you you you you you you you you you you you you you The time is now 7 p.m. Let's call to order the Naregaanset Town Council regular meeting. Today is Monday, June 5th. Please let's stand for the United States of America and to the Republic of the British and East. One nation and the God, individual, with liberty and justice for all of us. Next we'll move on to the approval of minutes. We have several minutes to approve. The first one is the minutes of the April 3rd regular work session minutes. So the motion. So moved. Second. All in favour? Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler. Seconded by Councillor Copic, motion passes 5-0. Next we have the budget work session April 12th. Minutes. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. I'm staying. Okay. Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 4 with one abstention Next we have the April 13th budget work session minutes. Do I motion so moved second all in favor? Hi, all opposed Motion by Councillor Lawler second byor Copic motion passes five is zero Next we have the April 17th regular meeting minutes So moved second all in favor. Hi all opposed Motion by council law their second by councilor Copic motion passes five zero Lastly we have the executive session minutes from April 17th. So motion? So moved. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. I'm staying. Okay. Motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copic motion passes for with one abstention. Next moving along to the town manager's update. Good evening everyone. A few items to report. You'll see the south side stairwell of town hall has finally been redone. They did a great job on it. Abkhur. Boxing recreation has been converting and for the dual use of courts, four of them. We have four designated pickleball courts and one court line on the existing basketball court on a clock road that's total of five. And then Dominic Christopher, there's two tennis courts that are going to be aligned for Pickleball play for Total Four. And then there's five, the same way you're going to go at George C. Park. These would be movable nets and the painting. And that gives a total of 14 when it's completed. It should be done. They've already started on it. It should be done, she'll be. We also just hired our new court administrator, Tracy Mazziak. She started today. We are currently vetting applicants for the H.I. Manager position. We should be interviewing later this month. We'll conduct the interviews. The police department will be posting signage at the parks and beaches reminding people that marijuana Public consumption is not permitted by town ordinance at the recreational facilities in town And that's about it. Thank you Thank you Okay next I will move to open forum public comment Again open forum public comment is a time for any member of the public to speak on a topic, not on the meeting agenda. A sign-in sheet is available to members of the public who wish to speak during open forum public comment and located on the table in the back of the council chambers. Speakers will be called in the order as they appear on the sign-in sheet. Before open forum public comment is closed, Members of the public who did not sign up will be given a chance to speak. Speaking in a meeting during open forum public comment is limited to three minutes. Speakers are required to state their name and address before speaking and are expected to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectful fashion. The comments of citizens accessing this portion of the meeting are neither adopted nor endorsed by the body, but heard as requested. Mr. Tener, who's the first speaker? The first speaker is David Murr. Thank you. My name is State Bird. I'm resident of 23 Perkins Avenue, I've been a resident of town for 34 years. And my son, his wife and my grandson lived next door. I came through the December 14th planning meeting and asked if Perkins was included in the planning agenda and stated at first that it was, but Mr. DeLucco said he would check and we first that it was, but Mr. Deluca said he would check, and we found that it was not. The board discussed it and was unanimous in there to consent that it should be, but it didn't appear in your copy of the first reading. So I asked, I met with Mr. Director Deluca to talk about it, and he reviewed both the tape and the minutes and felt that yes, it was the consensus of the board to have it included. And so I'm asking that it be included in the as an addendum to the report tonight. Yeah, that's on the agenda. If you usually would wait for someone to speak on that when the agenda item is up. I apologize. I didn't hear it. That's okay. That's okay. All right. Thank you. Next. Anyone? Okay. So, no others wishing to speak? Oh. I'm sorry. It's celebrto. Catherine celebrto, 48-os court. First, I want to say I object to relining the basketball court at clock road for pickleball. The town just spent $31,000 last year redoing that. There's only one basketball court on clock road. I just don't think it should be multi-purpose. It'll be the pickleable players will use it and the kids who want to play basketball, including the camp kids, they're not gonna be able to do it. Second, I guess we're going to have an examination of the enterprise fund. For some reason, I thought an examination was an order, but it isn't. So I'm just hoping that this examination isn't going to require hiring a consultant. We've gone consult in crazy the last few years. I just don't think we should spend the money on it. And also there's a huge monument at Unclog Road, which really shouldn't be there. It seems that Dr. Alper's family asked to name the skating rink after his father and Ms. Kershaw consented and she allowed this monument to be put there. Now this is not Dr. Alburner's fault. This is on us, on the town, on Ms. Kershaw. There are ordinances that address the naming public property. And I think Dr. Albertus family should be reimbursed. They spent quite a bit of money on this, and they thought they were high permission, and they were given permission. The last thing is, the last town council president examined a number of agendas, and concluded that the beach clubhouse name was changed improperly to the north beach clubhouse. It was always the Konachit Beach clubhouse. I remember this myself and I know people objected at the time but the distance you would have been any town council approval of the renaming or replacing the sign. And Mr. Pugh, who's here now asked Ms. Kerr-Shaw to make a new sign. She said signs are expense that that was her response. This is quite a amount of time. It's gone by. She's spent quite a bit of money on other items. I just don't know why there isn't a new sign. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak from the public? Okay. Moving along to the consent agenda. So I have a motion to accept the consent agenda. I'd like to accept in pool for discussion four and five please. Okay. Pulling out four and five, do I have a motion to accept the consent agenda minus D4 and D5? Could I ask a question first? When I went through the consent agenda, a lot of the items seem to be items that normally would be under the auspices of various departments and that they're not and I was just curious about why that change happened. Are you speaking about the races? Well not just, yeah the races, the races are repeat and in the past we have put the repeat ones on consent agenda It's only the new ones that go under the department head. Huh Remember it that way, okay Okay, so there's the only do you still want to pull those? Yes So motion to approve with the exception of of D4 and D5 to discuss Okay, do I have a second second? So motion to approve with the exception of D4 and D5 to discuss. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Council Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion to pass agenda 5-0 with the exception of D4-D5. So moving along to D4, it is a motion to approve the request from Gray Matter Marketing to conduct the 10th Annual Ocean Road 10K road race to be held on Sunday, October 1st, 2023, from 8 AM to 10 30 AM, subject to state and local regulations. So, the reason I want to discuss this council president is in the past screen match. Do we just need a first and a second? Do we need a first and second? We do. I'll make the motion to pull first. Second. Second. Okay. Okay. So, the reason I asked discuss this is that in the past grade matter marketing had made a contribution to the historic society and in the information background we have there's no mention of it. I do want to give our parks director an ability to come back and to explain that there is that when Michelle saw that this was not on, she did email the company and ask, and they are saying that they will be making a donation, they're not committing to the dollar amount, but they are saying that there will be a donation, and I know that Miss Elberto had asked about that, so I wanted to clarify that. Mr. Terny, do you have information on that? That's pretty much it, the way it was recapped by council law. We don't have an exact dollar on it. I just want to say that we are they will be receiving some money because this is one of the one of the races that actually does give back to the town. The town is very gracious to our roads and our road races but this particular company does give back to a charity in town Which I commend. Okay, any other questions from the council on this Anyone from the public wishing to comment on this one This is a little Catherine celebrator for the eight-year-olds caught it wasn't on the application that they were going to give some of the proceeds to the Narragansett Historical Society. Every other year previous they always raised to benefit the Narragansett Historical Society. So being a stickler for detail either I am a figure and I don't want to give them an out. But at this point, this curfewer short did speak to them and they agreed that yes, they're going to give a donation and Dr. O'Neill is going to deal with this miss Arpen, I think her name is. And if you know Dr. O'Neill, I think he'll get as much as he can out of them. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to comment on this agenda item? Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion by Council Law. Our second by Councilor Copic, motion passes 5-0. Next step on the agenda is motion to approve the request from the Boston Chapter of BMW CCA Rhode Island Group for the annual BMW Show and shine car show at Veterans Memorial Park. On Sunday, August 13, 2023, subject to state and local laws. So moved. Oh, second. Okay. Okay. That's a little wrong. Yeah, sure. I want to discuss this one a little bit because we do have a number of different activities and know that the record board is going to be tackling, taking a look at all the activities that we offer during the summer months. And it seems to be a common concept in town that we're looking for the right balance of everything. And I think this is one of those things that we can look at for the right balance for. This is a Boston chapter of a BMW association that comes down during our summer months, parks on our grass of veterans memorial for a few hours during the summer when the peer is really congested anyway. Before anybody says that I know they're going to go out for dinner and one of the restaurants afterward. But I just really think that we need to take a look at the activities that we're bringing in and allowing and really judge which ones we should have. So there's less congestion during the during summer months in the pier. And this also has no benefit that I can see for the town residents. It's a club that comes from Boston. So I don't know if Deb had any thoughts on that. No really. Anyone else from the council? I wish in the comment. Council for Andy? Yeah, I have a comment. You know, we're at the point where everybody just wants to come into Narragansett and sometimes the people in the pier don't have a lot of peace and quiet between the weddings and everything else. I'm glad to hear maybe that would be looking into the amount of events that are in the parking around that would be a good starting point just to see if maybe we could put some on a rotating basis possibly, or just kind of a justum if we have to, at least get an inventory of what we're really having every year. Most of the time it's the same ones, it seems like that come up so we can get a schedule and at least look at the total number. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the council? Anyone from the public? Ms. Celebrato? Catherine Celebrato, 48-year-olds card. I just think this is the silliest thing, but anyway, you know, it makes them happy, that's fine. You know, you're going to how they discovered now against it from Boston to decide they have their cash show here. But I think they should give some kind of a contribution. I know that we usually don't charge people who use Veterans' Pock, but there's no prohibition against charging them either. I just think they should contribute something, you know, to a charity, a local charity, something, make some kind of gesture. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public wishing to speak? Okay, then. Okay, Olin, favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copac, motion passes 5-0. Next we'll move on to the community development department for new business. We have a motion to authorize the town manager to write a letter removing the objection to CRMC based upon revisions to an extension of a doc, CRMC boating facility, application modification 2002-09-100 located at 1201 Sucka Tash Road. