All right, ladies and gentlemen.

Um this is Thursday, February 19th, 2026, 7 p.m.

I call to order the meeting of the operations parks and rec uh committee meeting.

Um my name is Chair Sanford.

I'll be the chair of this tonight's meeting.

And Christina, do you mind going ahead and calling roll sure Representative Beckham?

Don't see on yet.

Representative Bradford.

I also don't see it.

Representative Didalat.

President Representative Finkel.

Present.

Representative Gardner.

Present Vice Chair Police.

Uh present.

Representative Solis.

Don't see Ricky yet.

Okay.

And um Chair Sanford.

Present.

Representative Zachary.

Present.

Okay, and I also um see on the call Representative Hughes, Johnson, Camporelli.

And Adams.

Okay.

Thank you, Christina.

Um I believe Representative Representative Bradford just um joined.

Yes.

Sorry, is it?

That's okay.

So for the committee right now, I'm showing uh Representative Sallas and Representative Beckham just emailed me that she is going to be out tonight.

So we'll go ahead and get started.

Uh again, my name is Chair Sanford.

We're gonna be going ahead and talk about tonight's meeting.

We have uh two uh items.

I'm just pulling up my agenda online.

Bear with me.

We have two items.

Uh the first one is OPR 32-002, a resolution uh resolution concerning building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding a million, uh, which was formerly O32.001.

And the second item uh uh OPR 32.003 and ordinance amending chapter 214 of the code and ordinances concerning excavation permits, enforcement administrative fees, and cost recovery.

If you don't mind, um because we have some guests today, uh Director Canonez and Dana Lee from Corporation Council's office.

I would like to take up items number number two first out of order.

In order to do that, I have to suspend the rules um with a two-thirds vote.

So it if if we can try it by voice vote, but at this time I'd like to take uh I would entertain a motion to suspend the rules to take up items number two out of order.

I would make a motion to take up item number two out of order.

Is there a second?

Okay.

And we'll try this by voice vote.

It's a two-thirds vote, but all those in favor?

Any opposed.

Okay, thank you.

With that being said, at this time, I'd like to take up uh can I have a motion to approve item number two, which is OPR 32.003 in ordinance, amending chapter 214 of the code of ordinances concerning excavation permits, enforcement, administrative fees, and cost recovery.

All right, so move.

Is there a second?

Second, second.

At this time, I will open up the floor to either Director Canone's or attorney Lee.

I don't know how you guys want to present this.

Um I'll leave it up to you.

I can um I can uh address uh the matter first.

Um so there's three attorney lee.

I'm sorry, hey Christina, is it possible to pull up the the ordinance on the screen?

I don't know which one you wants to start with.

I know some are kind of uh administrative, but I I I think it'd be easier for the audience if they could kind of follow along.

Sure.

Let's start with with 29.

2149.

Okay, one second, please.

Sorry to be a pain, Christina.

I appreciate it.

Would you bring up the red line version so we can cross compare with the original just um just want to make sure I open up the right one?

That's not the red one.

Right.

I guess I should have done it by saying a question for uh Christina through Dan Chairman Sanford I'm learning.

That's right, Christina.

If you if you can't get it, I can try to do it on my end.

The original uh draft resolution um date it um December 3rd, 2025.

Is that um is that the one that you're speaking of?

If you go to the legislative history, there's like three items.

There's actually six.

There's a clean version and a red line version of each ordinance that was submitted by attorney Lee.

If you would pick up the red line version of dot 29.

Chair Sanford, I'm also happy to just share the screen if you if you want more with if you've got it, Director.

I have it up.

All right.

If that helps, Christina, I could just pull it up.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

So I think I know which one to pull up, but Dana, correct me if uh you see a different brief.

So Dana, this is the version um with probably the most substantive change in terms of speaking to enforcement fines and administrative fees, um, and the other the other two really speak to the um director of operations or designee change.

So this might be the best one to start with.

Very good.

So you want to kick us off, Dana?

Yeah, sure.

It's just not showing up on my screen.

Matt, you just have to click the tab.

I think you're just on the you're not on the ordinance and showing yet.

Apologies.

Let me try that again if you want to uh Dave, if you want to get started, I'll um I'll pull it up while you while you're gone.

