they can stay in South Kingston. There's places to stay, right? So, when is it going to be enough enough? When is it going to be, because it really is about the money? And what feels to me is like you're reaching for compromise, right? You're looking for compromise, but some things you can't compromise on. What if you wanted to, let's say someone said, you know what? The property on Narragantza Town Beach is very valuable. Why don't we sell it to developers and build condos? We get a ton of money for the town, right? I mean, beautiful waterfront views can make a ton of money for the town. Why don't we just like change the whole beach over to condos? Well, that's ridiculous, right? But maybe we only make them half condos, half condos, like we're splitting in the middle. We're cutting the baby in half, right? And so, some things you can't meet in the middle on, right? And if things keep going like they're going right now, all the residents will be driven out of this town. And I heard a lot of comparisons to other towns, right? There's name another town that's like this in Rhode Island. Name a town where, like, let's talk about academic rentals and provenance, okay? My brother went to Brown University a long time ago. He had to live at school, on the east side of provenidence. He had to rent that house for the whole year, for the whole 12 months. Because there's no, now it's probably different nowadays, right? Because there's, they would air being be in the summer. But back 25 years ago, right? You couldn't do anything with those months. Now Providenceidence is having an Airbnb crisis, right? So that, what's unique and narrowing it is, people want, you can make as much money in the first academic, in the academic part of the year as you can in the summer. So it's like having two years pushed into one. You don't like your both of things on hard-hide and during that happened. Sorry about that. If you're dealing with academic website for resources, make sure to regularly check in submit updates, especially. That's GROC. Now you have AI weighing in. So really, all this workshop was, I mean, people maybe felt that they were being heard, right? But it's really up to you to decide if you want to build condos on the beach or half the beach or none of the beach. It's really up to you to decide what kind of town we want to have because the residents are always going to tell you that it's out of control. And the landlords will never say that there's too little regulation, right? They're always going to complain about the regulation. They're always going to complain no matter what you do. So you really have to decide what kind of town you want to have. It doesn't matter how long somebody's lived here, it doesn't matter how long they've rented, it doesn't matter if they're a good landlord or a bad landlord, really. What matters is what do you want the town to look like? And we're going to continue to empty the schools, or we're going to continue to have neighborhoods of the deteriorate and fall apart. And it'll be the last one to turn the lights off when you leave in our answer. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't spoken yet this evening, who wishes to do so? Yes, Mr. Pugh. Good evening. Good evening. Hello and for holding the workshop as you guys said you would do. And then again for doing this tonight and it sounds like future meetings as well, so appreciate the process. I was at the workshop at the community center. I agree with what has been said by most people, which is that it was productive. There was definitely a lot of common ground in my opinion, at least in the discussions. I don't know if that common ground continued when people left, but those discussions were, I think it would have been minded. I think there was compromise and it did seem like on issues that felt like maybe there wouldn't be the ability to do that. There was. So that was great. As a few people have said, it's hard to gauge the overall sentiment of that night because what we have here is kind of a collection of all answers. It doesn't say how many people said certain things. It doesn't say, you know, give you that volume. But it's a great list for you guys to have and to work off of. So now you have the questions, you have the feedback. And you can use that in whatever way, you know, makes sense for you. But I'm not going to get into the details of the ordinances or of the ordinance. I think a few people have already spoken in detail about that, but I do want to talk about like one specific thing in it. And I think a good question that you guys can ask yourselves, and I've asked myself is what would be, what's the ultimate goal in whatever you put together and what you pass? Like what are you really looking to achieve? So is it to make short-term rentals safer and maybe less rowdy and more kind of, you know, controllable but still exist and continue to grow? Is that the goal? So there are less of a nuisance to the neighborhood but that they're still there. Or is it to generate revenue for the town? So is it about finding and registration fees and using that revenue for whatever you deem, maybe affordable housing or other projects that would be possible? Is that the goal? Or is it to stop the future conversion of single-family homes and year-round homes to becoming short-term rentals? Is that the goal? So to me, that's a very easy answer. And that is to stop the conversion of houses to new short-term rentals because when that happens, now you have a house off the market that could have been a year-round rental, it could have been purchased by someone as a year-round home. And once it happens, it's probably gone for at least a long time because then if it does sell, it's already that it's been proven out that it works as short-term rental, the next buyer does the same thing. So how do you do that? And of all the different restrictions and requirements in this ordinance, there's one single thing, in my opinion, that does that and that is having a cap. So what that cap does is, you know, it depends how it's implemented. And I think there are issues with the way it's implemented in this ordinance. I don't know if they were fully thought out or if it was intentional, but there are some issues I believe with the current cap. So things like if you register your short-term rental, you're not guaranteed to have in the next season, which you can't, I mean, that's not realistic clearly, because people need that stability. So I don't think you're being genuine if you do the cap in that way, but if you have it so that once you're, anyone who's's registered now anyone is on the list now Would be grandfathered in to have that rental Once they give that up once they sell the house once they don't register now they're off the list To me that's a compromise I know Probably some people won't like it on each side So people are gonna say we we wanna get these numbers down, I don't wanna grandfather in. Some owners are gonna say, I wanna buy future property as an increase to the size of my portfolio. But what it does do is, I believe it respects those who spoke tonight about their rentals that they have. They could continue doing that. It would limit your ability to increase your holdings. But it also. Uncompletes the goal on the other side, which is to stop what we've been seeing over the last few decades, which is more and more houses going on the market and turning into short-term rentals. And we've seen it in all neighborhoods. I know there's three houses for sale in my neighborhood in the north end right now. And you talk to your neighbors. And there is really no hope that there is going to be families moving in. Because the profit and the possibilities as a short term rental are just too high. You can't