Representative Beckham.

Yes.

Representative Blank?

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau?

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative De La Cruz.

No.

Representative Didlow?

Yes.

Representative Dorsey.

Yes.

Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel?

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride?

Yes.

Representative Goldberg.

Yes.

Thank you.

Representative Graham.

No.

Representative Gross?

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

I myself, um, yes.

Representative LePine?

Yes.

Representative McKinn.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison?

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Silas.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Yes.

President Shaw?

Yes.

Representative Shore.

No.

Representative Stone?

Yes.

Representative Sylvestry.

Yes.

Representative Boston.

Representative Boston, are you still with us on the call?

Yes, I'm I'm I'm going to be voting now.

No, thank you.

Representative uh Weathers.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

Representative Weirs.

Yes.

Representative Yeager.

Yes.

And Representative Zachary?

Yes.

All right.

And just to double check, Representative Pavia, you are not on the call, correct?

All right.

One second we will tally the counts.

Six notes.

All right.

I have uh six no's uh and 32 yeses uh with no abstentions.

Uh and therefore I understand that the motion passes.

Thank you so much.

Yes, that motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on to the next item.

Representative McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I move that LR 32.002 be approved.

Uh sorry, which one?

Sorry, which one are we doing?

Yeah, uh excuse me.

Uh LR32.002.

I move that it be approved as amended by the committee.

Um there's a hand here.

Yes, uh Representative Weinberg.

Uh thank you.

Uh I I move to amend um L uh LR 32002 uh to uh bring it back to the original um uh uh proposal uh which merges um uh uh uh uh education state and commerce and housing community development and social services.

Second okay so that is that is a motion to amend the uh amended motion and there's a second any discussion on the newer amendment proposed amendment representative weinberg and then representative sand.

Uh uh thank you uh so the reason I'm uh recommending uh combining these uh these these three um committees uh primarily has to do with uh the education committee and the state and commerce committee and finding a home for them because I believe that they are not um not constructive as separate committees.

I served on the education committee on the 31st board.

The um the uh legislative footprint uh and scope for the education committee is actually very very narrow.

Um it it approves uh it's responsible for approving, subject to board approval, uh contracts of um that that have to do with uh the Stanford public schools, these are could be contracts having to do with the installation of HVAC systems or redoing the roof on one of the one of the school buildings and things and and and things primarily like that.

It's a very it's a very narrow scope.

And by being its own committee, the temptation which the the committee on the 31st board uh uh gave into far too often was to operate as with a series of review items that were essentially operating as a shadow uh board of education.

We have a board of education popularly elected by the voters in this city, and we should let them stick to their knitting.

We should stick to our knitting, and our knitting does not require a separate education committee, which is why I want to move.

Point of order.

I thought we were just discussing putting back housing to those other two committees.

So those other two committees really have so representative Weinberg is just discussing the merits of having those two together, all of them together, all three together.

So those uh those three together.

Um as far as state and commerce, uh the state and commerce committee, it hardly ever met.

I think in the two and a half board years that I was on the board.

Uh so that's a total of about 30 of 30 monthly meetings.

Uh if it uh if it it let it met literally less than five, uh less less than five five times.

Um it um uh had no uh led or no ordinance responsibilities, not even any uh any review responsibilities.

I think it's completely unnecessary committee.

Neither of these committees, because of their extremely limited scope, um, add to the burdens of the um uh uh of the housing and community developments and social services, so that they will again be able to continue their critical focus on the issues of housing, community development and social services.

They will not be distracted by the addition of these two other commit the folding of these two other committees.

And and with that I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Sanford.

Yeah, I'll be real quick.

I think most importantly right now, combining the state and commerce with the housing actually makes the most sense, especially with the state getting heavily involved in housing, but uh specifically with their new housing bill that's just come down.

And I agree with some of the members that have talked about getting our state reps more involved, which I think would be a great opportunity to have the housing committee and state and commerce combined because now the housing crisis is a statewide issue that is now being we we can't really separate housing and state because they're so intertwined.

So I think having the two makes the most sense because now we can start looking at what's coming down from the state and how do we have to implement that policy-wise at the city level with with housing.

So I think it makes more sense to combine all the three.

So anyway, I'm done.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um just want to make sure we have quotum here.

Representative Camborelli, do we should do okay?

Thank you.

Um other discussion.

Representative Pollack.

