I think we're gonna go ahead and jump on in.

It is 701 on the 26th of January.

I call the meeting to order.

My name is Glenn Price.

I'm one of two chairs for the committee.

I'm joined today by Representative Hughes.

I would ask you all to please indulge me a little bit with my Roberts Rules.

This is my first time hosting an event.

So again, please, if you wouldn't mind lending me your patience, I would be very appreciative.

Is there anyone from the uh city staff on the call today?

Hi, this is Leah Kagan.

I am here.

Hi Leah, how are you?

Leah, would you like me to call the role or would you like to call the role?

I believe that is for you to do.

Oh, I'm sorry, from yes, I believe that.

Gotcha.

And it looks like there's a question already.

Uh Catherine.

Sorry, Catherine Lobalbo, also uh director of school construction present from the city.

I got I got you.

Fair enough.

So let me go ahead and call the role of the reps.

I'll do it and we'll go through it if it's okay with you.

I I saw Representative Hughes here.

Uh Representative Adams.

Representative Adams.

I see you here.

Are you on mute perhaps, Representative?

Different Adams.

Oh, okay.

Uh fair enough.

Last call for Representative Adams.

Okay.

Representative Beckham.

Representative Beckham.

Last call for Representative Beckham.

All right.

Matthew, uh, Representative Matthew Boudreau, I saw on the call.

Thank you.

Representative Michael Field.

Present.

Representative Lewis Finkel.

Present.

Representative Felix Gardner.

Present.

Representative John Politia.

Present.

Are there any other members of the board present, not on the committee?

Representative Camparelli is present.

Thank you for joining us today, Representative Camparelli.

Okay.

Oh, Representative Hyatt, how are you?

Nice to see you.

Thank you for joining us.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Hi, Representative Shaw here.

Uh uh.

Representative Adams, thank you for joining us.

Representative Shaw, always nice to see you and hear from you.

Thank you for joining us.

So as I understand it, there is a public portion of the meeting tonight.

Uh Leah, was there anyone that signed up ahead of time?

I didn't get any notice.

I wasn't sure if there was anyone that signed up ahead of time.

I think I that's not um something that I would be aware of.

I think Christina might be on the call or someone else from the Board of Representatives staff that could share that with you.

Thank you.

Sorry about that, Leah.

Hi, Representative Price.

Um, Christina, I'm on the call tonight.

Hi, Christina.

Was there anyone that signed up ahead of time?

Um no, I have not um received any names.

So as of this time, no.

Fair enough.

Uh so that being said, should I call for public comments or is it uh is it uh not a requirement?

Well, I just described as a public hearing.

So if there's anyone who um who is an attendee, um I'm guessing they can raise their hand and you can call them as you see fit.

Gotcha.

So we've got a couple of people with our hands raised.

Please.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

I see a few hand hands raised at the moment for members of the public.

Excellent.

We'll jump right in.

I've got um uh Dave Adams, I've got Michael Moore, I've got Christopher Dawson, and I've got uh Gina Calabrisi as well, all looking to weigh in on today's conversation.

Um so we're going to open it up in the order that I've just uh described.

We'll start off with Dave Adams in just a moment.

Uh we're gonna limit our comments to three minutes, so please be judicious with your time.

That being said, uh at this point, I'd turn it over to Dave Adams for comments on the uh on the motion before the board.

Dave Adams.

Uh can you hear me?

Can you hear me?

Oh, yes, now we can hear you.

Yeah, now we can.

Uh sorry.

I'm running three different meetings at once right now, so it's kind of a bit of a challenge.

Three different computers.

So I I did want to comment on this on this particular item.

The CDMA is uh a quasi-government agency that uh is there that to increase the amount of development in in town.

There it's designed to make uh these projects easier for developers and effectively more uh more profitable.

Uh you know, uh offering uh quote unquote gap funding uh through the through issuing of loans at lower interest rates.

Uh if you can just imagine what gap funding can do, uh that only increases the amount of money that they can dump into these buildings, and that is not going to result in a lower rental cost for these buildings.

Now we have over the course of the last you know 30 some odd years been operating under this uh understanding that if you just continuously increase this supply that rents or or costs are gonna go down.

We've been uh led to believe that the development was going to lead to ownership of these units, and that never actually happens.

They're all rentals.

And uh what I take big issue with here is that we keep trying to solve the same problem by using the same methodology that has failed in the last it has continuously failed throughout the last 30 years.

The problem here is is that the the buildings that we are building, we're not building them for people to afford them.

We're building them to uh charge the highest rents that we can, and then we advertise those buildings down on Wall Street to people that can afford them.

You know, down if you live down in lower Manhattan, you understand that if you live in Sono, it's it's quite often that you uh are are looking at an apartment that's a thousand square feet and you are paying 14,000 a month for that for that rental property.

That is an obscene amount of money, but that's what's the norm down there.

Now you you take that person and you displace them 50 minutes away, which you know for a lot of people that's that's not too too different from their regular commute, and you put them in Stanford, and they're looking at at rental prices of six to eight thousand dollars or four to eight thousand dollars.