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? I just want to make sure that we're all clear on this because we had a little complicated, right? We were originally told we were provided with information where this doc was not going to that it didn't meet requirements. It's been changed. I did look at it. I never can really understand the map. So that was a little bit of a problem, but I guess I need to know a little bit more about how channels work. But so right now we're in a position where we are in agreement that the changes that were made are sufficient to approve this after what had been originally provided to us. Correct? I just don't make sure. That's correct. The Harper Master is saying so as well. Right. Yes. Modifications were made and they were acceptable to the management council and the Harper Master. Keep an eye on it and make sure it goes that way, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. keep an eye on it and make sure it goes that way, right? Okay, okay, that's fine. Okay, anyone else from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye, all opposed? Motion by council law, their second by councilor Copic, motion passes 5-0. Next on the agenda is a motion to introduce, freed, passed, and accept a first reading, an ordinance and amendment of chapter 731 of the Code of Ordinance of the Town of Narragansett, Rhode Island, entitled, Ordinance and Relation to Zoning, as it relates to text revisions related to wetland regulation. So moved. Second. Council. Yes. This is the ordinance that goes with the public hearing. Oh, I'm sorry. All right. That's why I was okay. Never mind. I'll come back to that after we do the public hearing. So we'll just thank you for that. So next from the town manager we have a motion to read past and adopt as a second reading the appropriation ordinance for the 2023-2024 fiscal year. So moved. Second. Any comments from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 5-0. Next we have, I'm going to actually ask Mr. Davis about this one. This is the one that we're going to try to amend. Should I just read this and then get a first and second and then make a motion to amend. Okay. So this is a long one. So this is a motion to introduce, read, pass, and accept as a first reading a resolution amending the official list of parking restrictions and regulations in the town of Narragansett in accordance with the Narragansett code of ordinances to restrict parking between May 15th and the city of the city of the city the east side of the street. Ocean road, three hour limit on both sides of the street for the full length from Beach Street traffic signal and South Pier Road, Narragansett Avenue, three hour limit on both sides of the street for the full length, except we're currently permitted between Beach Street traffic and signal and the casual and arrogance that Avenue intersection. Congdon Street, three hour limit parking resident permit allowance on the north side of the street from Boone Street to Ocean Road. Rodman Street, three hour parking, limit parking resident permit allowance on both sides of the city. The city is a city that is the city of the city. The city is the city of the city. The city is the city of the city. The city is the city of the city. The city is the city of the city. The city is the city of the of Rodman Street to its southern terminus. Rockland Street, three hour limit parking resident permit allowance on the east side from Kingstown Road to the southern terminus. Robinson Street, three hour parking resident permit allowance on the west side for the full length between Narragansett Avenue to its southern turnimus and Rose Court three hour limit parking resident permit allowance on the west side of the street for its full length between Rodman Street and a Congdon Street. So the motion? So moved. Second. Okay. in street. So we have to prove it first or just discussion and okay so does anyone want to just have any discussion on this one because we do want to include the amendment that was just discussed earlier. So do you like to make a motion to amend the motion to include the following text of Perkins Avenue, three-hour time limit parking, resident permit allowance on the north side of the street for its full length between Boone Street and its Eastern terminus. Yeah. So this is for the batting in that language to it. Do I have motion? So moved. Okay. Any discussion from the council? Any discussion from the public. Mr. Rama. This is on the amendment only. The discussion. This is only on the amendment discussion. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. All in favor. The amendment. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. All in favor? I. I. I. I. All opposed. Motion to amend by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copac motion to amend passes 5-0. Next, we'll go back to the motion as amended. Do I have a motion? Well, I think that there are a number of things that Jim brought out in his monthly report to us this past week that need to be incorporated into this. So we can make sure that we have a full and complete ordinance. So there are some things that I would like to have and included. I mean, the one thing that really concerned me most was the lack of CSOs that we may have for enforcement and the fact that we won't have the ability to order signs and if we don't have signs, we can't enforce. So I was hoping that you could help me understand how you plan into incorporate all that into this ordinance so that we can feel that we can move forward that tonight because it doesn't seem like it's complete. Well, we wouldn't order or manufacture the signage until both readings were completed because it could be amended, could any council member could make an amendment to us. We wouldn't print any of the signs until such time as the ordinance was in place. And there's a backwater of some reflective paint and signage itself from the companies. I spoke to DPW Director on that. They're way behind. They think probably the earliest may be able to get them all posted by October. And it deprot's approximately 170 signs and we are still waiting. CRMC, we do have to apply to them for permit for long-motion road. And we are still trying to figure out what's the best way to do sign into that. Would that be for permit for actually putting into into the cement or are there temporary types of signs that we can put in just for the summer season? And we move. I know that was an objection. I've heard from a lot of folks that during the shoulder season, they don't only want to see signs up, especially on the wall. There's a great deal of course associated with that number one. Number two, if they're free standing, freestanding by the ocean, we fully anticipate people just pick them up and throw them into the ocean, or the heavy winds could knock them into vehicles up at the streams. And it could cause an obstruction on the sidewalk if we had a large plant to basket so the sides didn't move. So you've already looked into all types of those signs and there's none that would actually fit our needs. We are looking at one. Steve Day knows looking at the possibility of because the barrels are fastened, we can put some paper for system on that. But I'm sure there's some discussion about a sign pollution on that stretch of the beautiful road. Any other comments from the council? Questions? No question. Councillor Ferdinand. I drove down Ocean Road and on the, you know, going north on the left side, there's no poles on the right, obviously, on the seawall and I'm maybe getting in the weeds a little bit here, but the only place I see if they put a sign is on the left side with those metal poles can, can there be some kind of temporary sign like during COVID when, you know, towards the beach, there was a lot of no parking signs. They were strapped on. It was a heavy plastic. I don't know if that helps, but if we can get the ordinance going, we did pass it just maybe to get something started this season. I know it's getting kind of late, but did you look into that option at all? You're not looked into temporary disposable signage. It's a tough one. Yeah, I mean, it's windy. You know, a lot of them just stayed up. As a matter of fact, I just pulled one down from COVID at the end of my road not too long ago. But it was, it's not the best looking one, but I mean, at least it's something if we wanted to get started this season. You know, and we have to pass it to us. I just want to ask Mr. Davis a question. So this is just really the motion is to introduce read pass and accept. I'm not sure that we're supposed to be having all these conversations but if you could just kind of just clarify that. I just want to make sure we're staying on point here. I think it was posed as a potential amendment so that would be appropriate. Okay. I just want to make sure. Thank you. Any other comments on the amendment? Anyone from the public? Okay, so all in favor? Did we vote for that? We voted for the amendment for Perkins. Perkins, right? Yeah. So motion to go back to the original motion as amended. So I have a first. Do we have to do that? We already. We have to do that. Okay. So. Do you want to move that? Sure. Motion to second. Okay. So this is a motion to accept the amendment as the ordinance as amended accepting ordinance as amended with the Perkins. Did we have Mr. the public if anybody had any? I did ask I didn't see anyone. Oh I'm sorry. We see a few Mr. Rimm. Thank you. Hi, good evening. Gina drama 11th Avenue. One of the questions that I was thought thinking about First all, great job getting this done. I know this has been a long time in the making but the decision to put time limits without meters, without putting any pay parking on any of those roads is something you guys need to look at in the long run because the incumbrance of the cost to hire more CSOs or to put the signs up, those are all costs without any return. And so there are so many different avenues that you could have gone. I know there was a lot of discussion over the course of this study. But even if you had a portion of those areas in the Pier and in Galilee, those are the two most congested areas where you have fee parking in some of those high turnover places, you might be able to recover some of those costs. And so as you move forward, that's something that I hope that you'll keep in mind, because I think there are going to be some hiccups with this, particularly enforcement, clearly signage. And there'll be some other things as the implementation of these ordinances move forward. So it's just a thought. Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the public? Okay, I'm gonna actually have to cheat. I'm gonna hold that thought for everyone. We just have to, it's 730 right now. So we have to move to the public hearing decision portion of our meeting. So the next step we have actually do you need a minute to set up or you could, yeah, give her a minute. I'll set. Okay, so we have a motion to open and hold a public hearing for text revisions to various sections of the zoning ordinance to comply with recent state law changes to wetland regulations. So moved. Second. Okay. So I will have to, there's a presentation yet. Need to vote. Oh, all in favor. Aye. All opposed. Okay. Thank you, Council President and members of the Council. I'm only here for a moment. I just wanted to introduce the project and the hearing that you're going to be listening to in a minute. All I want to say right now is that this process that you're going to be seeing on the screen is something that was required by the State of Rhode Island. What it effectively does is remove certain elements of our wetland regulations that have resided in the town zoning ordinance in Section 4.3 for upwards of 30 years. We do it reluctantly. We want you to know that. We are responding to the mandate of the general assembly, which occurred several years back. But the key person who worked on this in my office was Jill Sabo. She's my our environmental planner and GIS coordinator. So I'd like to ask her to come up and present the changes to the ordinance to you. It's a fairly short PowerPoint presentation, but she has a much better working knowledge of it than I do. So I'm going to turn it over to Jill. Good evening, Madam President, members of the Council. As Mr. Deluca mentioned, my name is Jill Savoy, I work at the Community Development Department, and we're here to talk about a couple of changes that are happening to the zoning organs with respect to Section 2.2, which is the definition section in section 4.3, which is the coastal and freshwater wetlands section. So I do have a power point. I'm going to try to do a concise page turn for everyone. Here we go. Excellent. Okay, so as Mr. Lugamenschen, these changes come from the state law that was passed in 2015. Those rules were promulgated in July of 2022. So it took a little bit of time for the state to between the change and the promulgation. But here we are. The ordinance has been revised to update some definitions to clean up a replace outdated language, to remove the references for especially whose permit for freshwater wetlands, and also to add text that would support our existing ordinance. Under the definitions section, we revise both definitions for coastal wetlands as well as freshwater wetlands to match the state definitions. And if anyone has questions and you want to stop me, please let me know. These changes are directly from the new state law. So additionally, we made a couple of different edits that were intended to clean up some outdated language where we refer to the DEM as the Department of Environmental and to clarify some references and we removed all text we added and we added some more general languages when we refer to the state guidelines and the state regulations. So we also removed our list of prohibited uses that was in our ordinance and we added the text directly from the state law. We did this as a matter of consistency. And here, under especially use permits uses, you can see this section where we removed the reference to freshwater wetlands and we only refer to coastal. In this text clarifies that the freshwater wetlands no longer requires a special use permit. It's been removed and revised the language has been revised. I don't know which way to click, but it's not clicking. There we go. This is the newest section. This is the special review uses. We propose this language and the planning board is recommending it to you to add the following text that dovetails with existing ordinance. The special review use is not a requirement for zoning relief. In other words, it's not a special use permit. I just want to point out that while the town lost its ability to locally regulate, it doesn't mean the wetlands go away. They're still there. And that the existing zoning ordinance views is the wetland information to inform and set parameters around other ordinance requirements, as you may recall, the bulk regulations from a couple of years ago. So specifically under section 2.2, the floor area ratio is based on the net lot area. And that's if anyone needs no floor area ratio is the aggregate floor area. The definition of net lot area in our new bulk regulations is the area in part, is the area of the lot that is upland of any verified coastal feature or any CERMC or RIDAM verified wetlands. So that's in our new ward So that's in our ordinance currently. And then also under section 6.4B for floor area ratio matrix, the table under section 5, I believe it's 6.4B5. We refer to a table in that the floor area ratio is based on net lot area. So it's based on that definition under section 2.2. The special review use references both of those. So it says that the edge, the verified wetland edge, that the edge shall be verified under the ordinance as it currently exists, and that that information may be required in order to pull a building permit prior to the issuance of a building permit. This text is in addition, and it buttresses the existing ordinance that references the wetland section. That's it. Thank you. Any questions for the council? I have some questions. Councilor Frandy. In your opinion, what are the major differences? I kind of read the old and the new And your opinion, what are the major differences? I kind of read the old and the new, and I know I'm trying to, I think the old buffer zone had like 150 and 100 feet, and this one 150 foot buffer zone from any so-called wetland, fire stood a swamp, and all that, as far as from the edge. Are you referring to a freshwater wetland, fire stood a swamp and all that as far as from the edge. Are you referring to a freshwater wetland? Right. It removes all jurisdiction from the town. We no longer can locally regulate buffers for freshwater wetlands. The state took that over. Right, but what is the new state buffer? I wouldn't want to speak on that. It varies on which area in the state you are, what other parameters, and those aren't our regulations. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving you that information. I thought I saw something about the district, in the district defined it says the coastal and freshwater wetlands overly district also includes all in within 150 feet of the biological edge of the above wetlands as established by a wetlands biologist. That's the new, I believe. Mr. Franny, could you refer to me where you're reading from? 4.3, number one. Yes, correct. So what I would say to that is the fresh water wetlands portion, what we are trying to do with section 4.3 is still use the ordinate section to inform whether or not the project needs to go to either CERM-C or RIDEM for an approval or an exemption. So we would still be using the Orelay District which is 100 feet or 150 feet, but not for the purposes of especially this permit, but simply to inform my department and the building inspections department whether or not the project would need to be referred to a state agency. Okay, it's similar than before, but it just seems like it's a larger 150 foot buffer. Actually that text hasn't changed. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone from the public? Okay. All in favor? I. Actually, I need a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close. Second. All in favor? Aye. I opposed. Okay. Next we have a motion to receive and accept the Planning Board report and recommendation related to zoning text amendments in regard to the RIDM, CRMC, fresh water, wetland regulations. Motion to accept their reluctant recommendation. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawlor, second by Councillor Copac. Motion passes 5-0. Next, we have a motion to reschedule a public hearing to amend the text section 5.5 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett entitled Zoning for the purpose of adding a new historic district zone, 170 Clark Road, the camp. So moved. Second. So the date of this is going to be August 7th, 2023, because there's a recommendation, the recommendation memorandum is pending. So all in favor? I, I, I, I, motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic, motion passes by the zero. Next we have a motion to reschedule the public hearing on an ordinance in amendment of chapter 731 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island entitled zoning. Specifically, text revisions of section 2.2 definitions and a new section 7.21 student occupied dwellings. So move. Okay and then the proposed date now is July 17th 2023 and that's just the planning board anticipates completing the review and providing a recommendation sooner than anticipated All in favor I all opposed motion by council lawler seconded by counselor copack motion passes 5 0 So next we will go to e2 on the agenda which is emotion to we will go to E2 on the agenda, which is a motion to introduce, read, pass, and accept as a first reading, an ordinance and amendment of chapter 731 of the code of ordinances of the town of Narragansett, Rhode Island, an ordinance and relation to zoning as it relates to text revisions related to wetland regulation. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Just anyone from the public? Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler. Seconded by Councillor Copac, motion passes 5-0. So we'll go back to the agenda item that we had left. We were done with the public hearing part of this meeting. So next we will move back to a motion to introduce, read, pass and accept the resolution for the parking restriction. So anyone from the public wishing to speak on that? Ms. Silverto. Is this the public here? Are you doing it? No. No. We're all saying. This is going back to our regular agenda. So I can speak on anything that happens We're all saying this is going back to our regular agenda so I Can speak on anything that happens to be in this motion not just Perkins or whatever Okay, it's motion to a yeah motion to amend this the motion to amend to add Perkins That's what I have to speak on what about the emotion itself that eliminates all the streets and you know comment it can we comment on that pot or no I'm not sure what pot we're on here. So we're actually back on that you can speak on that because we passed the motion to amend so we're back on the original motion. First I just want to say something there is a sign on Oshiro behind the sea wall in the weeds near the curb after monohen, and it says no parking, and every time I go by it, I'm like, who the heck can see that? But there is a sign there on a steel pole. I don't know, put it there, I wouldn't, but I always say to myself, that should be over there on the sidewalk. Anyway, I agree with this, I think we need limits, especially around bone and other streets. Some people are just parking there all day. But I feel that some of these restrictions are going to drive people into the spray park parking lot. And they're already in the Thompson Park parking lot. They're day and night. And they always park in the handicap spot, which really upsets me. But anyway, so I think that there has to be some kind of instruction to post signs in the spray parking lot, that no beach parking, and also in the Thompson Park parking lot, no beach parking. Because I just, I mean, like I said, they're already at the Thompson Park parking lot, no beach parking. I mean like I said they're already at the Thompson Park but I feel that these restrictions may drive them into spray park and why don't leave that open for the baseball players and there's a motion later on by Councillor Copec to look into those, both of those parks. Okay so I'm back on this part,, I think it's a great idea. Thank you. Anyone from the public? Sir Richard. Thank you. Stephen Richards, 91 I know straight now against it. The question I have is, the point I'm trying to make is, and when you have this three hour parking, it's obviously going to affect us. It's going to be some change over the put. There's going to be a lot more parking fines and there'll be other things. And some of this may affect the ultimate uses of the town beach because there's a lot of people who park out in the out and of the town beach because there's a lot of people who park out in those streets and go to the town beach for quite a while. And some of those people, if they start getting parking tickets in the back of the vehicle, they don't want to go to the beach for three hours. They're going to start, you know, it's going to be a problem. So there's a potential for parking, for this problem to ultimately affect the use of the town beach and the income that use of the town beach and the income that comes into that town beach. So maybe there might be a trade-off between the town beach which is an enterprise zone and uses that funds for the beach but the town parking fees go to the town so it'll be an interesting trade-off that will happen or very likely that happen with the angry people who will not want to pay the fines and will not come to the town beach because they can only park for three hours. So an alternative place is for parking and allowing for people to get to the beach, it's going to have to be some sort of consideration if you're going to destroy strongly enforce this regulation. So that type of issue I think needs to have in some consideration. I think the people who live on those streets and the other people who are kind of angry about people parking in front of the household, they will be happy about this. But ultimately, there are trade-offs that I need to be considered. And those state of the state that they're not considered could have a deleterious effect on the town income because a lot of people, I the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state're not happy with the resources that the town has given them for parking. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, so I'm going back to the council. This is a motion to approve to introduce, read, and pass and accept as a first reading, a resolution amending the official list of parking restrictions and regulations in town and airgantzet in accordance with airgantzet code of ordinances to restrict parking between May 15th and September 15th with the language included as amended. All in favour? Aye. I'll pass. Aye. Stain. Okay. So this is the motion by Council Law. The second by Councillor Copec. Motion passes for with one abstention. Next up from the Human Resources Department, we have a motion to adopt the resolution establishing the proposed wages for seasonal part time and temporary employees for fiscal year 2023 and 2024. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? Miss Celebrado? Councillor Cello. I just think that some of these hourly wages are kind of low. Given just the inflation rate this year. On these kids, they take these jobs to save money for college. I would think most of them. And I just think we're kind of underpaying a lot of people. They say that subway sandwich shop is paying $18 an hour. I just think that we could step up to the plate here and pay a little more. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Okay. All in favor? Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copic. Motion passes 5-0. Next from the Public Works Department, we have a motion to approve the contract extension for pavement preservation services, including crack ceiling with steel coating incorporated, doing business as Indus as they're quoted unit price of $12.47 per gallon for crack ceiling. So moved. Second. I just have a question. Yeah, Councillor. So Jim, you know, the rocks that they put on the road, the crack seal that they put on. A couple of people have called me over the years, but I guess it was pedoscwamps get that had some done and people were just kind of complaining about the rocks. Is that cheaper to do on the road? Is that why we use it because I just don't seem to always like that. So I was just curious about it. It is and it's very durable. I did receive one complaint from one resident and a couple of years ago I received another one, but that's all I've received. Do they brush it off so it goes away? I mean, people worried about their cars when they're driving down and it hits it, no? We don't get complaints like that. Right, so a couple of people just inquired about it. And I know roads are important to the people, so I just wanted to make sure we're not just going with the cheap, but we're going with what's most effective the residents. Thank you. Any other discussion from the council? Anyone for the public? Oh, one. Oh, doing that. Mr. Jarvis, I think. The stage your name and address. I get Roger Jadas, wooden blind book drive. Just a comment on that pitch, I believe they call that. I know St. James was done about three, four years ago. And when it first went down, it was like, oh, what the heck is this stuff? It's great now. So if we're saving some money doing it, and over the long run, it's going to last. It's going to last. That's the way to go. So kudos for that. Thank you. I'm going to. Thank you Okay, all in favor I Post Motion by council law their second by councilor Copac motion passes 5 0 Next from the engineering department we have a motion to approve the proposed cost for change requests C13.1 3-14.1 and C-16 from EW Berman and Corporated for the Mori-Lute Jens Memorial Library renovation project and the amount of $1,100 and $956. $1,100,956. I moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? I just want to make sure that I believe that the funding source is not listed properly on here. It was we just passed the budget. Well, I know, but it was the... It's actually listed as part of the new renovations, not capital. Capital. Budget that it's in, so I just want to make sure that it's cleared everybody. Mr. Kim. It is capital. Place back into the budget the council's request. Great. Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? Motion to comment? Anyone from the public? Anyone from the public? Anyone? All in favor? I. I. I. All opposed. No. No. No. No. Okay. Motion by Council Lawler, Seconded by Councillor Copac. Motion passes, 3, 2. Next up from the Information Technology Department, we have a motion to approve the purchase of windows, server licensing from zones LLC and the amount of $34,585.62 utilizing the NCPA contract. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by council lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes for zero. Next up is a motion to approve the purchase of one Tentary Network Storage Server from CDWG in the amount of $61,469.50. Utilizing the state of Rhode Island Master price agreement and the purchase of one Dell computer server from Zones LLC and the amount of $9,268 utilizing the NCPA contract for a total amount of $70,737 and 50 cents. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? Oh, did you have, I'm sorry. Did you? OK. Anyone from the, OK. All in favor? Aye. Aye. I'm sorry. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes for zero. Next up from the Parks and Recreation Department, we have a motion to approve a goat escaping project in the open field known as the Upper Meadow East of the Stealth County Museum. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? I. I. I. I. I'm going to abstain. Like because it's. It's. It's okay. I'm like that's the only reason. Okay. I think it's okay Okay, great. Okay, and also kudos. We did receive a grant from the Rhode Island foundations for this as well But if you could come Tom Could you please come in and put Put the We don't need it. I just want there are because I could be goats loose in a neighborhood But they're gonna be captive. I just want to make sure that the neighbors next door are Feeling okay with the fact that there's gonna be so many there Well, they're gonna be penned I They're gonna be penned so they're gonna be loose. I think we're good Thank you. Yeah, I actually just like to make sure this neighborhood has has been having some issues with the South County Museum. I just want to make sure that they understand that they're not going to have be, we're going to put a day to go. It's all around. Okay, thanks. So the technique is that they bring on electrical fence and they supportable electric fence and they set it up around the perimeter that has been designated as the work area. So they're entirely contained and there is an attendant or two with them all the time. Perfect. I just wanted to make sure that that was said. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. They're very cute, by the way. They're cute. Okay. So that was motion was made by Councillor Lutter, second by Councillor Copec. Motion passes three with one abstention. Next up we have a motion to approve production services for the 20, 23 movies on the Beach Summer Series from our Jason Citroen production services, music mixers, and they mount a $4,725. So moved. Sorry, second. OK, any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? Miss Celebrado. Catherine Celebrado, for the Adel's Club, I just want to commend Miss Kerr's shore. She prevailed upon Mrs. Cetrone to add some new movies every year, as there's like the same movies over and over and over again. So he has added some new ones, and I think maybe more people will come down this the summer. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? All in favor. I all opposed. Motion by Council Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic, motion passes for zero. Next step we have a motion to approve the improvements to the upper soccer field at Dominic, Christopher O'Park, to be completed by specialized turf services in the amount of $10,757.50, pursuant to the state of Massachusetts master agreement. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Just wanna thank Michelle and her staff for moving on this as quickly as they did. I think it's gonna be a really helpful thing for the kids. Anyone from the public? Mr. Richard. Stephen Roosh is 91 out of his street. I noticed that there's $10,000, by the way, I think the $10,000 and spending this morning is a good idea. I noticed that it came up just a couple of weeks ago or months or so ago when I came with them. Some young students came up here and talked about it. And the fact that the town is appropriating $10,000 for this is actually a good thing, but I'm curious as to why we can't get the pickleball court fixed. By the way, I want to say thank you for fixing the parking lot. That was nice. I appreciate the Tom Manager taking care of that. But why can't we get the pickleball court fixed? It's not, it's got to be no more than a couple thousand. So I'm just going to stand happy. This is a motion to approve this. This is about Christopher O'Dominick Park. So this is about the specializes. Thank you. Why can't you do another? Thank you. Anyone else from the public? No, but as well, while we're thinking, I also want to thank Joe Harvey, because Joe Harvey met with the soccer folks that came out, Michelle, myself, I was there. We had a great meeting in Michelle. Great job with you and Joe going out there and making sure that we can work with With this group. They're very satisfied. So thank you so much Okay, thank you all in favor. I Emotion by council law their second by accounts are co-pec motion passes for zero next from building and zoning department We have a motion to approve the contractual agreement between the town of Narragansett and Anthony Devoyic to perform electrical inspections for the building officials office from July 1st, 2023 to June 30th, 2024. So moved. Second. Any discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by council Lawler, seconded by councilor Copac, motion passes for zero. Next we have a motion to approve the contractual agreement between the town of Narragansett and James Harris to perform plumbing and mechanical inspections for the building officials office from July 1st, 2023 to July, June 30th, 2024. So moved. Second. And discussion with the council. Anyone from Mr. Brandy? Okay. Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by council Lawler, Seconded by Councilor Copac, motion passes for zero. Next is a motion to approve the contractual agreement between the town of Narragansett and Russell Degrages to perform plumbing and mechanical inspections for the building officials office from July 1st, 2023 to June 30th, 2024. So moved. Second. And discussion from the council. Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. I. I. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copic, motion passes for zero. Next up from the town clerk's office is a motion to approve the three-year software maintenance service contract for the judicial case management system used by municipal court from Curious Systems Incorporated in the amount of $7,000 plus an at-unit cost per ticket after 1,000 tickets and to authorize the town manager to sign the contract after solicitor review. So moved. Second. And discussion from the council. Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Who's motion by council lawler, seconded by Councillor Copac, motion passes for zero. Next is a motion to approve a Victroller license application for Gensett Poke, LLC business as a Gansett Poke 9-per-market place near Gansett Rhode Island subject to local and state regulations so moved second Any discussion from the council Anyone from the public all in favor? I All post motion by council lawler second by Councilor Copac, motion passes for zero. Next we have a motion to approve a virtual or license application for DOBOY's LLC doing business as New York bagels of Rhode Island, 909 Boston, Neck Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island, subject to local and state regulations. So moved. Second. Any discussion with the council? Anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copac, motion passes for zero. Next up we have a motion to approve a Sunday parking license for bizarre bizarre located at 227 San Holkoff Road near against at Rhode Island subject to state and local regulations So moved second Any discussion from the council anywhere from the public, anyone from the public? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion by Councillor Lawler, seconded by Councillor Copac, motion passes for zero. So next up we have a motion to appoint two individuals to the juvenile hearing board. So moved. Second. Okay, so we have one individual that is looking for a reappointment, which the board is not recommended because of attendance, I believe, so we have two other applicants that are looking to be appointed, and that is Mr. John Silver and then we had Stephen Gibri. So we can amend that motion. Somebody want to make an amendment? Sure a motion to appoint Stephen Gibri and John Civiler to the board. Second. Any discussion? I have one issue that I just want to ask to consider. And that is what we've talked about in the past is staggering terms. So we don't end up with people with an entire board being dismissed like the towers was. And I looked forward and I think both of these are short term. One is a new position, but a replacement position that was due some time ago. So I think what we're going to end up with again is all these folks getting placed on the board and then leaving the board at the same time. So we need to think about staggering. And we don't necessarily have to do it right now but we definitely have to do it. I think it's November when they are out. Or we could make the new position be say a two-year position to start the staggering now. I think they, it's uh I'll ask um just tarot um information on that it's like if there are five members and they're three year term so I'm not sure that um are we we can change that so a little ask. They are stagnant so two of them are have the same ending date and three of them have the same ending date. Right. So I'd like to see that we do that a little bit, staggered a little bit better than that going forward. Like I said, we don't have to do it tonight, but is it November, October, November when the rest come up? Come up and I just think we need to. November. Yeah, so I think we need to make sure that at that time we stagger maybe two of those positions so that we just have it, you know, have it in better shape to have somebody come along and take your responsibility for it, et cetera. And all the rest of them too. So I think that's really important to remember as we're doing this. Okay. Thanks. Anyone from the public question, a comment? Okay. So, a motion to appoint the two individuals, Mr. Gibri and Mr. Silvara. All in favour? Aye. Aye. All opposed. So, motion by Councillor Lawler, second by Councillor Copac, motion passes for zero. Next up we, from the town council, we have a motion to make a determination on the various areas of concern identified by the planning board memorandum dated January 12, 2023 regarding parking in the pier area during the summer season. So moved. Second. Okay, and this one is coming from Councillor Copec. So when we first discussed this, I believe it was the session before this one. One of the things that the planning board had was a series of other areas of concern. And I just wanted to make sure that we didn't let these areas not be at least evaluated. So I wanted to kind of go through them. We don't have to vote on anything tonight. And depending on how quickly we're able to get the parking ordinance in place, we may want to revisit this in the future. So just to keep everybody aware of the issues, one was Gibson Avenue and the Planning Board stated that their concern this road could be come attractive for transient parking and suggest that the town council consider implementing some form of regulation, specifically to protect the green from being overused for vehicular parking. It sounds like it's a pretty far distance from the beach, which is really largely what a lot of these parking spaces have been for in the past, where use on the beach. But just as Miss Celebrito mentioned, Thompson Park and Sprig Park are two other places that have the same kind of potential issue where people drop folks off the beach and then, you know, the driver takes the car, takes the car park and it comes to the beach. So we need to be cognizant of the fact that, you know, there are unintended consequences in terms of anything that we do, and we just have to take a look at that or follow that to make sure in the future that we're not creating a new problem by solving an old one. There's also been discussion about parking fines, and one of the suggestions that the planning board has, they said at $50 per offense now, it is seen by some is not much more than a reasonable parking fee. There is some evidence that people park legally not being put off by paying the fine. So the board is suggesting that the fine for parking over time should be increased to discharge violators from ignoring the proposed new regulation. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that, but I do think that we need to take a look at it and see what happens again. I think it's really important that once we get this in place, that we do, you know, we take, you know, a great deal of care looking at what happens afterwards and make decisions possibly later on based on what we find in the first year. I think that's really, really important. And the last thing that was kind of, that is interesting, is possibly finding a way to bring back the trolley system. What the board said, what the planning board said was they feel strongly that the trolley system should be reinstituted as it will aid those who want to park in one place longer than the new restrictions will allow to pay a single price to leave their vehicle at the elementary school or some other public parking facility and visit the pier area, avoiding the frustration of seeking parking at various venues of interest. And actually, I think that the unrelated to the beach, I mean, we have the art festival, we have the Kalamari festival, and I know, I know, I don't live in the peer area. And when I want to go to an event like that, or even the blessing activities, often, it's, we've turned around and gone back home because we couldn't find a place to park. So I think that at least considering this, if not for any other reason, then maybe for some of the special events that do occur, we might want to take a look at that as well. So that's, I just brought this up just to make sure that everybody was aware of all of these issues and that we don't lose track of the fact that what we end up doing in terms of the ordinance might need to be tweaked or modified in order to meet what our real objective has been. That's it. We don't have to vote on this. Okay. I just want to add to the really good comments from Deb. The two, the Thompson Park and Sprig Park, we have the planning board suggesting a three hour time limit. Right. I'd like to just get away with the time limit. For Thompson. For Sprig though. Right. Well no for spread, they have three hours as well. For both. Yep, it's right here. Yep, so I don't even think that we should allow for parking there. I mean, I think that that's our designated playgrounds for our town kids and those visiting in during the summer months and what are I think they should be a tozone, they should not be able to park. There should be no beach parking whatsoever, so that should be an option to look at. I agree with Deb the parking fees knowing people that live in there against an avenue having people close their door ask how much it costs for a fine finding out it's only $50 and they're like that's cheap let's just park. We need to look at that. The trolley the only reason the trolley isn't around is that the trolley would not properly ensure what the town required. So we had issue with that. And the one last thing that I think that we really need to look into is many people that are fortunate to live in the pier, they can park there. But there are people from the north and the town, south and the town that don't have the ability to park outside of their homes. So I would love for us to take a look at what we do for people who are town residents and find some way that they also can be able to park in town. And in Jim, you're probably already working on this, but with the parking spaces that we have for the soon to be library, those 60 or so. I don't know what we're doing with them for the summer, if we're monitoring them, if it's there no parking, but it's also narrow we need to look at so that we don't end up with having beach parking there unless we want to and let's want to charge for it there. Any other discussion from the council? Anyone from the public? Mr. Skolfield? I just want to express a support for Jill's comments. The playgrounds and the parks, there should be no beach parking or any parking there other than people using the play rounds and the parks for their intended purposes. Thanks. Thank you. So I'll just make my comments too. So I know this motion was put on just to keep the discussion going in for a determination. So just from the consensus of the council, it sounds like it's something that we can look in the future once we kind of establish and implement what we're doing with the parking that we already passed. So I'll let other members from the public speak as well, but would any council member entertain a motion to table in which means we can always bring it back when. It's good idea. Did you want to speak in the motion? No, I'm all set. Thank you. So I'll make, do you want to hear from the public before we move on? Yeah, does anyone else want to, I mean, we're going to table it, but Miss Alberto, you're welcome to speak. Katherine celebrato, 48-os, Collette. I don't see why this has to be tabled, frankly. This co-peck put these areas of concern together, and I think they should be discussed. You can go through them one by one. Gibson Avenue, that's something Vinnie and DeGlea came up with that, a planning board meeting, even Mr. Fleming said, on the green, nobody's talking on the green, nobody's gonna go down there. I mean, we don't want it to happen, but it's never happened in the past, even when there's been like horrendously hot beach shades. Thompson Park, it's Greg Park, there has to be science place. No beach parking, parking for a playground only, whatever. And because it's, you know, sometimes it's actually parking on the street and they'll park in these, that parking light is the craziest thing. I think one year, Ms. Kurshaw just put a little handmade sign into break pocket was one of those years where they kept parking in spring pocket. No beach parking. And then there was nobody park there. Just put a sign, no beach parking. I think that should be decided tonight and I think that there should be signs. I don't agree with the three-hour parking. I don't think we can even do that, tell you the truth. Pocking fines, I'd like to know how much, what's our collection rate, actually. How many tickets do we get? How many pay? I'd be interested to know that. I think that the handicapped and the parking nearby hydrant fines should be increased substantially. And I think that the handicapped and the parking near a fire hydrant fines should be increased substantially. Trolley, you know, we just can't get anybody to get a trolley and pay in. And it's