I will make it very go ahead and let uh Walston go ahead.

You go ahead.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I'll be quick again.

Um, as a co-chair of the idea of these three committees together.

I'm willing to give it a shot.

Again, it wasn't my idea, but I can see the merits to it.

So I think it's worth giving a shot.

And I have a commitment that should there be an issue, uh, I will bring it back forward because I won't be able to manage it.

And uh on top of that, uh separating it out defeats the purpose.

So I would like to move forward with having them be together and try it.

Thank you so much.

Uh representative Walsden.

Okay.

Um I'm not in favor of combining the housing with any other committee.

Um I've been a housing advocate for way too too many years.

And for us to sit here and try to water down the housing committee, it's not just about the housing.

I said this in the LR LNR meeting.

It's not just about the housing.

There are other issues that come along with the housing community development.

Um I just think, oh, you want to do the cow and era, but yet still I can see myself if I three or four months.

Um, this is not working, but yet still I can see the other one.

Oh, it is working.

I think we need to leave this housing by itself because we got a lot of stuff coming down the pipe on housing.

And I don't understand how the state and commerce, we didn't need state and commerce when we were leading in the housing committee on the 31st board.

We did not need uh state and commerce.

So I don't understand how we can mess with that.

And um, let me see.

And then to have education because you need a place to find to find uh a home for that, and you're gonna mix it with housing.

Make it make sense.

These people in this town are getting expedited.

We need to know why.

We need to talk to property managers.

When we have our housing community development meetings, they're not over early.

They go on and on.

And I don't think we need to mix any any kind of committee for this.

It'll be also easier for the citizen here to uh basically get on this meeting.

If they see all these other committees, I wouldn't want to get on.

I wouldn't oh housing, state in commerce and edge.

No.

It needs to be a standalone committee so that um it could have laser focused um attention because right now what I see you're you're watering it down because nobody wants to sit there and put in the time.

When you want to become a border rep, this was the territory.

These meetings went on.

There was a lot of discussion back and forth.

We have guests, and also we have our own people who want to talk.

And everything is like, oh, let's combine it.

No, no, no.

Leave it alone.

Leave the housing by itself.

And you know, you all talk about the sake of time.

This is this is part of being a border representative, and I rest.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Um seeing no other hands, we will roll.

Sorry.

Yes, go ahead.

Um just in terms of the uh, you know, the name of the committee.

So I I think so the motion on the table is to go with the original um proposal um with naming it housing education and commerce.

Um I mean, should we uh you know like we're losing the um community development in the social services aspect, and to my understanding is the intention to keep those.

Um so we will we will first vote on the amendment to combine the committees, and then we can make a subsequent motion to change the name.

I see, okay, to the then amended full motion.

Okay, I see.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so seeing no other hands, let's take this by roll call board.

And this is an amendment to the uh amendment that passed in the committee to combine the three committees to merge education, state and commerce, housing development, and social services committees.

So look Johnson.

Uh representative Adams.

Um Representative Beckham.

Uh we'll come back.

Uh Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Uh Representative Bradford.

Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative De la Cruz.

Uh no.

Representative Didalo.

Yes.

Uh Representative Dorsey.

Come back.

Uh Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel?

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Yes.

Uh Representative Goldberg.

Yes.

Representative Graham.

No.

Uh Representative Gross.

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt?

Yes.

Uh, I myself am a yes.

Uh Representative LePine.

Yes.

Representative McKinney?

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Uh Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Silas.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Yes.

President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestry.

Yes.

Representative Walston.

No.

Representative Weathers.

Representative Weinbred.

Yes.

Representative Weirs.

Yes.

Representative Yeager.

Yes.

And Representative Zachary.

Yes.

All right.

Coming back just to confirm.

Representative Dorsey.

Are you online and able to vote?

Representative Pavia.

And finally, Representative Weathers.

All right.

So thanks.

Representative Beckham.

Yes.

Are you did you?

I just did.

Representative Beckham.

Nope.

Representative Beckham is calling me.

Representative Beckham.

Representative Beckham.

Yes, we can hear you.

I'm not sure where you were or heared anything.

Would you like to vote on this amendment item?

And what will be your vote?

A no to amend.

Okay, thank you.

Representative Shaw.

President Shaw.

I didn't hear her answer.

Once you call it, let all of us hear it.

She she voted no to the amendment.

