[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6537157,"mediaKeyId","3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695","parentId",3635486,"title","Providence committee advances ordinance package raising some fines and permit fees; valet and licensing increases draw questions","audioSeconds",1433,"startMs",6998000,"endMs",8431000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695&start=6998&end=8431","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695/thumbnail_6998000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6537157/Providence-City/Providence-County/Rhode-Island/Providence-committee-advances-ordinance-package-raising-some-fines-and-permit-fees-valet-and-licensing-increases-draw-questions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537157-55b1056c1bca8dadc02780a716068b7d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770434839&Signature=J~KYd~vquVJCEIe7YbmN2t70t2EM29lhk6t3a858OiaFHEhH6r5cqCffqD55GQcz6pRGmSEog3VnimwSCWJ6RNqoKU-UKB~zW2RxzZteNOgaB0FPHu0ZGgtCoJYHZDff65YmgACrCVmB8dbOfZXAsOumgkMoIahop6C9vPbs49qvT8A662nmChPqnTwUif-zQ3iqY-HRiFvAGiYBk4~L3dfOyeIqoqIh6~F5vDCjBKvzYPOuD5AmcMRVW8YCyFe29PRsxvRGgWZf-9XRAXc0oTxR0s2YcAvnZuEUmWufhnNZKIhmj0JV0qzFK1BA8V4qL-ze69QKCAQ-HWG3JbwWWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Providence City Council","date","2025-05-30T18:55:16.427Z","article","City staff presented an ordinance package on Thursday to update multiple permit-fee and fine schedules across Providence codes, including chapters addressing sidewalks and public places, water and sewers, food establishments, licenses, and motor-vehicle penalties. The package is the outcome of a municipality-wide review to modernize fees and recover administrative costs.

What staff proposed

The administration provided line-item tables showing the current fee, proposed fee, and historical occurrence counts for items with meaningful revenue potential. Staff said the revisions were not intended to cover every city fee but to update those with high transaction volume or that had not been adjusted in many years.

Key items discussed

- Valet licenses: The package would raise certain valet-related fees from $50 to $500. Staff and Council discussed the justification for the jump: staff said the higher fee accounts for substantial administrative time to review applications and enforce rules (site plans, off-street parking arrangements, and permit compliance).

- Parking enforcement / commercial vehicles: Councilors asked about separate enforcement tools and steeper penalties for commercial vehicles and repeat offenders who use curb space for loading or long-term parking. Councilors suggested a tiered fine structure (lower initial fine, higher repeat fines) and asked staff to return with targeted language.

- Animal-control and leash fines: Adjustments to fines for unlicensed or unleashed dogs were discussed; staff noted enforcement is challenging because officers must witness violations to issue infractions and many residents obtain licenses online, which reduces the registrar's workload.

- Licensing relocations and administrative housekeeping: Staff explained an internal reorganization in which licensing functions are being moved into a city services center. The committee discussed staffing to ensure registrars and licensing functions are continuously available and how state statute references for registration will be handled.

Council direction and follow-up

Committee members asked staff to provide: a) comparables for valet and commercial parking fines from similar municipalities used in the analysis (staff had cited Boston, Hartford, New Haven and Worcester as comparables); b) a draft enforcement and outreach plan explaining how fines will be collected, how violations will be verified and how the city will avoid unintended consequences (for example, increased illegal dumping if bulky-item fees change); and c) clarifications about which fees had been left unchanged and why.

Committee action

The committee took the package up during the meeting and passed the items out of committee for further consideration; some members asked that select items be treated separately in future ordinance drafts to allow targeted public notice and more detailed implementation planning.

Ending

Staff will return with the requested comparables and clearer enforcement procedures. Councilors said they supported modernization of fee schedules when paired with clear enforcement and outreach to avoid uneven impacts on small businesses and low-income residents.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Providence Committee on Finance-Thursday, May 29, 2025-5:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","A package of ordinance changes adjusting permit fees and fines across several city codes was presented to council staff. Committee members discussed increases for valet licensing, commercial parking enforcement and select public-health and licensing fees and requested comparables and enforcement plans before final adoption.","taxTitle","Providence City, Providence County, Rhode Island","taxId",3637,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6537162,"Providence council debates five-year refuse contract with Waste Management; motion to send to full council without recommendation",5276,1687000,6963000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695&start=1687&end=6963","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695/thumbnail_1687000.jpg","/articles/6537162/Providence-City/Providence-County/Rhode-Island/Providence-council-debates-five-year-refuse-contract-with-Waste-Management-motion-to-send-to-full-council-without-recommendation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537162-2ab1f1d44b6904254e75c859ab77cce8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770434839&Signature=KDWyTAYfHuujEwRyCZOREVmtQ~XS37N6ehtyViPSSv2AFV-xhXZRWLM~eJQzUgwdkHteAfloJ1CRIsfJWuVD0l3~P8DI2E1vi-GufkoU0e3TVpk8KL~kJwr3V6GSCjAvXKJ3eUZvPYEjlvmkaa0ig7Y5kUXs4xeZiDPxyUHBjRdO126NfU2jDd~9oHI0P1qkZZUcmjlXWMet2McHItq2Q0gRw~S9f3F2DU2jBlqbfaN8BivmY1aLdx1kbmsH0EJ6Tj3223HmsCCVZUrbMq1xjdxdxYZBGzT8O49yN0LnrLwdxXs5QrrWDj1vmRt1SwkLEfxqZcEqc1Dk4toH1SQsDQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff presented a recommendation on May 29 for a multi-year contract with Waste Management of Rhode Island to provide residential refuse, recycling and yard-waste services to Providence, prompting extended council debate about cost, service quality and alternatives.