So well, you'll see um with the red lines on um ordinance 214-29 um regarding excavation permits.

Um what the ordinance does is change enforcement actions and permit decisions um from the city engineer and the to the director of operations.

Um it's to reflect how excavation permits are administered and um to ensure consistent and centralized enforcement.

Um I'm sure Matt will speak um to the necessity of that change.

Um the the ordinance also uh 2149.

Um it uh eliminates language um regarding the fine.

Um there was a potential issue with in legality because the prior fine language um or the current fine language to which the ordinance attempts to change is tied to a formula is a formula tied to the permit fee.

Um but the statutory cap for offline for municipalities is 250 dollars.

So potentially the um that formula could violate the law.

So what the change does is make the fine um specific.

But in the same uh breath, we've uh the ordinance, the proposed ordinance expands uh some enforcement tools.

So while the fines are capped at 250, the the ordinance makes it clearer that the city can impose administrative fees and and cost recovery fees uh which are not capped, and are and would ultimately be the primary lawful mechanisms or addressing uh compliance.

Um chief uh uh among those uh tools would be a cost recovery for city labor.

Um so that would be recoverable costs for both uh direct and indirect uh expenses, such as the the city staff time wages and benefits when employees must perform inspections, um enforcement monitoring or complete restoration due to a violation.

So those are the primary proposed changes uh to the excavation permit.

I can move on to the to the next one.

The next two are tied to the to uh the changes proposed for 2149.

Uh 2140 is an sets forth the excavation bond requirements.

And uh all the change, the only change that's made here is that the ordinance references uh a permit uh issued by the city engineer.

So if 2149 passes uh the 2140 should reference the director of operations.

And uh 2141 is uh concern safety precautions around excavations.

Um and there is a change from enforcement 30 and 2141 uh should also pass to make it consistent and coherent.

If 2149 does not uh then there's uh no purpose in changing 2140 and 2141.

So I'll turn it over to Matt now to speak more.

Thanks, Dana.

And so just to kind of wrap your head around uh why we're before you, uh one area that uh we've sought to improve on is around in the utility coordination as it relates to them uh performing any kind of excavation activities on our streets uh and the uh temporary patchwork that um is is aligned with that as well as kind of the timing of the permanent uh restoration.

Um so a couple of changes that we're proposing this evening is kind of the next iteration of uh the work that we've been doing to kind of reform that process.

Um so if you've kind of just threw a lib experience driven on a road, saw that it was ripped up and just wondering when that road was going to be restored or struggled to um uh see how the condition of the temporary patchwork uh would be accepted.

That's something that we're looking to improve on.

Um so this began a few years ago when we uh reformed the policy for how we were uh managing kind of the utility paving program.

So previously uh there was uh essentially all on the uh utility company to kind of restore based off of the uh policy by the city, whatever area was impacted based on their timeline.

Um what resulted in that was we saw kind of very long timelines for restoration as well as a kind of uh curb to center line uh paving.

Um so if you've driven on a road and saw maybe half of it was newly paved and the other half was not.

So we sought to make a change in creating what we did was create a separate capital account, which allowed us to when evaluating uh a road when a permit was sought, we would determine uh if the road was in a condition that we would say we would want to pave this road from curb to curb.

Um we would be able to tack on some city funding to the amount of funds that uh the utility company was required uh to commit as a result of them impacting our roads.

Um and that then allowed us to go curve to curve and pave a lot more roads.

Um so that was a policy change we enacted a few years ago.

There's another benefit to the city in taking that approach.

Uh one is that the rate at which the utility company can be charged for their um remediation uh is a higher rate than the city pays for um its paving just given the volume that uh we pave, we have a better rate.

So therefore if you're paving kind of curb to curb, um the their dollar goes further.

So we're probably getting like a 40 cents on the dollar uh for the remainder of uh uh curb to center that would be the city's responsibility on a given road.

Um so that was one of the first uh initiatives that we had put forward um most recently.

We've uh organized our kind of road maintenance, uh street maintenance and transportation planning in a consolidated department under the transportation department.

Um so I'm anticipating uh with this uh ordinance change, should it pass that uh some responsibilities will be able to be assigned um to that department.

