In what was more of a working session than the classic meeting where the audience watches and sometimes voices approval or disapproval, the City Council with the input of property owners brought the city closer to regulating short term rentals commonly called Airbnbs.

After more than two hours of discussion, the council scrapped the initial version of an ordinance introduced by Ward 5 Councilman Ed Ladouceur and took up an amended version that drops owner occupied premises as a requirement for operation of an Airbnb.

Ladouceur met strong objections to the owner-occupied provision when the ordinance came up for first passage last month. After more than three hours of testimony from property owners and discussion between council members, action was tabled. At the end of that meeting where the council was urged to restart the process involving property owners in drafting an ordinance,  Ladouceur said he was open to revising the ordinance.

Ladouceur returned the measure to City Planner Tom Kravitz to remove the owner-occupied stipulation. The Planning Department and city solicitor went further than making a few tweaks.

Procedurally the Council Ordinance Committee reviews ordinances and votes on them before they come before the full council. However, with only 20 minutes before the scheduled start of the council meeting at 7, Council President Steve McAllister recommended the full council consider the ordinance . He assured the 30 to 40 interested people they would be given a full ten minutes each to express their views. The council would stay to listen to 50 of them if necessary.

There was more to come.

The surprise was delivered after Ladouceur reflected on the reaction and input from the first meeting  and McAllister announced that a vastly revised ordinance had been drawn up. He called on William Walsh, the council’s solicitor to pass out copies of the revised ordinance to members of the council and the audience.  He prefaced the directive saying council members and the audience were both seeing this for the first time. Council chambers fell silent as everyone read the three-page document.

Walsh then stepped through the document line-by-line highlighting sections that had been removed, amended. When it came time for public input, Cindy Wilson who operates an Airbnb on Warwick Neck was first to speak.

It was Wilson’s experience that prompted Ladouceur to take up the cause of an ordinance. The building department required Wilson to pave over much or her front yard to accommodate additional off street parking as well as meet other requirements that ended up costing her thousands. Now that the council was moving toward enacting  an ordinance, she wanted to know if the city would refund her expenses. Ladouceur agreed that she had been unfairly singled out, but said the purpose of the hearing was to consider an ordinance, not to address what had happened.

Ladouceur looked to the positive, saying the city is in a much better place today in providing accountability and responsibility. That didn’t mollify Wilson who left the meeting.

But other operators of Airbnbs looked favorably on the amended ordinance.

William Gagnier, assuming the role as a spokesman for the group, said the city was so much closer to a workable ordinance and encouraged continued dialog.

“I hope to see changes. We’re all stakeholders ,” he said. Gagneir said as first written the ordinance “left out most of the homeowners” but that with the revisions, “we are close to the finish line. We need to be a part of this.”

Citing academic studies, one speaker questioned if short term rentals would deliver what they are cracked up to be in terms of provided added income and attracting people to the city.  Gagnier  countered saying  he had likewise read the studies but that Los Angeles and San Francisco are different than Rhode Island and that Rhode Island based data is available from the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns.

With the owner occupied provision removed, parking requirements because the focus of debate. The amended ordinance removed the requirement that the number of parking spaces provided exceed the number of bedrooms by one. Yet, it was argued one space per bedroom was excessive as families of four and more often travel in a single vehicle. That lead to a discussion on what constitutes sufficient parking and Ward 8 Councilman Anthony Sinapi introducing an amendment giving the building official to make a determination when necessary. Before Sinapi’s proposal reached a vote, Ward 4 Councilman James McElroy moved to hold (continue)  the meeting  to next month. As Sinapi’s motion had been seconded, Walsh said members would need to vote on that before considering McElroy’s motion.  Sinapi’s motion passed as did McElroy’s thereby ending the meeting.

In an email to constituents Tuesday, McAllister reported on the meeting saying there has been a lot of interest in short term rentals and “ the council continues to take public input and fine tune this ordinance.  Therefore, this process will continue next month where once again there will be an opportunity for public comment and additional amendments to be made and voted on.”

He went on to write, “In my opinion, this process has been a great example of how representative government should work.  There has been hours of public input and debate and the council is taking its time working with the administration and the residents to try to find a compromise to ensure all stakeholders have been heard and had their concerns addressed.’

He said the updated amended ordinance that includes all of the changes will be drafted and made available on the Council website soon.

In part the ordinance reads: “the short term rental of dwelling units can have a positive effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community by providing a flexible housing stock that allows travelers safe accommodations while contributing to the local economy including historic preservation.”

The ordinance calls for a $250 per year for each dwelling unit covered under the provision. It also calls for a fine of not more than $500 a day for each and subsequent violation of provisions of the ordinance.