My name is Philip Burns.

I am the chair of the legislative and rules committee.

Also in this meeting this evening is Sean Boger, the vice chair of this committee.

And I want to apologize to members of the public that I called me today on the first item on the agenda, which is the tax exemption for veterans, or at least certain veterans, and that I was misinformed by one of them who I asked to read the agenda item, and they told me the word hearing did not pop up here in there.

And so there is a public hearing, so they are permitted.

So anyone from the public may speak on this matter.

Um to do so Barbara, they can call.

Can you tell us what number they can call, please?

The time for signing up in advance has closed.

So what we would do is we would go through the uh list of people who had signed up by two o'clock today, and then at the end of that period, we would ask anyone who wants to speak but was not already called to go ahead and raise their hand and we would take them in turn.

Right.

But the but the step.

I guess anybody hearing me, I guess anybody hearing me already is signed on, but if you have friends, relatives, acquaintances, neighbors, coworkers, et cetera, who want to be involved, uh they can uh if they don't have access to teams for any reason, they can call by telephone 929346 72 76.

I'm sorry, 7262.

I'm dyslexic this evening, but um and uh and the way to so then there's a way to mute and unmute, and there's a way to raise your hand and lower your hand.

And Barbara, what are those ways, please?

Star five is to raise your hand, star six is to mute and unmute.

If you do use the phone or tell someone to use the phone to call in, there is a phone conference ID number they will be asked.

That number is highlighted on the agenda on the screen.

If anyone has their camera on or is using a device and can see it, if you can't, I'll read it out for you nice and slowly.

The phone conference ID number is 22934 901, and then it will have you hit pound.

So if you need to share the information with someone, they can do that, or they can open the agenda on our website, board of reps.org, and they can use the little join meeting now link, and that would take you in on a computer or a smartphone or a tablet.

Would it take them in if they did not have teams loaded on their computer?

That one I'm not sure about.

So at the very least, they can call the number that's vaguely in the middle of the screen, uh, and then enter the phone conference identification, which is on the following line.

All right, so again, Phil Burns, this is legislative and rules committee of the Board of Representatives, the legislative body of the city of Stanford.

Today is Monday, October 27th, 2025, and I'm going to ask Barbara Montalvo, our staff person, to please call roll.

Thank you.

Let me get the roll call.

I already have updated a few folks as I saw them enter.

Let me go with committee members that are not accounted for yet.

Representative Pierre Louis, are you here?

Representative Sherwood.

President.

Thank you.

Representative Vanderboard.

I'm here.

Thank you.

I also see Representative Tomas.

And I see Representative Goldberg.

Mark you here.

If any other representatives are on the line and are not presently accounted for on the sheet, please feel free to unmute yourself and announce yourself, and I will put you on the list.

Barbara, I'm going to ask, please, that we do an oral road roll call for the for the record.

Okay.

Representative Burns.

I am present.

Representative Blank is excused.

Representative Boger.

Present.

Representative Cottrell.

Present.

Representative Fidely.

Here.

Representative Messini.

Present.

Representative Pierre Louis, have you joined us?

Okay, Representative Sherwood.

I think the last two are consciously.

Right, they're taken care of.

And then I also see Representative Campo Reale.

Are you here?

Yes.

And Representative Dela Cruz.

Present.

Okay.

I think that covers everyone.

And then I also see Gregory Stackpole and Dana Lee from the city administration.

Great.

Thank you.

So if you could take us back over to the agenda and one last time, very quickly, because I misinformed some people who were quite anxious to see certain things happen on item number one that there is a public hearing that any member of the public may join.

They can call the number in the middle of the screen.

Enter the phone conference number one line below that.

All right.

Having said so, uh item number one.

I'm gonna call that one up, LR31.108 ordinance for public hearing and final adoption regarding a tax exemption for veterans.

And we we're going to go first with a list of people who signed up to speak before 2 p.m.

today, and then anybody else who wants to join.

Uh we're gonna be able to take their calls.

There, we're gonna take be able to take their statements.

Uh each person is gonna have three minutes to speak.

Um, wait a minute.

Um, parliamentarian uh reminder there is a limit, is there nothing yes, three minutes?

Got it.

Thank you.

Yes, all right.

So members of the public will have three minutes to speak.

If one member of the public wants to cede their three minutes or part of their three minutes to somebody else, that is also permissible.

Um so I'm going to open the public hearing and Barbara, I'm gonna ask you to call out um the next person to speak and also the name of the person to speak after them, so that we always know who's gonna be speaking and who's the next person so they can get ready to speak.

So the first speaker and second and second speaker is Burns.

I'm sorry, this is Representative Sherwood.

I have my hand up very quickly.

Sorry, I did not see that.

I don't know where we have seen.

Yep.

Uh I just want to let you know that Representative Pierre Louis um contacted me and he said that he's in the waiting room and that he's waiting to be let in.

Uh I just emailed him the link that I used to get in, and I told him to use my link.

So uh just be aware that he is trying to log in, and if he has some issues, we'll have to figure that out.

But hopefully he can log in with the link that I use.

I sent him my email.

So I just want to make you and the committee aware of that.

Thank you.

Got it.

Thank you.

And I see I'm not, I see two hands up.

I see number one and number two.

Uh Representative Del Cruz, did you have something to say before we start the public hearing?

Uh no, I'm trying to lower my hand, but the technology won't let me.

Teams has my hand stopping the opposition, and I can't lower it.

I'll take care of it, Chair.

I got it.

Thank you, Representative Ogren.

I sometimes find that if I lose my left hand to push my right hand down, that will sometimes work.

That's just a joke.

All right, so items number one, we're gonna open the public hearing, and Barbara.

Um, the first speaker is and the second speaker is we have one individual who signed up in advance to speak, and that is Kieran Edmondson.

Mr.

Edmondson, are you here?

Okay, I don't see him.

He did send his commentary in advance in case he had technical issues and asked if he would have technical issues if we could read it into the record.

So I'm prepared to do that if you would allow me to.

That's fine.

And just before you do that, uh for members of the public.

Uh if you are here to speak on this matter, you can press star five to raise your hand.

If you change your mind, you can hit star five to lower your hand.

And when I do call on you, you can press star six to unmute yourself and speak, and thereafter start press star six to then remute yourself.

Uh so uh let's go ahead and hear from uh uh hear the statement from uh Mr.

Edmondson, uh, and then we'll take people's people from the public who did not sign up uh but do want to speak and have raised their hands by pressing star five or maybe using tiers, they can do it as well.

Thank you.

Please take it over.

Okay.

Uh the next speaker will be actually Mr.

Stephen Fisher.

I've moved you over, but please do not mute yourself until I've finished reading this statement.

Thank you.

To the legislative and rules committee.

Good evening to everyone.

I am Kieran Edmondson, a Waterside Community neighborhood resident of the city of Stanford, Connecticut.

And I am writing this very brief, serious and important letter to the members of this legislative committee of the 31st Board of Representatives about passing a citywide tax exemption for hundreds of our military veterans who reside in every part of the Stanford community so that they can get the kind of benefits that all of them must fully receive, as we must always take care of for those who have previously served in every federal service branch of the United States Armed Forces.

To the legislative and rules committee, as I had previously stated on the September 30th meeting, as one of the invited speakers on how to make sure those military veterans who are either 100% disabled, unemployed in some sort of a medical condition, or those who are willing to find a home and get other beneficial programs.

So that those veterans who served in all six branches and that they are currently living in Stanford or are about to move to Stanford sometime in the near future, must apply from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs by allowing them to own their housing properties so they can pay rent at a much lower cost.

And those who are trying to look for new jobs can do so without such prejudice and to continue to reapply for their tax exemptions after they expire so they can get care under the Department of Veterans Affairs.

To the legislative and rules committee, I urge you to pass this important ordinance so more of our veterans can get more coverage, access, benefits, resources, and life opportunities, and to be of concern for those individuals who gave back to serve the United States and millions of our federal fellow citizens.

Thank you.

From Kieran Matthew Edmondson, uh thank you, Barbara.

Um so I do see one hand up from the public, and that is Stephen Fisher again.

Um I was not having the agenda in front of me.

I asked somebody who called me on this matter, was there going to be a public hearing?

And I asked them, did they see the word public hearing?

They said they did not.

So I thereafter then misinformed several people telling them the public would not be able to speak.

The public can speak this evening.

They can sign up using Teams, or they can sign up uh calling the telephone number 929 346, 7262, and entering phone conference identification number 2295, 901, and then the pound sign or number sign.

So I see after uh Mr.

Fisher, uh Mr.

Patterson, Thomas Patterson also has this hand up.

Thank you, Mr.

Patterson.

I want to apologize directly to you for you being the first person I misinformed.

And if you could share the information that the public is invited to speak to the other people who you had called call me on this matter, I'd be most appreciative.

Um Mr.

Stephen Fisher, you have the floor.

Uh please plus star five.

No, sorry, star six to unmute yourself.

Any little breaking up broken up.

Let's try it.

Steve Fisher, I am the commander of the Stanford Veterans Council.

And I just wanted to make a statement that the Stanford Veterans Council and its member organizations are firmly behind this legislation to provide the additional tax relief to those veterans who suffered injuries and disabilities as a result of their service to our country.

We would, however, request that some slight changes be made to the wording, and I have submitted that in an email to uh the uh the commission.

And uh what I'll read is basically what we would like to have in there from the word to have a service connected classification of either 100% disability, permanent total disability, or total disability based upon individual unemployability, and that would be entitled to uh exemption.

The reason I added these wording in here is the veterans administration in its infinite wisdom uses multiple terms when assigning the greatest level of disability to veterans.

When the Connecticut state legislator created the state's exemption, they were unaware of the different terms used by the VA and thus did not explicitly enumerate each designation.

They then left it up to the individual municipalities to correct the definition of total disability.

Thank you very much.

And if you know of anybody else who had hoped to speak this evening and was left with the impression that they could not, please invite them at this time.

And now the next hand up I see is of Thomas Patterson.

Mr.

Patterson, please press star six to unmute yourself.

And welcome.

So it appears you're still muted.

If you're on the phone, press star six.

If you're on the computer, I think you just press the little microphone, and that will unmute you.

Still muted.

Again, if you're on the phone, it's star six.

And if you're on the computer, use the mouse to press on the microphone symbol that has a cross through it, which should take the cross off, and we'll unmute you.

And you might also try just picking up your phone and calling.

If it's a landline, you dial the one.

If not 929 346, 76 correction, correction.

7262.

And while you're waiting for the phone to do whatever it's going to do there, um, you might want to jot down on a piece of paper, the phone conference ID identification number, which is 229534 9018.

Uh we will come back to you in just a moment.

Oh, I'm here.

Somebody else had their hand up and then it went back down.

Uh Barbara, do you see any other hands up?

Not at this moment.

So while Mr.

Patterson is hopefully uh finding a way to unmute himself.

I want to inform the committee that um what I was told was that um the state passed legislation permitting us to create this exemption, and but at the state level, they forgot to include one of the deserving groups, but then there was a subsequent amendment at the state level, which permits us to do it, but apparently our proposed ordinance was based on the initial um authority granted and did not include this.

I believe third or other group that had been left out the first time, and that what um Mr.

Fisher was referring to was adding that group.

Um so I do now see a hand up, it is still Mr.

Patterson.

It's still showing him as muted.

Mr.

Parliamentarian, I do want to give Mr.

Patterson ever oh, wait a minute.

It appears you are unmuted.

Mr.

Patterson Representative Burns.

Yes.

Do you hear me?

This is actually Thomas Bouchard.

It's not Mr.

Patterson.

My apologies.

I can only see the like the like the first name, and I'm not being able to see the last name.

My apologies.

Mr.

Bouchard, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak uh to the legislative and rules committee.

Uh I did have the opportunity to review the proposed uh legislation, and I did have a couple of questions and would I like to uh weigh in on my perspective.

Um I did note uh under the second section uh to be effective October 1, 2026 for the inclusion of veterans that are not 100% um permanent and totally disabled.

Uh there would be a uh income uh qualification uh stipulation in order to uh garner that um amount of uh exemption from property taxes, and it makes reference to uh section 12-81 L or Lima, uh, and I believe that's a state uh regulation.

Uh and I would note in that it is the uh the income requirement is is quite low.

Um in reading it through it, it appears to be 14,000 of qualifying income for individual uh if unmarried in 16,000 uh jointly with spouse.

Um and appreciate it if this is incorrect, uh, but if it is correct, it does seem quite low uh and and certainly wouldn't be um something that would be I think considered for uh uh veterans here in lower Failfield County.

Um would be you know, obviously there wouldn't be many veterans that would qualify for that, and it does seem quite a bit of an arbitrary and low number.

Uh so I would like um the municipality or the or there's certainly the uh the board of representatives to consider a number uh that would be higher than that, uh although I leave you up up to to them to determine what that number might be.

Uh that would conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Bouchard.

And uh while we hear from so far only one other member of the public who's hand us up, I'm going to uh uh uh request of corporation and counsel, who is uh of the law department who's on the call with us to uh tell us if that is within our power uh to raise those monetary limits.

Um so the next and only other hand that I see is of David Adams.

Uh Mr.

Adams, you have the floor, sir.

Uh thank you, Chair Burns and the legislative rules committee.

Uh my name's David Adams uh and I would like to uh speak uh in full support of this ordinance uh to uh give some relief to some of our veterans.

Uh I've uh spent a lot of time uh walking streets uh for a variety of reasons all over the urbanized area uh around New York City.

And when I see people uh who are on the street, living on the street because their country did not take care of them when they came back from war.

Uh it breaks my heart.

And anything that we can do to relieve some of the burden on these individuals who are traumatized from being in an in a combat zone uh is what we should be doing, and especially uh if it's you know, if we're we're given the ability to do so, uh I think we should.

All right, anyway.

That is uh my comments.

Uh please do pass this, and I hope you all have a great night.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Adams.

I do not see any other hands up for the public.

Um Mr.

Parliamentarian.

Um due to some misinformation that was floated in the community.

Is there a way to suspend the public hearing?

Uh enter into discussion and then reopen the public hearing uh to see if there's anyone who has joined us in what however long it takes us to discuss this matter, 10, 20, 30 minutes, etc.

