Council approves sale of Coggeshall School after amendments to lock in workforce-rent safeguards

The Newport City Council voted 4-2 to approve a purchase-and-sale agreement for the former Coggeshall School, adopting several amendments aimed at protecting workforce‑housing provisions and ensuring the buyer has financing in place before closing.

The council’s action approves the sale of the property to the developer group identified in the agreement and attaches deed restrictions that cap certain rents for 10 years. Councilors added amendments at the meeting requiring (1) a 12‑month closing term (instead of nine months); (2) the 10‑year rent‑restriction period to begin when a certificate of occupancy is issued; (3) third‑party income verification for tenants in the restricted units using vendors from the Rhode Island Housing approved list; (4) limits on assignment of the agreement to a single‑purpose entity controlled by the developer; and (5) a lender commitment/financing letter as a condition precedent to closing.

Why it matters: The Coggeshall School parcel has been the subject of extended public debate and a prior request‑for‑proposals process. The council’s changes were intended to tighten enforcement and monitoring of the workforce‑housing commitments in the P&S, to address residents’ concerns about loss of neighborhood open space, and to reduce the risk that the property would be flipped or remain undeveloped if financing failed.

Details and terms discussed - Units and rent cap: The developer’s proposal covers 26 residential units in the building, 24 of which are one‑bedroom units and two are two‑bedroom units. The agreement as amended caps market rents for a subset of the units for 10 years; 40% of the building rounded up equals 11 of the 26 units. Peter Regan, counsel for the developer’s team, said the plan is that after the 10‑year cap the units “would go to market.” - Income verification: Councilor Sy successfully moved an amendment requiring the developer to verify that tenants of the deed‑restricted units meet the 80%–120% area‑median income (AMI) band. Councilor Sy and council discussion cited Rhode Island Housing’s approved vendor list; the council noted third‑party verification typically costs roughly $200–$300 per unit annually and would not materially change the project’s revenue assumptions. - Assignment and financing: The council required language allowing assignment only to a named single‑purpose entity managed or controlled by the developer and made a lender commitment letter (a financing commitment) a prerequisite to closing, to reduce the risk of the property being land‑banked or flipped before development begins. - Timeline and deed restriction trigger: An amendment clarified that the 10‑year rent‑restriction clock begins on issuance of the certificate of occupancy, and also tied commencement of rent collection to that milestone.

Public comment and council concerns Residents and neighborhood speakers urged the council to preserve open space and criticized changes from the original RFP scoring and terms. Mark Lloyd, a neighborhood resident who spoke at the meeting, said the current proposal “is way, way different from what the city thought they were getting on day one,” and questioned whether the city was receiving appropriate value for the property and whether the project met the RFP’s original objectives.

Councilors also expressed split views. Some said the building is deteriorating and the sale is a rare opportunity to generate housing; others said a 10‑year cap is too short and could leave residents exposed to steep rent increases after expiration. After debate and the passage of the amendments outlined above, the council approved the amended purchase‑and‑sale agreement by a 4‑2 vote.

How enforcement and monitoring will work City staff and the city solicitor said the deed restrictions and related provisions would be recorded and would “run with the land,” giving the city standing to enforce violations. The solicitor indicated the P&S and deed restriction language will be used to create binding restrictions enforceable by the city if the buyer fails to comply. The council also added reporting and verification expectations (income verification and periodic reporting on rents) to the agreement language.

Limitations of the record The council vote tally was announced as 4‑2; the roll call names for each vote were not recorded in the meeting transcript. The final sale price listed in the public discussion was referenced as $1,000,000 by speakers in public comment but final allocations (for example, how proceeds will be used) were described as subject to council decision and were not specified in detail during the meeting.

What’s next The buyer will be required under the amended P&S to secure financing and satisfy conditions precedent, obtain permitted approvals, and proceed to closing within the agreed timeline. The recorded deed restrictions and reporting requirements will create the city’s contractual enforcement path should the deed‑restricted rents or other commitments not be met.