They're not balking at those at those numbers.

But what it what it effectively does is it raises the cost of of real estate everywhere else around it.

Because you're you're creating an artificial uh demand that is far outweighing what what the supply is.

And uh it's it's not even that it's far outweighing the supply.

The supply doesn't ever get actually filled.

You know, most of these buildings do not get filled up all the way, and there is constantly uh rental properties being advertised.

Uh, but they are in a never-ending up um trend up in cost, and that is not being solved by increasing the supply.

If we want to increase the supply, we need to figure out how we can encourage developers to not seek the highest numbers that they can gain.

20 seconds, Mr.

Adams, and instead and instead build for the people that already live here.

Because what this is resulting in is a very long record of gentrification.

And so I am not for uh entering into an agreement with the CMDA.

And I thank you for your time and your consideration.

Have a great night.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate you.

Next up, I have uh Mr.

Michael Moore.

Mr.

Moore, please join us.

Mr.

Moore, Michael Moore.

You're on mute, my friend.

Mr.

Moore, Michael Moore.

Mr.

Moore going once.

Mr.

Moore, going twice.

Mr.

Moore, are you there?

Okay, we'll move along.

Point of information.

Um, Christine, can you tell everybody how to unmute themselves, please from the public?

There's a task bar on the top.

Yep.

Go ahead, Christina.

I'm sorry, please go ahead.

You can um you can finish what you were saying.

Folks, there's uh Mr.

Moore and everyone else's task bar up top uh with a camera and mic indicator.

If you click off the X on your mic, it will unmute you.

Uh and it looks like uh Mr.

Moore has rejoined us in the third spot.

So we're gonna move forward and recognize Christopher Dawson.

Christopher Dawson, are you there?

I am here.

Can you hear me?

I can please join us.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Uh thank you, uh Chair.

My name's Chris Dawson.

I live in North Stanford, and I am speaking in support of LU 32.001, a resolution enabling the city of Stanford to opt into the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority or CDMA program.

The CDMA, led by Stanford's own David Cooris, will help the City of Stanford stimulate economic and transit oriented development in defined development districts.

The CDA CDMA mission is to build a downtown that fosters economic growth through broad housing choice in modern walkable bikeable neighborhoods.

This will encourage much needed residential housing development to address the housing crisis that has been decades in the making.

Shamefully, children can still walk and scooter past those brown fields.

We can't repeat that mistake again.

CDMA has 60 million in capital authorization now and another 30 million in the next fiscal year to assist cities.

Can we please say yes to state financial assistance?

Stanford being Stanford, pennywise and pound foolish.

We have one of the smallest economic development offices among any of the Connecticut cities.

Given that fact, wouldn't it be sensible to lean into an office that wants to help us?

CMA is offering to help the city navigate the permitting and state approval processes to build housing near transit hubs.

Can we please say yes to an offer of free guidance and help?

All right.

So I'm being a little bit facetious, but nonetheless, I think it's time that we embrace this.

It's a terrific organization with an idea that's long overdue.

Thank you, uh Chair, for your time.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your remarks.

We'll be moving forward with the next on the list, Megan Cotrell.

Megan, good evening.

Please join us.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Megan Catrell.

I'm a former member of the Board of Representatives.

The federal government very purposefully built housing for our veterans.

However, I am a little bit hesitant because we've had plenty of government programs in the past, in the recent past in Stanford, like tax increment financing, like the enterprise zone, like the opportunity zone.

And they haven't really functioned to create affordable housing for residents.

What they have functioned as is basically a way for gentrification to happen.

So if the CDMA can work very purposefully to help Stanford create housing that is actually affordable, then it could be good.

But residents are rightfully suspicious because they've seen a lot of development, and it seems that that development seems to benefit developers more than it benefits the public.

Further to that, um a lot of our municipal workers have a hard time affording to live in Stanford.

If you take, for example, a paraprofessional in our public schools, they make about 40,000 a year.

And it would be very useful for the city um to have housing that prioritizes them.

New York City has a housing lottery and municipal workers are prioritized in SAD housing lottery.

Um I would like for this to be a program that benefits the public, but it also depends on the will of Stanford's leadership.

Are we gonna put the public first or are we gonna put developer profit first?

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Control.

Appreciate your team and your time.

Uh all right, moving forward.

Next we have Michael Moore.

Michael, are you there?

Yes, I am.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Moore.

I serve as the president of Stanford Downtown.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening.

I'm here to advocate for the City of Stanford's membership in the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority.

During the process of creating the recently adopted comprehensive plan for the city of Stanford, my organization advocated strongly for increased investment in the Stanford Transportation Center and properties immediately surrounding the transportation center.

The presence of the train station is a valuable asset that will grow our grand list and help promote mass transit and thus reduce dependence on auto-centric design.

The city's membership and the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority will allow the city to access the technical assistance and financial assistance that will help us leverage further leverage the value of the train station.

It is important to note the membership that membership in the CMDA does not cede authority to the organization.

Membership opens the door to a valuable economic development partnership.

And this membership is the first step in building that partnership.

