Newport council declines proposed sale-and-redevelopment of Cogshill School after heated debate

A proposal to sell the vacant Cogshill School property to a private developer and convert it into 32 long-term rental units failed after an hours-long public hearing and council debate.

Developer representatives from BCM and its advisers urged the council to approve a purchase-and-sale agreement that would preserve and rehabilitate the historic school building and add 32 long-term rental units, saying the project would increase year‑round housing stock. "This project would increase the year‑round supply of rental units by adding 32 new units," Peter Rehan said during the presentation, adding that units would be restricted to long‑term rentals for 30 years.

City counsel and residents pressed the developer on affordability, enforcement and the financial feasibility of the plan. The developer’s negotiator emphasized project costs and financing constraints, saying, "This is a $13,000,000 project," and explained that rent caps the administration had proposed would make the project unviable for private investors.

More than a dozen members of the public delivered testimony both for and against the sale. Resident Christine Sullivan told the council, "A million dollars for that property is a joke," and warned that neighborhood green space and traffic safety were at stake. Becky Duett and other neighbors said the current proposal differs from what was presented during earlier public meetings and expressed concern about the three duplexes planned for adjacent lots and vehicular impacts.

Councilors debated multiple options, focusing on how to define and enforce "workforce" housing, what the deed restrictions would require and whether the financial plan would survive stricter rent limits. One councilor summarized the tension plainly: "Having heard what Mr. Regan just said ... this is no longer a workforce housing project; this is something entirely different." Several councilors said they trusted the developer’s track record but worried that deed language must be clear and enforceable for future owners.

After discussion and a roll call-style vote, the motion to approve the purchase-and-sale agreement (action item 6.344) failed. The council did not adopt any alternate motion that night.

What happens next

Because the motion failed, the proposed sale did not advance. Council members and staff said the city will retain discretion to continue negotiations, revisit terms, or relist the property; developers and neighborhood stakeholders said they expect further public engagement and additional council review before any future vote.