I mean, I suppose you can if there's no objection from the committee, it's just rather an orthodox.

Okay.

I don't know of anything prohibiting it though.

Okay.

Uh I hope there are no objections from the committee to doing that, given that some misinformation was sent out inadvertently from an official source, that being me.

Um hearing no objections, uh, let's go ahead and temporarily close the public hearing and enter to enter into discussion.

Um I don't see any hands up at this time.

Uh representative Bowery have the floor, sir.

Thanks.

Um, my only concern about this, and again, this is the administration's ordinance that's not coming from from us.

Um Mr.

Fisher that spoke previously did send out the email uh that was sent to the entire I believe it was sent to the entire board.

Um I maybe not.

I think it actually I'm looking at it now.

It just came to Chair Burns and myself um at uh 427 p.m.

And he was requesting to have an amendment.

Um, and I'm not proposing that we do this right now.

Um I'm I'm bringing it to corporation counsel's attention, perhaps we have to forward it to them.

And again, Chair Burns, I know I know attorney Lee is on with us, but I don't think he's on with us for this item.

So I'm not sure which attorney worked on it, so I don't want to flawfully just dump this on him.

So I'm not asking him.

But that an email was sent to us, and the language in the ordinance right now supposedly says, quote, to have uh a service connected total disability based on individual unemployability.

Um it's speaking to persons, shall be entitled to an exemption from property tax.

And Mr.

Fisher, who again is the commander of the Stanford Veterans Council is asking that it be amended to the qualified would be to have a service connected classification of either 100% disability, permanent total disability, or total disability based on the individual unemployability shall be entitled to an exemption from property tax, uh, so on and so forth.

Um I don't know what the legal implications of that amendment would be, but it does seem, in my opinion, to be worthwhile.

He mentions in the email that um the veterans administration does use multiple terms when assigning um different levels of disability to veterans, and the administration may be thinking that they're inclusive of all types of um uh disability uh disabled veterans um based on a hundred percent capacity, but if that wording is not exact to the letter, it may cause issues.

So I think this this email, we should probably forward it to um Ms.

Fox and um and and probably corporation counsel at the minimum.

So again, I'm just bringing this to your attention and the rest of the committee because I didn't realize I also again I didn't realize this was not sent to the entire committee as a whole.

I will I will I will do that right now, send that, I'll forward that email to the rest of the committee.

But um I think he's making a very important distinction there.

Uh I yield.

Thank you, uh Vice Chair Ogre.

Um I see the following hands up.

I saw Representative Sherwood, but her hand went down.

Then I saw I thought I saw Representative Camp Rilly.

There we go.

The only hand up I see at this time is Representative Camparelli.

I heard somebody speaking.

Did someone need to say something?

Uh yes, this is uh my hand up.

I'm sorry, this is tax assessor Greg Stackpole.

I I just wanted to make a comment regarding the the history of this bill.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Who is this?

This is Greg Stackbull, the city assessor.

Oh, okay, great.

Yes.

And then um after you, we will take Representative De La Cruz, followed by Representative Camparelli.

Yes, Mr.

Stockholm, please proceed.

Thank you.

Um, I think I can make some clarifications here.

Uh first of all, uh, let me give you a little backdrop in history as to what happened uh as of you know since last year on the October 1, 2024 grand list.

Uh the state mandated a new exempt uh program for veterans.

Initially, the language was written, which was very vague, which probably um you know brought forth Mr.

Fischer's uh comments about having it more um defined within this uh local ordinance.

However, uh what originally occurred was that everyone uh was under the assumption uh that the intent of the legislatures was to uh provide um anyone with a disability rating an exemption.

Uh it it because they had a unclear way of of defining what 100% disability is, it didn't really mean that you had to have 100% disability.

You could be 30% disability, but you're still permanently and totally disabled.

Uh as long as you had the PNT rating, um you would be considered um 100% permanently and totally disabled.

So assessors throughout the state were imposing these exemptions to those people who uh fell under those guidelines.

And then in the last hour after finalizing grant lists throughout the state, uh legislatures changed it, notifying that understanding that uh their intent was for 100% totally disabled, permanently totally disabled veterans to receive a exemption, full exemption on their dwelling.

And this was mandated.

So we had to make some corrections to some recipients and saying you were no you were not unable to receive this benefit for this year.

Uh but those that did have the 100% PNT rating did.

Uh they then passed this most reading recent ordinance, you know, um, through legislation, and uh allowing municipalities to then provide um an exemption for those that are not uh 100% but do have the PNT rating.

Um and so that's that's what we have here today.

So um right now it would be a percentage, but there's still 100% PNT rating, if that makes any sense.

Um I don't uh I think uh uh was it John Harness had wrote the the uh legislation here uh for these two, so I don't think he's here present, but he can certainly um if you want to raise any questions to him about it, uh you could forward it to him.

Um but that's all I have to say in regards to that.

The other one is uh for veterans who wouldn't have been able to receive any kind of benefit at all.

And uh if you were a veteran, okay, if you served your country during peacetime, you would not be eligible under any current state exemption for veterans exemption benefit.

This local option allows those veterans who served during peacetime, for example, to receive a benefit, and we capped it at 5,000 in assessed value.

Uh if there's any other questions regarding it, I can certainly try to answer those.

But uh both we did a cost analysis for both programs, and they were nominal in terms of uh uh cost to the city to provide this tax relief to additional veterans.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you, sir.

Um representative de la Cruz, followed by Representative Reli, whose hand I do not see, but if she wants to speak, she can after Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair Barrens.

Uh, I just wanted to comment that the clarification that the speaker, Mr.

Fisher uh suggested, appear to me to be minor uh changes and may not require another public hearing to incorporate these recommendations, and I suggest that perhaps corporation council be consulted, or maybe our parliamentarian can make that judgment on uh the fact that these are minor adjustments.

Uh thank you.

I yield.

Uh thank you, Representative De La Cruz, and I hope that there is someone from Corporation Council who maybe can begin to answer the question if if nothing else.

Uh representative Campbell, followed by Representative Coachell, representative Camp Rilly who have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I I guess I'm just trying to understand, and I don't mean this statement to sound disrespectful to anyone.

Um, but why aren't we just giving the full benefit to any veteran that has a disability?

I I don't understand why I almost feel like, and again, this is the term that might seem disrespectful, but I don't mean it to be.

I feel like we're nickel and diming them.

Um so I'm just wondering why we're not just giving the full benefit to all disabled veterans.

That's one.

And then number two is an unseen disability a qualification, because I know that even gets really dicey with the disability, you know, with regular disability.

Um, you know, if somebody has a mental health PTSD, things like that, is that covered, or are we going to put them through a lot of torture to get that benefit?

Uh those are my two questions to um Mr.

Stackpole or anyone that could answer them.

Well, to answer your first question, I mean, we're we're only able to provide what uh exemption um that the state allows us to.

And um, you know, even the they're very strict as to what kind of veteran receives a benefit.

You have to be a service for at least you know the 90 days.

You had to be in a time of war, you know.

Um, they're very strict guidelines that we have to adhere to.

Uh it was recently once they imposed this um last year, this new benefit, exempted on a on a broader scale, a more of an impact scale to the veteran, uh exemping their dwelling uh by 100%, right?

Not the land itself, but the dwelling.

Um that opened the door to you know, seeing what kind of other um benefits we could provide.

And so when they did make the correction um from last year, uh from to make it 100% uh permanently and totally disabled veterans only, they did allow municipalities under strict uh guidelines is to impose a uh another uh exemption for those that are uh under the 100% permanently and totally disabled, and that's what we have imposed.

So um, and these ratings, I guess do change uh with the veterans' affairs uh over time.

So they have to reapply and based on whatever percentages.

Um, but um that's that's all I have on in regards to that.

Thank you, Representative Um Stagpole, Representative Camp Reli, did you have a follow-up on that or question?

No, it I mean it sounds like you went as far as you could.

Um you probably can't answer the question about unseen disabilities, I'm thinking.

Um, so I think that answers my question.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think if you yes, if you if you can draft up that that question, I I could certainly uh do some research and try to you know answer that for you at a future time.

Thank you so much, sir.

Oh, thank you, Representative Camperell.

Thank you, Representative Campbell.

I see one hand up.

It is Representative Catrell.

Representative Cotrell, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Chair Burns.

Um I think that something is better than nothing, and giving veterans some relief as much as we can, even though it's not we're not talking about a huge amount of money here.

Um it's still better than nothing.

And if the next board and the next state legislature wants to take it further, then allow them to do that later.

But given time constraints, and given the fact that if we change the verbiage much, it means that we're gonna have to have another public hearing, and we don't really have that option.

I suggest that we pass it as is tonight.

And if tweaks need to be made later, I would allow, I I would say that we should put that into the hands of the next board.

And if more lobbying needs to be done at the state level to then allow the us as a municipality to give our veterans even more, and you know, perhaps they should be getting more, then that would be when the next board would take this up again.

But I I don't want to tweak this so much that we're endangering our ability to pass this tax exemption.

So I say we pass it as is tonight without any changes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Control.

Um, you know, quick observation.

We we have corporations council here, and I imagine we could ask them individual members if we change this, would that be a big enough change to trigger, etc.?

Um so I don't see any other hands up at this time.

Um I I have a question to whoever can answer it, and I'm thinking perhaps Representative Bulgar, Vice President Broker, you might be in the best position.

This is the last meeting of the LNR committee.

This well, no, I'm sorry.

Monday next week is the last meeting of the LNR committee.

This is not on the agenda at this time at least, for Monday next week.

So this is it for this for this session of the Board of Representatives.

Uh and it'll just have to be taken up with the new board of representatives coming in in December.

Is that correct?

Timing-wise.

If we don't pass it, yes.

Right.

Okay.

Representative Campbelly.

And then I believe there's a I'm not sure if Seth Le Pen is with the administration or if he's a member of the public.

But I'm going to take obviously the representatives because we we are going to go back to the public hearing when the discussion of one of the representatives is finished.

And if there's any members of the public who wish to speak, we will ask you to raise your hands at that time and unmute yourselves each in their turn to speak.

And if you know other members of the public who are not logged on who might wish to speak, please spread the word now.

Representative Cambrill, you had your hand up a moment ago, it looks like you've sorry.

I just have one more quick question for Mr.

Sackpole.

Some that's got uh they didn't receive benefits and they won't receive benefits.

Can we do anything retroactively?

Can we put some kind of retroactive trigger in this so that they would receive their benefits and not lose them for the year?

Or did I not understand that correctly?

Um so the ones are like we're not able to receive a benefit for the 24 grand list year.

No, we cannot.

Um it was the when they passed uh the local ordinance for other municipalities, it was effective.

The earliest was for the October 25 grand list.

So we wouldn't do any be able to go retroactive to a prior year.

Um I also want to make a clarification on the income requirements.

Um it was noted uh by another representative that um that was referring, I think, to whatever state statute section L.

And I'm not sure what the language and the ordinance had been drafted up to, but uh it was our intent that we're the we would implement the local option uh for 100,000 for single and 120,000 for married couples.

Uh they would be applicable to to receive the benefit.

Um this was based on the current um additional veterans program that the city adopted years ago, uh, which we uh process and administer every year um under the uh the regular local option.

Um, those people receiving that wouldn't be able to receive this.

So those are the uh two clarifications that I just had to say.

Thank you.

I yield chair.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Sagwell, Representative Camparelli.

Um I see no other hands, so I guess we'll go back to the public.

Shouldn't we um shouldn't we have a motion here?

I don't think we have a motion to uh to adopt this or some amendment of it.

So moved.

Thank you.

Oh point of order.

Okay, point of order is that to Representative Fidelia here.

Yes, I think before we take the motion, and I'll leave this up to co-chair or um vice chair boger, but don't we have to close the public hearing first?

Yes.

Okay, good.

We will do that.

Um representative you you have your hand up.

Did you also want to speak on this?

No, sir.

I'm good.

Very good.

Chair, did you want to did you want to let Mr.

Lapine speak?

I know he's from one of the veterans' groups, I believe.

I I was if there were no other representatives for the discussion portion at this time, I was gonna go back to reopen the public hearing.

And he was gonna be the very first person I was going to call on.

If there are no other representatives going once, going twice.

Uh uh, Mr.

Lapine, you do have the floor.

Um, and if you're on the phone, the way to unmute yourself is star six.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

If it pleases the committee, my name is Seth Lepine.

I was born and raised in Stanford, Connecticut.

I currently, just for full disclosure, serve as a member of the Patriotic and Special Events Committee, and last week was also sworn in as a trustee to the board of the Connecticut Department of Veterans Affairs.

I'm a 20-year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, and I am also by definition a disabled veteran, according to the Veterans Administration.

Um, my intent this evening was not to speak, actually, uh, but just to help clarify some of what is being said.

Um, because as Major General Bouchard would tell you, uh, the VA is confusing in the way it rates us veterans as it is.

And so it's not so surprising that there's a lack of understanding here because even going through that system, it's very confusing.

Um, to the uh representative who was asking about uh quote unquote invisible injuries um like PTSD.

PTSD traumatic brain injuries all fall under the rating system for the veterans administration.

I myself have a partial rating for PTSD.

Um I am currently only rated as 80% disabled by the Veterans Administration.

So I do not I am not by their definition considered to be a hundred percent permanent disabled.

Um I have what's called a partial rating.

Um also so you know the veterans administration does not distinguish between combat disabilities and non-combat disabilities.

You are rated um based on injuries received while serving on active duty, either as a reservist on active duty, uh uh meaning you're working in a drill capacity or deployed somewhere, or a full-time active duty um soldier sailor, marine airman, etc.

etc.

Um, as an example again, without giving you all my personal medical information, uh, I was in a car accident while on active duty.

One of the injuries I sustained also contributes to my partial rating as disabled um with the VA.

So there's really no such thing as the VA rating you for an injury sustained in a combat or deployed theater as opposed to anywhere else while serving in the military.

That is all different from being combat wounded, which is somebody who receives a purple heart for having been wounded in a combat action.