just, people don't even want to pay for the trolley. They really don't. They just want it all for nothing. And the people that are going to be parking on the streets here, the people that park now, they don't pay to get into the beach. They come before 8.30, they're in that Thompson Park before 8.30 and they get onto the beach before it opens. These aren't people that are saying, oh, I'm going to park for free on the street. I'll pay the 12,000. So I'm not really concerned that the revenue is going to go down. But I would really like to see you just address a couple of these things tonight. And I just table it. Thank you. Can I just make one point? The Congdon, the Congdon Street parking is on the north side, which is opposite where the parking is for the park, for Thompson Park. So I mean, I don't think it's a good idea to say that this is, and actually I think the recommendation had to do with, because it's a public park, there are parking requirements anyway. So I think that we probably should ensure that we have signs where the park parking is, but by the same token, it's not technically allowed in accordance with this ordinance. It allows parking on the other side of the street. Thank you. Any other public comment? Okay, so do it. Yeah, so somebody needs to make that motion. Okay, I'll move to table this I'll second Okay, all in favor. I Okay motion to table by this motion by Councillor Copac seconded by Councillor Lawler Motion passes for zero Next up from the town council is a motion to approve after hours parking and the north lot and the cabana lot for residents only from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. A motion. So moved. Second. Okay, this one is coming from Council Lawyer. Sure. So what this motion will do is we have four lots. So it will be taking two of the four lots and making them Resonant only between five to eight which means the other two lots would be open to any non-resident and or visitor to attend coach the beach This is something that I've heard from a lot of people. They're very happy about this There are people that come home from work at five o'clock or get off and work at five o'clock and want to be able to go home, not have to race to the beach in order to get a parking spot to be able to park to have dinner or have the evening hours which are really beautiful at the town beach. Not to mention the fact that we have a number of concert series and movies at the beach during the summer and this will allow preference for our residents to have parking. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to make sure that our residents have preference to be able to have parking at the beach at their town beach, especially when we're offering the other 50% of the other lots to anyone who else wants to come to enjoy. Thank you. Any discussion from the council? I think it's reasonable to do this. It's just stated. I mean, there's still two lots open. There's one big lot towards the south end that's still available. So, and I don't know how crowded it gets, but I think it should be something that's reserved for the residents who have split the difference to one of the four lots. It's plenty of parking. Thank you. Councillor Coupac. I have a couple of concerns, not the least of which is that this hasn't been, you know, it hasn't been vetted through the parks and put through the recreation advisory board. And normally when we make changes to what's going to happen with the beach, we do that at the beach workshop. And so this is sort of a surprise to me that we came up with this. And then I have some concerns about, you know, do we really, I think we should be monitoring, maybe this summer, we use this summer to monitor the use of the parking lots after five o'clock to see if we have, you know, what the level of concern and problem we have with the North Parking Lot, I'm not sure, I don't know enough about it to know whether it's an issue or it's not an issue. I have some concerns because we do have the food trucks on Mondays and Wednesday nights and they're in the north parking lot. There are some people, I'm concerned about the possibility of the needs of people with physical disabilities who may come to maybe visitors, maybe residents. I'm not sure how we would know if you're not somebody who has a parking tag, but you are a resident or you are a resident with a summer home and your license plate isn't from Rhode Island. I don't know how we would, we need to work out the details, isn't my concern about this. So my recommendation would be to table it and for this summer and to take a look at what we, you know, see what we really, what happens and have some data, I feel weird that we have no data on this per se. And then, you know, bring it up when we get to the beach workshop. Okay, I just had a question for our town manager. I know this this law has the food trucks and I know I've been there in the past and when I've been there it wasn't really full and there was always room when I went with my friends. So is there has there been issues or are they crowded or they packed like between the hours of five and eight, like any given day. And obviously it varies on the weather and what events are going on in town. But they have been concerns for people who have called my office on it saying that the lots of fools sometimes at the end of the day and they can't get in. Like all the lots are just. Not often, but we do get I do get calls on once in a while. Let me you expect it for the Philharmonic. I mean, you know, good luck with that one. But, I mean, and maybe the movies, I don't know for sure, but, you know, I've walked my way down in town ocean road to get to the Philharmonic many a time with a jam on my back. But that's a really unusual one. And I guess some of the fireworks too. But I don't know if it's a regular thing or not. It's just something I think we really should do some research on first. And I share the same concerns as Councillor Copec because this didn't come from a advisory board. We did have the beach work session and it wasn't really addressed at that time. I know it's like we usually follow the process of that. Also like when I've been to a food truck night, that's where the the North lies where the food trucks are. And to me part of the experience was like you set your shoes up behind, you know, like your car and you meet friends. And again like when I've been there, it hasn't been, it hasn't been crowded. I know I've gotten comments about how that when they drive by there it's usually not not crowded or packed so those are just some my concerns as well I will if none of the council members have any more discussion on this I'll open it up to the public. Miss Elberto? Catherine Celebriro, 48-year-old's court. I think the recreation advisory board has recommended in the past that some of the lots we reserve for residents. And frankly, if you work and you get out of work at five o'clock, and you know the lots of open to the public, and I've been a bother going down, why set yourself up for disappointment? I know I wouldn't bother. I wouldn't be getting my stuff together and going if I knew the lots of open to the public at five o'clock. I think we could do some kind of a compromise, keep the North lot open at five, and then leave the Cabana and the South Lot for residents only after five. And that way, they know that they can go. I think it's kind of a happy meeting. I guess the West Lot stays open after five. I guess for residents, not with a buck there. But just stop with keep the North Lot open to the public and then reserve the Kabeena and the South Lot for the public and see if, and for the residents and see how that works out. But again, if you know all the lots are open to five o'clock and you get out of work at five o'clock, you know very well they're all coming from the state beach. I just, I wouldn't bother frankly going down. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Hi, Roger Jadis, one blank book drive. Tell manager made a very good point. Yeah, he's been, he's gotten calls. I can't get to the beach after five o'clock myself. I couldn't get to the beach after five o'clock in the past couple of years. Not as a correction, a Catherine, but I would suggest to leave the South Parking Lab open to the public after five, because that's where the young kids go. That's where the surface. The north part, the north parking lot and the cabana, that should be for residents only until 8 p.m. And as far as tabling it and kicking the can down and road again, we've been to enough recreation advisory committees and they're in support of this. So I think you ought to take action tonight on it. The Cabana Lot just says it was proposed that Cabana Lot the North Lot residents only until 8 p.m. and then the non-residents can be in the South Lot and the West Lot. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Ms. Dorama. Gina, Dorama, 11th Avenue. One of the things that we talk about in the REC advisor board, a member of the REC advisor board, is this particular stuff and we have no data. That's what my big concern was. We have discussed this. We've never made a recommendation, at least not this year. But the data needs to be, you need to inform your decisions based on the information that you have. And so one of the questions that I think we've asked twice now over the last two seasons was how many people are parking after five? What percentage of the lots are full? And can you track the number of people who come? I mean, obviously, if the lots are full, if the lots are full all the time, then there's something that we need to be done. But I don't think the data supports that, but we don't know because we don't have the data. And so in order to better inform your decision about how to move forward, you should have some numbers. And so maybe this is the year that you collect those numbers and figure out what it is that you actually need to look at and how you're gonna inform your decisions. There's enough bad publicity about the beach. People are not happy with all the fee increases over the last five years. And this is not going to make it any more palatable. And so if you are a tourist and you're coming to Nariance for the week and you're paying to park, and then all of a sudden someone says, oh, it's free for residents at five o'clock, that's going to make you even more unhappy. Just think about the outcomes. Thanks. It's free. That was funny. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Lynch. Dennis Lynch, 22 Central Street. So this is democracy in action because I'm also a member of the Rec Advisory Board and we haven't come to a conclusion on it. And I'm not speaking here tonight as a member of the Rec Advisory Board because we haven't reached a conclusion. But I am speaking as a resident and I'm also speaking as a one of the leadership on the Narragansett Peer Resident Association. And our most recent survey, 70% of our members were in favor of providing some restricted access for some of the lots. It's, we're not asking for all four, asking for two of them. If a person is not a resident, they may cross the street. They may walk up from the south lot to the north lot. This is not really, you know, cross country work if people want to get to different places on the beach. And it was serendipity in the pandemic. That's how this all got started because for safety reasons it was done. And a lot of residents felt, gee, this is a really nice benefit of being a resident. Not a seismic change to policy and just something that the town council can do as the town council sometimes has a want to do on other advisory boards where they choose to take a different path. So I don't think this is like you know separating from South Kingston. I don't think it's a major to mulch-uess event. I think it's a it's a, reasonable benefit to residents that really doesn't dispossess non-residents. And we checked before. People came in, you have a license that says you're in Narragansett, a lot of other ways of saying it, and you have staff that are somewhat laissez-faire like they're not going to hold you up, you know, for contempt if they want to let you through that night because you say you're a resident and you may not have everything there. So because there is a big influx on certain nights and certain weather events where it just they're lined up to come in. So I think it's a reasonable modest resident friendly benefit that the Council could act on. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Warren. Tom Warren, 26 shakes away. I just want to know that the record advisory board has not discussed this. Therefore, the record does not have an opinion on this. But I think also you have to take into consideration when you look at this, you're looking at the north lot and the cabana lot. The cabana lot on many nights every Friday, Saturday and Sunday and Saturday. So I'm going to have a to take into consideration when you look at this, you're looking at the North Lot and the Cabana Lot. The Cabana Lot on many nights, every Friday, Saturday and Sunday has events at the North Beach Club House, which renders that lot virtually full. So to consider that to be an option for available parking is really not an accurate way to look at it. So just looking at it from the North Lot, you look at the South Lot and the west lot available for non-residents and all the street parking and the sea wall. That's a little bit clearer way to look at. I'm not making any recommendations. I just want to clarify some of the parameters that are included in this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pudigy, what's your hand up? Mr. Ritchard. Mr. Riches, 91-I-N-S. You know, I use the beach quite a bit and I can say that from the beach point of view, from an Italian residence point of view, clearly it's a nice benefit. Benefit also, I would look curious to see how the thousands of people who come here who have houses here own homes here in the summertime and how that will work out for people out of state or out of town and who have, you know, even if you will live in Providence, you have a house here, and how you improve the true of town resident and why if you're a taxpayer, that issue is going to be. And also for the food trucks, you know, I mean, it's, you know, the food trucks are not, I mean, sometimes they're greatly used and sometimes they're not. But a lot of times, as you know, Rhode Islanders don't like to walk 10 feet. It's always the closest parking lot that you can find that you want to go. So I'm certain the food trucks are going to be, would be affected by this thing at all. So there have to be some consideration, I would think, for the guys that have paid the licenses to get the food trucks to make sure that they can get the most people possible. So I think that this particular issue, you know, the town residents, if you want to put a rope up at five o'clock and saying town residents in this half and everybody else on the half of it where the food trucks are, so that people can park over there and food trucks, that's I mean, town resident, you're not gonna have 15,000 people from the town going at five o'clock, but you are going to have a few and there should be some consideration for that But if you're a town resident or you have a town pass or somehow you'll get a pass if you're out of state and your own property here that you should be able to Park in the house or you just put a rope up at five o'clock And it's a