I and my organization stand strongly behind the application and resolution for such membership.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr.

Moore.

Appreciate your time.

Appreciate you.

Moving forward.

Looks like next on the list is Gina Calabrisi.

Gina, please join us.

Okay.

Am I in?

Can you hear me?

We can.

Great.

Thank you.

First, thank you for having this hearing.

I originally wrote in asking that you have it under the rules, under the law authorizing the CMDA.

First, I echo and adopt everything that my neighbor Megan Cotrell just said about for this CMDA.

I'm cautious about Stanford joining it.

I'm a resident of the Cove.

And the reason is I don't know why Stanford needs the expertise and assistance of the CMDA, because we've already done a great job of adding transit-oriented housing.

We've added, I don't know the numbers, but thousands of units downtown near the train station with thousands more to come.

And it has resulted in gentrification.

If you know, you all live in different districts.

I don't know how many long-time Stanford residents are among you or how many you know, but I hear all the time from Stanford residents, especially people on the west side and east side that they can no longer afford to live here because the housing costs have gone up.

If what the CMDA will do will build transit-oriented housing for true as true workforce housing, meaning the moderate income, middle income people who we need to make our city run, um, then I would support it.

But certainly we don't need the incentives like the low interest loans to private developers because they're here already.

And I don't think that the state should be engaging in corporate welfare, giving low interest loans to developers.

I'd love to see low interest loans go to students and first-time home buyers for this, especially the second if the state wants to spur housing.

Um what we need are more single family and starter homes here in Stanford, not necessarily more apartments.

And if there are gonna be more apartments, we need them to be more affordable to people.

Um, I think Mr.

Corus himself acknowledged at the first meeting where he presented that you know, Stanford has done a pretty good job already.

Um, and that we don't really need that much help.

I and I have more questions.

I'd like to know what exactly Stamford plans to do in its collaboration for the with the CMDA.

Why do we need to do that?

The first um committee meeting about it didn't inspire confidence because I didn't hear a lot of questions from representatives.

Um they didn't seem well versed, and Mr.

Corus didn't mention the public comment involvement, which is which he publicizes very much in all of his public communications about the CMDA.

Anyway, thank you very much for the opportunity to be heard.

Thanks very much for your input, Gina.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Uh next up, uh looks like we have someone identifying as Paula Paula.

I believe we're gonna need your last name as well for the record.

A point of information.

Am I accurate about that?

Yes.

I apologize.

I got on late.

My name is Paula Waldman.

Thank you, Paula.

Please join us.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Well, thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Um, I want to begin by saying that I understand why the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority was created.

Many municipalities are facing real challenges with aging infrastructure, housing pressures, and limited local resources.

And on paper, the CMDA offers funding and technical assistance that can sound appealing, and I respect that some communities may find that support useful.

However, after reviewing how the CMDA functions, I am fundamentally opposed to our city joining at this time.

My concern is not about the development itself, but it's about control, accountability, and long-term consequences.

Although the CMDA is described as voluntary and advisory, it is still a state-level quasi-public authority.

Once that city begins to opt in or a town, developmental priorities can begin to shift, not necessarily because the community asked for it, but because funding incentives subtly encourage zoning changes, increase density, or the project that aligns with state objectives rather than neighborhood realities.

Even when local zoning is technically preserved, the practical influence is real.

Equally important is transparency.

The CMDA is not governed by locally elected officials.

The residents do not vote on its leadership, yet its involvement can shape decisions that permanently affect neighborhoods, the infrastructure, traffic, and environmental conditions.

That distance from voters matters.

I'm also concerned about mission creep.

What begins is technical assistance can evolve into pressure to accelerate development, particularly in areas labeled as opportunity or underutilized, even when those areas serve as buffers, green space or stable residential zones that the community values.

More importantly, I do not believe we should outsource planning judgment when we already have local boards, a comprehensive plan, and residents who understand the nuances of our neighborhood far better than any external authority.

For these reasons, I believe the risk outweigh the benefits.

If CMD is to be CMDA is to be considered it all, it should be only after clear binding limits on its roles are publicly defined.

Strong opt-out provisions are guaranteed, and residents have meaningful ongoing input, not just at the front end.

Until those safeguards are in place, I respectfully urge this body not to move forward with CMDA participation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Paul Waldman.

Appreciate you and appreciate your time.

Thank you.

All right, it looks like quite welcome.

Looks like we have uh uh someone else that uh has queued up.

Junyun Lim.

Junian, would you care to join us, please?

Hello.

Hello, sir.

Uh I just wanted to speak in favor of the CMDA.

Um sorry, I uh as a resident of downtown Stanford, I'm always looking for a resident of downtown Stanford without a car, I'm always looking for uh faster ways to get around uh the city.

And the way I can do that is via going to the Stanford Transit Station most often uh by taking the bus or the train station and having housing options near the train station would be very valuable to me.

Uh frankly, right now we don't have many housing options nor any kind of development near the train station.

And I think having some guidance from the CMDA would be incredibly valuable uh for developing that area and having access to those funds as well would be very valuable for the city.

That's it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your your comments.

