I have 6.02 p.m.

Uh we'll go ahead and get started.

I'll call this meeting to order.

Uh my name is Representative Sanford.

I'll be chairing this.

This is the um Thursday, March 19th, 2026 meeting of the Operations Parks and Recs Committee.

Uh in attendance on the committee.

I have myself, Chair Sanford, Co-Chair Pelicia, Representative Beckham, Representative Didalo, Representative Finkel, Representative Gardner, Representative Zachary.

I do not see Representative Solace or Bradford.

However, ex official members, we have in attendance.

And I believe that's it.

From the administration joining us, we have Brandon Mark, Luke Casolo, Dana Lee, Celia Alexander, and I believe that's it.

Representative Hughes is also on.

What's that?

Representative Hughes is also on.

All right.

Well, I must have joined as soon as I was scrolling over.

Thank you so much.

So tonight we have four items on our agenda, including two public hearings.

The way it'll work is I will do uh item one is a public hearing, and then we will go to vote uh on that item.

We'll then move to item two, do a public hearing and then vote on that item and then move on from there.

So at this time, uh I will open up uh item number one to uh OPR 32 002 uh to a public hearing.

Uh the time is 6 03 p.m.

Uh Sheila, do we have any speakers for item number one?

Uh one person signed up, he's not on, and Richard Friedman has his hand raised.

Okay.

I don't see that, but I will go ahead and open it up to Mr.

Freeman.

Uh hi, good evening.

The floor is here.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great.

Um if I could show my camera, I would, but I can't figure out how to do it in this version of Zoom.

Anyway, um I'm on the meeting now.

I'm on a meeting.

Um I uh I had testified uh back in the um back last summer when these um building permit fees were increased.

And um I had testified that it was um anti-housing, that it was counterproductive to the creation of housing in Stanford, and that um in my role at the time as the chairman of the board of finance that I thought it was the worst kind of revenue that the city could raise, and that it should not be passed.

So um I uh commend the operations committee for um for taking up this item and for um uh hopefully reducing the permit fees back to what they were um before the increase was put through.

Um the one comment that I wanted to make was when the permit fees were increased uh last summer, they did there was a change made, and I believe it's um it's in the resolution that's um posted as part of the meeting documents 4394.

Uh there was a change made to the permit fees for uh affordable housing owned by both for-profits and nonprofits.

And um those changes were actually quite good, and I would recommend that you not modify those.

Um the the only uh comment I would have is that those changes do reference something called an affordable housing unit as defined in the zoning.

Um I couldn't find a definition for affordable housing unit in the zoning.

Um presumably the building department has figured out what that is and how to implement what was passed uh last summer, but um it's probably worth um a phone call over there or an email just to make sure they're clear on exactly um what qualifies either for no building permit fee or a reduced building permit fee.

Both of those are um pretty clearly defined in in this particular resolution, and um um just to make sure they know exactly what's supposed to be exempt and what's supposed to benefit from a reduced fee.

Thanks.

Dave Adams' hand is raised.

Dan, you're muted.

Sorry about that.

Thank you, Sheila.

Go ahead, Mr.

Adams.

The floor is yours.

Good evening, operations parks and rest committee.

Uh, you know, this is uh this topic has been uh a topic of interest, at least to me for the last eight years.

Um we've seen a lot of development go on in this town, and a lot of that development is not paid its own way in terms of the requirements for uh infrastructure upgrades that would you know we we need this infrastructure in order to accommodate all of this development, and there's no real mechanism for builders to actually pay for it.

Uh and if you think back to the tip districts, the tax increment financing districts.

We got into this this weird situation where we were bonding out to the same company that was developing the property in order to pay for infrastructure that that property required.

There's there's all the reason to keep the this increase in building permit fees, not because it actually does you know, it doesn't really have much of a dent in what those infrastructure costs are, whether it be roads or sewers or uh water uh drain systems, um or you know, for instance, the the upgrades to all of the fire department's requirements in order to service these buildings.

This money is extremely important to at least put some money back into the community rather than it just be this situation where they get to develop and then they sell the building off as soon as they're done developing, and they're there's they've made a lot of money, they've made a lot of money, and then they've increased the burden on the city's infrastructure.

Somebody has to pay for it, and we keep we kept getting told for years and years and years and years that all this development was gonna lower taxes, and taxes have only gone up, and I think that you know somebody needs to pay for it.

It can't just be put on the backs of all the taxpayers in the city.

It needs to be put on the back of the people who profit from it very generously the the extra one percent, because that's where really what comes down to is nothing to these people.

I mean, sure, it's something, it's it's a number on their ledger, but you're not you're not taking anything really away from them, and if you give it back to them, they're just gonna add it to their profit margin.

Those are my thoughts on it.

Good luck in your decision making.

Uh I really appreciate your service.

Thank you, and have a good night.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Uh is there any other is there another hand raise?

I do not see one unless you see one that I don't, Sheila.

No, there's no other hands raised.

All right, if there are no more hands, uh I will close the public hearing.

The time is 6.10 p.m.

Uh at this time I'll entertain a motion to approve OPR 32.002 resolution for public hearing and final adoption concerning building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding one million dollars originally 032.001.

So moved.

Is there second?

I have a motion and a second at this time.

We will try this by voice vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Uh any opposed.

I have no oppose at this time that motion passes.

And Sheila, correct me if I'm wrong.

I have 700.

