Good evening, everyone. Today, we are joined here for the special committee on health, opportunity, prosperity, and education, also known as hope committee, for a regular meeting for Monday, 03/02/2026. Madam clerk, if you could please call the roll.
Chairman Picciardo? Present. Vice chairwoman Peterson? Present. Consular Andelbaum is absent.
Consular Sanchez? Present. Four present when absent. You have a quorum.
Thank you, madam clerk. For the purpose of this meeting, we're going to have just two presenters today and also have some deliberation among this committee. We will also be sharing with you some additional dates that we will continue to have regarding the rent stabilization ordinance. In addition to, the public will also have an opportunity to provide public testimony on any suggested amendments that we have for this for this ordinance. At this time, madam clerk, if you could read item number one.
Item one. An ordinance amending chapter 13 housing of the code of ordinances of the city of Providence to add the next appropriate article, the Providence Rent Stabilization Act.
Thank you very much. I also would like to recognize that are present with us colleagues, chairwoman Mary k Harris from Ward 11, and also our colleague from Ward 2, Jill Davidson, and, of course, our president, Rachel Miller. Thank you for joining us. At this time, we'd like to have the sponsor of the bill, council president, Rachel Miller. If you'd like to thank you.
Thank you. Thank you chairman and, committee members, and I really do wanna thank you for taking this up tonight, for having, nearly six hours, five and a half at least hours of testimony at the public hearing. There's been many other hours of community meetings and more to come, so I just wanna very earnestly thank you for the deliberation and the the kind of trust that you are putting in the people of Providence to come and share their experiences and voices. So thank you for that. I have been thinking about how to move rent stabilization in Providence for as long as I've been in office, so it's been seven years now.
In that seven years, rent has risen dramatically. In the last couple of years, an average of 16%, but long long before that, right, rent was felt like we were at a high seven years ago. We have far surpassed that. Families who were long time Providence families have left our city in the time that I've been in office. And, it's hard to share the kind of policy failure that that feels like, right?
To have done nothing to stall huge huge rent increases in my time, almost two full terms, but one term and three quarters. And so I'm I'm really glad that we're here. I'm I'm proud of the ordinance before you. I think it represents some of the best things that have happened around the country in policies like this and also has made adjustments that are specific to Providence, that are specific to our rental market. We heard so much testimony and I know there'll be a lot of feedback and amendments that come from that testimony, but I just wanna kinda ground us in the why of this proposal and then as you get into discussion, if there's anything that I can add in terms of the mechanics of the ordinance later, I'm happy to do that.
But, you know, I think one thing that I just wanna remind people, rent stabilization does exactly one thing and one thing only. It stabilizes rent. It it makes rent predictable. It helps families plan. It is not meant to do anything else.
And so we are, as this council, we have done a tremendous amount of other things related to increasing housing in the city of Providence. We have overhauled the comprehensive plan, changing zoning, adding more density, adding accessory dwelling units. We have added money into the housing trust fund and made sure that that money was for low income residents specifically. We have subsidized private development through tax stabilization agreements, and we have banned algorithmic pricing that does get a little bit into rent prices. But, all of that is increasing the housing stock in ways that we need to do and we'll keep doing.
What we are doing right now is recognizing that we cannot wait, the people of Providence cannot wait for a market to correct itself. In fact, the situation that we're in today is the result of the market, is the result of market forces. So, know that it's a situation that's just untenable. And then, I just wanna speak a little bit to what we've kinda heard in committee and share some thoughts on, sorry, in the public hearing, and share some thoughts. So, people often cite data and studies as if they are kind of sacrosanct.
There's a couple things I just wanna be absolutely clear on. There is no peer reviewed study at all that shows that rent stabilization policies decrease construction. In fact, we have seen in Portland, Maine, recently, that an increase in construction permits followed rent stabilization. Now, I don't think anyone would say, oh, that's because of rent stabilization. Right?
That is a correlation. Two things happened at once and those things do not cause each other. It's that correlation not causation. However, the thing that we know, if you talk to the people who do study this, if you talk to the people who do submit peer reviewed articles on this topic, the thing that determines development, the thing that determines construction is the desirability of the market. It is by and large not the regulation of that market, and so, Rhode Island has a highly desirable market, Providence has a highly desirable market in any of the measures, right?