Uh is there anyone else that would like to speak?

I don't see any other hands raised for the good of the order.

Any other public comments?

Any other public comments?

Any other public comments?

Coach, I was going to read the resolution uh and then put it up for a vote, but I want to make sure that I'm following correct procedure.

Is that right?

Coach Yes, yeah, I believe that's correct.

Um yes.

Fair enough.

You have to close the public hearing first.

Then move forward.

Thanks very much.

Is there besides?

Please do thank you.

And then you and then you have to open the floor up for discussion.

How do I open it up for uh how do I close it past the three times that I just asked for public comment?

Uh is there anything else that I need to say to close public comment?

I'll make a motion to uh close the public hearing.

There you go.

And second.

Thank you.

All in favor.

I all opposed.

Any abstentions.

Okay.

So at this point, I'd like to open it up for conversation from the other reps.

Is there anyone that would like to speak on the matter?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, I think we need a motion to open it up.

Yeah.

My apologies.

Thank you.

So move.

ISO move.

Thank you, Representative Sickle.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Hi.

Aye.

Hi.

All opposed.

Any abstentions.

Is there anyone that would like to speak?

Representative Finkel.

Thank you, please.

Go ahead and weigh in.

Uh just briefly.

Uh one of the things that we talked about when we had our initial meeting regarding this resolution was the fact that the local municipality has the option to agree or not to agree with any suggestions that CMDA was going to give us on any particular development that the local municipality had the total authority on whether they suggested zoning changes or suggested anything else to do it or not to do it.

And uh we specifically asked David Corris, and I saw that he's on he's on the call with us, uh, whether or not the municipality could agree or disagree with anything and that the municipality still had total autonomy and control for whatever was being suggested.

And uh that's basically what I'd like to say.

Thank you, Representative Finkel.

Representative Fields, you have some thoughts on the matter.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um yes, uh uh sadly I was uh did not make the first meeting.

So uh but my my question, if somebody could answer this, it would really help me understand my vote.

Um I I see this as a tool, not a blank chat, and and that's what I'm hoping for.

But I expect any CMDA partnership to deliver real affordable units, not just market rate.

Is there any language in this that that is one of their objectives?

And I also think tied to that, we should really be talking about funding the traffic and mobility changes that are needed to handle said growth.

Can anyone enlighten me as I'm trying to get up to speed to to make an informed decision?

I'm I'm happy to take it if the chair I do recognize you.

I I do recognize you, David.

Thank you very much.

Great.

Yes, sure thanks.

Um thanks, representative.

Um so two two things.

First, I'll tackle the infrastructure question and then uh talk about affordability.

So on the infrastructure question, you're absolutely right.

I think you know, for Stanford, one of the big challenges has been keeping up with infrastructure uh investment commensurate with growth, and we can be a tool to help with that, both in terms of um state permitting so that projects happen more quickly, uh, but also potentially with funding for infrastructure.

Um that is a big part of what we're designed to do, is not just uh directly into developments, but in the infrastructure that makes sure that developments uh don't have negative externalities on quality of life for the communities within which they're located.

The affordability question is is really one of deference to local communities.

So as Representative Finkel mentioned, you know, we are an implementation tool and we work within your regulations.

We may have recommendations about recommendations and uh excuse me about regulations, and it is always the local prerogative, kind of how you take those and and everything goes before planning and zoning, you know, or planning commission and zoning commission.

We don't have any authority to usurp local control.

We can't push development to places where the town is not directing it or enabling it within your own rules.

On affordability, we don't have an affordability requirement.

We're deferential to the municipality.

So in some of the communities that where we work, market rate housing is the higher priority.

And so we would work in conjunction with them to support those kinds of projects.

If Stanford says that affordability is your primary objective, and those are the types of projects that you'd like to see us support with, then that's where we'll direct our resources.

Our relationship will ultimately be governed through a memorandum of agreement, and that's where the city has the opportunity to um codify those priorities.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your comments and remarks.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak on the matter?

Anyone uh Representative Boudreau, please.

Thank you.

Um there was a concern that I heard from uh a couple of people who spoke that uh we'd be essentially acting as corporate welfare or subsidizing um developments.

And I wanted to address that uh because I think uh if I recall correctly in the initial meeting we had on this, um Mr.

Corus had said quite explicitly that they would expect that any project that would uh come to the CMDA will be expected to have exhausted their uh capitalization options from more traditional sources ahead of time.

And so I don't think you would be seeing you know uh a BLT or anyone like that uh taking advantage of these because you know they are already well capitalized.

They're not the type of people uh that I think would be receiving those loans, and I wouldn't want to see them uh receiving those loans either.

Uh and so uh I do that concern, and I don't think that um it's uh it's a high risk essentially, uh given the way that this is structured in the way that we intend to uh to use these funds.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Representative Camparelli, you had some thoughts on the matter.

Um, Chair, through you, I had a question for Director Kagan.

Uh I so recognize, please ask your question.

Um Director Director Kagan, my question to you is will Stanford be pushing to use them for affordable housing or workforce housing, more moderately priced housing.

Um, as Mr.