Uh so changing the authority from specifically the city engineer to the director of operations or designee gives more flexibility to um align or assign responsibilities to multiple departments um and multiple designees.

So that was the kind of uh justification for uh proposing that change in the ordinance.

The other piece, which is kind of like the meat of I think what we are proposing really rests in that administrative um in some of the fee structures.

So Dana touched on it, but I think it might make sense for me to just kind of walk through that in layman's terms so you can understand kind of what what we're seeking to do and why.

Um so Christina, I think I saw you were successful in pulling that up.

Um would you mind kind of returning to that document?

Sure.

Um 2149.

Yeah, it's I think it's the one you just had up.

Okay.

And then just asked you to scroll down when pull it up.

Yeah, so if you can scroll down.

So I'm gonna just skip over the parts where the um responsibilities are proposed to change um to the enforcement fines and administrative fee piece of it.

So uh this piece here, the fine, um, this is stating essentially um of the civil fine will be the maximum amount permitted under the general statute.

So locally the board of reps has the responsibility for for setting fines, um, but the state does cap what that amount um is for any municipality.

So um rather than place a specific amount in an ordinance, knowing that over time, you know, legislation can change and the uh capacity to which we can find um might increase.

This basically is is stating that we as a municipality will always seek the maximum amount um allowable by uh state law.

The this the second piece is an inclusion that allows us uh to assign administrative fees um associated with the uh permitting process.

So there are a lot of staff involved in um managing this program.

Um so we have uh engineers who are involved in assessing exactly what type of uh temporary patch will be required.

We have uh inspections.

Um there are times where there's patch failures that then require us to go out and then coordinate with the utility company to enforce them uh repairing a temporary patch.

There's administrative work associated with the collection of uh permit fees um that all drive then the restoration process.

Um there's administrative work associated with us facilitating the restoration.

Um so the um administrative fee piece allows us to kind of have a uh ongoing um kind of uh market correction for the total costs that um the city bears in administering this program for primarily for the utility companies.

I'm using them as the example, um, but it could be uh a developer, it could be anyone looking to impact city roads, but the vast majority um really overwhelming majority of the the permits saw in for this are the utility companies.

Um if you don't mind just scrolling a little bit further, Christina.

So the third uh section here, cost recovery.

Um we wanted to include this in the proposed change.

So um there are times where we are um uh really pushing the utility company for uh a restoration um in the or a temporary patchwork.

Um and in the event you get to a place where you are kind of um at an impasse or uh a disagreement on kind of what needs to be done, that the entire time you're kind of negotiating with the utility company, the road is deteriorating or remaining in a condition that um uh could be detrimental to uh to drivers or just the general public safety.

So we wanted a a place here where in those instances we would feel confident that we could order the work ourselves as a city and still have the ability to recover those costs from a utility company um while we were kind of potentially kind of debating um uh responsibility.

Uh so this section would give us that ability.

And then the the fourth piece here, permit actions is I think straightforward.

Um it's just that it's a further strengthening the city's positioning that you know, should should a uh uh permittee not comply with any of the requirements um you know that we we have the ability to kind of deny new permits um and it it has a tiered system uh from kind of 90 days to one year to uh third offense, allowing a uh permanent denial.

Um again, strengthening I think uh the city's position uh and engaging with uh the utility company.

So all of this is is really motivated by us trying to improve on the timeline from when a utility company uh impacts our roads, the condition of the temporary patchwork while they're while they are um doing the work, uh, and then the uh full restoration, uh giving us kind of a I think a better uh administrative uh positioning uh and also stronger tools from some of these fines, cost recovery, and kind of permit um permit actions that are being proposed.

So happy to just pause there and field any questions.

Uh Representative Finkel.

Well, thank you.

Uh just uh one fast question.

Uh we've been briefed, obviously, on the aerospace underground transmission lines.

And they're going to be digging up a good piece of the city.

If this passes would they be grandfathered in under what was in place, or would they have to comply with the new ordinance?

Dana, do you want to you want to feel that in terms of when this would be uh if approved um enacted?

Yeah.