blame anyone for wanting to do it. So unless there is not that ability, which is having a cap, then the house can't be marketed that way when it's being sold. It could be marketed that way. But if anyone does their research, they'll know that they can't rent that out until there's room on the list. So again, without that cap, I don't see any reason to talk about the future of the schools. I don't see any reason to talk about building and improving playgrounds because you're not going to have that community here to use those facilities as we lose our housing inventory. So, again, there are definitely tweaks that could be done to the ordinance across the board. have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is have to do is And those are things that I think this council can work on and figure out. But again, if you don't move forward with a cap, then what we'll have is need and tidy, quiet, Airbnb's throughout the neighborhoods and less families. So anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Ms. Lawyer. Good evening, everybody. Jill Lawler, Sarah Soda Avenue. And I'm going to be as brief as I possibly can because I've already been here for a bit of time. I also did attend and thank you for having that. I did note that the majority of people that were there that I spoke with were not town residents and I know that the advertisement was looking to have a best solution for all residents. So I do agree, including the individuals who spoke this evening, the resident landlords. So as being one of the crafters from the ordinance itself, I just wanted to kind of make a few statements about how it was crafted and why it was crafted. It was the first time I ever actually developed a zoning law. I don't think any of you have either. We worked very well with Jim and with Wayne and with the police chief and just try to come up with how best can we do this because we know one thing with any ordinance, it's easier to dial back than to add on. Itier to dial back than to add on. So I know that we heard tonight, and I remember hearing from when I sat up there, that a lot of people didn't feel like they were heard. Well, being heard and agreeing with a product are two different things. You were heard, and we always had anticipated dialing back on this, and I'm sure you guys are going to be doing that now, which will be whatever our council is here. But the one thing that I really want to stress for you guys to think about is this, why did the last two councils, why did the last two councils, the one that Jesse was a president, one and the one that ever was a president, and one, why did they seek to put short-term rental ordinances to effect? It was to do just what Jesse just said, is to find out a cap, to be able to put a stop to the amount of homes that go into... to put short-term rental ordinances to affect. It was to do just what Jesse just said, is to find out a cap, to be able to put a stop to the amount of homes that go into not year-round housing, but into a short-term rental properties. Now, we still, I know you don't know right now, how many short-term properties are in town? We don't have that answer. That's something that you guys really need to be able to get your arms around. Because until you have that answer, there is no need to even make tweaks to this ordinance. That needs to be impactful. I read in the, from page of the newspaper not long ago, Mr. Mendes, Mr. Colony, as you're both quoted as saying, absolutely no, would you have any interest in wanting to regionalize the school system? And I agree with you. However, if we continue down this road, you're not gonna have any choice. Mr. Collins, I know you have young kids. They might not be graduating from Narragansett High School unless we actually make some choices and you as a leader of the town make some really bold choices. I know there are people here that spoke that their property property owners that are not living in the town. But I think you all can agree on one thing, that the people that do live here are part of our community, and they have a more invested interest in making sure the community and the neighborhoods are whole. Short term rentals are neighborhood killers. We know this. And we just need to find out how many short-term rentals are in town, cap it so that we can make sure that we don't regionalize the school systems. Because I agree with Jesse just said, there's no need for us to talk about not putting money in pickleball courts and putting in playgrounds if we're not gonna have kids to be on the playgrounds. So I think this is gonna be the biggest thing you guys do. Again, the last two councils we tried. And yes, there is a staying court right now. But that is from a bunch of individuals who are not the individuals who spoke here tonight. They are the people that have from out of state, out of town, 2100 that tend to actually want to wait as soon as we leave the podium to file a lawsuit. So that's why there's a stay. So please make some changes. It is very important. Again, we just need to make sure we can keep the children in this town and not have it just be a neighborhood for rentals. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who's to speak who hasn't done so already? Speak now. All right. Well, I want to thank everyone for being here this evening. There was a lot of, I think, really great feedback shared and I will allow the council to have one final comment or a thought if they so choose. But, you know overall theme here is to reflect, re-evaluate and work to find solutions that work for all residents moving forward. Because there's a lot of themes that are covered tonight, but compromise, it does seem attainable. And, you know, again, part of the reason why I voted the way that I did was I truly believed in the fact that we could find compromise as a community. And that has not wavered. I really appreciate hearing multiple different perspectives, residents, non-residents, resident landlords, non-resident landlords. And I agree that everything, there are different viewpoints that really need to be taken into consideration, and I really feel like we can do that at future community workshops and discussions. So my recommendation will be at a later town council meeting, somewhere down the road either this month or the next. We will put it on for the agenda to schedule and discuss an additional work session workshop, what that would look like at that time. There's a lot of information that was shared here this evening. I think there's a lot of information that this council can digest. And it's really a matter of how do we move forward and use the work, or the everything that's been shared here, not only in the workshop, but everything that's been shared in the community discussion as well. So I don't know if any council members have any final thoughts. I'd just like to thank everyone who came forward tonight. Everyone who said emails and have expressed their opinions and had their input, I read each one of them and I will take all this into consideration and I think it's wonderful that we are having discussions and we're hearing from different segments of the residents and the population. And so I appreciate all that and I'd like to thank everyone. So thank you. And please continue to reach out to any member on the town council to Jim Tierney directly with any questions concerns any commentary if you were not able to be here this evening and have feedback on this community discussion or have any thoughts on how we could improve the ordinance moving forward as well. Please share your feedback with us because we are listening and we do want here as many points of view as possible because this is for the town and we want it to work. With that being said, have a great evening.