That's correct.

Thank you.

All right.

At this time, I will.

I'm sorry, there's a hand raise.

Representative temporelli.

I I just noticed that you didn't open the floor for discussion at all.

Yes, you're right.

That it that is that is my fault.

I um let me see what I can do.

Um we've already taken the vote, but I can open it back up to discussion.

At this time, can I have a motion to take up item OPR 32.002?

Don't move.

Is there a second?

Second.

At this time, I'll open it up for discussion.

Representative Camparelli.

Thank you.

I I just wanted to say that I was one of the reps that helped advocate to remove the fees for the nonprofits, and I also helped to write the language with representative Lay.

Um permit fees are not anti-housing.

They're intended to cover the costs of services, plan review, inspections, enforcement, staffing.

To think that all of these things have not gone up in the last six years, to me is insane.

Um I think in inflation over six years, I what is it 10%, 20%?

Um we're asking the taxpayers this year per the mayor's budget to shell out 7% more in taxes.

At the same time, we're lowering fees on for-profit developers, therefore potentially shifting the burden of those costs back onto the taxpayers.

I couldn't find anywhere in the legislative record, and I've asked multiple people in the city what the expenses were uh versus the money that we're collecting for fees, and I couldn't get an answer out of any anyone.

Um these fees are supposed to be based on um what the city, I believe what the city is is paying out, and no one that's voting tonight seems to know what that is.

So again, you know, my point is just is there any increase?

I mean, I even heard a rep on the last meeting trying to lower it to $15 just arbitrarily.

Um so I'm just wondering if this committee could even look at increasing them by whatever the cost of living has increased in the last six years, or based on some factual uh numbers that they might have.

Uh I say this all respectfully.

I am not anti-housing.

Again, I I did advocate and help write the language to remove the fees um and fought on the floor to remove the fees uh from the not-for-profits.

Uh, but I do believe that costs have increased in every area of our lives.

They have to have increase for uh the people that we have hired to inspect, enforce and and everything else.

Um so I think this is not ready to go to the full board, uh, but I guess that's up to you guys.

And I yield the floor.

Um representative police.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Um, yeah, so so kind of going back on the legislative record.

Um, you know, there is the building department summary of uh the permit fees for fiscal year 24, 25, 26.

Um, you know, I I'd like to point out that if we can pull it up, yeah.

That'd be fine.

Yep, there we go.

Perfect.

Um so I kind of went through and did an analysis um of looking at both the building department, um expenses, um, which is one item, but also you have to look at the uh land use um with the land use department, um, which also has under that like a land use um section.

There's also under land use is planning, under land use zoning, uh zoning board, EPV, um, then of course we have engineering.

Um, we kind of get in a little regulatory compliance, and these are just budget items.

These aren't all in there.

I just went back and looked at um every fiscal year since 2022.

Um and then also we have the health department, which also has a uh piece that they do inspections, of course, um for permits and permit reviews.

So all those apartments kind of combined make up uh what we I guess what we can consider a building permit.

Um they all have their individual reviews, individual individual inspections.

Um and kind of year over year, if I'm looking at fiscal year 24 to 26, um, you know, we're looking at a cross-department um kind of operating budget of 18,800 and 12,300 and 73 dollars.

Um comparing that to how much permits have brought in, um, that's 34 million dollars.

Um by my math, we have about a 15 million dollar surplus.

So I I feel we are more than covering the cost of you know what the building department and other departments um you know actually uh take to review, inspect.

Um and I think we get in the area of you know, are we talking about a permit or are we talking about a disguised tax?

Um, you know, it's it's permit fees are really supposed to be reasonably proportionate to the cost of administering and enforcing.

Um they shouldn't be more than that.

Um but on you know, on the subject, I I do think we have the bandwidth and the capacity, especially when you have such a huge surplus to lower the fees.

Um and that's all I really have to say.

Um thank you, and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative uh Palicia.

I have next representative Dillow, followed by Representative Hughes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, yeah, the we had a fair share of research because that was definitely brought up, and that was a primary concern for myself when going through this um was whether or not the permit fees were covering the building department in its entirety.

Um there was a meal uh meeting with the chief building official for the city of Stanford who explained that the revenue from building permit fees are not exclusively used for the building department.

They're actually spread out across the entire operations department.

Um and going back to what Representative Police has said is the question of building permit fees being a source of revenue as a source of going and covering those costs to do the work to do inspections.

And I think that was the concern.

Um and on top of that, the chief building official for the city of Stanford even said to ourselves in that meeting um was he didn't understand why those fees were so high, and he personally advocated and saying those fees do more harm than good at the rate they're going.

Um I understand the expression of increasing rates for inflation.

Um, and a lot of that comes down to construction cost as well.

There's a natural inflation in those construction costs that are being spread out.

And since it is a percentage, it's a percentage of the cost.

Um, and as construction costs go up, and that is in line with inflation, if not more than inflation for a time period, especially um in 2021 and 2022, that you are able to recover a lot of those costs, and actually sometimes is even more detrimental because of how much those construction costs are going up.

Um I will be very gladly supporting this uh uh suggestion, this uh resolution.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Didalo.

Uh Representative Hughes, floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Um, I just want to say no no disrespect or ill will for anyone who disagrees with my economic perspective, but I think fees in general when they're being placed on for-profit entities are local businesses or potential businesses that are going to expand or locate to the region.