Um with respect to permits um that are uh already been issued, um, the terms of those permits would remain, but enforcement provisions and the fines um would assuming the violations having already occurred, um, but if they occur once this is passed, then the new ordinances the new provisions would prevail.

Because my my concern is uh from what we understand is ever sources transmission lines are going to be a multi-year project, and they're going to be digging up a good piece of the city between the the two transmission stations.

And I did not know whether or not they were pulling permits out all at once, or they were doing them individually as they do section by section.

And just wanted to make sure that if we have this ordinance in place that they're responsible for the new ordinance.

Um sorry, go ahead, Luke.

Yeah, no, I can just say um they are doing like kind of permit by permit as a project progresses.

I think only like three or four permits have actually been issued for the overall project.

So you know, as attorney lee stated, it's basically as each permit comes up or each fine um comes up, it would be subject to this ordinance.

So I'd say based on where they've submitted for permits thus far, the vast majority.

I want to say like 90% of the project.

Um even 95% of the project could be covered under the new ordinance based on how many permits have been applied for and issued thus far.

Okay.

Thank you.

Answer my question.

Matt, I actually have one, if you don't mind on item three cost recovery, where it says if temporary or permanent restoration work is not completed by city standards or within required time frames.

I have two questions with it.

One is the time frame determined and put on the permit when they draw it out based off of the scope of the project, like they'll look at it and say someone says, okay, after this is a small project, you've got 30 days afterwards to, and then the other question is you know, when you say temporary or permanent, I have seen some of the utilities that they you know are repairing something and it's it's it's a temporary fix, but it might be temporary for six months.

And I'm just curious if at what point does the temporary fix need to become the permanent fix, and do we have a time frame for that on the permit?

So, you know, I obviously we can't have people falling in in a hole in the street.

They need to do something temporary if they but I just don't want temporary to turn into a year-long, oh, we're still working on it type thing.

Is does this ordinance help address that so that we don't have kind of temporary patchwork for ever, so to speak?

Yeah, absolutely.

So I think you've kind of touched on one of the issues that we are looking at addressing here in terms of strengthening our uh enforcement capabilities.

Um, but there would be a distinction.

Um, the time frame would be established in the permit.

Um, and we we're also looking at really using this as a catalyst to kind of re-engage with some of the uh utility companies as kind of strategic partners in in establishing a better kind of uh uh working um uh arrangement.

So um there could be a scenario where we establish kind of a uh every three-month period of paving with some of our larger permit holders where we would anticipate them having you know dozens of projects, um, and you know, we establish kind of three periods there.

There are some fair um instances that um require, I think, kind of a longer temporary patch, like if some work is done uh right before winter and you know, plants close and you you you actually can't do uh a permanent restoration um until they reopen in April.

There might be some very justified reasons why you have, but the condition of the temporary patch is still something that should be the city's responsibility for um having some uh stronger ongoing oversight uh and and enforcement capabilities.

So just because it's uh it's a temporary patch, it still needs to be something that's safe and and meets a standard.

So to answer your question, kind of yes, uh there will be a kind of distinction, there will be a timeline um that will be able to uh enforce for the life of a temporary patch.

Um and and there will be some uh uniqueness to establishing that project by project just based off of the the scope.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Are there any other hands uh and we can continue on?

Um Director Canon is or attorney Lee.

I I appreciate the work you guys have put into this.

So I'll I'll give you all the time you need.

