Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves purchase-and-sale for former school after amendments, 4–2
Summary
After residents and councilors pressed for stronger affordability and financing safeguards, the council approved a purchase-and-sale agreement for the former school property with amendments requiring income verification, assignment limits and a financing commitment; vote was 4–2.
The Newport City Council approved a purchase-and-sale agreement for the redevelopment of the former school property after a prolonged public discussion and a series of council amendments.
Residents and several councilors urged stronger affordability protections and clearer financing conditions during a lengthy exchange. A resident who identified concerns about loss of open space said, “Once you give it away, you cannot take it back.” Developer representative Peter Reagan said rents were planned to be capped for a limited period and that units would go to market after the restriction expires. Councilor (speaker 15) successfully moved three amendments: requiring third‑party income verification for units targeted at 80–120% AMI, limiting assignment to a single‑purpose entity managed by the known developer (with seller approval required for other assignments), and making a financing commitment a condition precedent to closing.
The council recorded a 4–2 vote to approve the sale after the amendments. City staff and the developer said the deed restriction will specify when the 10‑year rent limitation begins (the developer and staff confirmed it will start from issuance of the certificate of occupancy and when rents commence). Councilors who opposed the measure said the 10‑year cap and the reduction in the number of deed‑restricted units compared with earlier proposals did not sufficiently protect long‑term affordability. The clerk confirmed the final tally as four in favor and two opposed.
The agreement as amended directs that reporting and deed‑restriction language be built into the final contract and that the city retain standing to enforce deed restrictions; city staff indicated enforcement would be the city’s responsibility. The developer said marketing and leasing practices would aim to attract local workers and that a waiting list similar to the developer’s other projects would favor people who work in the city, though an explicit legal local preference was described as constrained by the Fair Housing Act.
