Legislative and Rules Committee Meeting – February 25, 2026
Legislative and Rules Committee Meeting – February 25, 2026
The Legislative and Rules Committee of the Stamford Board of Representatives met on February 25, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. (the meeting was called to order on February 24, 2026, but the official date per agenda is February 25, 2026). The committee considered three agenda items: a proposed ordinance to lower the signature threshold for private road acceptance, a contract for liability claims administration, and an amendment to the board’s rules of order concerning public comment decorum. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Public Hearing on Private Road Acceptance (LR 32.004)
- A public hearing was held on an ordinance to amend Section 214-32 of the city code to reduce the required petition signature threshold from 100% to two-thirds of property owners for the city to accept a private road.
- Three residents spoke in favor: Kathy Hay (Pembroke Drive resident) noted that the current 100% requirement prevented residents from obtaining cost estimates from city engineering; Adam Mann and Christine Johnson also expressed support, citing difficulty in achieving unanimous consent.
- One resident, Dave Adams, opposed, arguing that property owners on private roads intentionally chose that status and that lowering the threshold could infringe on property rights.
- After the hearing, the committee voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.
Discussion and Approval of Liability Claims Administration Contract (LR 32.013)
- David Villava, city risk manager, presented a proposed contract with Corvell Enterprise Inc. for third-party liability claims administration. The contract is estimated at $161,363 for year one, $120,806 for year two, $124,478 for year three, with two optional one-year extensions at approximately 3% increases. The contract covers claims from auto accidents, slip-and-falls, wrongful termination, etc.
- Representatives asked about the increase over previous contracts (now exceeding $100,000 triggering board approval) and whether the pricing represented the best final offer. Mr. Villava confirmed that the costs had crept up and that Corvell provided a best and final offer after also being awarded the workers’ comp administration contract.
- One representative inquired about a large incurred loss of $6.2 million in commercial auto for fiscal year 2023; Mr. Villava attributed it to a single claim with the police department.
- The committee voted unanimously to approve the contract.
Debate on Amendment to Board Rules of Order (LR 32.015)
- The committee considered an amendment to the board’s rules of order to insert new subsections in Section 10 regarding public comment decorum. The original proposal from Representative Pelicia sought to prohibit “personal attacks, insults, or abusive language directed at individuals” and to clarify that criticism of policies, decisions, or official actions is not prohibited.
- Representative Pelicia explained his legal research, citing two court cases: White v. City of Norwalk (9th Cir.) upholding rules limiting comment to agenda items, and Bessler v. Board of Education (N.J.) finding a First Amendment violation when a speaker was cut off for critical but non-disruptive remarks.
- The committee debated several amendments. Representative Weinberg proposed adding “whether or not the speaker identifies the target of such comments by name or otherwise” after “individuals.” That amendment failed on a 4-4-1 vote.
- The main amendment (the right-side language) was then adopted by a 7-2 vote.
- When the main motion (approval of the amended rules) came to a vote, it failed 2-7. Several representatives argued that the existing rules already provide sufficient protections and that the amendment was unnecessary or could create free speech issues.
- President Shaw, who was present, stated she would prefer to handle decorum on a case-by-case basis.
Key Outcomes
- LR 32.004 (Private Road Acceptance): Approved unanimously.
- LR 32.013 (Liability Claims Contract): Approved unanimously.
- LR 32.015 (Rules Amendment): The amendment to the rules was adopted (7-2), but the main motion to approve the amended rules failed (2-7). No change to the rules of order.
Meeting Transcript
get started. Uh hello everyone. Thank you for everybody attending both in person online. So at this time I'm going to call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the board of representatives at 7 o'clock p.m February 24th, 2026. I make note that representatives Camp Rally, Blank, Boudreau, Lepine, Weinberg, and myself are in attendance. If there are any other voting members of the committee that I haven't recognized, please definitely speak up. Looking and seeing there we go. And Representative Hyatt, see you there. You should Ms. Montalvo, if you can help me move representative Hyatt as a panelist, that'll be very helpful. All right. Thank you very much. All righty. So seeing that we have eight members of the committee in attendance. I find that we have a quorum. So we'll proceed with the meeting. And I don't see any explanation. Oh geez. How do you pronounce your last name? Alicia. Politia. Alicia Politia. So we also have Representative Police in attendance as well. All right. So with that being said, uh let's move on to the first item of the agenda that's going to be LR 32.004 an amendment to excuse me an ordinance amending section 214-32 of the code of ordinances to allow the city to accept a private road by only requiring a petition signed by no less than two thirds of its owner submitted by representative Weinberg I understand that a public hearing was approved for this and scheduled for this meeting. So at this time we're going to recognize our first speaker who was signed up first to speak it's going to be uh missing a little nervous all right I am a resident of a private road in North Stanford and appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of LR32.004 an amendment to section 214-32 of the code of ordinances to reduce the signature requirement to two thirds of property owners in about October of 22 the Stanford legal department reviewed this ordinance on the required signature threshold for city's petition process for private road acceptance and determined that 100% of property owner signatures would be required. Previously the standard was a simple majority of 50% and as far as I could tell this has been the standard since about the early 1960s. In March of 2025 my neighbors and I submitted a petition requesting acceptance of a private road over 86% of the residents endorsed this petition while the remaining voters abstained due to concerns about potential costs of upgrading the road to meet requirements. Without an accepted petition we are unable to initiate a meaningful dialogue with city engineering to establish the assessment yeah the sound came up okay I have somebody who says they can't get in where'd my meeting go I just had it. Ms Montalvo if you could please mute sorry okay um without an accept wait where did I leave on guys okay um without an accepted petition we are unable to initiate a meaningful dialogue with city engineering to establish the essential baseline of requirements and standards needed to proceed with contracting the work. By approving this reduction in the ordinance signature requirements to two thirds you will enable the majority of supportive property owners to take decisive action confidently shape the future of the road drive meaningful process progress and a lasting positive change. We respectfully request permission to move forward with identifying the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with the city of Stanford's regulations. Thank you so much for this opportunity and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you Miss Hay and next up we've got a Mr Adam Mann sure if you're on the call but if you are please indicate yourself by raising your hand I see you man I think I've enabled you to speak yes there we go. So I don't want to go over all the numbers again because I can't remember them off the top of my head, but the petition for the two-thirds vote of acceptance of a private road to get the as Kathy had mentioned to get the accurate costs and updates and everything needed. I think that would be great. Um not only dishonest, it's tough to get in touch with some people, and response is not always 100%. At least we can get an idea of what the city would require of us to upgrade the street to their standards for acceptance. I just wanted to speak in favor of it. Thank you very much, Ms. Mann. Appreciate your comments. Of course. And next up we have an apologies. I didn't ask you. Christine Johnson. Christine Johnson. Yeah, you've got four. I'm gonna just kind of toss something out to all of you. As a small group, when you vote on something, do you need a majority or just a certain quorum, right?
openpublica.com