They're gonna look around and see which community has better fees and lower costs to develop or build in.

Um when inflation goes up, it then makes no sense to me that we would then raise fees.

That's counterproductive.

All you're doing is contributing to the inflation, and you're contributing more to the inflation when the city is already in excess of $15 million because of these fees.

So I uh that's partly why I support lowering these fees.

If you look around, costs are up, and it's not just the individual who pays those costs, it's businesses that pay those costs.

Those costs then get passed on to consumers.

When consumers pay less money and spend less money in our businesses because costs have gone up, businesses close.

And it it if you look around, I have deep concerns about the direction that the economy is going.

And I think one area that we can improve and lower costs where we can is the fees that the city puts on to businesses.

So I I thank the committee for raising this and for voting on it.

And I just wanted to share my perspective and reasoning uh for supporting this.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Thank you, Rev Hughes.

Um I'm gonna move to Representative Finkel for the first time.

Uh Representative Finkel, the floor is yours.

Oh, thank you, Chair.

Uh just two things.

Uh, number one, and it's kind of been touched on already, is the fact that because of inflation construction costs more, and therefore you're getting more money in because of the permits to start with.

So that that works where we get additional funds.

Number two is as far as affordable housing is concerned, we have to remember that a percentage of that fee right now, 15%, goes into the affordable housing trust fund, which is helping build affordable housing.

And uh I support this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rep Prinkle.

Um Representative Camporelli for the second time.

Thank you.

The reducing these fees would hurt the affordable trust fund because we wouldn't be putting the the money into the affordable trust fund from these fees.

Um also uh everybody's talking about um the amount that it costs the city versus the amount that it takes in.

I think it's illegal to run the fees at a profit, so I don't understand where we're coming up with the figure of 15 million dollars in profit in a year.

Um if we're gonna argue that um inflation has risen building costs for private builders, why are we looking at that instead of the fact that inflation is hitting our point of information, Chair Samford?

Go ahead.

15 million dollars is from fiscal year 24, 25, and 2026.

And thank you.

Okay, thank thank you, rep uh, sorry about that.

Um go go ahead, uh representative.

We're we're arguing that um inflation has hit builders, uh, but we're not at the same time.

You can't ask taxpayers to pay five and seven percent more in taxes because people's salaries in the city are more and all of our costs are more, and think that our costs for doing ver building permit fees have not increased.

Everything in the city has increased.

So how can you decrease the fees that were set up?

I I don't I don't understand the logic there.

Um, and also if all of this work that you've done in terms of um expenditures and what the city takes in has been done, that should be part of the public record.

It's not in the legislative record right now.

Um, you know, as I said, I looked it up.

I called multiple people in the city, uh, and I could not get a point of information, Farrell Sanford.

Go ahead, Rep.

Palicia.

Uh through you to representative Camperelli, it's all on logic record for this item.

You can see all of the years.

I looked through the the legislative record, but it doesn't have fiscal year 24, 25, 25.

No, no, sir.

I'm sorry.

That's that's not what I'm I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that you have people in the city and expenses within the city in a million different departments, including operations that are making up how much it costs the city to actually give a permit fee out, right?

Permit fees are supposed to be based on what it costs the city to issue them, and that is not in the record.

No one has that figure, so I don't know how it could be in the record.

I've asked multiple people, and no one seems to have it.

It's that's not part of the the public record right now.

You did some math to get a rough idea, you said, but I don't know if that that math is any good in it, and that's also not in the public record.

So um that's all I'm saying.

I yield and and I won't be back for a third, I promise.

Okay.

Thank you.

At this time, are there any other speakers on this item?

All right.

Having said that, because I had a chair, a chair error with my Roberts rules, I'm going to entertain another motion to approve.

Excuse me, Dan.

There's another hand up.

Representative Policeia for the third time.

I don't know what it is.

Go ahead.

Okay, thank you, Chair Stanford.

Um, yeah, um, I'm happy happy to submit anything to the record.

Um, the numbers I'm looking at are actually just all all the audited financials um which are available to the public.

Um, you know, fiscal year 22 to 26.

Um, or it's all online.

Um certainly I can send it in the tachetal legislative record for the next meeting.

Um if that is if the chair finds that that reasonable, but I I don't believe nothing, nothing here is hidden um from the public.

Um I I appreciate it, Representative Police.

If if you've submitted what you've you've submitted, I've seen it, and we all have access to the same people in the administration.

So um at this time, if I just want to, I just wanted to say that I I I did not make I haven't called on anyone.

Just second.

Who has their hand raised?

Is it representative camparelli is the only one?

Okay, representative camparelli.

Go ahead.

I just wanted to say I did not mean to imply that he was hiding anything.

That was not what I said, and I didn't mean to apply it.

So it's all right.

We're we're we're good.

Having said that, because I want to I want to make sure that our vote is clear now that we have had a discussion, just in case somebody's vote has changed.

I want to redo the vote for the record to make sure that we are following everything properly.

So at this time, if there's no more discussion, I will take this to a vote.

Um do I have a motion to approve uh OPR 32.002 resolution for public hearing and final adoption concerning building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding one million dollars.

So move.

Second second.

Second.

Okay.

With no discussion, I do not see any hands raised.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

And at this time, uh Sheila, I believe we have representative uh Salais, who's on the committee has joined us.

Uh yes, he has.

So I have a vote of 800 for item number one.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Moving on.