uniqueness to establishing that project by project just based off of the the scope i appreciate it thank you are there any other hands uh and we can continue on um director canoniz or or attorney lee i i i appreciate the work you guys have put into this so i'll i'll give you all the time you need yeah well if if there's no questions i'll just point out that the other two are are as attorney lee had mentioned earlier those are just additional ordinances that should kind of the the main changes be supported by the board here would also reflect uh changing the responsibility from the city uh engineer to the depth the director of operations or designee um so the kind of the the bulk of changes related to enforcement are really in in the the ordinance that we just reviewed um and the others just kind of mirror that uh change in uh responsibilities um that being said the city engineer i'll just say for um for the record uh will still be very much involved in in this process but you know through compliance with the ordinance as a designee um just given that there are a variety of projects that have uh significant complexity to them um where the it the city engineer is critical and in helping um to establish kind of that uh um uh restoration plan um so it it's not removing that individual necessarily from the process but it does broaden the ability for for my role to also assign uh others to uh participate in this effort yeah understood if if you anyone looks at the other two items that were submitted the red line version really just substitutes city engineer and inserts director of operations so that all of the wording matches up um if there aren't any other questions the motion on the floor is to approve uh this item so if there aren't any other questions I will go ahead and take this to a vote I can try it by voice vote and for the record uh representative salas has joined us so we now have eight of nine uh we'll try this by a voice vote all those in favor of approving ordinance uh opr 3200 three ordinance amending chapter 214 of the code of ordinances concerning excavation permits enforcement administrative fees and cost recovery say aye aye aye any opposed and that motion passes of OPR 3203 now my understanding too is that this will now go to the full board for approval of a public hearing and then come back to the committee um for public hearing and then back to full approval of director canonas you might know the answer to that or attorney lee but I think that's correct yeah correct if if it's supported by the the full board it'll return a steering as a uh item for final adoption um and then next month's meeting uh when this item's taken up um it would begin with uh a public hearing and then when that's exhausted continued discussion um at the purview of the chair and committee and then um if supported at that recommendation would go to the full board uh to uh accept it as a final adoption I appreciate it and that uh ends the discussion in approval for Dana has his hand up sorry is there another hand up thank you Matt yeah I just want to I I'm sorry I um I just want to make sure that there was the vote on the 2140 and 2141 as well I didn't hear that I I did not the reason I just have it as one item so I maybe that's a bad assumption do we need to take a separate vote I guess I don't mind doing it for all three if they are three separate items that that's fine um let me just yeah it should be clear on the record that there was a vote on 30 and 31 as well okay let me just pull it up on my iPad and okay uh so correction we're gonna go back right now we're gonna try this by voice vote we have can I entertain a motion to approve ordinance 214 dash 29 Mr.

At this time uh committee, I will entertain a motion to approve ordinance 214-29, 214-30, and 214-31.

Okay, so is there a second?

The motion on the floor is to approve ordinance 214-29, 214-30, and dash 214-31.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed that motion passes 800, and that concludes item OPR 32.003.

I just uh want to thank our guests for joining us tonight, and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Director.

And thanks, Luke.

Appreciate it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

At this time, I would like to entertain a motion to approve item OPR 32.002.

This is a resolution concerning build building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding a million dollars originally 032.001.

Do I have a motion?

I so move.

Second.

Is there a second?

Second motion on the floor is to approve item OPR 32.002 resolution concerning building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding one million dollars.

I will open up the floor to discussion now.

Uh representative Finkel, I see your hand is raised.

Thank you, Chair.

Um we had a meeting with uh the building official to talk about the building permits that had been issued over the past three years.

The vast majority of the building permits were comparatively small in value.

There were only about 11 each of 5 million and more or 10 million or more, if I remember the numbers correctly.

Uh so I I think uh two things.

Number one, I think scaling back from the $35 a thousand back to the $25 a thousand is a good idea.

And chief building official is on board with that.

He would rather see it back at the $25 a thousand.

Uh the only thing I would do uh to this particular ordinance the way it's worded is amend it so it's in conformance with the other ordinances that are already in place and have the million dollars at a million three, which is what it's in the other ordinances, and then I would be in favor of doing it because you you're talking very few building permits comparatively at the higher values, number one, and number two, the ordinances that are already in place already take into consideration affordable housing and not-for-profits.

That's that's already there.

And and uh Chair Sanford, you already put those into the legislative record.

So uh I would I would uh amend this to the million three.

If uh we can do that.

I I would need I have a couple other hands raised, but I would need for someone to make the motion to do that.

So um so let me come back to you and then let me get a couple other hands and we'll come back.

Representative Kimperelli.

Thank you for recognizing me, Chair.

Um, you know, the 31st board went over this ad nauseum, and I I don't understand why we're taking this up.

Our fees are lower than other municipalities in Connecticut, like uh Hartford and and many others.

I didn't come prepared with um where else we're we're lower than a lot of other communities.

Um our city is being developed at a rapid rate, and I just think that a lot of these fees are taking you know taking care of expenses that the city has.