But we didn't get to hear it.

We heard it in the room.

We heard it in the room.

Okay.

Okay.

We didn't hear it on, you know, on this side.

Okay.

Six.

Got six no's.

Six no's and then one, two, and it's representative.

Great.

Uh we've tallied six no's.

Um three uh thirty yeses.

Yeah, exactly.

So the amendment passes.

Um hold on one second.

Representative McEwen.

Do we need to vote?

Do we need another motion to pass or are we good with this amendment?

Uh procedurally, we would need a motion to pass as amended.

And can we okay?

Is that a second?

Um could we do that by voice vote?

That's your decision.

Could we try this by voice vote?

All those in favor of wait, what is what are we voting on?

So we just have to pass the amendment.

So we first did an amendment to amendment, so we just have to pass the amendment now.

I know it's confusing.

Okay.

Oh, so this is the the main, this is LR 32.

Correct.

It's still the it's still LR32.

Yeah.

So if we in on the subject of the name, I mean, do we have to amend it again?

You'll make you do you want to you can make shit now?

Okay.

If we're considering the main question as to whether or not to approve the change to the rules, now is the final opportunity to make any amendments to that.

Okay, let's make it okay.

Rep representative Pollock.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to rename the combined committees for housing social services, education, state and commerce.

I would like to name it.

Community development, housing, education, social services, state and commerce, and for the acronym to be referred to as chess.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Okay.

Any new discussion?

If not, let's try this by voice vote.

All those in favor of the passing the amendment with that proposed name, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

I hold I have my can you hear me?

Representative Wallston, yes.

Do you do you have uh do you want to speak on it?

Did you want to vote on it?

I think housing should come first.

I know the the acronym is left, but uh the housing needs to come first.

That's the only thing.

Well, maybe they just uh I would recommend voting no then.

Thank you.

Okay.

Although we said all those in favor say yeah, aye.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Okay, so the amendment passes with the name and the acronym chess.

I'm not even gonna attempt to say the name, but yeah.

All right, let's move on to the okay.

I guess we have to pass it again because we meant it again.

Okay, let's try this again by voice board.

All those in favor of the amending the amendment for the name, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

but all right let's move on to the okay i guess we have to pass it again because we meant it again okay let's try this again by voice board all those in favor of the amending the amendment for the name please say aye uh any opposed aye yeah okay one no that's representative walls now you're saying no okay uh any abstentions okay so that passes with one noted no thank you now can we move on to the next item go ahead chair mcuban thank you president shawm um i'd make a motion at this time to approve l r 32.003 as amended by the committee second second okay there's a motion to approve l r 3200 three and there's a second any discussion hearing or seeing none let's try this uh there was in hold on this had a no vote in the committee still can we try okay let's try this by voice about in the interest of time I know it's everybody's been patient it's almost midnight so let's try this by voice but all those in favor of approving LR 32003 please say aye.

Any any opposed any abstentions okay that item passes thank you thank you madam chair that concludes my point thank you uh chair McEwen okay personnel committee chair weinberg uh thank you uh we we had two items on our uh we uh our committee met on uh Monday December 15th at 7 p.m uh in the Democratic caucus room and by webinar we had two items on the agenda the first was p32.001 or rejection of the tentative agreement with the Board of Education and the parent facilitators UPSEU Local 24 unit 123 uh the committee agreed not to take this up essentially to withdraw it uh because we were advised uh we were advised by uh by council that um that we did uh that it did not require um board uh uh uh board uh rejection of it uh consideration of of a rejection um so unless there is a motion to take it up i will move on to the next item i'll move on to the next item well ahead uh the next item is p32.002 uh rejection uh of a tentative agreement between the board of education and the stamford administrative unit sa u um and i uh so move to uh to reject this item sorry okay and i asked to speak uh okay go ahead okay chair weinberg thank you uh so i just want to remind everyone that on a rejection item um we're we we we sort of vote opposite of how we uh of what what we what we believe what we want um if we want to uh reject the this collective bargaining agreement uh in which case it uh it's null and void uh then we vote yes to reject if we want to pass approve the if we want to approve this collective bargaining agreement then we vote no to not reject so it's a little oh it's a little it'll it's a little upside down so I just wanted to preface with that I went into the meeting in in into our meeting um committee meeting uh leaning towards rejection um I took the uh the negative advisory opinion by the board of finance quite seriously uh they were concerned that um compensation levels uh salary levels for the members of the Stanford administrative unit which is principally uh the school principals assistant principals and some uh higher level positions in the board of education office uh they were concerned that a a those positions um are currently compensated at or or s or a little bit above uh the median for uh other uh public school districts in lower fairfield county and the increases um the in the the salary increases over the the next three years in this tentative agreement we're also at or slightly above um the uh the the median for uh other school districts in lower fairfield county uh however uh the discussion that we had convinced me to uh vote no on rejection in other words to support the collective bargain the the tentative collective bargaining agreement i did that for two reasons um first while i recognize that the board of finance uh which really looks at the financial implications of uh uh of of these uh items uh well i recognized that uh uh the the the additional expense involved here uh over a three year period the additional expense with from from these increases was about 146 thousand dollars that's cumulative over three years so in the context of an annual uh