Those are disabilities um designated by the military, the Department of Defense itself, and not the Veterans Administration, even though those injuries would also then be rated by the VA eventually as part of your VA disability rating.

And if that hasn't confused you, I I don't know what will.

I apologize, but I just wanted you all to understand where some of that comes from.

I as a veteran and a citizen of this town, I'm very appreciative by the sentiment that all veterans should benefit have opportunity to have this benefit.

It's very gracious.

To be clear, I don't understand personally what the intent of the state was here.

If it was to provide disabled veterans with real economic hardship, a way of getting financial relief, or to reward all of us veterans from having served in the military.

But to be clear, unless you go to the VA, and every veteran has the opportunity to go to the VA and get a disability rating.

And by the way, that includes a zero percent rating, as long as you go through the VA rating process, um, then you would not stand to benefit from this in any way, shape, or form, uh, even though it's available to veterans who have served to go through that process.

So I am confused by the legislation, what the intent is, what the overall impact is.

I think it's a very generous discussion, and I don't want to sound unappreciative of it.

I also am not speaking for all the veterans who benefit from this.

I am simply trying to raise some awareness and my own observations.

And to um Tom Bouchard's comments earlier, I do have concerns about the language about the economic qualification.

Um, the income qualification from what we've read is confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense in general, because as General Bouchard pointed out, you'd be hard pressed to find many veterans in this town who live that far below the poverty line.

That's all I have to say.

I appreciate uh the opportunity to speak.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Reply Officer McClane.

Um other members of the public wishing to speak.

Um if you're on Teams online, you can uh raise your hand.

If you're on the phone, please place star five to raise your hand.

At this time, I'm not seeing any other members of the public.

So if there are no exceptions, I'm gonna.

So if there are no exceptions, I'm gonna if there's no exceptions, let's give it a shot.

I'm gonna temporarily close the public hearing with the expectation it's unlikely that anybody else is going to want to speak.

And if they do it to be like one person, and we can sneak them in real quick.

Uh hearing no objections, um, again, so we're only closing the public hearing.

Representative Sherwood, you're the only one with the hand up.

You have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair Burns.

Um before I speak, I want to remind you, Chair Burns, that you as the chair have the ability to allow any member of uh of the public or anybody in attending the right to speak.

Um so I'm hoping that you will grant uh I'm hoping that you will use that power at this time as I would like to ask Mr.

Le Pine a few questions that will be quick, but I'm just hoping you will allow it.

I was unaware of that power, and you may proceed.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Lepine.

Mr.

Lepine, thank you for being here this evening um and having so much knowledge about uh this issue and uh taking the time out uh of your evening to be here.

Can you remind me what your title is um uh I'm not sure what you're referring to.

My military rank, I retired as a major.

No.

Uh I I am a trustee with the Connecticut Board of Department of Veterans Affairs.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

You had mentioned that previously, but I I missed it, and I apologize for that, and thank you for repeating it.

Um and thank you for your service.

Uh my question to you is, and I am I'm no expert on this topic, but it seems to me after listening to what you um what you stated on the record as part of the public hearing, that the way that this ordinance is written, um it's it's going to have a limited amount of veterans that it would be able to um to help as written.

Is that correct?

Well, ma'am, to be honest, I'm not sure.

Uh I am not a legislative expert.

I really don't understand the origins of the state.

Um, I don't even know what to call it, law or whatever was passed with regard to this.

Um, I know from the folks I speak with, there is in general across the state a great deal of confusion about the state's intent and how this is being applied in different communities.

Um I was only raising part of my confusion, which is about the income limitations or what appears to be limitations on who is going to receive this benefit.

Now, it's also my understanding that it's up to the municipalities.

They have a lot of leeway in interpreting this state law.

So I don't know that Stanford will choose to use those limitations or not.

I'm not an expert though in that.

I I was just highlighting my own confusion.

Well, if I if I may undersee, this is Greg Stackbull, the assessor.

Um the uh the city does have a leeway in regards to um the income requirements.

We don't have to use the state uh requirements and a local option, you can use your own.

And we've always done that with our additional veterans program uh that we currently and have been uh processing for for decades, and that's a hundred thousand dollars if you're single, and it's a hundred and twenty thousand dollars if you're married.

So we we kind of coupled it in with that.

This is a two-pronged approach.

We were trying to one address the situation about the PNT rating that got confused last year with the initial legislatures passing a bill, thinking that was gonna be a you know, including all PNT rated individu uh veterans, and having to do a drawback and say no, it's it's only gonna be 100%, and then throwing out to the municipalities a local option where they can enact their own local option to include them, which we have done.

And in addition to that, we are also doing uh a five thousand dollar exemption for any veteran who normally would not ever been able to receive an exemption benefit.

So it widens the pool.

It's shallow in terms of only 5,000 exemption, but it broadens it to more veterans within the community.

But it broadens it to more veterans within the community.

I hope that clarifies a little bit.

And I and I think he should, you know, maybe specify those income requirements at a later date, if need be.

But I think John Harness needs to address that.

Um okay.

Thank you.

Uh, and thank you, Mr.

Lepine and uh Mr.

Stackpole for the information.

Um, I think maybe there is a potential that this ordinance would need to get changed in the future to maybe uh address some of the concerns that we've heard this evening, but I do think that we should pass it as is.

Uh that really is our only option here, unless we decide not to pass it, which I don't think that that would help anybody.

So I'm in favor of the ordinance passing it this evening, and I encourage those members of uh of the public who spoke this evening at the public hearing to quickly contact um the mayor's office uh so that in near future, if necessary, there could be changes to the language that would address uh those concern concerns by uh a future board, hopefully sooner than later.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Representative Sherwood, was that a motion?

Was that a motion to I think there's already a motion to approve on the floor, I think, but they're not if not, I'll make the motion now.

So you still have not having any closed you have not closed the public hearing.

Yes, okay.

So for procedural reasons, we cannot yet uh close public hearing.

Uh I see the following hands up, representative de la Cruz.

Um, followed by uh someone who appears to be uh in the public, but of course, I have to since the public hearing is temporarily closed, we're gonna reopen it momentarily.

Uh, I'm only gonna take the representatives at this time, uh, but then I will be calling on telephone number ending 9-5.

Representative de la Cruz, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair Barnes.

I just wanted to concur with Representative Sherwood's comments.

I encourage the committee to uh approve as it exists now, and then hopefully it can be taken up on the next board.

Some of the comments we have received this evening.

Thank you, and I yield.

Uh thank you, Representative De La Cruz.

Looking for other hands from the committee.

I see none, so we're I'm going to reopen the public hearing.

Um, no, uh, telephone number nine ending nine five seems to have lowered their hand.

Um, if there are no one from the committee, like if there are members from the public who wish to speak and you are on Teams or online, please uh raise your hand.

Um and if you're on the phone, please press star five to raise your hand.

And if I see none, then um I'm going to close the public hearing once and for all.

Members of the public only once, members of the public going twice.

I am now closing the public hearing at 8 p.m.

sharp.

Oops, nope.

Sorry, I'm going to reopen it.

My apologies.

Telephone number ending 9 5.

You have the floor.

Uh I'm sorry, Chair uh Burns.

Um my hand is stock up.

I'm trying to monitor it on my phone, but telephone number number 995 is you, if I understand correctly.

Okay, very good.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Representative Crusoe.

I am closing the public hearing on the veterans tax uh exemption uh proposal.

Uh Representative Fidel, you have the floor.

I'd like to make a motion to move item L3108.

Second.

All right.

Discussion.

Thank you.

Discussion.

Uh Representative Fidel, you do have your hand up.

Did you want to proceed and say something?

You're muted.

You are muted.

You're muted.

Um I I got it.

Um, I'm fine.

Um got it.

Anyone else?

I think we could try going to a voice vote.

Uh, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And if there are any votes against, please say nay.

Are there any abstentions?

Hearing none, this passes unanimously.

And uh, we look forward to the administration uh assisting us in crafting this in such a way that we really are doing everything we can to help all the serving veterans.

Item two on the agenda.

Um can we have the agenda up on the screen?

Thank you.

I see we have it.

Item two on the agenda, LR 31.106 ordinance for public hearing and final adoption, amending chapter 227 of the Stanford Code of Ordinances to establish a comprehensive tree preservation and urban forestry program.

Uh so the first thing we're going to do is the public hearing, which means members of the public who signed up are going to be called on first.

We're gonna be calling two people at a time so that the second person knows they're gonna be up right after the first.

Uh, and then we're gonna take people who did not sign up uh as they raise their hands.

Um so Barbara, do we have anyone who signed up to speak to the public hearing before we open it up to everybody?

Yes, we do.

And the first two people, the first one will be Fern Galperin, and the second will be Chris Donnelly.

Very good.

So uh Ms.

Fern, you have the floor, and Mr.

Chris, you are you are next after her.

Ms.

Fern, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, members of the legislative and rules committee.

Uh first, I'd like to say in honor of the tree ordinance.

I hope everyone has been out enjoying the beautiful fall colors around us.

Um I strongly endorse the proposed ordinance, LR 3106, amending chapter 227 of the Stanford Code of Ordinances to establish a comprehensive tree preservation and urban forestry program.

This ordinance is fair in setting clear standards for planning review and permits.

Uh and the enactment of this ordinance will improve storm water management, air qual and air quality, both of which are sorely needed in Stanford.

Um looking at this past summer's heat index, which was among the hottest on record, and the air quality index, which in my zip code was consistently 73% worse than anywhere else in the state.

Uh it seems evident that we must make every effort to preserve trees, especially legacy trees.

So please support this ordinance before your reckless neighbor removes every tree on his property, raising the temperature, lowering the air quality, and reducing your property value in the process.

I thank you for your time.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Galperan.

Um, so we're going to be hearing from Chris and Barbara after Chris, uh, who is the next person in line.

After Chris, the next speaker will be Diana Collage.

I apologize if I have mispronounced anyone's name.

And then after that would be Ann Cheng.

Very good.

So uh we have Chris, followed by Ms.

Collage and Ms.

Cheng.

Mr.

Chris.

Hi, good evening.

Um, Mr.

Chairman and members of the legislative and rules committee.

Um, yeah, my name's Chris Donnelly.

I uh I did speak uh during the public hearing session of the last uh uh public meeting regarding uh this proposed ordinance.

Um I'm kind of repeating myself a little bit.

Um I am a retired uh urban forester for the state of Connecticut.

I was the urban forestry coordinator for the state of Connecticut for some 20 years or so.

I first learned about this bill um when um maybe six weeks or so I saw a version of the bill, and although I was very much um appreciative of what the bill in that form uh seeked to do, I saw there was some you know possible overlaps uh relating to the role of the tree warden and and the urban forester.

Uh and so I spoke up about it and eventually got uh uh in touch, or actually representative Sherwell got in touch with me, and we had some conversations.

Um, you know, as I mentioned, I attended the previous uh public hearing and stayed to hear the discussion about the ordinance among the uh uh committee members uh following the public hearing.

And it was a it was a very interesting discussion.

I thought very well informed.

Um, I I I was drawn in as an urban forester.

Um, and as a result, I submitted some written testimony, uh, which grew to be about 10 pages, sort of surprised me that it was that long.

Um but um the reason I did that um and submitted that extensive uh written testimony is I think in large part to um express the viewpoint of an urban forestry professional.

Um this is how we work.

This is the sort of approach that urban foresters um would take to um handling uh problems that relate to how to manage a city, you know, and the role of trees within the management of a city.

Um the interest one of the things I think that's very interesting about this ordinance is that it um it draws a uh a distinction between the role of the tree warden in the town who would be the individual who would be responsible for the public trees, largely on an individual tree basis.

Um his or her role would relate to the you know, the care and maintenance of trees, uh the protection of public safety as relates to trees.

Um the urban forester uh interest would much more be focused on policy and um the integration of the urban forest in with the policies of the city of Stanford.

Um it's a huge step forward uh for urban forestry.

Um it shows real leadership on the part of the city of Stanford uh to propose this ordinance, I think.

Um, and I think it would serve the the people of the city of Stanford very, very well.

Um I I don't know if anybody really um wants to get into the details of what I submitted.

Uh I talked about uh largely about benefits of trees that extend out a distance because a big part of the discussion was uh, well, people that have large trees on their property, um, how does that relate to people in other parts of the town that, for instance, don't have have canopy cover and especially as relates to to flood waters.

One of the things I tried to do is uh um introduce specific quantitative measures as best I could because of course this is a field that's advancing very rapidly.

There is a lot going on in urban forestry, including uh in terms of quantifying the benefits and effects of trees uh and providing more and more tools uh such as those from remote sensing and otherwise that can be brought to bear in helping the city work through the myriad problems of management of uh you know such a such a large and complicated geographic space.

So with that I'll stop.

But uh I hope that the what the um materials that I submitted help uh in the passage of this ordinance because I think it is a very, very high quality uh piece of legislation.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Not only.

We have uh Ms.

Representative Um Vice Chair Boger.

Do you need assistance with the uh with the timer?

Um if you would want to offer your assistance.

I think it would be good for the efficiency of the meeting since we have another public hearing after this item as well.

Thank you.

Okay, um I'm happy to accept your assistance.

I think I corrected we don't have a pop, but we have another uh ordinance item after this, yeah.

So I'll I'll I'll keep the timer for you if you wish.

Okay, thank you.

If we could give people like a 15-second warning of some sort, that'd be wonderful.

Um, so we have Ms.

Collage followed by Ms.

Chang.

Ms.

Plaz, you have the floor.

Hello everyone, thank you.

Um so I live on the east side, and I I believe I send an image, I don't know if it was received of the only what would qualify as a legacy tree in my neighborhood.

Um it sticks out like a small volcano because there's no other trees around.

Um and I bring up this example because the shade provided by the canopy of that tree, which is well over 24 inches DBH, um, is enough to shade about nine cars.

And because it is the only tree of that size in my neighborhood, all nine of us are always scrambling to fit under um fit in that shade, like in the heat of the summer when there is nowhere else to park, and my car is well over a hundred degrees.

Um, and I bring up that example also to point out that for those that feel that a tree on your property is not impacting someone else, um it's it's a little bit short-sighted.