simple thing to do and one side says town right one side says, all right, one of the sides of the, but if I were truck user, I would, and a food truck user, I would not be too happy about this particular issue. I think that'll have a significant impact on some of those poor guys that are putting out licenses to get to a self-few of this. That's fine. Mr. Pue. I'll just go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I'll go ahead and I think with a good intention, I think the intention is to benefit the residents, but I would challenge this actually being a benefit to the residents. I don't think it is. I think there's a reason why this has not been implemented in the past, other than the one year under COVID, because of the general restrictions. And the reason is because it's not necessary because these lots don't get full. We don't have to really guess about what's going to happen this summer if the lots are going to be full after five o'clock because we know historically they're not anyone who goes to the movies at the beach or any of the events at the beach. I'm not sure if the members of this council do that typically, but I'm in a demographic that goes to almost all the movies on the beach in the summer, or at least half of them. And there's never ever, ever been an issue parking in any of the lots. In fact, most of the time when I go up to five, I can get a spot in the cabana lots. In fact, most of the time when I go up to five I can get a spot in the cabana lots if not there's plenty of room in any of the other lots. But back to my point about whether this benefits the residents. I think there are a few reasons why it doesn't. The first is that there is a cost associated with staffing these two lots with town staff, just to turn people away when there's a room in that lot in the park. So that would be every night at the week. You'd have to staff those lots. Second, which is a reason that I think is just very obvious is that anytime you have, as a personal lives in Erigancie, I know I get a lot of visitors in the summer. I have visitors who come in and stay with us on the weekend. And then I have friends who live in the neighboring town, South Kingston, North Kingston, Jamestown. They want to go to the beach after five with us. We'll go bring food, hang out, spend a few hours at the beach. With this policy, I couldn't park in the same lot as my friends. So if I have another family staying with me, that means that when we drive down to the beach, I have to tell them, you guys need to park down in the south lot, while I park in this lot, and then we'll meet up at the beach. Instead of just parking next to me when it's plenty of room in the lots. So what really is the benefit? If there's not a parking issue, which there isn't, other than maybe one or two nights a year, one night being the Philharmonic when it's paid parking anyway, and maybe if it's excessively warm, that's some of them maybe another night or two, where it's full. But again, what's the advantage? So I don't think there is one. I think it's not resident friendly, assuming that you have friends who like to visit you. So thank you. Mr. Scofield? Yes, Harry Scofield, 9 Atlantic. So I want to rise in disagreement with that last speaker and exercise my support for the comments, you know, Dennis Lynch made as he pointed out, our NPA, our NPRA survey last year, 70 more percent of the residents support this. So I thank Jill for putting this on. This is an imminently fair thing to do. To keep the North a lot and whatever space is available in the Cabana a lot, offer residents who do work and want assurance they can get there and find not just parking space but beach space. If you have friends in town take them in your car. It's always a way to do it if you really think that's the issue. Really is something come before this council that's as clear as this. If you are for the residents of this town who are elected, you vote yes for this. Because I vote no, I vote against the residents of this town and we all know there been many speakers at this microphone over the years, including me, pointing out the fact that in many occasions, things go on in this town where the residents take a back seat to other interests. Here's a case where you can do something simple to support resident interests. Give them a few extra hours in two of the four lots. This will have no impact on food trucks again. Although for it is a vote for residents, a vote against it is a vote against residents. Thank you. Is there a Councillor? Roncans. I wanted to put some context around. I am also a board member for NPRA and I thought it might help for you to know that it is an allotown-wide organization with 200-plus resident members. So, when we say 71% of our membership, it's a townwide thing. So, I think that's important for you guys to understand that we're getting really the voice of the people and I know that's something that's always very important for us. Thank you. Ms. Scowcroft. Well, I did write to all of you a letter with my thoughts, so I don't need to belabor my position, but as the chair of the Friends of Nierriets at Town Beach I want to say that this really would be the right thing to do. We have Mr. Pueh is not not correct. There are many nights when residents are reluctant to park in the lots because of how full they are, perhaps not every single space is taken. But I want to reiterate something that Mrs. Celeberto said, because we don't have parking, we don't go, because we know that it's going to be a heavy tourist situation down there. We're not enjoying our movies at the way that we would in the numbers that we would. For you know I'm a lot older than many people here that have spoken and for years we had a huge community of nearby residents that met each other for dinner on the beach. The kids all played you know we'd hose them off put them in their pajamas take them home that is gone from the fabric of our town because we have an increase in overcrowding we have an increase in tourists I'd like to see that kind of community development have a possibility to come again I would like my grandchildren to be able to experience the same thing that my kids did so I'll reiterate what Mr. Skullfield said. Please do this for the residents. We deserve it. It's something that we would like to see happen. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Okay. from the public. Okay, any discussion, additional discussion from the council? Okay, so again, I'm just gonna give you my final thought. So this, again, we hadn't discussed this on the work session, it's never came up. I know there's always been a process in the past like when we've had the work sessions or we've had recommendations from the record advisory board, we just started the beach season. We're into the beach season and making changes, like it's kind of difficult to kind of put forth changes when we've had opportunities to discuss this in the past. And again, there was that issue again. We're gonna have to staff the lots because we're gonna have to check to see who it is. And that had been one of the things that I had thought of earlier as well is because if it is only residents, I don't think Ms. Kershaw has that in her budget. I don't think she. Kershaw has that in her budget. I don't think she budgeted for that. I don't think that's gone through our budget process or I know there's an enterprise fund, but that was not brought up. And it's not that I'm not for the residents because I am, I'm trying to make this community more resident friendly with a lot of the agenda items that we've been tackling. But for me, it's just that we have processes in place. And then I feel this should have been discussed earlier on in the season. And I'm a big data person too. I'm a pharmacist, so I like to see data. And I've asked where the data is for if the parking lots are full. You hear anecdotal answers. When people drive by there, they say they're empty all the time. The times that I've been there, they have not been full. I've been to the food trucks with my friends. I've been to the movie nights as well. And maybe there are a few nights where it has been busy, but those may have been the nights that, you know, was a very, you know, the Philharmonics, one of my favorite events, and I know that it's always packed that night. So, again, you know, this kind of feels like it was just put on here, like, after the fact when we had opportunities to discuss this. So for that reason, I'm not going to support this motion tonight. Any other comments from the council? Yeah, I think you're going to get that. I'm totally in the opposite with that one. Just to reiterate, when the record board met, it was early in the season, they made recommendations. And although they didn't vote, the record board did, unanimously speak at their meeting in the state that they wanted to go ahead and increase each classes and things like that. So we don't always take what the record board says and run with it. But this one, it's a small ask, and we didn't make changes. I wanted to take a look at facility changes and make improvements and do things with numbers, and we didn't do that. So this is one thing that we could do. We certainly do have the money in the enterprise fund to be able to pay for this. It's really, that's a really small amount of money. It's going to come down to, I can't agree with more than this is goal field. This is going to be a vote, you're going to be voting for the town residents to steal one from Stanley, it still says Narragans it up there or you're not on this one and we're offering 50% of our beach so I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. Anyone else? Okay. All right. Well again, this isn't a vote against residents, it's just for the process so all in favor. Hi. All opposed? No. Motion fails. for the process. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Motion fails. So motion by Councillor Lawler. Seconded by Councillor Copac. Motion fails to two. Next on the agenda is a motion to approve a third party vendor for short term rental ordinance services. So moved. Second. Okay. And this is just being brought back because I'm just going to give you a synopsis of the timeline of where this agenda item is coming from because there this has been on in the past like a different iteration of it. So back the last council back in October. Zeb and I were on a subcommittee where we put together a short term rental ordinance that we had a work session. So we discussed that. That was tabled. And you know, of course, you know, we had a new council. So with this new council, you know, we, we, several, well, most of us, I think the majority of us support a short-term rental ordinance. So this motion, there was a motion that was put on on the March 20 agenda item and that was a motion for short-term rental ordinance development and that was to direct the town manager to solicit bids for a third party eventers to collaborate with town to develop a short-term rental ordinance. So we have that on the agenda. Unfortunately, it failed. It was a tutu vote. We had a council member who was not present. So then, you know, that was that kind of, the next time we introduce something again was the March 3rd Council, it was the regular Council meeting day, which again was for short term rental ordinance development, and it was a motion to determine next steps for the short term development and just coming up with a strategy and you know way to start moving that forward because again we did have, we do have a council that wants this to move forward. That motion that night on April 3rd was amended to a motion to direct the town manager to solicit quotes from third party vendors including but not limited to de-sisto law firm and Granicus. And that did pass 5-0. So we were waiting for just the information from de-sisto law firm. We finally were able to get that to us in writing on May 12th. We had already had the Granicus, you know, just the proposal. And that proposal was very, very comprehensive with what they were offering. It also was going to be covered by a grant. We had a grant, using funding from a grant to cover that cost. And, you know, we were able to bring the cost down from $18,000 to $15,000 because we had already in place, or we had put together a short term rental ordinance, the previous town council. So they were able to use that. And the timeline that they had proposed or actually had committed to was that they could finish this from start to finish in eight weeks. And that eight weeks. And that eight weeks meant public hearings that meant like just really putting everything together, getting stakeholder feedback. So again, that was March 20th out, you know, concert co-pack and I had put this motion on and it is now 10 weeks. So in that 10 weeks, we would have had this completed by, you know, by the end of May. So now we have the opportunity to discuss this again. So we have basically we're deciding tonight whether we're going to go with the third party vendor, Granicus, who has expertise in this field and who's done a lot of work on short term rental ordinances throughout the United States and could really just put together something comprehensive and just be the facilitator of this, not saying that the town does not have input because we do, because we have the ordinance and just being able to just to package that up from start to finish. And again, we all know that we're gonna get sued. So I just wanted to make sure that all our eyes were dotted, all our teeth were crossed with that recommendation. So the other option is going with the law firm, Desisto, who I think the extent of what they were going to do is just really review the ordinances, make recommendations. I don't know what the turnaround time is. I don't know what the cost is, but it is a law firm. So whether it's an hourly rate. So basically what we got back was a letter from Desisto stating what the hourly rates are going to be. So that's just the background story. I just wanted everybody to. It's been a long time coming. We've been talking about this even from the background story. I just wanted everybody to. It's been a long time coming. We've been talking about this even from the previous council. And so I'm just going to open it up discussion from the council first. I'll go to the public. And then we can make the determination. But the good news is whichever decision we make, it's going to move forward. We're going to progress with having a short term rental ordinance. So that is the good news. It's just making the decision which route we want to go. And I did get confirmation again from Granitecras that they can do this in eight weeks. So with that being said, I'd like to stop. Okay, Mr. Ferrandi. Yeah, as I've stated before, the past councils that brought this up, and it's time has come to get something done. And the document we have is it's not totally complete, but there's a lot of good items in here. So that's the reason why I personally, I think that the Desisto law firm, it's a local law firm. And it's a law firm too, so we can get the legal aspect which is very important in this and you know Granicus maybe can do a lot more to maybe develop and brand new one of these let's say so I think you know would be probably better served with the DeSisto law firm just to kind of you know dot all the T's, cross all the I's. Okay. Yeah. So just to clarify, they would be taking our ordinance and working