Corus just said we have the power to do.

Hi, everyone.

So what I can say is that as we go through this process, um, a priority, um, an initial priority is definitely transit-oriented development and housing.

And what will be a result of that through the city's existing policy is additional affordable housing.

Um, I can't speak specifically to any projects that we're considering already because we have to go through the process of opting in, and then the CMDA does a review of our existing zoning regulations and we work with them in that manner.

But from our initial conversations of of discussing this, we are specifically focused on um on housing.

Um, you know, downtown and uh, you know, one of the other conversations we've had is around the state's um redevelopment of the Stanford Transportation Center and the opportunity for significant housing um directly adjacent to that.

So I know that's not a complete answer to your question, but I think um it is a goal, and I just can't give you details on specific projects.

Thanks for thank you for that answer.

And um, I I yield, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Representative Terry Adams, you have some thoughts on the matter, please join us.

Yes, I guess some clarity through you to David, um, young gentleman got on it just now and said something about um um any development have to already exhaust it via loan process before you come to you guys.

That's that's true.

David, can I recognize you to please take that one?

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

So I I think in in regards to the concern about undue enrichment and subsidy of you know developers' profit.

We can't just be a lower interest alternative where a developer says, well, instead of going to a bank, I'll go to CMDA and make more money.

Uh they have to demonstrate that they have you know sought out uh primary lender as well as you know put their own equity in and are getting a reasonable return.

Um but there could still be a gap, right?

Construction costs are high, loan to cost ratios are are low from banks, and so there are often still gaps, um, even in you know, projects in in Fairfield County.

And so, yes, we would come in as gap financing, but not as a uh alternative off the bat to increase profit.

Thank you, Dave.

Okay.

Yeah, so I mean so since we got a lot of guys with shovel already in the um ready to go in the ground, so you wouldn't encourage them to build within the 25 um or 25 mile radius around the train station to go ahead with those projects uh and be a part of your program.

Yeah, I mean it it could be um so anybody who's under construction now is is obviously was able to pull together their financing projects that are approved by zoning or that will be approved by zoning, um, but because of a variety of factors on the cost side or on the lending side are having a hard time pulling together a complete capital stack, or it could be that requirements of them, like inclusionary policies for the affordable units are creating a uh gap between the revenue that they'll raise from those uh and the subsidy that they need for construction.

I would absolutely encourage them if they're within a half a mile of the train station or in the downtown, which would be eligible, um, likely eligible, uh, to approach us.

Now will there be any kind of incentive to do certain houses, whether it be work for house, college housing, senior housing, which is one of the things that we um definitely need in Stanford, because you know, every day somebody turned in 62 and and everybody else is getting older.

Um will tied to the money, would it be any kind of scented, or the developer can do whatever they want to, whether it be luxury housing, luxury apartment, um target at a certain group, or if you get our money, we need 12%, uh 15% affordability to be part of your project.

And this is yep, so we do not have a crop requirements our own, right?

We're we're not coming in and dictating what the project composition looks like.

Um they would be building in accordance with your zoning.

Um and they would have to demonstrate the need.

And so one of the ways in which they can demonstrate the need is by providing affordability or workforce units.

Another way that they can demonstrate the need is related to construction costs or or other concerns.

Um, but they would have to be approved by the municipality by the city um and it's and its zoning commission.

Um if there are multiple projects that are seeking our funding, and you know, we only have so much, that's where we would take guidance from the municip from the city and from local stakeholders as to what priorities are.

And so I think all else being equal, if there were two projects looking for our funding, and one had more affordable and workforce units, and we hear from everyone that that's a priority, then that's where we would prioritize our funding.

But we would not have specific requirements related to affordability um that are a condition of our funding.

We underwrite each deal on its own.

Okay, I mean, I I I wish they would change that approach because I think it would this would be guarantee a way to get affordable union or senior unit or work for houses that's tied to the project and also tied to the funds.

So I mean, I I wish they would work on that.

And the fund being such beneficiary to the developer, I think would they be willing to commit to doing senior houses, workful houses or something like that.

But um, so there are, I mean, I'll just I'll just say there are a lot of state programs that do exactly that, right?

We allocate hundreds of millions of dollars a year to support affordable, uh deed restricted, workforce, age restricted, etc.

housing, and and those programs can can all be utilized in support of Stanford's objectives.

We are just a slightly different and smaller program that's designed to be more flexible, but for example, um there could be an affordable project in downtown Stanford that has infrastructure needs.

The affordable housing pots of funds from the state don't go to infrastructure because they want that those funds to go directly into the affordable units.

So there are situations like that where there could be other state funds that go into the affordable units, and we go into the infrastructure so that the project can come to fruition.

Um we are just we're one small program that doesn't have specific affordability requirements, but the state has a lot of affordable housing programs, and we work alongside with them to complement them where it makes the most sense.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate you.

Yeah, thanks, sir.

Thank you both for your comments.

Are there any other comments?

Are there any other comments?

Last call, are there any other comments?

Do I have a motion to introduce the item?

Motion to introduce the item.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

The motion is LU32.001, a resolution in public hearing to opt in to the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority, known as a CMDA.