That might be the case in North Stanford where you have many trees in your backyard, and so does your neighbor.

But for the rest of the city, especially when we're talking about urban forestry, a keyword urban, you're very much relying on trees that are in your neighbor's property.

I mean, we're using each other's trees all the time.

We share um every tree that is around us, and this is I think a great example of that because nine of us at least are relying on that tree just for shade just to park under.

But we're all collectively relying on this tree, whether you live in North Stanford or not, you know, for air quality benefits and storm water and air pollution filtering.

Um I think that the monetary um sort of concern with paying 40 dollars per inch.

I mean, to me, I cannot fathom how we can even quantify the value of something that none of us in this meeting right now will ever live to see again.

If I I'm 22, if I plant a sapling today, I will not live to see that tree be a legacy tree.

My kid might not live to see that tree become a legacy tree.

I mean, that is beyond quantifying.

Um, and as Chris mentioned, who spoke before me, you know, there's so much scientific um evidence and effort put into quantifying the monetary values of trees because that seems to translate more for legislation and just people overall.

And okay, thank you.

Um, and uh sorry.

One of these statistics place the air filtering quality of trees to be over 390,000 um 100,000 a year.

Um trees are valuable infrastructure, and this will help protect them and provide that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Collage.

Um, we have Ms.

Cheng and uh Barbara after Ms.

Chang, who do we have?

After Ms.

Cheng, we have David Michelle and then Michael Moore.

And that would conclude the folks who signed up in advance.

I do not see Ms.

Cheng here.

She has also emailed a statement in case her connection dropped.

I'm prepared to read it if you'd let me.

Let's um go through the list and if she's able to sign back on, we will hear from her in person.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Mr.

Michelle, followed by Mr.

Moore.

Mr.

Michelle, you have the floor, sir.

I do not see him either.

I know he also submitted something in writing in case I believe there's a time zone issue right now.

Um I just sent him a reminder email to advise him he was up in two people.

Okay.

I don't see him right now, but I do see uh Mr.

Moore, so I'm gonna move him over to present now.

And while we're waiting to see if Ms.

Cheng or Mr.

Michelle come on.

Thank you.

Um and then we'll take members from the public uh who have not signed up.

Um wish to speak as well.

Uh Mr.

Moore, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Moore, president of Stanford Downtown.

I wish to speak regarding item LR 31106 regarding the creation of a proposed tree ordinance.

I wish to thank board president Sherwood, Ms.

Compton of the Mill River Collaborative, and Miss McKenna of the City of Stanford for speaking with me regarding the details of this ordinance.

The subject is of particular interest to me as Stanford Downtown has begun to incorporate more urban forestry into its scope of work.

As our organization recognizes the need to foster a healthy tree canopy in order to counter the harmful impacts of the urban island heat effect and the role a healthy tree canopy has in fostering welcome pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

My organization welcomes the effort to create a citywide urban forestry program and the hiring of an urban forester.

However, before voicing a full-throated endorsement of this proposal, I wish to register my concern about the authority of the tree commission that is included with this proposal.

Based on my understanding of the language included in section 227-7E4, the tree commission may deny the referral of an application for tree removal if the tree commission determines the proposed removal will materially and unreasonably compromise the health sustainability or continuity of the urban tree canopy.

Such authority will allow the tree commission the opportunity to stand in the way of a mixed-use project that does not adhere to the standard.

However, this standard is not clearly stated and may have an undue impact on future development in downtown, thus impacting economic momentum in our downtown, which is recognized as a priority location for high density growth in the city.

President Sherwood and I did discuss potential sources of state law that will better help to define that standard.

And if passed, I asked the city to revisit this language and state law during the 18-month period leading toward implementation of this ordinance, so that it does imp does affect the uh uh improvements that we seek.

I thank you for your consideration.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Moore.

So is Ms.

Cheng or Mr.

Michelle or present, please make yourself known.

Not hearing from them.

Uh Barbara will take people from the public who wish to be heard uh for members of the public who are on the computer, raise your hand.

And if you're on the phone, press the buttons star six to raise your hand so we know you wish to speak and we can unmute you.

I do not see any hands up at this time.

It's not hear somebody, it sounds like they are murmuring.

Somebody want to say something there.

Uh Barbara, why don't we take the written statements of uh Ms.

Chang and uh Mr.

Michelle and um co-chair uh will keep a time record on those the reading of those statements.

So shall we do Ms.

Cheng first, please?

Absolutely.

I have the statement right here.

And it says I hope the board will approve the tree ordinance as it will expand and protect our city's public and private trees.

Trees are important as they cool our cities, clean polluted air, support wildlife, control water flow, offer beauty, increase home values, and even relieve stress.

We need more trees, especially in our south end, as we know this neighborhood is overstressed and needs protection, not exploitation.

Our trees also need to be protected.

The larger the tree, the more valuable its legacy it is to the environment.

I heard that a developer removed hundreds of trees with little or no financial impact, which means that we don't care enough about these trees, and or there was too little notice to protect them.

If a tree needs to be removed, we could have permit fees on a sliding scale, considering several factors.

Examples, it's environmental value, one tree on a property, storm damaged, clear cuts for development, etc.

But the Stanford Tree Ordinance's PowerPoint slide seven says $15 permit required for all tree removals.

I hope it's a typo as a mere $15 fee won't buy or protect a sapling.

Maybe a fee of $75 for small trees or more.

I'm sorry, and more for larger trees would truly value and protect them.

On my small property, I am keeping my eight large trees.

One is probably 100 years old, and have planted two native red bud trees.

Thank you for your work.

I'm sorry, thank you for your good work, and Cheng.

All right.

Uh thank you, Ms.

Cheng, if you should be hearing us.

Uh and the statement of um Mr.

Rep Michelle, who may indeed be the David Michelle we know as having been our state represent one of our state representatives at one time.

Uh his statement, please.

Thank you.

Let me grab it.

In the meantime, if there are honorable legislative and rules committee chairburns, vice chairbroker, and the rest of the committee members and members of the board of reps.

My name is David Michelle from Rockledge Drive in Stanford, and I am here to speak in strong support of the newly updated Stamford Tree Ordinance, particularly the provisions that strengthen protections for our city's mature and legacy trees.

Living infrastructure, not decoration.

For too long, Stanford's mature trees, many of them decades or even centuries old, have been treated as expendable.

Yet we know they are not simply decoration, but living infrastructure that provides clean air, reduces stormwater flooding, lowers energy costs, and shields our neighborhoods from dangerous heat.

Mature trees are irreplaceable.

A sapling may cost only a few dollars to plant, but it takes 50 years or more to provide the same cooling canopy, habitat for birds and pollinators, and storm resilience that a legacy tree offers today.

Collaboration and clarity.

This draft ordinance is the result of meaningful collaboration.

It now directly incorporates the tree commission, the environmental protection board, and the city's urban forester in reviewing plans and setting standards.

These updates formalize what was what has already been a spirit of cooperation and ensure that our environmental and planning bodies are working together.

The ordinance even encourages joint site walks with coordinated reviews, helping to balance tree protection with reasonable development.

It also makes clear that invasive species listed by the state of Connecticut can be removed freely with no permit or fee required.

That clarification keeps the focus on protecting trees of real ecological value.

The definition of a tree is also now aligned with Hartford's standards, promoting consistency across Connecticut communities.

Balancing rights and responsibilities.

A major strength of this update is its emphasis on preserving legacy trees, the large older trees that provide the most shade, carbon storage, and neighborhood character.

For homeowners, this ordinance remains flexible.

If a legacy tree must be removed, the owner can replant instead of paying a fee.

And if they choose to pay, the $40 per inch replacement fee is fair.

It encourages keeping valuable trees without being punitive, creates a balanced path that supports both private property rights and public environmental goals.

Democratic process and accountability.

Importantly, the ordinance highlights the tree commission as a forum for public participation.

Like our environmental protection board or planning board, it ensures open meetings, public comment, and accountability in how we manage our tree tree canopy.

That transparency is essential, especially as some continue to prioritize development profits over quality of life, public health, and environmental resilience.

This ordinance affirms that progress and protection can coexist when guided by fairness and science.

Shared responsibility for Stanford's future.

This ordinance is not about stopping development or telling residents what to do on their land.

It is about shared responsibility.

Just as we now follow building and stormwater codes, tree protection is a common sense safeguard for the health and safety of all Stamford residents.

Protecting trees on public land alone is a good thing.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Michelle.

Um, and um my screen just got really weird here.

Uh there we go.

Okay.

Yes, Representative Delacruz.

Will the statements that were uh the written statements?

Will they be made part of the legislative record?

Um Barbara.

Yes, they always are.

I bundle them into a PDF binder according to dates they were received.

All of these items, if they have not already been uploaded in a binder, will be uploaded tomorrow.

There is one more that was received with a request to read.

I'm going to grab it.

I know that uh President Sherwood asked me to grab it.

Okay, thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative La Cruz.

While you are grabbing things, Barbara, I'm just going to remind any members of the public who may be on their computers and who may wish to speak to raise your hand.

And if you are on the phone, you would dial star five to raise your hand, and that will permit us to know that you wish to speak.

We can unmute you and then have you speak.

Um, if, however, after um the following um written comments are read into the record.

There are no hands, then this public hearing will end, and that will end the opportunities to speak this evening on this matter.

Barbara, who are we hearing from now?

We are hearing from I just had it.

We're hearing from Robin Stein.

Members of the Board of Representatives.

I would appreciate it if these marks could be read into the record.

Previously, I expressed my support for the tree preservation ordinance in a letter to the Board of Reps.

I would like to reiterate my support for the proposed tree ordinance.

I applaud its comprehensiveness by including all properties, commercial and residential.

My only regret is that we did not enact a tree ordinance years ago when we were considering a sustainability amendment to the master plan.

In closing, I would like to add that trees are part of the complex interdependent circle of life, connected as recent science has taught us through underground networks.

At the center of these networks are legacy or mother trees, as Suzanne Simard wrote in her revolutionary book, Finding the Mother Tree.

I applaud the authors of this ordinance for their understanding of the need to protect legacy trees in Stanford.

Legacy trees take decades to replace, so providing special protection to them over 24 inches is certainly warranted.

Robin Stein, 50 plus year resident of Stanford.

And X of the either land use department or planning or something.

Thank you.

So I'm going to be calling the public hearing to an end in three.

Mr.

Adams, you have the floor.

Please do remember to unmake the question.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Yeah.

Thank you very much, Chair Burns.

I'm sorry, I'm uh attending two different meetings at once.

Uh so uh my apologies for being late on the hands.

Uh I just want to reiterate my support for this ordinance.

I think it's an incredible measure towards uh preserving and conserving our green space.

And as I had stated in my previous statements, it it's not just about what you see above ground, it's what's below ground.

And as we look at a lot of the comments that are made by by various experts up and down the aisle, uh you know it's it's this biome, it's this natural state of being that keeps this planet cool, that keeps uh our our climate in check.

Uh it also has a huge impact on our quality of life.

It affects our health personally, uh, individually.

Uh it it affects everything.

So conserving these trees is paramount.

And so I'm fully in support of this ordinance, and I hope that you all pass it.

I know you that you will.

Uh, and uh let's just get it over the finish line because this is uh history in the making.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Adams.

I do not see any other hands up from the public.

So from three, I'm gonna close the public hearing.

Three, two, one public hearing is closed.

Do we have a motion?

Representative Delacruz.

Uh thank you, Chair Burns.

I'm not a member of the committee, but I would encourage the committee to pass this ordinance.

And nothing is perfect from the start.

If there is any further adjustment, it can always be done later, but at the moment is an excellent product to begin.

This process.

Uh, thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Sherwood.

Motion to approve.

Thank you.

Have a second.

Uh discussion.

Representative Sherwood, you still have your hand up, followed by Representative Delacruz, Representative Sherwood.

I'm trying to take my one volume of the technology.

I don't need to speak.

I'm sorry, I should have taken my hand down.

Thank you.

Okay.

So uh can someone can someone assist uh representative to lower his hand.

Uh trying to lower it, but the technology won't let me.

I understood.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Castrell, followed by Representative Lay.

Representative Castrell, you have the floor.

Um I feel like this ordinance is long overdue.

As we are growing as a city and building more the trees become that much more important, not just for quality of life, not just because they're beautiful, but because they're so important for preventing flooding.

They're so important for having for filtering out the air.

I concur with Rob and Stein that this is long overdue.

I hope we pass this tonight, and I hope that we pass it at the full board meeting on November 5th.

And I think this is one of the best things that this board, if not the best ordinance that I have ever seen in my eight years on the Board of Representatives, and I'm really, really hoping that we can get this across the finish line.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Catrell, Representative Lay.

I see no other hands.

Representative Lay, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh barely can barely hear you.

It's almost like you're far away from the microphone.

Representative Lay.

I I thought I heard somebody speaking.

I thought it was you.

No, it's not.

Is it better now?

How about that?

Oh, yes, much better.

Thank you.

Loud and clear.

Okay, sorry about that.

Um, I support this ordinance in full.

Uh, I just wanted to comment on one thing I heard during the public comment period about concerns regarding the tree commission's authority.

I think that there is sufficient language within both does this ordinance itself as well as land use law precedent that ensures that these decisions made by the tree commission will be based on science and reason.

That is well established land use law.

And I think that this code, this ordinance has been written with those uh systems in mind.

And I think that there's sufficient protection that we will have decisions that are made based on science.

So I I don't think we need to make any changes at this point in time.

I think we can move forward with approving this ordinance.

Um and I would support adopting it as as written.

And then if if if down the road we find that there needs to be tweaks here and there to address um you know conversations between different land use boards within the city or to make it move a little bit more smoothly, those are things that can happen down the road.

I yield.

Thank you very much, uh Representative Ly, uh looking for other hands that may be up.

Um I see Representative Tomas and no other hands after him.

Representative Tomas, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Burns.

Uh I am not part of this committee, um, but I'd like to share my thoughts on this.

Um as most of uh my comments uh with uh or my conversations with uh President Sherwood.

Uh she knows uh that that I am not overly uh enthusiastic about the uh ordinance affecting private residential properties.

Um I have been uh contacted by numerous uh constituents uh regarding that particular uh portion of this ordinance.

