RECEIPTS.

Caveats & Methodology

1. 22 towns are "unknown," not "confirmed absent." The audit searched each town's ordinances, official site, and Municode/eCode360 entries. Where a primary source could not be read or located, the row is marked unknown rather than padded into the count.
2. Municode and several town PDFs bot-block automated reads. Cumberland and Bristol both have signature thresholds documented in PDFs that could not be machine-extracted. Bristol's 60% number comes from EastBayRI news coverage; Cumberland's threshold lives inside the binary policy PDF and is not quoted on this page.
3. The "wet/handwritten signatures" question is omitted from the table by default. No published policy reviewed here addresses signature format directly. We treat "written petition" as paper-based until shown otherwise — but the apex page does not claim "wet ink" without source language saying so.
4. Online filing count of 0 is the most defensible number. Even towns with online intake (North Kingstown email, Warwick generic municipal form) do not meet the bar of "documented traffic-calming intake to the actual decision-maker." Generic 311 / contact-us forms do not qualify.
5. Petition-policy count of 5 = Bristol, Cumberland, Johnston, North Providence, Westerly. Cumberland is included on the strength of policy existence (PDF), even though the threshold itself is not quoted here. Westerly's 1/3 is below the 50% bar but is a verified petition policy. If the bar is restricted to ≥50% adjacent or street thresholds, the count is 3 (Bristol, Johnston, North Providence).
6. Found a source we missed? The audit will be re-run. Email corrections to [email protected].