We have item number two, which is OPR 32.003, ordinance for public hearing and final adoption, amending chapter 214 of the code of ordinances concerning excavation permits enforcement, administrative fees, and cost recovery.

The time is 628.

At this time, I would like to open this item up for public hearing.

Do we have any speakers?

Uh for item number two, Sheila.

No, there are none signed up, and there are no hands.

Seeing none, uh, I will close the public hearing at also time 628.

And I will entertain a take up uh item OPR 32.003 for approval.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Seg there's a motion to approve and a second for item number two ordinance for public hearing and final adoption, amending chapter 214 of the code of ordinances concerning excavation permits, enforcement administrative fees, and cost recovery.

At this time, is there any discussion on the item?

Are there any hands?

I'm I'm scrolling through my screen.

There are no hands.

There are no hands and no discussion.

At this time, we'll take it to a vote.

We'll try this by voice vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed no opposed.

So that item passes 800 for item number two.

OPR 32.003.

At this time, we will now move to item number three, which is OPR 32.006.

This is an approval of an agreement between the city of Stanford and Wendell Energy Services for Streetlight Audit LED Conversion Plan Development and Construction Administrative Administration.

Uh RFP 2026.0063.

Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Is that second?

At this time, I will open it up for discussion from the administration.

We have on believe the engineer's office, Luke Casolo, who is joining us.

Uh possibly uh Luke Buttonweezer.

Um Lou, do you want to speak on this item before uh before I questions from the from the committee?

Or is this one Mr.

Mark?

Is this Brandon Mark?

It's me, yeah.

Sorry.

I was seeing if Lou was on to respond, but I no, that's all right.

Either one of you, I'm not I'm not sure who's the subject matter expert on it.

So the floor is yours, Mr.

Mark.

If uh you can shed some light on this uh agreement.

Yeah, thank you, board for for having me tonight.

Uh my name's Brandon, I'm an energy and sustainability engineer from the city.

Um, so this item is for the approval of a contract with Wendell Energy Services.

Um, this is for a citywide uh streetlight audit uh design development as well as construction administration once we get into the installation phase.

Uh this is part of a larger capital project that was approved and funded a couple budget cycles ago.

Um that's funded 50% uh by the DOE grant.

Um this is this audit is really a necessary first step before we go ahead and do the full uh conversion of lights.

Uh so that way we make sure we have an accurate accounting of all of our street lighting assets, um, understanding what the poll conditions are, lighting conditions are, if we're giving you know enough light output in the appropriate areas.

And then also the city hasn't ever done a full in-field uh verification audit since well, really ever.

Um we purchased the lights back from EverSource in 2003, and our current inventory is based off an audit that they conducted at the time.

And since then, we've kind of been updating our billing records and our existing GIS, but no like field verification audit has been done on our part.

Um so another kind of uh goal of this audit is to help true up our billing with Eversource.

Uh most of these lights are on an unmetered uh rate, rate 117.

Um, so knowing exactly what we have in terms of the wattages of each light, where they are, how many uh is really helpful to making sure our billing is cleaned up as well and that we're putting the light, the right lights um in place.

Um I'll take any questions.

Uh you're muted if you're uh speaking chair.

All right.

Well, that was fun.

I um at this time I'll open it up to all committee members.

Right now, I've got, I don't know who came up first.

Uh Representative Finkel, I'll give you the floor, followed by Representative Palacia, followed by Representative Gardner.

So I have Finkel uh Politia Gardner.

Go ahead, Representative Finkel.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Brandon, uh Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is step one.

And then once we have the audit, we'll be in a position to replace all the lights with LEDs so that they draw less energy on a per pole basis.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um a large majority of our lights are still high pressure sodium lights.

Um so we would be replacing them all with uh LEDs.

Okay.

Thank you.

I really yield.

Representative Felicia.

Yeah, um, thank you, Chair uh Sanford.

Um, through you to uh uh Mr.

Mark, could you could you just talk a little bit more about the uh the DOD grant and um you know what it what it is gonna entail and I assume that's possibly either this or the replacement, um, or but I'll let you uh elaborate on that.

Yeah, so this was a grant that was applied for uh right before I started uh back in 2022.

Um it's uh encompasses uh the full audit.

Um so this this work is covered by it.

Um the kind of design development where we're determining exactly what lights we want to put in um as well as uh the material and labor uh to replace the work.

The total amount of the grant is four million dollars, and the city puts a two million dollar match.

Um we I think those are really the the main the main details.

Um you wanted anything else I can share.

Yeah, um yeah, really quick.

Um I question is uh uh obviously completely agree with kind of the uh conservation, uh energy conservation and and all that entails.

Um is there any kind of we have an estimated savings that we're gonna get year over year or anything like that, you know, just that way we can kind of look at it as a whole.

Um while the city essentially is the only thing, the two million that they've committed, um, you know, we like the long-term, like the kind of CR savings there, um especially because you also mentioned an unmetered rate um as well, uh, I believe, right?

Correct.

Yeah, so we we have quite a bit of street lights.

We have roughly 11,000 street lights, plus plus or minus uh a thousand.

Um when we replace all of them based off our current inventory um and the the values that we have there for wattages.

We're anticipating roughly two million dollars or two million, sorry, two million kilowatt hours per year of savings, which uh at our current rate equates to roughly 400,000 a year in savings.

Uh street lights are one of the more expensive uh utility items that we pay for, but this would drastically reduce it.