And so, I have shared in the past, and Ken again, right, like, how hot, which list we're topping on hot markets. That is a really important thing to keep in mind. There is no evidence that rent stabilization decreases construction. That is something worth saying over and over and over again. What we know that it does do is it increases long term tenancy.
It slows rent increases. And so, you know, you hear people say, oh, well, 4%, 4%, 4% every year, that's 20%. And it's true. In five years, that's 20%. That's 20% for a family that can plan a rent increase knowing that it might come over time, as opposed to being faced with a 20% rent increase with thirty or sixty days notice.
That is a dramatically different situation. We're talking about how people live, and as a renter, frankly, how I live. It increases stability. It decreases the variability that we know has contributed to homelessness in Providence. We have seen more and more people living on the streets without a home.
We know that the out of control rent prices are part of that story. And, we know that it reduces rent in the long term, especially with the vacancy control aspect of it, right? So, a lot of people, a lot a lot of of people talk about, oh, know, I keep rent stable and then I flip it to market rate when it becomes open. And, I think as much as, you know, I think we could talk about 4% keeping rent stable, or up to 4% increases keeping rent relatively stable, and then we could also talk about, okay, so there's a couple or a young family or an individual who's enjoying that stability while it lasts, and then all of a sudden, that apartment is no longer available to all of the people in that income bracket, which by the way, in providence, we know is is most of us. Right?
And so, when we're thinking about housing, we need to be thinking about what is a full community experience and the full community need. And then, you know, there's two other pieces, but the one thing that folks talked about a lot was this, oh, know, it won't impact the people who need it. And that is not related to the policy that's in front of you. So, the policy that in front of you is saying, whatever the start rate of rent, whatever the starting price is, that's the price, right? There's the rent board that the policy creates does not tell you how much rent you can charge from the get, right?
And so, people who are in $2,300 a month apartments are gonna stay in a $2,300 a month apartment. They'll just know that it can't jump by 30% in the next year, only by four. And, yeah. So, I think there's a lot more that we can get into, and I'm I'm sure that we will. There's one thing that I think is so fundamental to what the policy in front of you does.
There is nowhere in the state of Rhode Island and the city of Providence where someone who is a renter, who is talking about their whole lives, right, is talking about their family, their stability, their ability to sleep well in a bed at night. When something happens to that price of their rent, there is nowhere right now in the city for them to go and talk. There is nowhere. There is nowhere that people can speak to someone who has authority over the situation and say, yep, you know what? You ought not have to look at a rent increase that out prices you from the home that you live in.
And and the rent board will do that. Right? It creates a fundamental shift in what is allowable for people who rent in the city of Providence. And then finally, you know, one thing that also came up pretty frequently in public testimony was, I understand that it's an issue, right, I understand that the rent increases are an issue, but why does it have to be mine? And I really hear that.
I think it's also really important to think about that response, right, because we're talking about folks who own property and are renting. The intent of this ordinance is to make sure that people can make a return on their investment, can cover costs, can keep building maintained. By the way, there's no studies show that buildings do remain maintained in rent stabilized, in cities with rent stabilization, right? That that is not another fear point that comes up. But the reality is, as a property owner or as a renter, the conditions of housing and availability of housing is an issue for all of us, right?
And so, to sort of deny local government the ability to set some constraints on the amassing profit, right, that means that, oh yeah, local government can't care about the people who live here, can't care about the market, can't care about the city. And, I know that's not the case. I know that we do. I know that we cannot do nothing. I think that doing nothing specifically about the high cost of rent and the ability for rent to continue to skyrocket, doing nothing will be catastrophic as it already has been for many, many residents.
So, thank you. And, I'm, of course, happy to continue discussing over there from my seat. Thanks.
Thank you, council president Miller, for that testimony. And I'm sure our committee will have some questions as we move forward. At this time, I'd like to call Larry Mancini, who is the chief financial for the city of Providence. And, also, I'd like to call Tom Sogoros. Yes, please.
Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear on the penalty of periury the testimony you're about to give is the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Yes. Can you please state your name and title for the record?
Lawrence Mancini, Chief Financial Officer, City of Providence.
Tom Segouris, Independent Policy Consultant. Thank you. Welcome. You may
sit. Mr. Chairman, if you may.