with the ordinance that we had. Right. So just not just a grandad that's why they're willing to drop their price because we've already done a lot of the legwork. So they would be taking that ordinance, we'd be submitting other other because we did get input from you know other other stakeholder groups you know the Ing-Pierry Central Letter and just including some of that and moving in that forward to include with the ordinance that we had developed so just I just wanted to clarify that yeah no I understand that I mean it's some you know I just feel having having the the comfort of a law firm to look at it would kind of, you know, to get a little bit deeper at something. So that's why I stand. Thank you. So the ordinance you're referring to, Steve, is the ordinance that was actually developed by Eva and Deb and Wayne. We have a written ordinance. So what you're, what you're recommending is we take that written ordinance, we handed it to the sister-of-the-law firm, not have them create it, but have them comment on it and make some suggestions and move forward in that way. And they do have their rates here. The rate will be ranging if it's a junior attorney between $170 to other rates of DeSesta, it's $190. But I do have one question from Mr. Davis. I know I received a couple of questions from some people who actually have to be in the audience here tonight, but if we were to go ahead and to engage this distal law firm to take a look at our existing ordinance and to comment on it, would that in any way deter the town, as ever said, when we get sued for any type of law, whether it be the short term rental, the four student, I mean the three student or the four in the related, if we were to have this as to comment on it and make suggestions, would that put the town in an awkward position with using him in the future to actually litigate? No, I don't believe there's a conflict that would impact their ability to represent the town. Okay, thank you. That's the only question I had on that. So I agree with Steve. I prefer to go the route with giving our existing ordinance to the system law firm. It's going to be at their hourly rate, even with the discounted and I commend you for getting your grant tax to come down in fees. But I mean that's $15,000 and eight more weeks where we have someone who's doing hourly work with an existing ordinance. Let's go back. I think my concern with the Sisto is that they don't have tremendous amount of experience with the short-term rental issue across the universe and Granicus does. And I think that one of the things in having had some conversation with Granicus, what I would say is that even in just general conversation, some of the points that they made about the ordinance that we wrote were really helpful for us to understand how to work towards something that would get us what we're looking for, which is a short-term rental program that would work in this town for our residents. I don't know if Desisto could do that the same way. I understand that there are attorneys and we will need attorneys, but the fact of the matter is that we need to have a clear understanding of what we're doing and how best to approach that so that we don't need a lot of attorneys. So in my mind, I mean, I think Granicus, they gave a very comprehensive document to us as to what we should be doing. Essentially what the disaster law firm did was give us a fee rate. And I would be significantly more comfortable with Grannicus. And just to add one thing about distaste, it is a law firm, but it is also the law firm that is used by the League of Cities and Town of Rhode Island. So they do have work with all other municipalities within the state. So they have a breadth of knowledge about what's happening in the state. Okay. Anyone, excuse me, anyone from the public wishing to comment? Mr. Skolfield. I don't know what I see this delayed. However, I'm at least operating under the assumption we've waited so long now. We have probably lost to the summer season if we would have implemented next month. So if that's true, and if there's any benefited or alter-cranicus that would justify waiting an extra month or two, and I would guess, I would just say if I was sitting up there, I would want a legal opinion as to whether going out and spending the money and waiting two months to have a grant, I guess, right a report, would be any more beneficial to the town and the defense if there wasn't defense. And I guess I would recommend making the decision that way because absent some benefit in the case of a defense, I think it may be time to get on with it. But if there is a benefit, then that's probably a reason to wait a couple months, given that we probably missed the season this year anyway. I don't even know if that's true, but anyway. We sort of put it the ball in the parking. We've taken too long with this. And so anyway, I'll just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Richards. Stephen Richards, 91-9S. You know, it's interesting because this has been a complicated issue for a very long period of time. And it seems like there's been bounced around for a long period of time and it affects a lot of people. It's not something that's not a simple issue. And that's because it's not a simple issue. And because there are a lot of complex issues to be decided here, it seems to be, then it needs to be decided, that having someone from the outside, looking at this rules, got a great deal of experience with me, a lot of sense. The fact that they're having that the system, it's a very good law firm. They're very, very good law firm. They're a law firm, they're very, very good law firm. They're a law firm. We have a solicitor here. And we have law firm, we have people on our staff who can assist with legal experience. And so I think hiring a lawyer is sort of like a, especially a junior lawyer. I mean, nothing wrong with junior lawyers, but we need to get this right. And if it takes a little bit longer to get it right, to make sure that we do the best possible thing, that we have the best possible alternatives based upon the history of this thing, it doesn't seem to be good, managerial sense. It's simply say, okay, we need a lawyer to take a look at this big to defend us. If we don't have a good lawyer here, we can't do that stuff on his own, the vice year. Why do we have a town solicitor? So we need to have people who understand the law, but we also have to have people understand the issue. And to advise the council correctly, because it does affect a lot of people, and it's going to be a long tumor effect. It's not just this year, this summer or anything like that. And because it's a long tumor effect and because of the people who are moving into the buying properties in this town, we're having a significant impact on their, we will say, in this town and a significant impact on the residents in this town, all of those issues, whatever they are. I'm sure all of you guys discussed this and were a great deal of extent, but having a good insight from others seems to be approved attempts to do the right thing. And then we depend upon our town solicitor to make certain that we're following the law. I don't know what you need an lawyer for, to spend $15,000 when you have a junior attorney. My guess is Mr. Divis over here is not a junior attorney. You know and so I mean I don't think that makes my self-defense. I don't think that makes any sense at all. Thank you. Ms. Emerruza. Hi. Sorry. Susan Amirusa, 111 West Bay Drive. I totally agree with hiring an outside evaluate, as opposed, you know, Grannis. I think that it's a specialty and we need that specialized knowledge. A long-form gives us an hourly rate. If you're just looking at dollars, you might not get your money's worth if you don't have someone that's a specialty. They serve many towns and stuff like that but it's a broad service to many towns and cities. But this company, this is their business, their livelihood. So it's a specialty, and this is such a contancorous, difficult issue that it would just make sense and probably save us money in the long run to have a specialized company because there's so many things like you've just said that you know and talking to them There were things you weren't aware of and I think we definitely get our money's worth by using that. And I agree with the previous person that initially what they come up with that our town solicitor could provide that service. And then if we need service beyond, that would cut down on the hourly rate that you'd be giving another law firm. Because their specialty is not summer rentals. And so I'm for, you know, I agree that hiring and outside firm, this firm that seems reputable and stuff is the most cost effective way to go. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? Oh, Miss Elibardo. Catherine's celebratory 40, eight wheels caught. The DeSister law firm is not a junior law firm. Is it this headed by Mark DeSister? Mark DeSister was older than I am, and that's going some. It's a full service law firm. They've been voted super lawyers many times. Mark DeSister was one numerous cases, numerous cases. Rebecca Pottington is an attorney in the firm. She formerly worked for the City of Providence. It's not a junior law firm. It's that they're not junior lawyers. We're not gonna get advice that isn't up to par. These are experienced people. They're partners, so they can interchange with each other. I can't imagine why we would hire consultants when we know we're going to have a legal challenge. Why wouldn't we hire an attorney? And just because we hire the Disaster Law for them to recommend this, you know, maybe changes or no changes to the ordinance has already written, we're not bound to them. We can hire any law firm in the state that we want to, this, the states of wash with lawyers, okay? So we can hire the Disaster Law for them to advise us and then if there's a court challenge, we pick the person that we think is best. But I can't imagine why we go with consultants who aren't attorneys. When we absolutely need legal advice, thank you. Mr. Lynch. Dennis Lynch, 22 Central Street. So I spoke in favor of hiring this particular third party sometime back in the spring. And the people who said back then, we're not going to move forward with that consultant when it would have been completed now. You can't say we can't hire the consultant now because it will take too long. That is sort of a frayed logic that you cannot apply to this. So let me understand. We have $15,000 fee that we have money for from a grant with a time certain time frame and eight weeks is like the speed of light for local governments. You need to do both, right? No one, this is not, oh, we can't touch the lawyer because we've hired this third party. The third party does governance and policy structure in the attorneys review it and assure you that you're on the right course legally and through the right protocols and processes. So I please don't do this again. Don't waste another two months. Fire the gun tonight, bring on the consultant and engage the attorney who has not given you a timeline or has not given you a project structure, engage them at the right moment to give you the most fortified result for this very, very important process. Come on, you look at the state database and we are double short-term rental, over 900 and the next closest one is 400 and something in the 39 Cities and towns we have to get going on this we are way way behind the curve and You have to govern tonight You cannot take you cannot have a tied vote here We cannot leave here with two two and she let's figure it out at the next meeting in the meeting after that please govern please do the right thing, compromise and get this process underway. Thank you. Mr. Cotton said. I don't know why it's in either or. I would think it was a both to be honest with you. Have the policy document drawn up. Have the system take a look at it. How much can it cost us to have a lawyer look through it, run it against case law or in the state, see what's good, and then we have a rock solid document going forward. I don't know why we can't do both and I agree 100% with them. Let's go tonight. Thank you. I'll just reiterate my points that I said before about how I think we need. We have a good document that we're looking at. I think it just needs to be going through a little bit, get some legal advice with it. Granicus is a lot bigger company. I realize that. I guess we do a lot of some other things with them. But they may be looking more for a contract down the road to implement that kind of stuff. So I still think we need DeSisto to kind of cross over tease and doubt all the eyes with some of these important issues. And I don't know if we can get both. I mean, have you talked about a grant that's that cover the whole thing? I mean, is that not set in stone? Is it? Well, we have, we had applied for a grant. We have applied. It hasn't. is it? We have we had applied for a grant. Actually I'll ask our town manager that was part of the we do have funding. Maybe maybe we could if there's any. I'm sorry I'm sorry I was just like I was just gonna have the answer sorry. We did submit to use funds for that for the grant we have not received the response back yet on the grant awards. Was there a question about how much money they would be or do we know if we got the grant what the amount would be? We wouldn't know the full amount until they awarded. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I would think if we went with the attorney he'd be able to get it back in a short amount of time. I mean, they're just looking at the legal part of it. Maybe he could suggest to take some things out. Maybe add a few things that we would need. But I think the turnaround could be pretty fairly quick. And then maybe at some point, if the grant comes through and the granticus can take it from there, once we get it established, as a compromise. I think that's the kind of a backwards way to do it though. What we're looking for is the expertise of this organization. I think actually Mr. Lynch said it very, very well. So I won't reiterate it because I couldn't do it as eloquently. But the fact of the matter is that we don't want to put the cart before the horse. We need to do this in a structured order. And the order is to take the experts in this field to provide us with excellent advice as to how to make a better ordinance than the one we originally put together. And then we have attorneys evaluate that to make a better ordinance than the one we originally put together. And then we have attorneys evaluate that to make sure that we don't have any issues with Rhode Island state law. And that to me makes tremendous sense. And that's, I mean, I can't imagine doing it any other way. So if you look at the actual description, I am right now for granted is on page three The first two paragraphs the first one talks about them holding interviews and exercise with local policy makers and staff We know what we want so the time frame of the two months is what is what really has me on it as well as the fact that we've applied for the grant But we haven't received it for the $15,000. But if there is a way for this company to make it not two months and only incorporate what we want, we want the midgenc corporate, we know there's an ordinance that is already written that I believe that we can agree that we feel is what the town wants and wants to take look at. There's no need for us to conduct any type of an interview. We know the rental property folks are gonna hate it, and we know that the town people are gonna love it. So we know that, so I don't see why we need to do that, but if there is a way to work with this company and look at a component that they can help us with, which might be the social host compliance data, or that information. If they can come up with something that we can work together with that group, I disagree with my colleague. I think that they could be worked on together and should be worked on together. And perhaps that's the answer to this that we actually engaged both, but not for the full fledged $15,000 to month. But to have them start at a point, that's a logical point to start at with the existing ordinance we already have and have them collaborate. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Yeah, so I just want to comment on that too. So the reason that it's eight weeks is, I mean, and that's like the quick turnaround is because we're limited by you have to advertise for public hearings. There's obviously no, there's like timelines that you have to check out public hearings. So there's obviously no, there's like timelines that you have to check out the box for that. So it's not that it takes them eight weeks. It's the fact that all this can be done. It's just like the timelines. Even if we had a lawyer or law firm do it, it's still going to be a while because you have to advertise this stuff. You have to do public hearings and all that. So anyway, I just, I don't get it because I mean, that's my point of it. You don't have to. We don't need to have a public hearing. We know how the town feels. We know that they want us to do it. So to get rid of that component would get rid of a good chunk of time. And I think it's going to be the only way that this council tonight is going to agree is that we're walking away with a solution or just moving forward with this. Obviously, we see a different pathway to it. I'm again, we need a two-two vote fails. We're not doing a two-two vote. So I just want to say, obviously, this conversation is to see if there's any consensus or anyone was willing to kind of see any other opportunities to do something different from whether what was proposed, one or the other. Again, I had my reasons for that, but we're gonna move forward one way or another. I don't know if somebody wants to make a motion or if there's anyone else in the public. I don't know if somebody wants to make a motion or, you know, if there's anyone else in the public. I think I think just what I just said, I'd like to make that motion to for us to take a look at what we could get rid of the component. It's not so. I'm sorry. So that was so the proposal and that was the proposal. But if we say to them, it takes a while to get it. So I'm fine. Like if you want to just go with the system, I'm not going to. No, no, no, what I'm saying is I'm not going to point. I'm not saying that at all, Eva, you're not listening. Or I'm not articulating it correctly to you. say we already have an ordinance that we feel is representative of what the town wants. Can we then have you utilize your help for the background, conditions report and for that information? So skip a portion of it that would be time consuming that we already have the answer for. We know what the town feels and I think that's a reasonable compromise for us to make. So the conference, so I did go back to them and then that's why they changed the pricing on it because it was It was it was less and we had the ordinance So they're gonna use the ordinance that we we put together. They were gonna use we did a lot of the leg work And they said that that's that's what they can use so Anyway, I think we just need to come up with a Recommendation emotion I I make a recommendation to approve the Disaster Law Frame for the vendor. Isn't there any way that we could go back to these folks? You have Disaster, I like that it's a sort of idea, but I was wondering if I use the whole one. I'm trying to make a motion to do. I'm sorry. You want to do you there was a suggestion about using both. What? That's what I'd like to find out is if we could use not not the full $15,000 repulsor that they gave us but go back and work with them. Mark, do you think that would be something that was possible? I haven't dealt with Granicus, so I don't know. But I would say this, that if Granicus has this expertise they espouse to have, and they're able to assist the town in drafting what they believe to be an ordinance that reflects the town's desires and that is enforceable. I would certainly review it, but if you wanted to assisto law who you know is representing the town in the foreign related who has done a host of research into these types of matters, it's different but not dissimilar. I think the scope of work for the sister would be very narrow and it would be very inexpensive relatively speaking. So I think if you chose to use Cantegus, Granicus, and I have never dealt with them, so I have no idea if you can go back and negotiate scope of work or how long it takes to negotiate that. But if you could use them to hone in on exactly what you want and get through the process because that's not the SISTO's expertise. The SISTO's expertise is research, review, apply. That's what we would want them to do, right? Here's our ordinance, what's out there, what has been challenged, what has survived. This is what I suggest you tweak. If Granicus gets us to a point where it's well drafted, they have the support to provide the system lower in myself so that the research is limited. I think it could be a good, I think that's the ideal path quite frankly. So I can't speak to the Granicus contract. I wasn't involved in the proposal and I've never dealt with them, but I know the town does work with them. You would think they would be cooperative. I just don't know if skinning down that, what impact that has on cost or time. It sounds like they've already considered the existing ordinance peeled off three grand. I don't know how much more there is there. But I can tell you that it would really narrow the sisto scope and make the legal job much more expeditious and much less costly. I'd like to make one other point. I just was rereading the letter that we got from the sisto. In no place do they say that they have expertise in this field. And they say that they, it says, as I understand at the scope of our legal services, will include research of similarly situated short-term rental ordinances in Rhode Island and elsewhere and legal research and analysis on the legality and enforceability of short-term rental ordinances, which does not indicate to me that they have worked on short-term rental activities in the past. Well, they didn't say it. Well, they didn't say it, but if this was what you were, you know, bidding on, you'd probably make mention of what you know about it, I would think. I just, I mean, I have a question on the table. Do I have to? Okay, Mr. Farnady, would you like to make a motion? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to prove Mike Desisto, law for the third party vendor. You know, I want to go over that, but I hear Mark's words and I need to heed them as well. If we can get the scope down on the grandicus and make the combination, I think that that's our best bet. So can you hire? No. You want to hire both? Comment is over. What's that? Devil? You didn't guess second. We'll figure it out. We can whittle it. So if you want to just move motion to hire both, like I was mentioned. We can go ahead and figure it out. We can go ahead. So if you want to just make a motion to hire both, like, let's mention. It's not really on the motion here, but make a motion to hire the Desisto law firm and, you know, maybe be able to get granicists to help us with the implementation once we get the ordinance. So we could, we could, we could, do that, we could also direct, last year direct, the manager to speak to Granicus and Mark to speak to Granicus and see we could get their scope lower. I don't want to direct for that. Actually, it does, I do want to go to the the poll, I guess it seems like. Mr. Pugh, I know you were on the council last time and you can come up and speak on this. Thank you. Just a few forty virtual road. I just wanted to come in support of the motion to hire both Granicus and Dicisto and just to move forward with this. Surprise that there's this back and forth over such a small amount of money. both Granicus and Dicisto and just to move forward with this. Surprise that there's this back and forth over such a small amount of money relatively speaking, especially when you have the town solicitor essentially saying that going with Granicus and having Dicisto's to review is the ideal scenario. So again, I mean this is something that has been discussed for years. Everyone in the audience has been waiting for years. We weren't able to do it with the last council, although, Deb and Eva, you made good progress towards the last year. But it is, I mean, it's like, it's almost, very surprising to see this kind of debate over a few thousand dollars. I mean, why even bother going back to shape a few thousand dollars off? It's fifteen thousand dollars. Move forward and do it now. So, thank you. So, should we make a motion that we hire Granicus and use theissisto for legal analysis after the fact? I still would like to have this have the time. It's not that the fee, you know, it's 15, sure, 3000 was rolled back, that's nice, but it's the time period. And if we can have a way that we can work with them, I mean, we're work the town is doing our new software. If we can work with them and say we, we're working, the town is doing our new software. If we can work with them and say, we wanna be able to incorporate both vendors together. How could we have you do it quicker, a shorter period of time? We don't need to have the public hearing, so we don't need to go ahead into to. I think we do need to have the public. So I'm speaking right now, so in my view, we don't need to have it. We know what the town wants. We have the town ordinance. So if there's a way for them to change their scope of work to incorporate what the town needs, I think that a vendor would want to work with us. Mark? I mean, I make a suggestion. Yes. So the cleanest way to do it, in my opinion, would be to approve it as is with the understanding that the solicitor and tell manager will call Granicus and discuss. I'm sure for the same amount of money they would skinny down the work. I don't have any pride. I'm confident that that would happen. So the question is what's necessary, what isn't. If you approve it and direct us to do it, we will do our best to narrow the scope but not compromise the product. But at least we know we have it, we're moving forward. And then I think you do, it would be wise to engage the SISTO, but it wouldn't be from the outset. It would be to review before the Granicus product is voted upon, have the solicitor clearly and de-sisto from a lawsuit preparation, a standpoint, take a look at it before it comes up to vote. And I think that can all be done simultaneously. So I don't think it's going to add any time to vote. And I think that can all be done simultaneously. So I think it's going to add any time to it. So I think if you agree to engage the system for review and comment, I mean, you don't incur any expense until they actually do the work. And we drive when they commence to work and what they do. So I would approve if we were up to me do the work and we drive when they commence the work and what they do. So I would approve if we were up to me, Granicus, with the understanding that we'll get on the phone tomorrow. We'll walk through the proposal with them and we'll get done what we can get done. And the worst case scenario is, that's the timeline. That works with me, Steve. Does that work with you? As long as he makes the Desisto groups going to be able to do a lot of illegal, something really one of it. I mean, I'm only going from the work product we have. I mean, there's been a lot of work already done on it. So I don't know how much. So that's what Mark's saying. We'd engage both. But we'd have tomorrow morning, we'd have the town manager and the town solicitor to the councilor's contact, grant guests and see if they could dial back their scope of the work. Okay. Can I just clarify one thing? Maybe Janet, you can help us. This is an ordinance. We have not had a public hearing. We would still have to have a public hearing. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you. It's an ordinance change you have to have a public hearing. Okay, so we need a motion to move forward with whatever it says on here. Motion to approve a third-party vendor for short-term rental ordinance services and do we need to modify that to include a review and a legal review after the fact. Interdirect the town manager. To direct the town manager and solicitor to have a discussion with Granicus about what the scope of the work is and possibly reduce the amount of money. And time is big thing is time for me. Okay, we need a second, I guess. I'll second that. Just to clarify, so the motion would be to a motion to approve a third party vendors, because I mean, Dicisto is a third party. If we just clarify it, a motion to approve third party, third parties for short-term rental ordinance services and direct the town manager solicitor to engage both Granicus and the system for scope of work or Mr. DeGas is that sound? I think you guys. Okay. So basically, okay, so let me read it again and then just let us know if this makes sense. So it's a motion to approve third parties for short-term rental, third parties, including Granicus and Desisto for short-term rental ordinance services, and direct the town manager to engage in discussions with Granicus and Desisto for scope of work. That's like Councillor Copec seconded by Councillor Lawler. So we'll take a vote now. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion by Councillor Copec. Seconded by Councillor Lawler. Aye. All opposed. Okay. So motion by Councillor Copac, second by Councillor Lawler, motion passes for zero. Okay. Now we have to. Yeah. So next we have motion to retire to executive session of the town council in accordance accordance with Rhode Island General Laws 42-46-4, and 42-46-5A2 to review all pending and possible litigation. So moved. Second. Okay, I need to a row call. All in favor. Come. Deb Copic, aye. Jill Luller, aye. Aputra Zinski, aye. All in favor. Comments. Deb Copic. I. Jill Luller. I. Abitresinski. I. Steve Ferrandi. All right. We will be back to after executive session to adjourn. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Okay. All right. We are back from executive session. So they are the disclosure of the executive session votes. There is a motion to steal the minutes made by council lawler, second by council of back from executive session. So they're the disclosure of the executive session votes. There's a motion to steal the minutes made by Council Lawler, Seconded by Council of Ferrandi, motion passed 4-0. Next was a motion to exit and reconvene. And that was made by Councilor Lawler, Seconded by Council of Ferrandi, motion passed 4 zero. Lastly, we have a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion to adjourn made by Council Lawler, Seconded by Councillor Copic. Motion passes for zero. Sam.