Perfect.

Uh thank you, Red Mark.

Um, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Representative Gardner.

Yeah, Mr.

Monk, could you tell us more about the company Wendell Energy Services and why they're the right choice for a vendor to do this job?

Yeah.

Um so they were selected through a competitive RFP process.

Uh we had about, I want to say six uh submissions.

Uh we whittled it down to four very good uh candidates, um, all very skilled in in what they do in terms of uh understanding like streetlighting procedures, the different types of guidelines that are out there through the Illuminating Engineering Society.

Um Wendell at the end of the day, uh really understood our our project goals.

Um and they were one of they were the lowest uh um of the submitters.

Um but they they really stood out in terms of the level of detail that they seem to put into their projects.

Um like part of the audit.

Um it's a very tedious process going to each and every light.

Um and one thing that at least stood out for me uh at the time uh was when they're doing the audit, they they go as far as like tracking where the street light is shining, and sometimes there'll be unmetered lights that aren't on city property or in the right of way, but they are tied to the city's streetlighting uh lines, and we're still getting charged for that.

Um so they they really take a lot of uh care in their their work.

Um so that's among some of the reasons.

Is this work requires a lot of tedious attention to detail?

Um and so that was a big reason for us.

Thank you.

I yield.

Uh Representative Diddle.

I'm all good.

I got my question answered.

You're all good.

I appreciate it.

I just have a couple of silly questions, uh, Brandon.

One, when you have, and this is just because I don't know.

When you have what we call state street, state routes and the high ridge and long ridge.

Is that a is does the city own the street light there, or is that become uh do we split the cost with the state because we're lighting up their street?

Like how does that work?

I don't want to give you the wrong answer.

Um I'm just curious.

I mean, I I I'm all for the LED conversion.

I'm just kind of curious if if they can be on the hook for some of it of the cost as well, you know.

Yeah, so um as far as I know, when the street lights are in kind of the city's right of way, we're we're responsible for them ultimately.

Um when it comes to like some road work, uh if like say there was like a collapsed duck or duct or something and it was on one of the state-owned roads, then they would be responsible for kind of paying for some of that work, is my understanding.

But when it comes to the street light asset itself, uh we we're on the hook for that.

And then also uh, no, I appreciate it.

I um and then did they give like a like a duration, like how long this I mean, I know how long it takes to change the light bulbs in a house.

I mean, the whole city's gonna be is this like a year-long thing, two years.

I I just curious.

Yeah, for the for the grant, we have I believe now it's uh four years full completion, but we imagine we'll complete that in in likely two to two and a half years.

The audit itself will probably take a few months um and then going through and making sure we have a solid inventory, then design uh, and then once we're actually installing it, it could go pretty quickly.

Uh, but I want to say at least two to two and a half years.

And there's someone from the city that's holding these guys to a timeline, so they're they're not just correct.

All right, that's all I have.

I appreciate it.

Um representative Salas.

I used to question uh all the changing the lights just for the CDS stand for it.

And are they gonna replace the poles also or just replaying the lighting or the bolts?

Uh so this scope is just for the lights themselves and sort of the luminaire hardware, uh like the brackets and arms.

Uh, but part of the audit is going to be looking at every single pole and the conditions.

So we're gonna make sure that we we mark um which poles are you know in need of replacement.

Um, and then the ones that are owned by the city um will probably work with our internal operations uh team to figure out a solution to to make those repairs.

Um we don't own all of the polls in the in the city.

So if it's a pole with like a like a transformer on it or uh some telecom uh equipment, it's either owned by Eversource or kind of joint owned by uh ATT or one of the other uh various telecom companies out there.

Uh we just own the polls that are purely a streetlight only.

Um so those would be the ones that we would be responsible for.

If it's another uh pole that's out there that has this equipment on it, it would be one of those companies that would be responsible for replacing it.

And they're usually pretty good at at doing so.

So there's no way to know if the polls in my tree or in a different street being owned by Eversource or by the city.

Uh well, no, you can if uh use if you're looking at it and then there's just a street light on it, chances are it's it's owned by us.

Um I would just kind of need to see what the poll number is and stuff.

Uh but if there's like a transformer on it, then it's uh owned by Eversource.

Okay.

Thank you.

You'll the floor.

Thank you.

Representative Bradford.

Thank you.

Sorry I was late.

I I went down to well, I went to City Hall and realized this is video only.

Um but uh so how much longer do the LEDs last in the current bulbs?

Uh I think maybe I missed that, but how much longer do you expect them to last?

Uh are you talking about the lights that are currently in?

Yes.

Um, so we've been uh replacing them on an as needed basis when the existing lights fail, and we have been putting in LEDs um in like sort of a piecemeal way whenever whenever is needed.

Um that process started back uh maybe in 2012.

Um I think since then we've have a total of three thousand that are LED.

Um they last they're rated for 10 years um in general.

Um, but our goal would be to not replace the ones that are currently installed.

Uh we would we would prioritize the high pressure sodium lights first, uh, and then uh do the existing LEDs next.

So is there a the high pressure sodium lights?

How long do those last before you have to replace them?

Is that is that a year or 20 years or um I don't know what the rated lifetime is for the high pressure sodium, but the goal would be to yield savings by taking a high pressure sodium light that's uh less energy efficient than an LED.

Um and so we'll it'll be a better cost savings if we if we switch it out now rather than kind of waiting until failure for for those specific lights.