I had asked you earlier, Chief operating officer Courtney Hawkins had prepared a letter to the committee and had asked that, with your consent and the committee's consent that I at least be permitted to submit it to the clerk or give a brief overview of her remarks before I give my own remarks. Would that be appropriate?
Thank you. We do have that letter, and, we'll enter it into do we have that letter? Do you mind giving? Yeah. Yeah.
After we'll submit this, item into the record as item number one. And, what we'll do is, would is there a motion to accept? There is a motion and a second. All those in favor? The ayes have it.
The item is, before us. And
Larry, Mussini would Mister chairman, I will do my best to paraphrase it given that it's the letter of miss Hawkins, but I do wanna at least touch upon most of the items that she remembers. Again, dated today and addressed to the committee members, she she states that she's writing to follow-up on the fiscal note that the administration received on 02/18/2026 related to the province rent stabilization act. While we appreciate having the opportunity to review the first version of this note, there are outstanding assumptions and impacts that must be further detailed to understand the true financial impact on the city's finances. We've outlined these follow-up questions below and hope that this will help your committee in its deliberations. She goes on to state that as required by the city charter, the fiscal note must include detailed estimates of the fiscal implications of the ordinance.
For this ordinance, these estimates should include one, projected impacts of the tax levy, including any shift in tax burden across tax clarification. And two, projected expenses to opt optionalize the components of the ordinance. And with respect, mister chairman, members of committee, the impacts to tax levy, I do have in my own testimony, I will go into detail. But allow me, if you will, the other concerns that she has expressed in her letter and I'll only take another minute of your time to express that. Addition to the impacts to the tax levy, she indicates that there are projected expenses to implement this ordinance.
And they include, first, the current fiscal note does not include any projected estimates for the volume of appeals that the council is expected if implemented. This number is critical to ensure compliance with the required timelines. Given that determining if a property is rent stabilized along with the complications in determining the allowable rent would be in different circumstances, the council should consider several scenarios for the volume of potential appeals. The administration would expect a high number of appeals, especially in the first years of implementation. She goes on further to cite sections thirteen seventy one, thirteen seventy two, thirteen seventy three, and thirteen seventy three, all of which are assigned by the by city departments that will have additional burden associated with this ordinance.
As an example, thirteen seventy one, housing standards compliance, who would be responsible for evaluating if a unit is following local and state housing codes for which enforcement is spread across multiple city and state agencies. They would be a burden to city staff. Section thirteen seventy two of the ordinance, major renovations and reconfigurations. Who is responsible for evaluating the technical opponents of this section? She was on to state that this requires someone with construction experience to both evaluate the nature of the renovations and to establish if the cost associated with the work is fairly representative.
The city staff are going to be expected to perform this function. If city staff is expected to perform this function, then allocations to those department budgets should be estimated. If a third party cost estimator should be involved, that consultant fee must be included. Under section thirteen seventy three, how have you evaluated the staffing required to review the impact of tax increases on rental properties? During the most recent revaluation, nearly 100% of properties saw a tax increase of more than 5% on their properties.
How would the board manage the approval process for thousands of potential rental increases in this scenario? And then again, on section thirteen seventy three, standard of review, fair return, who will be responsible for evaluating the completion of capital improvements, the condition of properties, and the code compliance. These components will require technical knowledge and skills. If city staff once again are going to be expected to perform this function, then allocations to those department budgets should be estimated. The fiscal note should also estimate the non personnel related costs with particular attention to the following.
Technical expenses such as IT, space considerations for for occupancy, and of course, the legal costs associated with that. In summary, she writes, mister chairman of the committee, it is incredibly important that an accurate fiscal note is developed as part of the consideration of this ordinance. Without clear operational analysis and vetting, this ordinance is almost guaranteed to set up an expectation for constituents that cannot be fulfilled. The use of the PERA budget as a proxy for an estimate of this board's budget is not sufficient as the requirement of the two functions and are very different. And then finally, she states, mister chairman, under section thirteen eighty five, section e articulates that, quote, funds shall be sufficient to ensure full implementation of the board's duties, which creates a funding mandate not established on behalf of any other city department.
She signs off sincerely Courtney Hawkins, chief operating officer. And with respect, mister chairman, I have provided the clerk with several copies of this letter for the record.
Thank you. The the letter has been received, and it's
