Providence hearing exposes sharp split between residents and landscapers over proposed ban on gas-powered leaf blowers

Chair Sue Anderboer called a public hearing of the Providence City Council special committee on environmental resiliency to hear comment on an ordinance to amend the city’s rules on gas-powered lawn equipment. Committee members, city staff and more than three dozen residents and business owners spoke at the session; no votes were taken.

The debate focused on two central questions: how quickly the city should phase out gas-powered leaf blowers and similar equipment, and how to support landscapers and small businesses through any transition. The city’s sustainability director said the administration supports the ordinance’s intent but recommended a single, clearer compliance date; landscapers, trade groups and equipment dealers said battery technology and charging infrastructure are not yet ready for a full commercial transition and warned of steep costs. Residents and public-health advocates said noise and fine-particle emissions pose ongoing health and quality-of-life harms that justify a faster timetable.

Priscilla Dela Cruz, director of sustainability for the City of Providence, told the committee the administration “absolutely supports the intent of the ordinance” but asked the council to “adjust the years” and provide a single uniform compliance date to allow city departments, contractors and small businesses to plan. Dela Cruz said Providence has been piloting electric equipment since fiscal year 2022 with the parks department and other city operations and that the city has been budgeting for additional equipment and testing.

Opposition testimony centered on operational limits and costs for commercial users. Mark Paray, who said he owns a lawnmower shop in West Warwick and has five employees, told the committee battery systems present practical obstacles for landscapers: “These batteries cannot get wet,” Paray said, and he warned that cold-weather limits, charging time and run-time constraints mean crews would need many spare batteries to finish a workday. Several landscapers and equipment dealers, including Mark Bialik, executive director of the Rhode Island Nursery and Landscape Association, said commercial battery tools currently cost more, have shorter runtime or require infrastructure upgrades that many firms cannot afford.

Council members and resident advocates framed the issue as a public-health and livability problem. Councilman John Gonsalves (Ward 1) said the machines “emit harmful pollutants and fine particulate matter” and described the noise as a disruption to densely populated neighborhoods. Jennifer Martinson, chair of Quiet Clean Rhode Island, and John Wilner of the Providence Noise Project urged a significantly faster phase-out timeline than the one the administration discussed. Wilner recommended making prohibitions effective by 2028 and said any delay prolongs harm to residents and the environment.

Committee members also raised enforcement and rebate questions. Councilwoman Shelly Peterson said the only state rebate information she’d seen comes from the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources and noted an expiration date and funding limits: she told the committee the state program “goes up to $250,000” and expires June 30, and she questioned whether available rebates and enforcement mechanisms would be sufficient to support a fair transition. Industry speakers disputed some rebate math and urged the council to consider larger, targeted financial assistance and clearer enforcement language.

Several witnesses proposed practical changes or additions: staggered or phased compliance dates for commercial landscapers versus residential users, weekend or holiday quiet days, an escalating fine schedule for repeat violations, limits on sales of new gas equipment inside the city during a transition period, and municipal programs to collect and compost leaves. The sustainability director suggested January 1, 2031 as a single target compliance date to streamline city planning; multiple resident speakers asked the committee to accelerate that schedule to 2026–2028.

The hearing included a mix of technical claims and strongly personal testimony. Some landscapers and dealers offered specific equipment figures during testimony—examples included battery run-times of roughly 25 minutes per backpack battery, charging cycles near 90 minutes, and warnings about battery performance below about 41 degrees Fahrenheit—while advocates pointed to studies and campus transitions that they said show commercial electrification is feasible. The committee acknowledged those competing accounts and accepted written testimony and materials into the record for further review.

No formal action was taken at the hearing. Chair Sue Anderboer said the committee would accept written comments on the proposal and that she had committed to follow-up conversations with industry representatives and staff. The administration signaled willingness to work with the council on calendar and implementation details, and multiple council members said they wanted additional information on enforcement, rebate levels and the city’s pilot findings before a final vote.