Uh makes sense.

Thank you.

No problem.

Okay, seeing no other hands.

Just as a reminder, and Brandon, you can.

I mean, we have a new board here, so this this went back several years.

Oh, just a second, Representative Zachary, I'll come back to you.

This went back a couple of years, so you actually got the funding for it was approved.

Now we're we're in the approval of the contract phase of this portion.

So um just for some of our newer members.

Uh Representative Zachary, go ahead.

Um, through the miracles of large language models, uh looked up the numbers for uh for you, Brandon.

And um rated hours for a high pressure sodium map is 24,000 to 28,000 for LED street rights is 50,000 to 100,000 plus.

Typical years of 15 to 25 years for an LED street light and five to six years for high pressure sodium.

Um the high pressure sodium draws approximately 150 watts, 170 with the ballast LED draws between 130 and 200, depending upon um sorry, LED draws 60 to 80 watts.

So it's caught roughly a third the energy consumption and anywhere between three and five times as long.

Uh thank you, Representative Zachary for pulling that.

I will ask you to check your check your sources though when it comes to using some AI, but appreciate the the support there.

You get a number in thanks.

So it's it sounds it sounds right, but always check your sources.

What you said you started replacing them in 2012, so it's 14 years later and they're still alive.

So yeah, it seems you you disconnect you you cut out a little bit, Representative Zachary.

I'm assuming I'm assuming you're you're finished.

I just saw you.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, my my internet has been flaky all day.

Sorry about that.

That's okay.

All right.

Seeing no other hands.

Um just going through here making sure we can go ahead and take this to a vote.

This is item number three, OPR 32.006, an approval of an agreement between the city of Stanford and Wendell Energy Services for Streetlight Audit LED conversion plan development and construction administration, which is RFP 2026.

Say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

And now I believe, Sheila, we have all the members of the committee, unless someone dropped off.

I have a 900.

Yes, that's what I have.

All right.

And that item passes then.

At this time, we'll go to Thank you, board.

I appreciate the thoughtful questions.

Hey, thank you, Brandon.

Appreciate it.

Nice to meet you.

Now I know my LED problems.

So yeah, give me a call anytime.

You got it.

Um at this time, I will take a motion uh to discuss item OPR 32.007, a resolution to establish uh commercial building permit fee exemption for qualifying grocery stores located downtown and in the south end.

So is there a second?

Second.

There's a second.

I will open this item up for discussion.

Sheila, you're reading my mic.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna go ahead and open this up to discussion as Sheila is bringing up the resolution.

So I know everybody is so uh worn out or maybe excited about uh building fees and stuff.

But one of the um before I open up to the floor, I I've invited Miss Um, Miss Carpenter from uh oh, I'm sorry, Miss Miss Alexander, Celia Alexander from the administration to help us um as we kind of navigate this process.

So this is a little bit complicated in a way, but I think it is is well needed, it's well intended.

Um, but it's gonna take a little bit of hand holding from various departments within the uh city, whether that is zoning, whether it's legal, whether it's touches um the health department, uh, on how do we define grocery stores.

Uh how do we make sure that nothing is um controlled at state level where you know we have the the ability to control at the municipal level.

So uh Miss Alexander was nice enough to join our meeting tonight and and uh have to go through uh a 45 minute wait to be able to speak.

But the idea here is we don't have all the answers just yet, but we wanted to give a preview to the committee and to other members of what the intent of the resolution is.

And if you haven't had a chance to read it, the idea is is to uh give an exemption for an incentive to for grocery stores in in this southern part of town.

Um I this time I'm gonna go ahead and and open up the discussion uh and allow representative Hughes, if he's still on.

Is he still on?

Yes.

Oh, there he is.

Because I believe you introduced this.

I'll let you explain um a little bit of the background and purpose for it.

And then we have uh Miss Alexander here that can uh kind of answer any questions she might have, but also get back to us with any questions or answers that we might have because uh she may not know all the answers and and and we don't either.

So I'm I'm trying to kind of wait carefully into this so that we're we're we're not rushing it, uh, that it has clear intent, but at the same time it's it it does its job and and has a a what it's intended to do at the end.

So anyway, I'll shut up and I will go ahead and give it to Representative Hughes if you want to go ahead and give us some background.

Floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Uh yeah, so the the overarching goal and what we're hoping to accomplish is to give the city of Stamford more tools to incentivize grocery stores, retailers, grocery store retailers, either downtown or in the south end.

Uh, these are two areas and two neighborhoods that have been identified as not necessarily being food deserts, but being food scarce in terms of having access to a full service grocery store.

Uh, this was something that I heard a lot about from folks when I was knocking doors, um, and it's something that I continue to hear uh is something that folks believe it would improve our neighborhoods.

I definitely agree with that.

I I think too, the way I look at it is that we should have a grocery store that folks can get to on foot easily.

Uh a lot of the grocery stores nearby, the most feasible way for a lot of folks is to just drive there.

Um, so I'm super uh excited to have all the different folks who are interested in this and who are co-sponsoring uh this.

Uh it's actually not mentioned on the agenda, but rep Graham from uh the South End District 3 is also a co-sponsor.

Um, so uh this is definitely something that's important to folks in my district downtown, but also to folks in the south end.

And the way I see it is, you know, if a grocery store opens up in the south end, or vice versa, if one opens up downtown, this benefits both neighborhoods.