Uh so it would not be uh I would not be doing my duty as a representative if I didn't bring it up to this committee.

Uh um that there is some concern.

Um obviously um there is concern that uh you know when you give a governmental body the ability to come onto private property, um for for me and for other uh people that I spoke to that that just raises some red flags.

Um I don't have any issues and uh with with this uh with this ordinance.

Obviously, we we all value Stanford's trees, uh the benefits they bring to our neighborhoods, uh but that portion of the the residential aspect of uh being able to uh dictate what a person can and cannot do with its own private property is is troublesome to me and to some of my constituents.

Um whether or not it was uh I guess just the timing aspect, but I I've had neighbors of mine cut down trees, and I'm not sure if it was due to this ordinance potentially going into effect, and they wanted to take care of these trees before this ordinance came into effect, but I'm not sure if that's going to snowball into other residents doing the same.

Um so I I just wanted to to share my thoughts on on that particular issue that uh is uh you know is a is an issue with some some of our residents.

Um that being said, uh I am uncertain on how I'm going to vote on this particular item.

Um the uh full board meeting.

I appreciate your time, Chair Burns, and uh thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you, uh Representative uh Tomas.

Looking for additional hands, I see as follows.

Representative Boger followed by Representative Camparelli, Representative Boger, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, you know, I I can appreciate uh Representative Tomas's concerns, and um, you know, he's not just my district mate, he's he's he's a long time personal friend.

We ran together for this board.

Um, but I think where we divide on this particular issue is that you know something that takes 50, 100, 200, and some odd years, whatever to grow.

Moore's concern from DSSD and um and I've also heard this concern from other persons that represent commercial or industry and stuff like that in the vested power of the proposed tree commission being able to have this authority from stopping um commercial business from uh removing a tree and you know being concerned over them having that authority it's a you know the same exact authority if not more so that we give to the zoning um board and we don't seem to have a problem with placing um matters that are much more costly in the hands of our uh our civilian volunteer boards and I see this one as being no different than that but the notion that the tree commission and I'm curious I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna kind of ask a question uh through you chair to attorney lee if possible if he's available to speak um you know in order for the tree commission to prohibit the removal of a legacy tree or any tree with regard to um a commercial property um wanting to remove it uh that entity would have to provide substantive you know grounds you know to that that what to justify why that tree should be removed and if and if that that criteria is met um if the tree commission is abiding by the ordinance as written they would not block that particular removal it's only when it's not substantiated and I'm wondering if my my thought process is is aired on that because that is my understanding so through you chair to attorney lee I don't know if you can address that uh a little bit but I would appreciate it and I'll I'll rest.

Sure thank you uh Representative Boger um I think the phrase that uh was um part of uh the commentary was materially and unreasonably compromises um that's the language that was in the ordinance that is the test um but meeting that test uh is isn't a matter of personal preference or opinion um it's a factual determination and under Connecticut law when uh administrative agencies are making factual determinations like that including factual determinations that apply a materiality or a reasonableness standard or test um that that decision must be based on substantial evidence that's the rule and what that means is that there has to be factual support um uh on the in the record uh that a reasonable person would find adequate to support the conclusion so if the commission denies a removal that denial has to be grounded in documentation in evidence canopy data GIS mapping uh maybe the urban forester's report describing the condition of the tree or spacing or replacement options uh stormwater um analysis um even in downtown districts that same substantial evidence rule would apply that the evidence might look different um things says thinking about it shade coverage uh heat island uh data site plan showing the tree's relationship to sidewalks utilities or buildings I guess the point is the commission isn't just gonna be able to deny removal just because the members don't like uh the um or the members like the tree and want to keep the tree um uh there must be clear evidence based findings that the removal uh would materially and unreasonably compromise the health or continuity of the urban canopy and I'm sure that if the ordinance gets passed and the tree commission is constituted that's the type of um primer uh that the law department is available to provide to the commission as it conducts hearings and makes determinations thank you attorney lee that's uh thank um for confirming that for me I appreciate it um chair Burns I yield thank you uh vice chair um boger um representative camparelli is the only hand up I see at this time representative release on the floor thank you chair I just wanted to to make a couple of

evidence based findings that the removal uh it would materially and unreasonably compromise the health or continuity of the urban canopy and I'm sure that if the ordinance gets passed and the tree commission is constituted that's the type of um primer uh that the law department is available to provide to the commission as it conducts hearings and makes determinations thank you attorney lee that's uh thank you um framing that for me I appreciate it um Chair Burns I yield thank you uh vice chair um boger um representative camp relly is the only hand up I see at this time representative camp relly's on the floor thank you chair I just wanted to to make a couple of quick statements um I think this is a well thought out uh president Sherwood collaborated with multiple departments throughout the city and and other professionals in what is a very complicated ordinance um we've heard from so many professionals that have endorsed this ordinance and that makes me feel really confident um I haven't heard any complaints from constituents and this has been publicized on on next door and I've been knocking doors and asking people about it and I just want to say a lot of people are are talking about the government you know having involvement in in our lives and our homes and our land and the government has involvement in everything we do with our land pretty much I mean they have the right to tell us what we can build on our land and where it can be built if we want a deck if we want to refinish our basement people that live on wetlands have to go through a whole host of things on a regular basis uh with the government because we protect those wetlands and I look at this as a similar thing uh these legacy trees are very important um to our ecology and and they're important to global warming and and flooding and and air quality and all sorts of things and I really believe they should be protected and I will be affected by this personally I have tons of trees on my land I have legacy trees that I I might want to take down for one reason or another and and I I think I think I should have to pay if I'm going to take one of these down and I think I should have to replace it.

So I just wanted to to add that and I yield the floor thank you Representative Camp Rilly looking for other hands up I see none uh oops representative Goldberg you have the floor sir.

Uh thank you Mr.

Chairman um you know my colleagues I wanted to speak uh with deep respect for the goals behind this ordinance um but also I have some serious concerns uh about the path we're taking to get there um I was out door knocking this weekend and had several meet and greets with um various uh constituencies and and I did hear some concerns um I also heard you know that we want Stanford to be greener and healthier and more resilient and everybody acknowledges that legacy trees are part of that vision uh but this ordinance doesn't really build a solution uh instead it imposes one and it doesn't really invite collaboration it it it defaults to control um so yes this this ordinance does have some exclusions for diseased or dangerous trees and I appreciate that but but at its core uh much as uh my colleague representative tomas mentioned it still asks homeowners to pay a fee to remove a healthy tree from their own land now I I just don't see that as partnership I see that's a shift in how we treat uh private property so so people have brought up zoning and this really isn't about zoning zoning is about how we we use land in relation to each other um this is it's not about how land is used in relation to each other it's about what a person can or cannot do with what they own and that's a different kind of regulation one that deserves I think a different kind of scrutiny we're not so much solving the problem of tree loss which is what I understand is driving uh this regulation um what we're doing is we're regulating a symptom uh if we want to truly preserve Stanford's canopy then I think we should be investing in a community tree plan you know let's fund planting let's offer incentives and I do admit I do uh acknowledge that that this is going to fund a tree fund that residents will have access to but I I still think that we need to find way to offer incentives that makes it easier for residents to say yes to prevent to preservation and not harder to say no to removal.

And I do admit I do uh acknowledge that that this is going to fund a tree fund that residents will have access to, but I I still think that we need to find way to offer incentives that makes it easier for residents to say yes to prevent to preservation and not harder to say no to removal.

I worry that we're falling into a pattern where control becomes the default tool for change.

Um we're making mandates instead of replacing dialogue.

Uh and we're good intentions override good governance.

I I want to encourage my colleagues not to go down that road.

You know, I see that we need to build solutions that both respect our environment and our residents and property rights, and one that's rooted in trust as opposed to fees.

So I I hope that we will stop and think deeply.

Um it's a very complex piece of legislation.

Uh I feel like we're moving a little too quickly, and I would like to see this.

Um I would really like to think about a 360 degree solution instead of just charging fees every time we want to stop somebody from doing something.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, uh Representative Goldberg.

Uh I see three hands up.

Um, okay, Representative.

Representative Boger, followed by Representative Leigh, Representative Boggroup, Vice Chair Boger, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I could not disagree more with uh Representative Goldberg.

Um every time there's something substantive and big and novel that comes across this board's um radar with regard to ordinances and somebody doesn't like it, we always go back to this argument of it's moving too fast or whatever.

We've been dealing with this thing for months.

But to put it in better perspective, um, and I'm gonna ask a question of President Sherwood through you, Chair, but I am under the belief that we are so far behind the eight ball with a with some type of tree preservation legislation in this city, it's embarrassing.

I believe that, and and and I know President Schiller could probably correct me if I'm wrong, and uh and and and I'm gonna ask her to in a minute, um, that we are like the last man standing when it comes to tree preservation for a major city in the state of Connecticut.

Plus, you have all these other major cities throughout the country who have set the who have set the standard for this.

And usually Stanford, everybody likes to tout how progressive Stanford is.

Not when it comes to the environment, not when it comes to the environment.

We have dirty air, we have dirty water, and we just don't seem to have a care for resources, and it's kind of shocking to me, um, especially along political lines, but I'm not even gonna go down that path.

But like you would think Stanford would be the shining example of environmentalism within the state of Connecticut.

For the 400,000th time, a tree program does not address what the problem is that this ordinance addresses.

This ordinance is about preserving legacy trees.

I don't care how many saplings you go out there and plant.

You will be dead.

Your children will be dead.

Your grandchildren may be even dead before those saplings turn into the massive towering trees that we have here in Stanford that took some of them centuries to grow.

I don't know why we can't grasp that concept.

These are not just things we should willy-nilly arbitrarily cut down.

Like I said, almost every major entity in the state has already had something on the book addressing this issue for us.

We should be embarrassed.

We should be ashamed of our lack of environmental stewardship here.

I know if Mike Popel was here, he'd be clapping for me right now.

But if I'm wrong, I'm chair through uh to to President Sherwood through you.

Um I off base on the on the how far behind we are on this with regard to the rest of the state municipalities.

Representative Sherwood.

Uh no, you're not, and I could give you a brief summary of how far behind we are if you would like.

No, I I want to.

I want I want the members of this board to realize how far behind the curve we are.

And instead of like waking up, we're digging our heels in.

Briefly, as it does not appear to have been posed as a question.

Oh it is.

I'm I'm asking to give, you know, I'm I my question is I will not every major city, or almost every single major city in this state, have some type of legislation addressing this very thing.

And we are the ones that do not.

Yes.

In fact, um the state of Connecticut has uh general statutes that define um what happens on public property for public trees, and then uh every other major municipality in the state of Connecticut has a more extensive tree ordinance.

Um our regulations are basically limited, our current tree ordinance is limited to basically mirror the state.

Um Hartford, Waterbury, New Haven, um, all have more extensive tree ordinances that include tree commissions, tree funds, etc.

Um, and I just want to add that you know, for a municipality that uh over the past 30 years has prided itself, and um large commercial entities have touted Stanford as the sixth uh borough of New York City.

Um when you look at especially tree ordinances um in New York City and Westchester County.

We which we are building as if we are Westchester County and New York City, to be quite frank, um, we are incredibly behind compared to where they are.

So, you know, you you if you buy a home and then many West Chester County municipalities, you you don't just pay $15 to remove a 20-inch DBH tree.

You're paying like you know, hundreds of dollars, or the city can actually tell you that you can't remove the tree.

So I mean, this ordinance is um is this city Stanford is certainly behind the eight ball in the state of Connecticut and gigantically behind the eight ball and other neighboring communities who are developing as quickly as we are, and so um there is no better time than actually 20 years ago to have passed an ordinance like this.

Thank you.

Um thank you, President Sherwood.

Um, Chair, I I yield.

Thank you.

All right, very good.

Uh Representative Lay, followed by Representative Camp Rilly, Representative Lee, you have the floor thank you.

Um so I I strongly disagree with this statement that the regulation of trees is not a land use or zoning action.

Um I think I think the American Planning Association would disagree with that statement.

It is, I mean, if you think about agriculture, that's a land use, silviculture, which is forestry, that's a land use.

The removal of trees is squarely within a land use because when you're developing land, you are considering the removal of trees.

They go hand in hand.

And this ordinance has been set up such that we have methodology for how those trees are valued in these land use decisions.

I think we are behind Westchester County communities by far.

I think that was a very accurate statement.

And we're certainly behind New York City and Hartford and New Haven.

So I I agree with my fellow board members that this is an ordinance that we should have passed years ago.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative.

Uh Representative uh Camparelli, followed by Representative, followed by Melanie Hollis, who's is she an invited guest?

Is that right?

Correct.

Yes, yes, she is the chair of the parks and rec commission.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Representative Caprelli, do you want to permit uh Melanie Halloween?

I I I don't I actually don't have anything to say.

Representative Lay covered whatever I was gonna say only better.

So I yield.

You are left speechless.

Uh Melanie Hollish, um, you have the floor.

Uh thank you very much, uh Chair Burns for letting me speak.

I just wanted to add to what Representative Sherwood said about how far behind we are.

Um a couple of years ago, Aaron McKenna from the city of Stanford went for um the inflation reduction act had quite a significant amount of money available for urban forestry projects.

The city of Stanford received a lot less money than other cities in the state of Connecticut because we are so far behind in having anything set up for trees.

And that's two because we do not have anything set up like in this tree ordinance.

And I also do want to point out to uh the members of the Board of Representatives that um I did send in um September 24th a list of towns within the United States requiring permits to remove trees on private property.

It's a small sampling, it's only 37 towns, but it it spans from Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington.

So there's and these these are not towns, this isn't does not include towns with wetlands, wetland buffers, water courses that have regulations on private property or um anything regarding nuisance trees.

This is specifically uh private property um management.

And um Washington DC has one of the strictest residential heritage.

Um they actually call their trees um special trees and heritage trees.

And so if you live in a Washington, CC, a special tree is considered a 44 inch and 99.9 inch in circumference.

So the circumference is um larger than if we take the inches, so that would be 14 inch diameter and 31.8 inch diameter.

So that is considered non-hazardous by a city harbor arborist, then a fee of $55 per inch of circumference is required.

