Council continues vote on Discover Newport tourism district after ethics, membership concerns

The Newport City Council on Monday voted to continue consideration of a proposed tourism improvement district backed by Discover Newport after questions about board membership, possible conflicts of interest and requests for more outreach to councilors and neighborhoods.

Councilor Lisa Napolitano introduced the draft resolution and outlined changes Discover Newport offered since the measure was last before the council: creation of a 5% community grant program, an increase in the administration fee paid to the city from 3% to 4%, language committing the district to cover legal costs for overdue charges, and examples of eligible grant uses including public bathrooms, trash receptacles and workforce development for hospitality workers. The proposal would replace an existing district and extend the district term to 10 years, renewable, rather than the prior three-year framework.

The meat of the debate centered on governance and ethics. Members of the council and the city solicitor said the petition had been revised after prior objections to remove a requirement that a sitting councilor sit on the district’s board. Allison, a Discover Newport representative, confirmed to the council that the revised proposal removes a council seat and reduces the board from nine to eight lodging-industry members.

Several councilors asked whether a sitting councilor who also serves on other boards that would be affected by the district could be voting on this item and whether that would create an ethics conflict. Solicitor Behan advised that conflicts of interest are a personal determination typically reviewed by the state Ethics Commission and urged councilors or any potentially affected member to seek an opinion there. Multiple councilors said they wanted time to seek guidance and to meet with lodging stakeholders who had signed the petition.

Councilor Paul Connolly moved to continue the item so councilors could meet with participating hotels and obtain additional information; the motion passed. Supporters of the district, including several councilors, said the district had substantial support from lodging operators and could deliver marketing dollars and projects to extend tourism beyond the high season. Opponents or skeptical councilors cited the need for procedural caution so future legal challenges would not hinge on unresolved ethics questions.

The council was told the petition packet had been available to members and that the March meeting would be the final vote after the statutorily required posting and 30‑day review period if the council advanced the preliminary resolution.

What’s next: The council will revisit the item at a future meeting after the 30‑day review window and after individual councilors have sought ethics guidance or held stakeholder briefings.