Submitted by Leah Kagan on 12.3 and approved by committee 7 to 0 on 1217.

At this time, I'd like to call for a roll call vote of the item.

Do I have uh a motion to move for a vote?

Motion to move for a vote, Representative Finkel.

Second.

I get uh point of information.

Do I call the roll or is there someone else that calls for on this on this vote?

Someone else who's over monitoring the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Adams.

Okay.

Yes.

Christina?

Sorry, yes.

Would would you like to call uh the the role for this vote?

It's a motion to approve.

It is okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative Beckham.

I still don't see her.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Field.

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Co-Chair Price.

Co-chair Hughes.

Yes.

Okay, that's eight.

Yes, zero, no, zero abstentions.

Thanks, everyone.

Let me know if you need anything between now and your full meeting.

Thanks, David.

Thank you.

All right.

At this point, I'd like to move forward with the next item on the agenda.

I'll read it out first and then we can go for discussion if there is any LU 32.002, a resolution of the consideration in accordance with the city of Stanford Section 9-10B.

Procedure for demolition of city-owned real properties is a recommendation for the demolition of existing structures at 751 West Hill Road, the Roxbury School.

Submitted by Mayor Simmons on 1124-25.

Approved by the Board of Finance on 1-8 2026 by a vote of four to one.

Is there any discussion on the matter?

I'm sorry, can I move for discussion on the matter?

My apologies.

Thanks for approve the item.

Appreciate you.

Do I have a motion to approve the item?

So make a motion.

Second.

All in favor.

I'm sorry, my apologies.

What was discussion comes before the vote?

So we don't vote.

Thank you very much.

Again, uh, Representative Boudreau.

Do I have a motion for discussion?

So I have a second.

So if you all in favor.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstention.

We will open up the floor for discussion.

Are there any thoughts on the matter?

Any thoughts on the matter?

Captain Lavalbo.

Yes, Mr.

Speak.

Thank you.

Good evening, Representative Gardner.

Captain Labal, my apologies.

I do apologize.

No, Chair, I was just informing you that Miss Ms.

Lavalo is here to speak on this matter.

Thanks very much.

Ms.

Lobello, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Um and members of the committee.

I I have prepared just a small slide deck, which is similar to the materials that you've received.

I thought maybe I could go through it with you very quickly because I know there are a lot of new members on the board, and I don't get to come to this committee quite often, but I promise to be brief.

Would it be all right if I share my screen?

It would indeed.

Thank you.

Ms.

Lobalbo, can I uh can I uh hope and assume that this is less than five minutes or about five minutes?

I can do it in less than five minutes.

You absolutely thanks very much.

Please go ahead.

Point of information, it was a vote by the Board of Finance at 401.

Um, one abstention from a new member, um, which is why I I brought a little more slide slide deck for you all.

I stand corrected.

Thanks very much.

Um this is our request um per the city Stanford Code of Ordinances.

Um this is a procedural request.

Uh this project commenced all the way back in 2022 with an application to the state for a 60% funded grant for the construction of a new K3 uh school on the same site of the existing Roxbury Elementary School.

Uh phase demolition will allow the building to remain in operation until new facilities are constructed.

So with your vote tonight, I wanted to also let you know that the students will actually remain in their elementary school.

Um, it's gonna be a wonderful teaching opportunity.

There I know my own children have uh been across from a construction site and very much enjoyed watching the activities and ongoing activities.

So I speak a little bit from experience there, but um this was approved by the planning board and the board of finance prior to coming to you.

Um Roxbury is preparing to bid in two parts.

First in March of 2026, and then again in August 2026.

Uh the March bid is for site enabling, uh, so that we can do uh set you know, set all the site constraints, put up the construction fencing.

Um we are looking to take down two portable units and a small section of the building that was an addition to help with construction logistics all during the summer when the campus is unoccupied, so that when the students return this fall uh and parents return and buses return, all circulation routes are set and in place.

So uh the timing of this is is very uh critical.

This is a critical path item.

So I appreciate your time tonight.

Um here you can see on the left, and again, I some of the this is a newly I just received this today, um, so I can also submit it to your members.

Um, but the the next slides are what we're submitted in your packet.

The site enabling, which I just spoke to.

We want to do that during the summer.

We want to be ready uh for when the students come back to school.

We want to have the construction fence up.

We want to have the circulation ready, and then building construction will be uh ready to commence you know towards the end of end of this year for the building.

Um we are in construction documents right now for the building.

So the footprint is set.

Um this is the existing site.

This is Roxbury Road across the street is West Hill.

Um just to make things absolutely confusing.

Roxbury is off of West Hill Road, and West Hill is off of Roxbury Road, although many of you may know that.

Um proposed new building will sit on the fields behind the existing elementary school, and these are the three sections, two portables, uh, and one small addition of it's four classrooms, I believe.

Uh that was an addition to give us room logistically to build the new school.

This will be during the summer.

And oh, if I seem to miss the slide, but in the during the main course of construction, we're gonna return this area in red.