Um, and so I think there's a few other things that we'll be able to look at as a board in addition to this that could attract grocery retailers.

Uh, but happy to answer any questions.

Um, and definitely appreciate that this is a first draft and that there's uh some work to do.

Uh, but look forward to that.

Thank you.

And I yield.

At this time, before I open it up for questions and this and more discussion, I want to introduce uh Miss Alexander from the administration.

Um I I know I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

Um, but I thought maybe you could just introduce yourself and kind of where the thought processes of the uh of where you think the support is and maybe what kind of uh you know help we might need in getting this done.

I think there is some um I think there is some motivation and some support at the administration level as well as many members on the representatives, board of representatives, but maybe you can just kind of walk us through um you know you know, maybe what the what the city's doing at the economic uh development level uh and and maybe how the board of reps can help and maybe how you feel that this resolution might help us achieve that goal.

I'm not trying to uh answer your own questions for you, but I just thought maybe I would kind of spur some discussion like that, Miss Alexander.

So if you don't mind um just kind of giving us a couple sentences on what where your thoughts are.

Yes, well, thank you so much.

Um, and for bringing this resolution forward.

Um I can, yeah, again, I'm I'm Celia Alexander, I'm the program manager for economic development at the city of Stanford, and um certainly support figuring out different tools and ways that we can um strengthen you know attraction for grocery stores in the downtown or south end.

Um I can kind of briefly outline some of the things that uh information that we're already gathering and sort of where where we are as a department on that.

Um certainly can support in in gathering data on sort of grocery store retailers and what they typically pay in permit fees.

I believe that's information um the committee's already been able to gather, but please let us know if if there's more that you're seeking.

Um we you know, we also are looking into understanding the key barriers um to why grocery retailers may not already be there, you know, whether that could be parking or loading requirements for downtown and just getting a better understanding of those sort of location specific needs, um, in addition to zoning considerations, um, including definitions of like grocery uses and operational needs, um also looking into understanding like the relevance of state legislation, um, which I know the committee is also looking into and gathering information on, um, including um sort of growth-related abatement authority and um whether that may or may not apply to Stanford.

Um we're also you know, speaking with different commercial property owners to understand whether um and you know incentives would would actually meaningfully help them secure and and and attract uh grocery tenants and getting a better sense from them.

Um and then also to let you know we we've commissioned a retail study uh with a retail consultant, um, which the findings will be made available soon, I think as soon as next week, and we can send those to you.

Um we're also having an event on Tuesday, we'll maybe be announcing some of those um those findings, um, which we're all welcome to attend.

And if you like information, please let me know.

Um but yeah, just also kind of also, you know, we've been in touch with the I apologize, just uh some background noise.

Um information on specific locations such as the former fairway site from 699 canal, um, as well as some of the other location specific information if we have it um that we can support.

Um so yeah, looking forward to next steps.

And if there's more information you need from us, you know, we're available.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, um, Miss Alexander.

Is there are there any questions?

Um I will open it up.

I do not know who went first, if it was Representative Adams or Representative Camperelli.

I um I'm just gonna go from left to right.

Representative Adams, go ahead.

Yes, no, I guess um, one comment to Ryan.

I like to put my name on support for this um grocery store going to South End.

And question to Ms.

Alexandra.

Um there was a small rumor about a smaller grocery store will come into South End.

Um, from the new owners of the um the grocery store um that moved out.

Um is there any truth to that?

Um there was supposed to be a smaller footprint of a grocery store into um fairway site, not as large.

Um, but I heard it was a deal on the table when the new owners approached the building.

Is any truth to that I am not aware of any specifics at this point?

Thank you.

So I know there's a gym and a few other stuff going here.

We're heard um there was a grocery store going in.

All right, but thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks, Representative Adams.

Representative Camparelli.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

I think this is an awesome initiative.

And uh really brilliant that uh representative Hughes thought about it.

Um I fully support it.

And if there's anything I can do to help, I'm I'm there to help.

Um I would absolutely put my name on this.

Um, I do have a question for um Miss Alexander, who I saw earlier in our class today.

Um my question is has anybody reached out uh from the administration to the Singheri brothers, the Shop Right Singhari brothers.

Uh at this point, I'm not aware.

Um, I think that again, we we're sort of at the beginning stages and we're we're happy to engage with um with people and and open that up.

But at this point, uh on this topic, not not as of yet.

And and if and if I had a conversation with them and they and they were interested, who would they contact you?

Yes, welcome to to contact me and and Leah.

We're yeah, we're available to to speak.

Okay.

Thank you.

I yield chair.

Thank you, Representative Didalow.

Thank you.

Um, I do kind of have a quick question.

Do you have any insights into the the rationale about why Fairway decided to move out of the South E or what was some of the contributing factors that you know, and I and I think we want to go and see that because definitely, but I want to see also what factors were going into that decision that we may want to include in this to help encourage another grocery store there for the people of the South End and downtown.

Um I'd appreciate an answer that, Miss Alexander.

If you had to um so to be honest, I haven't had conversations with them.

That was before my time.

Um, so I I can't speak to the specifics on that.

Thank you anyway, though.

Thank you, Representative Didalo.

Uh, I have Representative Finkel.

Uh right now, Representative Finkel, the floor is yours.

All right.

Uh two things.

Uh answering the question number one, uh, fairway went out of business.