If you have a tree that's over 31.8 inches in diameter, that is considered a heritage tree.

Heritage trees may only be removed if considered hazardous by a city arborist.

Otherwise, heritage trees cannot be removed, topped, bridled, or destroyed.

So I think um, as a representative Sherwood, Representative Lay um have mentioned previously, I think that this legislation, a proposed legislation is very comprehensive and has taken into consideration a lot of the um concerns that have been brought up this evening, and um still allows people in this town to cut down healthy trees if they wanted to.

Thank you.

Thank you, Melanie Collis.

Uh I see a hand before.

Okay, yes, Representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

I see no other hands at this time after Representative Goldberg.

Uh yeah, thanks.

Uh I was gonna ask a question through you to Ms.

Hollis.

Um I was just curious how the fees that are in our proposed legislation compared to the other fees uh in the cities in Stan in uh Connecticut that you mentioned.

So Hartford New Hate uh New Haven.

Uh I forget what was the other town that was mentioned.

Um do you know, Ms.

Hollis, what what the fees are in those places?

Um I would have to defer to um President Sherwood on that.

Um I off the top of my head I don't know.

Okay, could I refer the question to Representative Sherwood?

That's fine by me.

Representative Sherwood Yes, sorry.

Um thank you.

Uh yeah, so um I I believe in Hartford they use um they use uh a evaluation tool to figure out the value of a tree similar to what this ordinance prescribes.

Um so there's again there's nationally recognized standards in terms of what the value of a tree is.

Um I can't remember specifically, and that would be in the cases of non trees on non-residential property.

I can't remember specifically what their fee is for trees on residential property.

Um but that I we I we looked at that ordinance uh I don't know, a long time ago.

So I don't I don't remember specifically what it is.

Uh but I know that Hartford and our discussions with Hartford and um and our discussions with uh New York City.

Um everybody had recommended really looking at national national nationally recognized standardized uh tool to value trees.

Um but we didn't want to charge that for residents.

So we went with a 40 per inch approach similar to what Washington DC did.

But in the case of Washington, DC, they went, I think they're they're charging $55 per inch, whereas we would be looking at $40 per inch.

Right.

And can I continue chair to along the same lines?

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Do you um relative to uh the other Connecticut um cities when you were doing the research, did you set a rate that was largely did you propose this rate largely in line, more or less than the other municipalities that have similar legislation?

Um so that's a good question.

I when we were looking to make this ordinance our main goal, and my certainly my main goal throughout the five years that I've been working on this was not only to create a tree commission and tree create an urban forester and to create a uh tree fund, it was also to do what I believe other ordinances in the country failed to do on a lot of aspects, which was to preserve uh large mature trees across the city.

Um, and so in order to do that, we had to have a mechanism on residential property where most of the large mature trees are in the city.

We had to have a mechanism that would stop the person for a moment so that they could think about whether or not this was uh something that they wanted to do.

And so I was steadfast in I don't want this to be about fees.

I know that that's what you said.

I I am opposed to making the fee less than 40 dollars because what you're doing is you're creating an annoyance for the homeowner, they're gonna just pay it on top of the five to ten thousand dollars they have to pay to get a tree of that size removed.

So they would just pay 250 dollars or 300.

The idea is to make the homeowner stop and think, hey, maybe maybe I this is not the best thing.

Uh and that the whole ordinance is designed, regardless of where the tree is in the city of Stanford, to make the entity that is cutting it down stop and think.

The ordinance also provides a consultation with the homeowner and the urban forester for a tree of that size for the urban forester or their designee to have a consultation or a discussion with the homeowner to discuss what the impacts are ecologically to cutting that tree down.

So I I can speak for my own where I live.

I do believe that if somebody with a professional background from the city had spoken to my elderly neighbor about the oak trees that they cut down in the front lawn, about the fact that we could potentially face flooding based on cutting those trees, which is exactly what it's happened to the my house and the three other houses surrounding my property where I live and have lived all my life.

Um I think that that elderly person would have changed their mind.

So in coming up with this $40 per inch, it seemed to be it's about eight to twelve percent of the cost of cutting a tree of that size, depending on the size, and that seems to be a number that would make somebody stop and think about whether or not they really wanted to cut that tree.

And it also provides money into the tree fund, which would be the first time in I think across the nation where private residents can dip into a public fund to use for a purpose to enhance and maintain their large mature trees on their property.

And so I understand your concern.

I think that this committee and this board has already addressed it extensively by allowing the resident in lieu of paying the $40 per inch to plant one tree per 10 inches of tree that they remove, which is far less expensive than paying the $40 per inch, and we did that at your request.

Um I recognize that you're probably never going to support this ordinance, and I'm okay with that.

Um, but I do think that the writers of this ordinance have worked tirelessly to to make an ordinance that will have the effect of promoting people to keep their large trees on the residential properties while also giving homeowners the flexibility to cut the trees that they want to.

And again, nobody can stop a resident from cutting a tree.

Like if you were in Westchester, uh Representative Goldberg, and you had a gigantic tree in your backyard, it is very possible that some government entity is gonna say that tree is gonna stay there forever, and you're never cutting it down.

Um with that I yield, thank you.

Um so let me just be clear it's not that I'm never gonna support this ordinance.

What I'm concerned about, and what I continue to be concerned about is you know, the residents that have spoken to me that have said, you know, if I want to expand my home, or if I want to do an improvement on my land, and this is really all about residential property.

I generally am supportive of the other elements of the of the um ordinance that this seems to stop people from being able to use their land in a way that they would like to, that is generally speaking, um uh oriented around improving their property in a way that is consistent with using it as a residence, so making a larger home, you know, enlarging your home, or uh improving your property in a way that that gives you more use.

And and once again, that that to me is we're so you know, we're we're trying to control how people use their property as opposed to being consultative.

I do like your idea of having a conversation.

I I have no doubt I was out talking to constituents this weekend, and they said, Look, you know, we've had neighbors cut big trees because they had issues um that we didn't think were legitimate, but at the end of the day, it was their property and we respect their property rights.

So once again, I'm coming back around to it's not that I can't support it, it's that I feel like you have conf we have conflicting goals, and that instead of trying to find a way to say to uh to a homeowner, look, if you want to improve your property and there's a tree in the way, we understand and we will let you remove that.

But I think saying, yeah, if if you need to add an extra bedroom to your house and there's a tree in the way, we're gonna make it double painful for you.

I just I just don't like that idea.

Um I would hope that you could find it within yourself to to realize that I'm not coming at this from the perspective of being you know unpleasant.

I'm airing concerns that I've heard from voters and constituents.

You know, you people act like if you raise your hand and say, Look, let me tell you what I'm hearing, like you know, you're a bad person.

I I don't see how raising people's concerns makes me, you know, uh some sort of roadblock to progress.

Um I've really been taken aback at, you know, one of my colleagues essentially says something similar to me, and everyone goes, you know, good friend, you know, I disagree with him, but it's okay.

I say it, and everybody goes berserko.

So with that, you know, I guess I'm gonna yield and take my lashings that I'm sure it's about to become.

I yield.

Okay.

Uh representative um Goldberg, I promise to protect you from any uh any lashings that would be more than other people.

Um the floor, sir.

Everyone knows I'm an equal opportunity lasher.

Um I would stop saying stuff if inaccurate things were being said.

This ordinance does not again, we keep hearing from the writers of the ordinance that it doesn't stop anybody from on private property from move removing a tree.

We keep hearing representatives keep saying it stops people from doing what they want with their property or doing what they want with their trees.

It does not.

It just imposes a fee.

It imposes a very distasteful fee.

That's the whole purpose of the ordinance.

It's to dissuade, it's to get the message through somebody's head that a 300-year-old tree is more important than your deck sometimes.

However, if you really do want to cut that thing down, you are able to do it.

There's no ultimate stoppage of somebody's from from cutting down a legacy tree on their private property.

They just have to pay for it, just like they have to pay for tons of other things that we have to do on our own private property.

I'm not going to beat that horse either.

So that's the problem is when the statement is made and the statement is not accurate or the statement is false.

And I'm not saying it's being made intense being stated intentionally false, but it is false.

The public is listening to this.

And for those that are speaking in case it comes up again, because it kind of was tacitly touched upon yet again.

This doesn't apply to trees that are deemed hazardous or super hazardous.

All those criteria has been thought of.

Five years.

I've never heard of an ordinance being worked on this long.

So that's those are the facts about this ordinance, and I just want correct it.

And I will take my rebuttal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Spoger.

Representative Goldberg, you have the floor, and um I will acknowledge that there was a bit of a laughing there.

Um you have the floor, sir.

Okay.

Chair Burns.

Go ahead, Representative Dela Cruz.

I I'll let me stop my hand is in the stock position.

So whoan Representative Goldberg finishes?

Uh no other hands.

Uh bas recognize me.

Sorry for the interruption.

That's sure.

Glad glad we could get you in the queue.

Um look, I've never said that this stops anybody from doing what they want to do.

I just think the entry point is pretty high.

I I would like to see indiscriminate cutting because I don't know, somebody wants more sunshine on their lawn.

Yeah, I'd like to see that stopped uh as much as anybody.

I just I just don't like the way we're going about doing it.

Um I would also say that you know what I'm most concerned about you know, I've been very clear on is when you want to improve your property.

I you know, look, I I agree.

I probably I would never cut down a tree to put in a deck, but I very well might want to cut down a tree, and it it would be I think the entry point, you know, a thousand dollars to cut down a big tree.

If I need to bump out my house because I'm having another child and I want to add a bedroom, uh, you know, that's that's where I really get upset, is when I see you know, trees that are close to houses that are healthy but are in the way of progress.

It seems like to me we should have a mechanism to say, you know, if the tree warden can go out and look at a uh uh a sick tree and say, yeah, you can take it down.

If the tree warden comes out and says, yeah, you know, that tree is very close to your house, and you're right, there's no way to expand this property or you know, expand your home, uh not for a deck, but for a real hated and cooled uh space um without removing that tree, then I think there ought to be a way to uh for the tree warden to waive the fee.

Umce again, it it just strikes me as you know control uh instead of collaboration.

Um that's all I'm asking for, and uh you know, as I said, I don't want to clear cut, I don't like it when people clear cut their property, but at the same time, I don't want the city to be you know a pain in someone's butt when they have a legitimate reason to improve their home or their property.

I just wish there were a way for the tree warden to have a little bit more discretion, and I recognize that that opens it up to abuse, and I don't know what to do about that.

But I that's all I'm trying to point out to people.

So thank you so much.

I appreciate your uh hearing me out.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Uh Representative De La Cruz, and after that I don't see any other hands of the start.

You have the floor, Representative De La Cruz.

Thank you, Chair Burns.

Seeing the other hands, I would recommend the committee to make a motion to approve this ordinance.

Already on the floor.

Yes, I think there already was one, and it was second.

Okay, no other hands going once, twice, thrice.

Uh and I'm sorry, um, is Representative uh Barbara?

Uh is Representative Goldberg a member of the committee.

I cannot remember, I want to apologize.

Thank you.

Or Representative Goldberg.

No, sir.

I'm not, I'm not on your committee, but I attend it so much that you probably think I am.

That's you have been a loyal follower and and and passionate.

And thank you for your participation and sharing um uh yet another point of view.

Uh so I guess we can I'm let's try a voice vote unless someone objects.

Hearing none.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Are there any votes?

If so, please say nay.

And are there any abstentions?

The matter carries uh unanimously.

And uh the next item on the agenda, which I was unable to open on my computer for some reason.

Um I'll pull it right back up.

Hold on just a moment.

There we go.

Can you see it now?

Okay.

Yes, thank you.

Item number three, last item on our agenda this evening.

LR 31.072 ordinance for final adoption regulating the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules to take up this item you just mentioned.

Okay.

Um, Barbara, can we go back to the view of everybody so I can see who's speaking and who has their hands up and all that?

Okay.

That was Representative Van Der Hoort.

Thank you.

I thought maybe it was.

Um, okay, I have a motion to suspend the rules to take this up as I believe this was not put on the agenda at steering.

Uh, do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Representative Catrol seconds.

Uh is there any discussion or can we go?

No discussion.

You have to go right to a vote.

Okay.

All right.

Unaware.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Chair and Parliamentarian, Representative Vogar.

Um, let's do a roll call vote on this, Barbara.

Please.

Maybe Chair, can I ask you to try a voice vote, please?

I don't think you're gonna get an objection.

I'm sorry.

I'm happy to do that.

Okay.

Um, so the motion is to take up this matter, even if it was not put on the agenda at steering.

No, sir.

The motion is to suspend the rules.

Oh, okay, sorry.

Motion is to suspend the rules for that purpose, if I understand correctly.

Um, so all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If there are any votes against, please say nay.

And are there any abstentions?

Hearing none, the matter carries um carries unanimously.

We have suspended the rules, and you'll have to assist me procedurally.

What happens now?

We just go straight to it.

I make a motion to approve.

Thank you.

Second, please.

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

All right.

And um the only hand I see up at this time is Representative Sherwood.

You have the floor.

Uh Representative Sherwood.

Followed by Representative Fidelity.

Uh thank you.

Um, I'm hoping that we can turn to Annie Hornish, who is uh the president or the head of the Connecticut chapter of the Humane World for Animals, uh, formerly known as the uh Humane Society.

Uh thank you on the call and is an invited guest.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Fidelli, would you be so kind?

Yeah, that's fine.

Thank you.

And Ms.

Hornish of the name and your your association, please.

Sure, thank you.

Um, my name is Annie Hornish, and I'm the Connecticut State Director for Humane Worlds for Animals.

And may I speak now?

Yes, you have the floor.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so uh uh Chair Burns, Vice Chair Bogert, honorable members blank, Cotrell, Fidel, Methaney, Pierre, Louis, Luis, Sherwood, and Vandervert.

Um, I'm here today to reiterate our strong support for Stanford's Humane Pet Store Ordinance, uh, LR 31.072.

Uh I we thank the Board of Representatives for the continued dedication to this issue over the years and the determination to stop the puppy mill to pet shop pipeline once and for all.

Uh due to the serious animal welfare and consumer protection issues posed by puppy mill retailers.