Staff overview and vendor commitments

City staff said the recommended award is a multi-year agreement (staff described a 3-year term with two option years as the primary structure during the presentation) with the incumbent, Waste Management of Rhode Island. According to staff, the vendor's proposal included five new collection trucks for Providence service, an additional truck to accommodate larger city trash bins, a full-time Waste Management staffer dedicated to the Providence account, and installation of \"smart truck\" video to document collection and contamination for targeted education and enforcement. Staff also noted a proposed annual per-unit fee that could be passed in whole or part to residents for certain bulky items; the mayor's budget proposed splitting that charge 50/50 with customers.

Finance projections and contract pricing

Finance staff provided cost estimates for fiscal 2026 at roughly $10.6 million, and said the contract includes a 4% year-over-year increase in fixed costs. Staff stated the total cost over five years would be in the tens of millions; during the discussion staff acknowledged ambiguity in multi-year comparisons and offered to re-run specific scenarios if council preferred a different term length.

Council concerns and technical questions

Councilors pressed staff and the evaluation committee on multiple points:

- Cost and term length: Several councilors said the proposed multi-year total would represent a notable increase over current annual costs (current-year spend cited as about $9.54 million). Councilors asked whether a three-year agreement without the extra years would provide lower pricing; staff said Waste Management offered a discount of about $3.4 million over three years compared with the five-year proposal.

- Bulky items and illegal dumping: Councilors raised concerns that charging residents for bulky-item pickup could increase illegal dumping and strain enforcement. One councilor said, \"The bulky items program is going to be a dumping problem,\" and others asked for data on how many white goods and mattresses are collected yearly. Staff said the city recorded roughly 5,600 bulky-item pickups in a recent year as a baseline figure and that billing and counting are handled through the vendor's monthly invoicing.

- In-house option and start-up costs: Several councilors asked whether Providence could run refuse collection in-house. Staff presented a rough estimate for initial capital acquisition and operational readiness in the tens of millions (truck costs were cited in the range of $330,000 to $500,000 per vehicle), and estimated lead times of roughly two to three years to assemble vehicles, facilities and a trained workforce. Staff warned that bringing service in-house would add personnel, equipment and garage-space needs and would carry operational risk in the near term.

- Evaluation and references: Councilors asked who sat on the evaluation committee and how references were contacted. Staff said the evaluators included the deputy director, sustainability and purchasing staff and other senior staff. The RFP used a rubric requiring a minimum score of 90 to be considered; only Waste Management met that threshold. Two other bidders were referenced: one (Greenview Tree Service) averaged an 80 and lacked capacity to serve the entire city; a third bidder only bid on mattresses and did not provide cost savings.

- Smart-truck video and enforcement: Staff said the vendor's smart-truck video would provide evidence the city could use to verify missed pickups and to target recycling education where contamination is detected. Councilors asked how the city would act on that data, who would process it, and whether fines would be effective if property owners rather than tenants were responsible for violations. Staff acknowledged enforcement limits and noted past efforts to secure state-level authority to attach fines to tax bills had not passed.

Committee action

After extended debate in which multiple councilors voiced reservations about cost, service, and enforcement, the committee voted to refer the award to full council without a recommendation. The referral means the full council will consider the award with the committee's record of discussion attached.

Where things go from here

Staff committed to providing additional written materials on: fiscal comparisons of three- versus five-year terms, detail on bulky-item and white-goods counts and invoicing, the evaluators' reference checks, and an itemized description of options the city would have to carve out specific services (for example yard waste or bulky-item pickup) for separate procurement. Several councilors urged a phased approach if the city seeks to increase in-house capacity over time.