Um first, while I recognize that the Board of Finance, uh, which really looks at the financial implications of uh uh of these items, uh, well, I recognized that uh the the additional expense involved here uh over a three-year period, the additional expense with from these increases was about 146,000 dollars.

That's cumulative over three years.

So, in the context of an annual uh public school budget of about 330 million, I would submit that's almost that's about a billion dollars over the three years.

I would submit that the 146,000 or thereabouts is less than de minimis.

Uh second, uh, we had a discussion about uh the potential impact of rejecting this tentative agreement on retention of current um school principals and assistant principals and recruiting new new ones from outside uh from outside the district.

Currently, uh the district does very well in terms of retention.

Uh recruiting from outside the district is more challenging uh because of aggressive competition with other districts uh for uh and limited uh talent at uh the principal and assistant principal level.

Um I concluded that it was for the very little bit of savings that we might get by rejecting this agreement and having it go to arbitration, it was not worth taking the risk of creating any kind of a retention or recruiting problem for these critically important positions.

Uh so that is why I voted not to reject, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Chair Weinberg, Representative Delacruz.

And if you can keep your remarks short, I would greatly appreciate it.

Uh point of order.

Are the the new uh rules around debate are active, correct?

Yes.

So should we be setting you know a timer or something?

You won't meet us at a time, but I will set that.

I'm just kidding.

So you will be allowed to speak for five minutes, representative Delacruz.

Oh boy, everybody else has spoken much longer.

I'll try to be as fast as I can.

Uh I voted to reject the Stanford administrative unit unit union contract.

For clarity, the contract is for 90 administrators, not teachers.

Uh, me in the product and fan of public education, I came to the meeting inclined to support the proposed contract.

But first, I needed to confirm the validity of the Board of Finance unanimous negative opinion asserting that A, the total increases above the state average applied to salaries at or above the average for Fairfield County.

That is, the contract proposes salaries above the state and even Fairfield County wages.

And B, the tentative uh tentative agreement third-year increase of three and a half percent is too high.

With respect to the total increase, after detailed discussions of the assertion, Mr.

Feeley and Dr.

Fernandez, members of the contract negotiating team, concluded that the assertion was accurate.

With respect to B, the third-year increase of three and a half percent is too high.

Dr.

Fernandez stated that it was a result of negotiation.

The starting ask was much higher, and standard standard negotiation strategy to ask for more to get the desire.

The same statement can be found at the Board of Finance meeting.

The Board of Finance also objected to the president this third year hike would set for future negotiations.

To better understand the impact of the third year 3.5% bump on affordability and the challenge of funding pension obligations, a little bit of a history.

When I first joined this board during the Martin administration, the challenge then was funding pension obligations.

The largest driver of fiscal year 2017-18 budget increase.

Excuse me.

The city will receive about 4.6 million less than the state.

This result in an increase of 6.8% in the cost of retirement benefits caused by the largest of the state.

Since pension benefits are best on the last year's salary, taking advantage of the third year bump may concentrate retirements on the bump year, increasing the challenge of funding pension obligations, which to this date remain underfunded.

This is the problem with the third year bump.

The following rationale was stated to during the committee in support of the contract.

One may help employment attraction and retention.

I asked a couple of times in different ways whether this contract would help in retention retention.

To their credit, during the personal committee meeting, both Mr.

Philly and Dr.

Fernandez declined various opportunities to assert a retention problem.

During the Board of Finance meeting, again, they declined to assert a retention problem.

By the way, all these statements are in the uh video.