And I think some of the money goes to um affordable the affordable housing trust funds.

So I'm not I'm not understanding why we're taking this up just a few months after the board deliberated on this extensively.

Uh Representative Gardiner.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I absolutely support uh reducing the fees back to the original 25 dollar number.

I think that that makes a lot more sense.

We want to encourage development more if we can and uh keep our fees as low as possible.

And if our building department agrees with it, then I think we should agree with them.

But I do think the arbitrary line in the sand of the million or the 1.3 million or whatever it is is the the other boundary between all two different fee structures.

I think that is unnecessary.

The percentage which we are setting in place scales with the value of the value of the project.

So it's absolutely fair that we should if we have a flat percentage which increases uh with the value of the project.

That's that's fine, and that's potentially fine.

Why why charge more just because the project is bigger?

Uh the percentage should take care of that.

And those large projects might be delivering the largest amount of housing for our for our community, which is super valuable.

Thank you, Representative Gardner.

Representative Didalo and then Representative Hughes.

Yeah, I would like to just uh state that I was also kind of hesitant about um going the fees as well as putting a tier and I did a lot of research into it, and um also very much in favor of lowering those fees.

Um a lot of those fees that are going are eventually being put down onto renters and other people that are purchasing properties.

It's only affecting the people that are buying the property and the affordability of the city and going through and doing that rather than actually going and trying to say, okay, dissuading development or having development.

Ultimately, people want to developers want to develop in Stanford, right?

And those fees are in those costs are getting passed down onto renters, especially in tenants.

And that's something that I'll personally admit that I changed my tune on after talking with fellow members on this committee and doing some research into that matter and seeing how those costs are being sent down to uh tenants throughout the city.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Hughes and Representative Zachary.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Um, I just wanted to comment on uh on this item, like why um I co-sponsored it.

Um part of it is reducing upfront costs for uh residential uh uh projects, specifically ones that are mixed use, because this fee does apply to those uh for example, say you have a 15-story building, uh, the commercial component, uh part of it below that qualifies as mixed use that's then gonna uh add uh cost to the project.

We know that we need to build more housing.

We know we have a housing crisis, um, but it's not just that we don't have enough affordable units, we don't have enough uh market units.

Um so I I want to also add that you know, I fundamentally disagreed with the previous board raising this fee.

Um I think it was arbitrary.

I think it was anti-development, and I think all it does is add costs to our projects.

And these are projects that uh the costs get added to our businesses.

Um it's this is not just about housing, it's about making sure that we're uh a city that has a good business environment for all of our businesses.

Um and when you reduce upfront costs, you make projects as well as other business uh decisions more feasible, more feasible.

Um so I just wanted to lay that out of of why I really think we should do this.

I also think that uh, you know, $25 is a good starting point.

I do believe it should be lower, and I hope that uh, you know, some members of the committee will consider that.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Thank you, Representative Hughes, Representative Zachary.

You're muted.

Yeah, sorry.

Uh thank you, Chair Sanford.

Uh we along with uh Representative Finkel and Represent Representative Didalov, we spoke with the building department at some length.

Um thank you um uh Matt Cinronis for setting that up.

Um the fees are more than covering the costs of building department and other departments that are also involved in inspection and managing the projects.

So the question would be uh is this supposed to be a fundraising operation where we're asking builders to fund the city's affordable housing projects, or is it supposed to cover the costs of the actual inspections themselves?

And after this, I think uh Representative Dallow and Representative Finkel can both confirm that the building department was very comfortable with the 25 per thousand fee covering all the expenses involved, and that anything extra was in fact being used for other purposes, which was not the original intent of these fees.

So I will also be in favor of returning to something like $25, perhaps adjusted for inflation.

And uh then if we decide that we want to have a fee to encourage affordable housing, that might be handled separately.

It seems bad for me, it seems less than optimal to conflate the two.

Um I think that they should be handled independently, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Zachary.

Um I looked down and then I saw a couple more hands.

Representative Camporelli, your hand is still up.

Are you speaking for the second time or will just not go down?

When everybody else is gone, I would like to speak for the second time.

Okay.

I I think everyone has already spoken for the first time, so you would be back for the second.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, so uh to the chair.