Ending

The meeting record shows substantive scrutiny from council on the trade-offs between cost, service quality and local control. Councilors who favor exploring in-house options said they would press for more analysis before a final vote at the full council level.","City staff recommended awarding refuse and recycling services to Waste Management of Rhode Island in a multi-year contract that would add trucks, smart-truck video and a dedicated contract manager. Councilors raised concerns about cost, bulky-item fees, potential increases in illegal dumping, and whether the service should be brought in-house.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6537166,"Providence councilors question contract change order for pavement-marking vendor, seek project list",372,780000,1152000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695&start=780&end=1152","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3635486-d0d28fcb99de6997894f3b6ec94c1695/thumbnail_780000.jpg","/articles/6537166/Providence-City/Providence-County/Rhode-Island/Providence-councilors-question-contract-change-order-for-pavement-marking-vendor-seek-project-list","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6537166-cf38894c13dc60113c1c601cd34509b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770434839&Signature=l47yBEH6LqwaZPy4zKYW37hRS34IcuaHzq9rLEfb29GevsRPr5ScA~RoyPyJx3s2LjkB6dFyZ0myNvAk3cLEzv1vnMA3vgTVdOvWrdsVNErkwGzj5bK~PY6NOPxWR5BVMs9NayLooz7UBrj-sYv9WoznaQKCQTb69lATWWEN1F3EfA-ZdsjCnCNh~LMGy7j-QE1daYpKJRkaEGSmV6SYjBpOGE9T-7s-RJ7wJuHwb9s-u2V3XYdRE3vWBYQ1ztlAMhrLrTjeoQ60cBfubWjzgmeVoptqYbxFz2zVAyqyO~5VJG0YlQ-yC09x03yx6SVvtvRH096yv-TNQ28PWvUVaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Providence City Council on Thursday considered a resolution to approve change order No. 2 and an associated contract award for pavement-marking work, funding the work from existing safety-related accounts in the Department of Public Works budget.

The request would authorize a change order and contract extension for Baked Me Marketing, LLC, for $75,244 and use money budgeted in operating line 1013030553911 and other safety-related accounts, city staff said. City staff said the marked work has been prioritized and that contractors notify the city weekly about what they have completed and how much of the purchase order (PO) they have used.

Councilors pressed staff for details: Councilor Helen Anthony asked which projects would be paid from the account, and requested a prioritized list and rough cost estimates. A member of Public Works said, “There are currently about 80 safety projects… They range in size from just doing stop bars at an intersection… to putting in a crosswalk,” and that contractors report quantities and costs as they perform field work.

Why it matters: Councilors said the contract escalation and apparent PO overages make it hard to track whether budgeted funds are being spent on the city's highest-priority safety modifications. Councilors insisted on better management and documentation before approving additional spending.

Details and council direction

- City staff described a previous awarded contract under $85,000 that grew as invoices and extensions were processed. Staff said the vendor has performed traffic-marking and related work on multiple projects and that some invoices exceeded initial PO amounts.

- Councilors asked for a full list of the pavement-marking projects prioritized for this money and for rough cost estimates per item. Staff said the contractors are required to report weekly on completed projects and PO utilization so the city can track spending.

- Councilor Anthony and others expressed concern that the speed-camera/safety fund has a substantial balance and that some safety projects remain unaddressed. Staff noted the city has a CIP plan with dedicated line items that could be amended to include additional safety work and that the speed-camera safety fund has roughly $400,000 available per year as a planning assumption.

- Councilors asked that staff tighten controls to prevent further PO overages; staff said they were implementing contractual language and process changes to reduce the risk and would share the priority list and current PO usage with the council.

Where things stand

The committee moved forward with the item during the meeting and the presenter indicated the council had approved the item on the floor during the session. Councilors asked staff to return with the project priority list, per-project cost estimates where available, and a clearer accounting of which line items are funding which safety projects.

Council members also asked staff to explain whether a larger procurement or rebid might be warranted if the city is repeatedly extending the same vendor's contract; staff responded the pool of qualified pavement-marking firms is small and that they are using a documented weekly-reporting process to manage PO limits.

Ending

Councilors left the meeting having requested the prioritized project list, stronger PO controls and clearer reporting on how speed-camera and safety funds are being allocated to pavement-marking and traffic-calming projects.","City staff asked the Providence City Council to approve a change order and contract extension for pavement-marking work billed to the city's speed camera/safety funds. Councilors requested a prioritized list of safety projects, cost estimates, and tighter controls after invoices exceeded purchase orders.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Providence committee advances ordinance package raising some fines and permit fees; valet and licensing increases draw questions

Providence council debates five-year refuse contract with Waste Management; motion to send to full council without recommendation

Providence councilors question contract change order for pavement-marking vendor, seek project list