Uh so there will be staff parking, all staff parking on the site.

And then in 2028, students will move into the new building and we will demolish the majority of the building.

There will be play fields re-established uh and much better circulation.

I think I think my quick next slide.

You can see here, this is your final finish site.

Uh we have loops for parents.

Right now, parents really back up onto Roxbury Road, so we're solving that problem.

And we we have with a parent loop and uh a bus loop.

We actually have an either-or scenario.

We've designed it so that over the course of its lifetime, if the operations need to change, uh, the school will have future flexibility.

So if they don't want to have parents go to the bottom, they want parents to come to the top.

We can you know they can they can have some flexibility with that.

Um the building is three stories, but because of the grade change, it's really experienced as uh enter and can you can go up one level or down one level.

The lower levels include kindergarten which come out onto uh playgrounds.

So I thought this section kind of gave you a good view of how it's up and down.

It's uh it's a really compact building, which allows us to um to take advantage of that and just kind of some renderings for context, and I hope that I am within five minutes, Chair.

You're good, but I'm happy to answer answer any any questions, just some renderings.

This the architects are TISU uh TSKP studio uh uh with ONG construction as our construction manager at risk, and Arcadis is our owner's representative.

Umers representatives assist with state reimbursement, um, additional project management, project oversight during construction.

So um, and those are kind of our three, I guess legs of our stool that I that they say and happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Captain Labalbo?

No questions for Catherine going once.

No questions for Ms.

Lobalbow going twice, no questions three times.

Are there any other comments on the matter at hand?

At this point, I'll ask for a motion to approve the item.

Do I have a motion to approve the item?

Motion to approve the item.

At this point, I'll ask Christina to call the vote on the item, please.

Okay, representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative.

Yes, representative field.

Representative Field.

Sorry, I was on mute.

It was an emphatic yes.

Okay.

Representative Finkel.

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Co-Chair Hughes.

Yes.

And co-chair price.

Also an emphatic yes.

Okay.

We have eight yes, zero no and zero abstentions.

The item passes.

And at this point.

I'd like to make a motion to take up the final item on the agenda for this evening.

LU32.003.

I'll read it and then we can uh take it up for uh vote for discussion.

Uh resolution of the consideration accordance for the city of Stanford Section 9-10B procedure for demolition of city owned real properties is a recommendation for the demolition of existing structures at 125 Roxbury Road, colloquial known as West Hill High School.

Submitted by Mayor Adam, uh excuse me, by Mayor Simmons on 1124 2025.

Approved by the Board of Finance for zero to one abstention.

Thank you very much, by the way, for that.

On 18 2026, um, do I have a motion to take up the item?

Motion to take up the item.

All in favor of taking up the item for discussion.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions.

Is there any discussion on the matter?

Is there any discussion on the matter?

Um, Chair, would you like me to just quickly show a site plan?

If you have one, that would be great.

Thanks very much, Catherine.

Sure, I'd be happy to.

Um, very similarly to the Roxbury.

This is again a procedural vote for the Stanford Code section of ordinances 9-10B.

Uh similarly again, uh phase demolition will allow the building to remain in operation until the new facilities are constructed and available for occupancy.

Um the uh planning board did approve this request, as did the Board of Finance.

Um the project, this project is actually a little bit ahead of Roxbury, it is out to bid.

Um, we are waiting.

Uh we have not yet, you know, we have not yet received bids, so we are awaiting bid.

Um this is kind of where we are snapshot in January in the timeline.

Um, and construction is set to commence in April.

Um the existing campus is on your left-hand side of the screen, and the 2030 campus on the right, uh, in red, and it is a little bit light, is the outline of the um the existing building.

You can see there is some overlap, so there is some existing building that we will be uh demolishing again over the summer uh when the campus is unoccupied.

Uh and then the the new site plan, it increases parking on the site.

Um we are pursuing a connection to Long Ridge Road.

The district has said they'd like to pursue a connection to Long Ridge Road, um, but because this is a state road, um, we'll have to wait and see how the how the state opines on that.

There is actually a construction access road that is currently under construction um so that during the construction we can bring uh our tractor trailers and our supply trucks up and do not interfere with the uh the front of the campus.

I'm just gonna go back to the actually the other screen.

So it comes up kind of along here, and the fence line will mean that there isn't a there's a distinct separation between the construction activities and um the the existing uh campus for learning.

Um I have a couple of really just quick renderings of what 2030 ends up looking like.

Um, as you can see, we maintain actually fields in the back still, but the tennis courts come to the front.

Um this is from the back towards looking towards Roxbury Road.

Uh here is the first set of construction in April.

Um we'll be demolishing uh an old greenhouse, um, which is actually called the old agri science building, but every time I say that everybody gasps and thinks that I'm taking down the agri science building.

We are not taking down the agri science building, just to be clear.

Um, but I guess I believe this is where Principal Rinaldi had agri science courses at one point when he was a student.

Um, and we are demolishing the auxiliary gym to make room as you can see the the building.

This is a lot of building going on on not a lot of site.

Um this is a very, very important need to dance.