You have about a minute left.

How much?

One minute.

Regarding attraction, Dr.

Fernandez stated that opening attracts around 75 or so applicants.

During the Board of Finance meeting, Mr.

Hyman, former Board of Education President and member of the negotiation team stated there is no hiring problem.

I hope that puts that to rest.

Statements on the record simply do not support the notion that this contract would help attraction and retention after all the opportunities given to the invitees at both meetings to so assert.

The second rationale offered is it is only an increase of 146,000.

I have heard that notion before.

It is only $2.73 per taxpayer.

It is only $375, or only $52,000 or only or only.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Representative Gross.

And just to add just to emphasize for my colleagues that, you know, this contract that came to us, you know, it's not, you know, we're not a party in it, we're not amending the contract in any way.

Um this is the result of you know negotiations between um the union, the administrative union SAU and the Board of Education.

Um, you know, they worked on this product, they came to this.

This is a you know mutually agreeable outcome for them.

Uh, and my my vision is you know, who are we to sort of question you know their settlements?

Um, and for all the reasons you know stated in terms of retention, you know, we we have reasons to you know want to keep our administrators at the you know at the heads of our schools.

We don't want uh your administrators leaving for other nearby, you know, towns, school districts, which you know pay higher.

So um, I guess thank you, representative gross seeing no other discussion.

Since it's a rejection, I'd um we I'd like to you can do it, but this time it'll be only for three minutes, and then that'll be the end of discussion.

So I'm allowed to finish what I was saying, trying to finish before.

The statements on the record simply do not support the notion that this contract would help attraction and retention after the all the opportunities given.

After all the opportunities given to the invitees at both meetings to so assert.

The other rationale that was offered, Stanford is not an average city.

It is okay to pay above average salaries.

Taxpayers in my district and possibly in yours would not agree with that notion.

Rejecting the con the other rationale, rejecting the contract risk attraction and attention.

Again, no support by statements on the record at both meetings.

The above rationales were not persuasive, not supported by the record, and there is the additional consideration that the massive school construction progress now in progress.

And the retention and attraction realities noted by the Board of Finance and concur with their negative opinion.

I rather conserve budget funding for the unforeseeable surprises sure to come in school construction than dissipate funding on already by the state and fair field standard above average.

Rejecting the contract is not the end of the road.

It is not null and void.

The matter will go to arbitration, where historically the the arbitration board splits the difference, resulting in a more affordable contract.

For those reasons I voted to reject.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Representative Walston, did you hand your hand up before?

Um I just I put it down because I I'm in agreement with uh representative representative Delacru as well.

I will be voting.

Yeah, to reject.

Because I think the high salary is not good.

You know, we've given out high salaries and then failure has come.

So thanks.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Seeing no other hands, we will take this to a board.

Would you like this to be a roll call uh since it's a rejection, Chair Weinberg?

Okay, all right.

We'll take this by roll call.

And uh just another reminder, if you are in favor of approving the contract, you vote no.

So it's a rejection to reject.

So representative Adams.

No.

Representative Beckham.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

No.

Backwards, backwards, I forget.

Final final answer is no.

No.

Okay.

Representative Bouchard.

No.

Representative Boudreau?

No.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camperelli.

Representative Taylor Cruz?

Uh yes.

Representative Didalo.

Representative Dorsey.

Representative Field.

No.

Representative Finkel?

No.

Representative Gardner.

No.

Representative Gilbright?

Pass.

Representative Goldberg.

No.

Sorry?

No.

Thank you.

Representative Graham.

I abstain.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Hill?

No.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hayek.

No.

I myself no.

Representative LePine.

No.

Representative McKin?

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

No.

Representative Pavia.

Representative Pleccia.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

No.

Representative Price?

No.

Representative Silas.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford?

No.

President Shaw.

Yeah.

Representative Shore.

No.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestri.

No.

Representative Walston.

Yes.

Representative Weathers.

Representative Weinbert?

No.

Representative Weirs.

I abstained for potential conflict of interest.

Okay.

Representative Yeager.

No.

Representative Zachary.

No.

All right.

Let me just go back through the passes really quick.

Representative Sorry, who who is that?

Weathers is no.

All right.

Representative Beckham.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Didalow.

Representative.

No.

Thank you, Representative Dillow.

Representative Camparelli.

Representative Torsi.

Representative Gilbride.