Um, I would be interested in seeing the audit showing that um that our that our fees are more than covering our expenses, if that's possible.

Um, normally when this sort of thing is amended or redone, those types of numbers are looked at.

Um, I'd also so if if somebody could get back to the board with that, I'd appreciate it.

You guys have probably already looked at that as a committee.

Um I want to say that there is no relationship that I can find uh to these type of fees and rents.

So the the idea that this will increase rents, I can't find anything.

Um I did a search, you know, online and I looked into if there's a link between building permit fees and what we are charged for rent, and I cannot find one.

I feel like we may be, especially as the city grows and we're gonna have more buildings and and you know, more inspectors and more things to look at.

Uh, we might end up in a place where we are we are spending money that we're now asking the taxpayer to take care of because the building fees are not uh taking care of it.

Um and then and then we're putting the taxpayers, you know, at risk.

We're asking them to pay for it.

Uh and I yield.

Okay.

Next, uh, I have representative.

I I'm not sure who came first, representative Finkel or Didalow.

So I I looked up and both your hands are up.

So I'm gonna go with Representative Finkel if that works.

Representative Finkel, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I I just took a look at the the summary that we got from the building department.

In 2024, there were a total of 31 permits, 2025, 48 and the current 2026 up to the date of this, they were 28 of the of all of those for the past three years, two and a half years, give or take.

There are 85 permits in the one to five million dollar range, 11 in the five to 10, and 11 and more.

So the vast majority of the permits were in the one to five.

And I I would still propose a motion to amend it to the what the million dollars that's in the proposed ordinance goes to the million three, just to be in conformance with the other ordinances that are already in place.

Uh the affordable housing is already taken care of by separate ordinance.

Not for profits are already taken care of by separate ordinance as far as reduced building permit fees in both cases.

If there's a mixed development, then the amount that would be on the affordable housing side would get charged the lower rate, and the rest of the development would get charged the higher rate.

And the building department's already set up for that.

So uh whenever you want me to make that motion to amend to million to million three, let me know.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm gonna come right back to you.

Representative Didalow.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

Um, again, I also would just like to clarify that when Representative Boudreau um first introduced this item, one of the areas and municipalities that he was drawing from these numbers as well as going through and those um issues being passed down onto tenants with specifically New Marchelle, New York, where their fees are lower and in fact are at lower rate than this.

Um they're at $16 for every thousand feet uh or $1,000.

Um they're the only municipality in the area that actually saw a decrease in rents throughout the municipality.

And just kind of would like to keep that in mind.

And um, as much as I do support um having this being brought up as lowering fees.

Personally, I don't think $25 is low enough and having those conversations with the chief building official and where that money is going.

One of those concerns was is the money from these permit fees going to the building department.

And is that as what is funding the building department?

That is not the case.

Thank you.

And I yield.

Representative Zachary for the second time, or did your hand not go down?

I did not go down.

Sorry.

Okay.

I will now come back to Representative Finkel.

Um I I will I'm not sure what your motion is, but I'll give you the floor if that is something that you are trying to do.

All right.

The the uh the ordinance that's currently in place has the $35 a thousand starting at a million three.

So I would amend the the current ordinance to a million three.

I I'm right now the item submitted by Representative Broudreau um states.

Um Christina, can you pull up the resolution for this item?

It's resolution, there's no number on it.

It says concerning building permit fees, it was submitted by Representative Boudreaux.

Sure.

Well, while she's doing that, the the resolution that Representative Bedroad that is before is that what what we are approving reverts the fee back to $25.26 per each $1,000 of estimated cost above $1,300,000.

So that's what we would be voting on right now.

Um you don't need my excuse, excuse me.

So you do not need the amendment that I was just talking about.

No, because right now the the motion on the floor when I took up the item is a motion to approve this resolution.

So after discussion, if if we are in agreement or not agreement, the vote would be to approve this resolution that takes the fee back to 2526 per each 100 or 1,000 above 1.3 million.

So the the motion that you were trying to make, I think representative, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, is basically what this resolution is is what is what's before us of what we're approving right now.

So I was under the impression that you were going to make an amendment to this resolution, but in fact, I think what you're saying is keep it as is and and vote on it as is.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So I will say because there wasn't a second the the motion already on the floor is to approve the resolution.

