Newport council declines proposed sale of Cogshill School after fraught debate over rents, preservation and green space

The Newport City Council on Monday declined to approve a purchase‑and‑sale agreement that would have sold the vacant Cogshill School property to a private developer seeking to convert the historic building to 32 year‑round rental units.

BCM Realty representatives and counsel presented the project as a way to preserve a deteriorating school building while producing “realistic market‑rate rentals” targeted at middle‑income residents. Peter Rehan, representing BCM, told the council the proposal would add 32 units — 26 inside the school and six in three duplexes — and would restrict the property by deed to long‑term rentals for 30 years with a one‑year minimum lease.

The developer’s legal representative said the project would cost about $13 million and that rehabilitating the historic school pushed the per‑unit cost above $400,000, which the team said made strict rent caps financially unworkable. “If you cap the rents, you’re essentially capping the income of the project for 30 years while none of the expenses are capped,” counsel said.

Residents who live near the school offered mixed testimony. Several, including Christine Sullivan and Becky Duett, said they support reusing the building but objected to the current proposal’s removal of green space and questioned whether the proposed rents would be affordable to teachers, nurses and other local workers. “A million dollars for that property is a joke,” Sullivan said in public comment, urging a new appraisal and stronger protections for playground and field space.

Other residents and supporters pointed to successful examples the developer cited, such as the Calvert property, and urged the council to act to stop further deterioration of the vacant building. “We need housing for our young people,” said Chris Jones, who said he lives in a similar BCM project and that the redevelopment had worked for his neighborhood.

Council members’ questions focused on two fault lines: whether the deed language and proposal language are specific and enforceable enough to guarantee the property will remain workforce or middle‑income housing over time; and whether the city should prioritize bringing the building back on the tax rolls and out of a state of disrepair.

The council’s solicitor noted the deed could carry restrictions that survive a future sale, and that contract provisions and the developer’s proposal could be grounds for legal action if they are violated. But several councillors said the current phrasing — described in the meeting as generalized language about “market rates for workforce housing opportunities” tied to HUD definitions that change over time — left too many enforcement questions unresolved.

After extended discussion and public comment, the chair called a vote on the motion to approve the P&S. Some members voted in favor; at least one member voted no, and the chair announced: “Motion fails.” The purchase‑and‑sale agreement was not approved at the meeting.

Next steps were not set in the meeting record. Council discussion repeatedly returned to the possibility of further negotiation to clarify enforceable rent language, additional public engagement on the duplexes and green space, and the need for a detailed, legally enforceable definition of how the city will ensure any workforce housing commitments survive future ownership changes.