Eight states and uh over 500 localities across the nation have now prohibited the sale of dogs and cats and sometimes rabbits in pet shops.

Banning such sales is more important now than ever because of New York's puppy mill pipeline law that recently went into effect, which is stopping over 60 pet shops from selling dogs, cats, and rabbits.

While many New York pet shops transition to a new business model that doesn't rely on the sale of puppies, some are merely looking for new states to call home.

At least three former New York puppy stores, all with terrible records, have already moved to Connecticut, including one in Stanford.

For years, our uh we we've uh contended that municipalities have the authority to ban the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

Our recent review of Connecticut statutes and case law solidifies our belief that this ordinance under consideration is legally sound because it properly derived, it's properly derived from municipal police powers expressly granted under Connecticut General Statutes 7-148.

Specifically, the legislative intent section of this ordinance clearly states quote the city of uh Stanford believes that it is in the best interest of the city to adopt reasonable regulations to reduce costs to Stanford and its residents, protect local residents who may purchase dogs or cats from a pet store, help prevent inhumane breeding conditions, promote community awareness of animal welfare, and foster a more humane environment in Stanford, end quote.

To be clear, we do not believe this ordinance is preempted by state law.

We encourage the board to pass this ordinance, and should it be challenged in court, humane world attorneys stand ready to assist the city of Stanford in its legal defense.

Thank you again for your time and for consideration of this important ordinance.

Thank you, Ms.

Hornish.

Uh, Representative Fidelity, followed by Representative Sherwood.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Chair Burns.

And just want to get it on the record that I am certainly for this ordinance.

I was supportive of it before, I certainly am now.

But it was my understanding that the reason why we didn't pass it last time we had the public hearing, but because the state didn't pass it, you know, we didn't pass it at that time, and we kept it on pending.

So my question is, and I guess um, and again, I'm not trying to stop it.

I I just want to get the information.

Um, and I think um attorney Toma is on the is on the phone, is on the line.

I has anything changed that now we could move this forward as opposed to the position we were in several months ago, is my question to you, uh, through you, Chair Burns.

Yes, hi.

Uh thank you for the question, Representative Fidelity.

Um the committee will certainly um recall that this item has been raised several times over the past uh few years.

And um the law department has uh rendered opinions to the board um that this ordinance uh could not be adopted because the board doesn't have authority for the reason that uh state law preempts um the regulation of pet stores.

And um earlier this year, uh a bill was proposed in the state legislature.

Uh that's the bill that uh Representative Fidelli, I believe, was just referring to.

Um that was an attempt to make explicit in state law the uh authority of municipalities to regulate pet stores.

Um but the bill didn't pass.

So the opinion of the law department um is that as we sit here today, it's even more clear at this point in time that the state does not and has not um authorized cities and towns to regulate pet stores.

The authority continues to rest with the state.

Um the uh the law was um you know, the the bill that that went to the state was submitted uh in the hope that the state would change the existing law in Connecticut and allow municipalities to regulate pet stores.

That bill was lobbied by members of Stanford's delegation, but unfortunately it could not it could not pass.

So that is a clear indication that the state legislature simply does not at this point in time want to authorize municipalities to legislate in this area.

So our opinion in the law department remains as it was back earlier this year and in previous years that municipalities don't have inherent powers unless they're expressly delegated.

And in this particular case, the uh state has adopted numerous um statutes as well as state regulations that do regulate pet stores.

So it's clear that the regulation of pet stores has been a subject that the state has taken upon itself to regulate.

So it's our opinion that the the Board of Education Representatives tonight does not have authority to pass this ordinance.

It would be an unlawful ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you for for that information.

I you know, I'm I wish it was something different.

Um I I truly I mean I can't stand puppy mills.

I I'm abhor it, but I I I'm not comfortable, me personally, passing something, even though um Ms.

Harness is willing to you know foot our legal bills, um, and I appreciate I appreciate that.

Um I'm I'm just me personally, I'm not comfortable um with it right now.

So that's just where I'm where I personally stand, unless somebody can convince me otherwise.

But thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Tom.

Um, I appreciate your candidness.

And that's it for me, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Representative Fidelity, Representative Sherwood.

I suspect you're gonna be addressing that point directly, followed by Representative La Cruz.

Representative Sherwood, you have the floor.

Uh thank you.

I I have a number of um, I have a lot of information to give the committee.

Uh, but before I do that, uh Chair Burns, I would like the opportunity to ask Attorney Toma a few questions.

Um, but I appreciate after he's done answering them if you would give the floor back to me.

Is that okay?

Of course.

Thank you.

Um, so uh attorney Toma, I spent um some time reading state statutes about reading the state statutes about um regulating pet shops.

Um can you please and I'm I'm at my computer right now.

Have the I have the legislation in front of me.

The state statute, can you please tell me exactly where I can find the language that states that municipalities cannot regulate the sale of dogs and cats?

Oops.

There is no language that says that, but the that's not the analysis.

The legal analysis is whether the state through their um passage of a body of state laws has um uh occupied the field of regulation.

And if you look at the state statutes um in the area of um Connecticut General Statutes 22 327 uh through 34, uh and it may be more than that, but that there's at least 15 or so uh statutes that um the state of Connecticut has passed that pertain to uh pet shops, and they clearly set forth an intent that the state is regulating pet shops.

Uh beyond that, there's state regulations which are different than statutes.

Uh regulation statutes are passed by uh the state legislature, regulations are passed by the um state agencies.

So the Department of Agriculture, which oversees the state's animal control department, has passed and adopted in 2021, actually, new regulations that in a detailed way address various particulars of the practices of pet shops.

They regulate the temperature that's to be maintained in the animal enclosures.

They regulate the lighting, the feeding practices of the animals.

All of these things are regulated as to uh how pet shops run their business.

So that is extremely uh clear evidence of the fact that the state of Connecticut has taken upon itself the role of being the um regulator of pet stores.

And what um the case law in Connecticut says is that if the state of Connecticut has uh kept for itself the regulation of a particular subject matter, then their regulation of that subject preempts municipal regulation of the same subject matter, and that's what we have here.

Um so that that's how you come to the conclusion that uh municipalities are not legally authorized um to regulate pet shops.

And if there was any question about it, that question was uh answered um by the fact that there was a bill put to the state legislature giving municipalities the authority to regulate pet shops, and the state legislature decided that it did not want to give the municipalities that power.

So it really is beyond uh dispute at this point that uh the state of the law in Connecticut is that there is no authority for municipalities to regulate pet stores.

Uh okay.

Uh I appreciate that answer, although I disagree with it on the following grounds.

Um I spent a tremendous amount of time reading the lengthy sections um of state statute um 222 37 uh through 22 um let me see hold on.

I'm I'm looking at it now, and I just want to make sure that I'm speaking uh properly.

Um 222 37 to uh 22 uh 344.

And I I was expecting to see that there was some language in there because our law department has repeatedly told us that this is the municipality can't regulate uh the sale of dogs and cats.

I was expecting to see some sort of language in there that said that municipalities are not allowed to regulate this.

And as attorney Toma um confirmed what I am saying, it doesn't expressly say it.

And so the reality is that the state statute is vague, it's gray.

It doesn't say whether or not municipalities can regulate the sale of dogs and cats.

And the reality is on the 30th Board of Representatives, I've worked extensively with representative um Jonathan Jacobson, now state representative Jonathan Jacobson and the law department to create a dog and cat sale ban.

And we wrote language together, and at the last minute, uh, I believe it was PETCO came in, contacted um, I think it was it contacted uh Catherine Emman at the time and said, we don't believe that this is legal, and we're gonna challenge it in court.

And then the city's law department came in and said, after looking at it again, we think that uh, you know, this could get us into legal trouble.

And so the board uh backed away from it, which I don't think was the right decision at the time to back away from it.

Um, but the board decided by majority to back away from it, and we passed a um a resolution asking the state to clarify every year for I believe for the better course of a decade, there have been various cities, uh, including Stanford and other state representatives that have asked the state of Connecticut, the legislative body, um, there have been bills to change the language to spell it out clearly so that municipalities all over the state of Connecticut who are ready to pass this this type of regulation, um, can feel free to do so without the threat of getting getting sued.

The reality is that things in Hartford don't work the way that we want them to.

Sometimes they take decades.

And the reality is, even though I understand attorney Toma is here tonight to tell us that this is illegal.

The reality is that there are a number of different ways to interpret the law.

And the only person that can actually be the defining factor as to whether or not a municipality is able to ban the sale of a dog or cat, that would be a judge of the state of Connecticut.

And because no municipality has the courage to pass legislation that could possibly get challenged by a private entity that wants to sell puppy mill dogs and cats.

Um, the state of Connecticut is not moving on this.

And to me, that's not good enough.

And we have a situation where I I don't I don't know how much attorney Toma has listened to um to the state's uh uh committee meetings on the various bills that have come before them to change this language, but I have.

I've listened to the public hearings, um, this board and the previous board of representatives sent testimony up in favor, and there is a tremendous amount of support for passage, but unfortunately, the way that things work in Hartford is that the speaker of the house needs to move the bill.

And if there's other bills that involve people or money, that comes first with the limited amount of time that is in front of uh the state legislature to pass bills every year.

And you know what gets left to the side?

Some vague, some you know, ordinance or some statute amendment that addresses uh a vagueness in state statute about about the sale of dogs and cats, because we as a society, unfortunately, um are gonna put things like money and people first, and I'm not saying that that's the wrong thing, but it could be years before the state of Connecticut actually passes a one-sentence um addition to the state statutes that clarifies this, and the only reason we're even having an argument about it is because PETCO has threatened to sue us.

This is this is going back to 2019.

This has been going on for you know six years, okay.

And I wanted to bring this up because this committee has dealt with this issue, and many members of this committee were on the previous board and dealt with this issue.

And unless we pass, unless some municipality in the state has the courage to pass language that I'm not gonna lie to you, it might get challenged.

That's a fact.

But why are we legislators if we don't even try?

This is how government works.

This is how unfortunately, this is how our legal system works.

Okay, we have a state legislature that doesn't see this as a priority.

It doesn't mean that people don't support it, it just means that there's other bills that come first.

And unless this gets before a judge to make a determination once and for all, whether or not municipalities have the right to regulate dogs and cats, we are going to continue to be one of the only states in the area that allowed these types of sales of animals.

And I can tell you right now, since New York has banned the sale of dogs and cats, we have seen an increase across the state, not just in Stanford, but everywhere else in the state of these types of pet shops that sell animals that are under these conditions.

And we has as legislators have the opportunity right now and have the ability to say, you know what, we're brave enough that we're gonna pass this, and we're gonna trust that this if it if we get sued, that we're gonna take Mrs.

Hornish on her word and her written word, because she sent a letter to Tom Cassone that they are going to help us with the legal case.

But unless some brave group of legislators in a municipality in the state of Connecticut says, you know what, we're gonna try this, and if we go to court, so be it, but it's worth it to figure out if if municipalities have actually have the right to do this, we're not gonna get anywhere.

And I just want to say I understand what attorney Toma is saying.

I do, I get it.

Nobody wants to go into something just assuming we're gonna get sued.

But the reality is that there are state statutes all over the place that regulate things that go on in municipalities that municipalities then have ordinances to further regulate.

The ordinance that we just passed by majority, the tree ordinance has extensive, extensive state statutes about trees and how municipalities treat trees.

And you know what?

Municipalities in the state of Connecticut have passed tree ordinances on top of those, and nobody has challenged them.

Hartford was the first one to do it, and good on them, and they're the reason we passed our ordinance today.

Okay.

The state of Connecticut has extensive state statutes about gun regulations.

Okay, there's nothing in those regulations that say municipalities can't uh pass ordinance or pass ordinances about gun regulations, and municipalities do it all the time, but the reality is that there is a moneyed interest in the state of Connecticut that pays lobbyists to make sure that the sale of these animals is being basically permitted to continue because that lobby has a lot of money and they're willing to make threats to sue.

And so, unless every single one of us, and I think that our I think that this board has heard enough about this, representative Fidelity.

I know you were sitting on the board of reps when we were right there ready to pass the ordinance in 2019, and Catherine Emmett came down into the uh into the room.

I think it was actually attorney Toma, and they came to us and said, you know what, we we we can't pass this.

So unless we do what Hartford did years ago for the tree ordinance, which allowed us to pass ours today, and we do that today to pass this ordinance, it's already been through a public hearing.

The ordinance would if we get sued, perfect, because you know what?

Then it's gonna go to court and we can decide once and for all.

But if we leave office without doing anything about this, we it could be it could be decades before the state, if ever they do anything.

How many more pet shops is it gonna take?

So I know I'm really passionate about this.

Um, I fully appreciate attorney Toma.

I understand where he's coming from, I know that there has been a legal argument made um against doing this, but he himself admitted that it's not expressly in the language that municipalities don't have the right to do this.

There are plenty of examples where municipalities where there are state statutes that regulate certain government proceedings, and then states enact ordinances that make um those uh state statutes or they don't make the state statutes trick stricter, but the ordinances go on top of the state statute um and regulate further, and this I think is another example of that, and we won't know until it goes before a judge.

And I think we need to pass this tonight, it's already been through a public hearing, and we're gonna get help.

And I urge Mayor Simmons not to veto it to be quite frank, because I think that Stanford could be a leader in this regard and and really break open this situation that has just really had a stranglehold um on the state uh in Hartford for a long time.

Uh, and with that I yield.

Obviously, I'm voting in favor of this.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you, Representative Sherwood.

Uh, question to the uh point of order question to the parliamentarium.

I think I could be of significant use in this um in this discussion, but um as chair, I'm hesitant to jump in now.

Can I turn the chairperson ship over to you for the rest of the meeting?

If that's your preference, chair, um, but I'm gonna call the hands in the order that they go up.

Yep, I'm I'm fine with that.

Uh, thank you, uh committee members.

I I am relinquishing the speech to uh esteemed uh vice chair, and I and I join you all on the floor, Mr.

Representative Dal Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, uh Vice Chair Boyer.

First, let me say that I concur with everything that representative Sherwood so eloquently and passionately expressed, and I like to add a few more things to her statements.