No.

You uh Representative Pavia.

All right.

I believe that is everyone.

I have two yeses, two abstentions, and the remainder no.

32 32 no's no.

Yep.

Yeah.

Okay.

And that concludes.

So sorry, hold on.

So there's two yeses, 31 no's, and two abstentions.

So that rejection item is rejected.

So and that blessedly concludes the report.

Thank you, Chair Weinberg.

Okay.

Moving on to next committee, land use, urban redevelopment committee.

Co chair Hughes.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I move to recommit this item LU32.00.

When you met.

Oh, okay.

So land use and urban redevelopment committee.

Uh I'm a co-chair with uh rep price.

We met on Wednesday, December 17th, 2025 at 7 p.m.

via webinar.

Uh I we uh the following item we took up uh resolution to opt into the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority, CMDA.

Uh and it was approved by the committee 720.

At this time, I'd like to move to recommit item LU32 dot 001 to steering at this time.

Second okay, so there is a motion to recommit LU32.001 to steering and um there is a second any discussion just so our chair use yes our our plan is to hold a public hearing.

Um there will be a notice on that.

I just want to be clear that a public hearing was actually not required that public comment was enough to opt in.

That's according to section 106 of public act 25-168.

Uh any other discussion.

Seeing none, let's trade let's do this by voice board.

All those in favor of recommitting item LU 32.001 to steering, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, that item is recommitted to steering.

Thank you, Coach Hughes.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to operations committee.

Chair Sanford.

Madam President, uh Operations Committee met on Thursday, December 18th, 2025 at 6 30 p.m.

via webinar.

We had three items, the first two on consent.

I'll go through all three and then I'll move the first two.

First item 03203, an approval of first amendment to agreement with Fuss and O'Neill pursuant to request for proposals 2025.0126, the drainage assessments for areas of concern in Stanford Law Department file number 825-0162, approved by committee 600.

Item number two, 03204, and approval of a proposed contract with sanitary equipment company for the purchase of OEM parts, equipment and services for loadmaster leach, whitki, lambry, the Perkins Manufacturing, Cartlifters and Products, Parkhand Company, LLC, Bocher, Municipal Equipment, Pacmore, American Palfinger Products, and VACCON used on road maintenance department trucks and the associated waiver of the competitive process because this is a purchase as a sole source vendor.

This was approved uh by the Board of Finance 600 and approved by committee 600.

And I would like at this time to move items one through two on the consent agenda.

Okay, so there's a motion and a second to move items 32.003 and 032.004.

Um, and there's multiple seconds.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, let's take this by voice board.

All in favor of uh approving items, the two items on consent, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, those items pass unanimously.

Thank you.

Item number three, 03202, review item overview of the office of operations, and a report was made, and that concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Uh moving on to public safety and health committee.

Chair Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um the public safety and health committee met on December 22nd at 6:30 via webinar.

At that time, uh PS32.001.

Uh the review provided by Lou Deribus.

Uh the uh of his overview of his office and the public safety, health and welfare uh was conducted.

Uh appreciate his uh time and effort.

It was a very well done and well received, provided excellent background to the structure and function of his office.

Uh and that concludes a report was made, uh, and that concludes my comments.

Thank you, Chair Bouchard.

Parks and Recreation Committee, Chair Sanford.

Parks and Rec's uh committee did not have a meeting, no meeting, no report.

Thank you.

Coach Pollock.

Education Committee, no meeting, no report.

May I move on to the next one?

Go ahead.

Same as Housing Community Development Social Services Committee, no meeting, no report.

I will come back in a minute.

Thank you.

Uh transportation committee, Chair Beers.

No meeting, no report.

Thank you.

Uh the last committee, State and Commerce Committee, Co-Chair Pollock.

How much time do I have?

A lot.

Uh state and commerce committee, no meeting, no report.

Okay.

Thank you.

We uh just one last item left before we adjourn.

Um we just have to approve the minutes for the um the two uh meetings.

Is that a motion to approve the December 1st organizational meeting minutes and December 6th orientation minutes?

I make so I so move.

Second is that a second.

Second.

Okay, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed abstentions.

Those I meet those minutes are approved.

Um is there a motion to adjourn?

Thank you, everyone.

I know it's a long night.

I appreciate everyone sticking around.

Thank you.

Good night.

We're adjourned at 1224 p.m.