I say West Hill High School is kind of like a Taylor Swift concert every single day.

Um we got everybody on, we get everybody off, but we keep a very strong line of separation.

We will have to relocate the loading dock because the loading dock is back in here where this magenta area is.

So this is a very large project.

It is uh 400 approximately 450,000 square feet of new construction.

Um very similarly, once the new footprint is ready, students will move from the existing school into the into the new building.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions, comments for Catherine Labombable.

Any questions, comments?

Last call, any questions, comments.

I would at this point ask for a motion to approve the item.

Please, um uh carrot through you uh to Catherine.

Um you did mention so adding a potentially adding a you know different, like assume entrance and exit um into the parking lot.

I guess would you have to reconfigure most of that or part of that parking lot just for traffic flows and everything in regards to that, assuming the state approves it.

Um I'm guessing that will go through them.

Um just gonna quickly share the screen again so I can show you.

Yeah, please do that way.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, so um what I did not bring because these are just demolition, I didn't bring every logistics plan with me this evening, but I'm gonna do my best and hopefully um we can talk through it.

So this happens during during the summer.

Um in April, the reason we need to start in April is twofold.

One because we're bringing in uh utilities, uh, a gas line and uh power connections.

You can see existing power.

Um we're creating duck banks along here where there's a currently uh student parking.

Uh we want to get in here and get out of here.

So this parking lot will be restored and ready for when uh staff returns to campus.

So we are gonna we are gonna have enough parking spots for staff here on campus.

And then the other um item which we're addressing over here, the reason why we're starting in April is because this will become a supportive space, uh temporary parking for buses.

And then as the course of construction develops, um if you've seen West Hill High School's track and field, uh that will be uh replaced with a new track and field in the same space.

But this um this field will also have temporary parking on it during different phases of the construction.

So hopefully I addressed your question.

You you are correct.

There are a couple of different iterations that we're going through to maintain uh parking on campus for staff.

Uh students, seniors, there's there's 80 permits right now, and those seniors will not be able to park here in April.

Perfect, thank you.

And it was just one of the earlier slides.

Actually, so it's kind of the part you have, I think circled in yellow is potentially if yeah, if you want to try to find it.

It's it's really like the potential to add another entrance and exit on the long, or is that one was really what my question was around.

Only because we had you know, we've had constituents emailing about obviously existing um entrance and just all the congestion in that area.

And um, you know, it'd be really beneficial if the state would you know allow us, yeah, right here would allow us to do that um and maybe potentially ease up uh you know Roxbury Road congestion.

Um be really great.

If that's something we can certainly look into.

And again, we have if we're you know we own that land already, it'd be in great use of the land that we have.

I guess it's more kind of my point there on that.

So hopefully they'll let us look into that at least and get traffic studies going if they're not already for it.

So uh there the traffic department, so the traffic department is working on um advocating for connection to Long Ridge Road onto Route 104 with the district has written a letter in support of that as well.

Um to the north where the EMS property is.

Um we really had to work very hard in on E with the EMS, you know, because obviously it's an emergency response to make sure that we kept um traffic or construction traffic in their uh emergency response traffic traffic separate.

So long term, um, also because they're actually it it's uh interesting.

I know that we look at a plan and it looks very flat, but if you've been to West Hill or you went to West Hill, there are is very serious grade changes happening across this site.

Um there's almost 40 feet uh from uh east east to west.

So it and here at the EMS site, it's actually quite a steep slope that they they're having to regrade.

uh emergency response traffic traffic separate so long term um also because they're actually it it's uh interesting i know that we look at a plan and it looks very flat but if you've been to West Hill or you went to West Hill there are is very serious grade changes happening across this site um there's almost 40 feet uh from uh east east to west so and here at the EMS site it's actually quite a steep slope that they they're having to regrade but um but thank you for for pointing out the connection to Long Ridge Road is important to your constituents um it is something I you know we will see if we get a positive outcome it takes a long time because it's a state road and I know that would seem logical that if we're doing a project funded by the state the state would also help us with the state road but those are very different uh departments I know um thank you I appreciate it and I I yield that's all that's all I had thank you both very much any other comments on the matter at hand any other comments any other comments at this point I'll ask for a motion to vote on the item and Christina turned it back over to you if you don't mind please motion to approve oh uh I'm sorry motion to vote uh please and thank you very much uh thank you very much representative all in favor aye all opposed any abstentions thank you very much uh Christina at this point I'll ask for a roll call vote on the matter please represent Adams yes representative boudreaux yes representative field yes representative Hinkle yes representative Gardner yes representative police yes yes and co chair price yes okay we have eight yes zero no zero abstentions thank you very much Christina I appreciate that you're welcome at this point with no other business before the board I move I uh I ask for a motion to adjourn so move I have a motion to adjourn motion thank you is there a second second all in favor of the motion to adjourn aye aye aye all opposed any abstention folks I thank you all for your patience with me this evening as I learned this process appreciate you very much have a great evening all thank you co chair pride and I just want to make sure you adjourn the meeting and say the time meeting is meeting is adjourned at 809 p.m on 126 thanks Coachair use appreciate you