I was surprised by the assumption that because the legislators did not have the time to pass a bill that the result of that inaction is another meant of an opposite action, meaning that because they did not pass a bill, it means that it did not intend to re to share that uh the responsibility that I mean the lack of inaction results on action, that's not an assumption that I can abide for to reinforce representative Sherwood statement, explicit language, the state can't pass a hundred uh regulations as representative show with state that has not precluded the municipality from enacting companion companion.

That I mean the lack of inaction results on action, that's not an assumption that I can abide for to reinforce representative Sherwood statement, explicit language, the state can pass a hundred uh regulations as representative Sherwood stated, and that has not precluded the municipality from enacting companion, companion regulations.

The plain language statute requires that if the term uh preempting the field is not specifically in the statute, the fact that the state has passed a hundred regulations in the field, the plain language statute precludes one from assuming or concluding that the state intended to preempt the field.

That is a conclusion that is not supported by the plain language statute.

With respect to having the courage, my God, it is about time we have the courage to do something.

Many times we've been scared about being sued.

One recent example is that time life uh high rich matter, where oh, we're going to be sued if we do this, if we do that.

Well, we had the courage to get sued, and we prevailed, and a lot of benefits derived from having a judge finally clarify what the correct position on that item was.

So I hope that my steamed colleague, colleague Mary Fidelity, realises that we need we have to have the courage to do something to get something done.

No matter what the assumptions that uh uh my friend attorney Thomas makes, it is ultimately for a judge to decide.

And if that is what it takes, so be it.

And unlike the time life business matter, we now have help to take this matter to court if it needs to be.

Although I doubt it, because the plain language statute cannot read into the leg the state legislature that it intended to preempt the field.

The state never stated that, and the plain language status precludes us from assuming that the state intended to do that, to do that.

Uh so with that represented the case, and there is no case.

Thank you, and I yield.

Okay, Representative Camporelli had the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

I I would just like to say to the committee that I believe that sometimes the reward outweighs the risk.

And at this point in time, I can't find any major chain store that actually sells dogs or cats or rabbits.

Um, so in other words, pet co, pet smart, uh, all of the major chains don't even sell these animals anymore.

So then the risk becomes uh some smaller store or smaller chain store uh suing the city for this.

And then uh on top of that, we have the humane society telling us that they will help defend us.

So at that point, for me, even though I totally respect what our attorney is saying, and I believe it to be true, for me, voting in favor of this would come with more reward than with risk, because there really is no one that's large enough that I can see that would have the wherewithal to sue a city.

Um with that I yield.

Okay, uh Chair Banks, yes.

Uh thank you, um Chair Boger.

Um acting Chair Boger.

Um through you to Attorney Toma.

Uh Attorney Toma, there are two ways, if I understand correctly, that the that the greater government, the federal over the state, the state over the local, can preempt uh, and that is explicitly and implicitly.

Would that be a fair statement?

That's correct.

And I think what you're saying is while it's not explicit, in your opinion, it is implicit.

That's correct.

Um would there be because I I see Representative Fidelity's concerns, and I'm wondering, is there a way for us to have our cake and eat it too, or get real close to it?

Um the and I want to apologize, I forget the name of um Ms.

Hornets' um organization, it's not exactly humane society, but it's humane society uh adjacent, if you will.

Uh they have promised to pick up our legal bills, if I understand correctly.

It is it not possible for the city to uh enter into a written contract, and if there's any doubt about the funds of uh the organization making this promise, ask them to put up a bond or in some way protect the city from expensive litigation.

Yeah, I suppose there can always be a written agreement put together if uh if the parties come to a meeting of the mines, sure.

And um even if your opinion is that such litigation would be more likely to lose than to win.

First of all, is that a correct characterization of your point of your point of view more likely to lose than to win?

Yes.

Uh I I would say that um the law department is is as certain as it can be uh in the law that a court would invalidate this ordinance, yes.

Now I'm gonna ask you a question.

Um I think every attorney hates, if you had to play odds, what would they be?

Uh I I would say if we went to court five times, we would probably lose four times.

Uh I mean that's just a guess.

You know the way it is, attorney Burns.

It's impossible.

Yep.

Um but I I think I think the law, the state of the law in this case is really clear that um the state has extensively regulated pet shops.

And if you there's no time to exhaustively go through all of that.

Uh no, understood.

But there are I think I think you covered it well, and I'm um I am well pleased that you explained why you and others in the law department feel that the state has implicitly said we're in control, nobody else has space here.

Uh, and that and they and that you guys believe that there's a uh 80% chance that a judge would go that way, and approximately 20% chance the judge could go the other way.

Um I'm I think you did a great job explaining it, and no need to go into further detail about that.

Um let me just let me just augment what what I said with with one other uh piece of information that that I have.

Um if there was a suit, um the suit would likely uh come from the state of Connecticut itself.

Uh I was informed back uh earlier this year, um, when the proposed ordinance was first put in front of the board of reps.

Um I was informed by the attorney, the staff attorney who works for the state of Connecticut uh Department of Agriculture, um that the state of Connecticut, meaning the executive branch of the government, believes that it's only the state that can regulate pet shops.

And that attorney informed me that if this that if Stanford passed its ordinance, the state would sue us.

Um the significance of that is that it's it becomes explicit, understood.

A court a court is gonna is gonna defer in large part to the position that the state of Connecticut takes with res the state of Connecticut government takes with respect to its own statutes.

Basically, the it the it's a it's an explicit statement of um preemption.

Um now this attorney did you say worked for the department of agriculture or the attorney general's office?

The the Department of Agriculture has uh a legal department.

I I think all these state agencies have their own legal departments, and this particular attorney was in the Department of Agriculture, which, as I mentioned earlier, um oversees the state animal control uh department.

And um they are um closely monitoring um the uh doings of the various municipalities when it comes to um legislation, local legislation that impacts on animals.

And they are jealous of control of it undertook.

They were closely watching what what we were doing, and um I had a lengthy conversation with that attorney, and I told the attorney that uh Stanford's approach was to kind of tee up this ordinance with the uh hope and expectation that the state would be passing the bill to give us authorization um to adopt the ordinance, and um that authorization never came.

And uh that that just I hear you that that leads to one other thing I want to mention.

Uh representative Delacruz said that the failure uh of the state legislature to pass that statute is not the same as uh a an express uh denial of the authority of the municipality, but that's not the way the law is in Connecticut.

In Connecticut, a municipality must find express authorization in order to act.

Municipalities are creatures of statute.

Uh they do not have inherent power, they don't have sovereign power like a state does.

Uh they're created by statute, and it's um fundamental law in Connecticut that municipalities must be able to point to express authority to take an action.

So the fact that the state didn't give Stanford and other municipalities the express authority to regulate pet shops means that we just don't have the authority.

Now, thank you.

Uh nevertheless, um the law department seems to feel there's about a 20% chance of winning, and I imagine that would be based on a judge saying, well, it's inherent in the general powers to protect the public and the other uh uh references made by uh Ms.

Hammett Hamish and um I hope I'm pronouncing her name right, Ms.

Hornish, and um and representative for Sherwood.

It would probably be it would then probably be based on something like that, would it not?

Yes, it would have it would have to be uh a judge would have to be persuaded that um the authority could be found in the uh in the general uh municipal power statute that simply says that municipalities can legislate for the uh the good of the municipality and the general welfare of of its residents.

Um but the problem I see with that is that the state, as I said before, the state had taken up and did not express express language that would address this issue specifically.

And it did not and did not.

And I think a judge, you know, again, I I think probably four times out of five, a judge is gonna look at that and say, you know, that's an indication by the of the state that they don't want to give municipalities this power.

And uh I just think it's very unlikely that we we prevail.

Understood.

Now, um having another entity pay our legal bill, so to speak, um, that would not so you know we are taught in law school, you know, you that someone cannot fund someone else's litigation, that's championary, and it just leads to everybody suing everybody.

Um so that would not be any sort of champion in this situation.

It could be.

I I honestly don't know.

Uh I I've never had to research that question.

Um I don't know if it's if it's possible or not.

Um I do know that if there is a lawsuit that comes, uh the law department would not be able to represent the border reps uh for the reason that uh the law department is always is already on record as um taking the position that the ordinance is unlawful, and we cannot then go to court and argue the opposite position.

Um and that that has happened in the past with the border reps, where uh the the law department has had to bow out because of positions that it it took um previous to to litigation being um started.

So there would have to be an outside attorney uh to pay and um yeah, I honestly don't know without looking into it whether uh that attorney could be hired by uh an outside entity.

Understood.

Um I suppose that outside entity could also enter into litigation as friend of the court or something, but that that's some they're more limited into as to the extent of their participation in a lawsuit if I recollect correctly.

Um so uh attorney Toma, thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Chair what I seek to bring to the attention of uh our colleagues is attorney Thomas clearly uh an intelligent and capable attorney, however, his purview is the law, and our purview is politics.

And while it might not be great law to do this, I suspect it might be as representative Sherwood and Representative De la Cruz and I think some others maybe they said it expressly, they certainly were implying it.

This would be great politics to have the Department of Agriculture defending puppy mills, to have the state of Connecticut defending puppy mills.

I think what this would politically do is it would cause uh a large portion of the population to say what in the world is going on, and quite possibly mobilize the population to reach out to their state representatives and finally light a light a match between their toes and make something happen.

Uh and if indeed the law department can craft some sort of watertight agreement that doesn't cross any ethical or legal lines with an entity willing to pick up the legal bill, what is the downside?

And as I believe it was Representative Sherwood stated, Stanford will have led the way finally to a victory, much overdue.

Mr.

Chair, I yield.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh President Sherwood, you have the floor.

I I I apologize.

I'm sorry, my phone whatever.

We can say whatever we want about teams.

But um, anyways, um I appreciate representative or uh Chair Burns' comment or representative Burton's comments.

Um I just I just there's a few things I want to say.

Uh first of all, I'm looking at Stanford ordinance that currently section one eleven dash eleven of our current organization um allows the city to regulate licensing of dogs.

Um and I wanna point out sometimes dog owners are required to attain a dog license in the office of town clerk um by providing identification for then proof of rabies vaccination and paying the appropriate fee.

There are extensive there are extensive sections in the state statute that go over the licensing of dogs, and there hasn't been any issues across the state, tons of municipalities uh regulate licensing of dogs and the exact same state statute um that attorney Tolma is referring to that would in his opinion uh override the city's ability to uh regulate the sale of dogs and cats that exact same statute um talked about dog licensed and the city still further regulates them.

Additionally, uh in that same ordinance, section one eleven dash twelve.

Um hold on, where is it?

Um, sorry, I'm lying.

It's one eleven-11.

Um, section E, sale of animals on public property is unlawful for any person to display, sell, offer for sale, deliver, barter, auction, give away, or transfer upon any street, sidewalk, parking lot, or other public place in the city of Stanford, dogs, cats, rabbits, fowl, or other uh offspring.

And so the city of Stanford already has legislation that regulates the sale of dogs and cats on public property.

Um I'm not saying that this 100% means that we can do this.

What I am saying is that there is an argument to be made, and the city's law department back in 2019 helped craft an ordinance and was under the opinion that we were able to do this until at the very end they came in and said, Oh, wait, no, don't do this.

And so I think we need to be brave and take the first step.

And I appreciate Attorney Toma's um input on this, but the reality is is that it's not that the state didn't, you know, the state decided not to pass like things aren't black and white in Hartford.

Okay, the reality is is that in 2015, this past in 2025, this past spring, there was HB 6832, which is a was a state statute that um allowed explicitly allowed municipalities to ban the sale of dogs and cats um through ordinance.

Okay, that legislation again, it's HB 6832, passed committee and made it to the House floor, but it timed out at midnight.

So there were other bills that came first, and the bill timed out at midnight.

And unless we do something, if unless some brave entity, some brave legislature in the city says enough is enough, we're not gonna wait until the Connecticut uh legislature uh is gonna pull this bill in time to hit a midnight deadline.

This it could take years.

So I won't go down that road, but I think I'm just repeating my point because I'm trying to express to the members of this committee that there is an opportunity here to change the course of direction of the state of Connecticut and the way it deals with this issue.

And it's unfortunate that government works this way, but here we are, and we should I feel very lucky that we're in this position to be able to change the course of this.

And attorney Toma gave it an 80% chance that the state of Connecticut or that a judge is gonna is gonna overturn this legislation.

But you know what?

That's still a win.

Even if the legislation gets overturned, okay, it's still a win because it's gonna push the state even harder to actually bring this up and clarify it.

Because again, we're not the only municipality that wants to regulate the sale of dogs and cats.

I just think we are the only one that has the courage to do it, which is what I believe that all of us should be doing this evening.

That's number one.

Number two, attorney Thomas said that he spoke with an attorney in um from uh Lamont's office or from uh the state.

And you know what?

If Lamont wants to sue the city of Stanford because we want to regulate and and ban the sale of horrendous uh horrendously treated um companion animals in the state of Connecticut, and his office wants to take that stance publicly, bring it on because that is a horrendous position to take by the governor of the state of Connecticut and his law department.

And I I really welcome that because the headlines on that are terrible because the governor should be backing this legislation, not using our tax dollars to fund a law department that's gonna sue a city that's trying to protect animals that are in horrendous condition.

So if we get sued by the state of Connecticut, so be it.

And if Mayor Simmons doesn't want to approve this because she's worried about a legal issue in the face of being courageous and trying to fix a problem that Hartford can't fix and hasn't been able to fix for decades, then that's on her, but it's not gonna be on me ever, and I don't think it should be on this body.

So I urge all of you obviously to vote in favor of this and make history not only tonight, but next Wednesday, because this absolutely will make a difference.

And if people want to challenge it, let them be the ones to say no, not you.

I yield, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Um Representative De La Cruz, you have the floor again.

Representative Della Cruz, you are still muted.

There you go.

Oh okay, thank you.

Uh once again, let me concur with everything that President Sherwood has said, and let me add a couple of points of my own.

First, I have given up on the business of conjecturing on what any court will do.

Involved in many court proceedings.

I've given up that game.

You have the superior court rule one way, the appellate court ruled the other way.