Providence ordinance committee hears divided public testimony on $300 student impact fee for off‑campus housing

Providence — The Providence City Ordinance Committee on Nov. 13 held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance that would add a $300 annual student impact fee to properties that are exclusively occupied by students and require colleges to supply enrollment data. Committee members took testimony from neighborhood residents, landlords, student tenants and business representatives but did not vote.

Councilwoman Peterson, who introduced the measure as sponsor, said the fee is intended for property owners of exclusive student housing, not students, and proposed dedicating revenue to the city’s new home‑repair fund to help low‑income homeowners. “Let me be clear. This fee applies to the landlord, not the students. It’s $300 a year,” Peterson said, adding the ordinance would include data‑collection from colleges and a noncompliance penalty the DIS director could enforce of up to $500 per day.

The proposal drew sharply contrasting testimony. Supporters from College Hill and other neighborhoods described repeated nuisance and public‑safety incidents tied to a small number of student‑occupied houses and argued current enforcement is fragmented and underresourced. “We have a fragmented, reactive, broken system where no one is accountable and the same problems keep repeating year after year,” resident Dexter Strong said, citing dozens of calls to police and 311 reports from particular addresses.

Neighborhood association leaders and longtime residents said investor‑led conversions of family homes into high‑density, room‑by‑room rentals have pushed working families out and produced high total rents. Nina Markov, president of the College Hill Neighborhood Association, told the committee that multiroom “mini‑dorms” generate rents far above family housing and that a fee tied to investor properties would be one tool in a broader regulatory package to protect neighborhoods.

Opponents — including landlords, a housing operator and students — argued the assessment functions as a tax that state law and court precedent limit. Attorney John Gowery, representing property owner Walter Brownhut, told the committee that similar proposals have failed to obtain necessary state approval in the past and that statutes and court decisions require a demonstrable nexus and proportionality between an impact fee and a municipality’s costs. “As proposed … the so‑called student impact fee … is in fact a tax assessed not to recoup the cost of a specific service, but rather to collect revenue to fund broad government services,” he said.

Landlords warned the fee would be passed through to tenants and could reduce investment in neighborhoods. Owner David Basking said additional fees could push students to live on campus and reduce the patronage that nearby restaurants and businesses rely on. Small landlords told the committee they would struggle to absorb a new per‑student charge and cautioned the ordinance may have “collateral damage” for two‑ and three‑family owners.

Students speaking at the hearing said many already shoulder heavy housing and educational costs and that a flat fee is regressive. Providence College seniors who testified described working multiple jobs and expressed concern the charge would be passed to tenants rather than borne by institutional owners.

Speakers on both sides also debated implementation details the ordinance text does not resolve in its current form: whether the fee would be levied only on commercial student‑housing operators or on any property with exclusively student residents, how colleges’ pilot agreements or P.I.L.O.T. deals might limit the city’s ability to charge institutions, and whether revenues would be ring‑fenced for specific services (police, sanitation, code enforcement) or flow to a central fund. Council members noted existing pilot agreements could bar charging colleges directly without renegotiation.

No formal vote was taken. The committee chair said all written submissions and testimony would be entered into the record and the hearing was closed. Next steps were not announced at the meeting; the council may revise the ordinance language and consider further committee deliberations before any formal vote.