Um do we have Representative Didlow, did your hand go back up?

Yeah, I would like to uh move to amend this.

And I'd like to um move to amend the uh fee from $25 and 26 cents.

Uh parentheses $25.26 uh and change that to $16.00 or parentheses $16.00.

The motion on the floor is to amend the fee from $25.26 to $16 and zero cents.

Mr.

Chairman, uh just letting him know that the point two six is what goes to the state, which is why it's 26 cents there.

U understood real quick, because I that there's the motion on the floor right now is to amend it to $16.

Is there a second?

See no second that motion fails.

We go back to the original motion to approve the $25.26.

Do I see I'm just gonna go through any any other hands?

If there are no if there are no other, if there's no discussion, I would like to take this to a vote.

We can do this by roll call or voice.

I think we can try it by voice.

If there is division, I will do a roll call vote.

All those in favor of approving.

Hold on.

The motion on the floor is approving of 032.001 resolution concerning building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding 1 million dollars.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

That motion passes 800.

Having said that, this will now go up to the full board and come back for a public hearing.

Does that make sense?

Does everyone understand kind of the process it goes?

It's a tradition.

Um anything that deals with fees, especially in resolutions, um, we have a public hearing for.

So it'll go to the full board this next month, it'll then come back for public hearing.

It'll then go back for approval.

So those are our two items for tonight's meeting.

Is there any other discussion?

If not, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, may I be recognized?

Uh just as a point of information, we'd asked the question previously.

And the the fees go into the general fund.

They're not there specifically just to finance the building permit, so the building department or the planning department.

They go into the general fund and then it gets distributed out with the rest of the money.

Okay.

I I the information.

Um anyone else?

Not bad for 759 p.m.

I'm impressed.

Oh, Representative Camporelli.

I'm sorry, I'm a pain in the neck.

Um, did did Representative Finkel just say that the building permit fees go to the general fund?

Because I thought that that was illegal.

I thought they had to go to us to just cover the costs of things that that happened surrounding the permit.

I my understanding is it does not go into the general fund.

Uh, did representative, or I'm sorry, did Director Canonas, can you chime in?

Yes.

So uh Representative Finkel's correct that they do go into the general fund.

Um, so what has often there is a law, and I'm not the expert or the lawyer to really articulate this.

Um, but there is uh state law that essentially governs that the fees associated with this should be aligned with the cost associated with administering whatever task that is uh being governed by that municipality or by that fee.

So that um representative camp rally may be what you're referencing, but in terms of how the accounting is done in Stanford, the revenue generated from the building permit fee does go into the general fund.

Okay, and and none of it is used for the affordable housing trust fund.

So I think what I will do uh as a follow-up is reach out to the law department and just get you something in writing that clarifies all of this um in terms of the accounting and in the general fund and specifically addresses the question about um the affordable housing trust fund because there are there are some um fees associated with the building permit that does get uh charged into support for the affordable housing trust fund, uh, but I don't want to misspeak, so I'm just gonna get this kind of summarized for the committee um by our law department as a as a follow-up to tonight's meeting.

I would I would appreciate that.

Thank you so much for that.

And and um chair, will you be able to get us something just showing us you know what it's been over the past three or four years, if the costs uh of the fees that we've collected have covered the costs for the city?

Because the you know, I somebody said you know it's anti-development or whatever.

I'm not anti-development, I'm just pro-taxpayer, and I don't want to see um any of these costs passed on to the taxpayer.

So I just like to know that um we're covering the costs through the fees.

That that's my only thing.

And I appreciate your your uh clearing that other thing up for me, Director Penonis.

And I yield the floor, Chair.

Thank you.

Representative Adams.

Yeah, I think if you just request the total amount of fees that was collected last year, it was showing to you that was um more than enough um fees collected to um compensate.

And it was on the positive side.

And if you look at the last report from last year, you'll see the same thing.

So you just asked for a report for the total fees collected for the billing fees.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

At this time, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Third.

Second.

All right.

That is 8 03 p.m.

I uh call this meeting adjourned.

Thank you so much, everybody, and have a great night.

See you at the meeting.

Thank you.