They got they went out of business, they sold their name to some other entities to pick up the name in some stores in Manhattan, etc.

But the one in Stanford went out and was not picked up.

So I I can give you that answer.

Uh so the number two is I'm assuming this is a draft and it will be revised a number of times before we actually have to vote on it, because I see a couple of things in there that probably should be changed.

And if I'm wrong, let me know.

And I yield, thank you.

That that's correct.

My intent here, unless I get overruled, is to have the initial discussion um with some members of the administration to look at where we're coming from based off of just the the breadth of the resolution in all the different departments.

We we have to look at zoning, we have to look at definitions of grocery stores.

We have to look at how it might impact parking.

You know, are we allowed to restrict what items and and just make sure that it passes all you know the smell test across all these different kinds of areas so that whenever we do really get ready to put it in front of the committee to go to a vote that we have a pretty solid uh resolution?

Um having said that, I will open it back up to the floor.

Representative police, followed by Representative Didalow for the second time.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Um, yeah, uh just a point of clarification, I guess.

Um, you know, if Representative Hinkle does have like uh changes, I think it's we can you know we can certainly we should certainly discuss them here.

You know, we don't have to make motions to amend it, but I think discussion doesn't hurt if if I'm not mistaken, correct uh Chair Sanford.

That's correct.

Like what you could do is is if we were to recommit it is during the next month or whatever till the next meeting is propose language, and then uh in the next meeting, bring that in a in the public forum where we're debating it, we would then submit that language to be changed.

The only reason I would say is maybe hold off and discuss it, is that if you make the amendment now and then we have to turn around and change it again, you know what I mean?

I I'd rather have the discussion offline and then and then get the the correct language that we want after speaking with the different you know uh departments and stuff.

That that's just my two cents.

Uh representative Dillow.

Yeah, that was kind of what my um my realm was going to be.

Um, you know, I looked into this and was also defining the area um for South End, and I kind of did some research into that is um Ryan's probably gonna tag on to that too, was using um within zoning and the census, there's the South End um neighborhood statistical area and the downtown neighborhood statistical area, which for the most part will correspond to those areas, and I encourage the committee to kind of look into that.

But again, that's something if the committee prefers can just be done, recommitted to steering.

I can send an edit of that with that language and get a confirmation on that rather than amending it and then bring it back in to avoid any uh too many ping pongs with the amendments.

But that's what I just wanted to share.

That was one of the suggestions I had, and some people I talked to across a full board have ex that have seen this kind of express, making sure that doesn't get abused is defining those boundaries, and that was one area or one tool that we could use within zoning to be able to do that.

Uh thank you and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

And I just want to say thank you to everyone for your comments.

Um my only insight and just suggestion I have for the whole process is the way we write it is I hope we just make sure we don't get too narrow or too into the weeds where you end up having something that can't actually be utilized by a grocery retailer.

Um, though I totally understand the concerns, you know, when I wrote this, I had that in mind as well as you know, we don't want to accidentally cause a bunch of uh you know more smoke shops to open or you know, suddenly we have uh a Walmart coming in, right?

Like so uh, but I also didn't want to write it so it's so narrow that any grocery retailer looking at it is disincentivized.

Um, because that is the overall goal is to incentivize a grocery retailer in these neighborhoods.

Um and I think too, the more uh you read about this and it's essentially urban grocery stores face higher costs because in densely populated areas, land is more expensive.

Um, and so when grocery retailers run on three percent margins, that just naturally makes these areas uh less uh profitable for grocery stores, therefore you don't see as many.

Um, but I I think we're on the right path to addressing that.

So I want to thank everyone and I yield.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Thank you.

And and thank you to Rep Hughes for bringing this forward and everybody.

I I think everyone, there's a lot of uh uh support for it.

Um I had the same concerns to make sure that it was, you know, we we we can control the unintended consequences to get you know, we we don't have the people that we don't want in so to speak the businesses, the smoke shops or the Walmarts or something, whatever that is, whatever that might be.

But then not to steal um Miss Alexander's expertise, but whenever we were talking a while back, uh, you know, she brought up things like you know, when you're doing a grocery store, you have loading and unloading, and you gotta look at the times and and the disturbance of the peace, and they're gonna be doing this at what time in the morning.

So there's there's things that I wasn't thinking of that, you know, we need to get you know another set of eyes and ears just to make sure that we uh get a really good um resolution going, so to so to speak.

And I I I will say, you know, in kind of if with there's no other hand up, just as a as a business owner and having gone through the process, you know, the the first six to twelve months of owning a business can be really tough.

If you're breaking even by the six-month mark, that's like a good sign.

So anything that we could probably do to lessen that burden on a small business that's coming in, um you know, I think is a good thing.

So we want the the grocery store to succeed long term, and you know, if we can help both by pulling a couple of economic levers to to help that happen, um, you know, I'm all for it.

So having said that, I don't see any more hands.

Uh if that's it for discussion, what I would recommend is to re-commit this back to steering, and all that means is we're just gonna hold it.

Um and then that way we can work um within the confines of FOIA and everything else that we all know so well.

Um, but talk to our experts and change some language, uh amend the language at a future meeting and then put it forward um and soon have a you know somewhat finished product in the next couple of meetings.

means is we're just gonna hold it um it and then that way we can work um within the confines of foya and everything else that we all know so well um but talk to our experts and change some language uh amend the language at a future meeting and then put it forward um and soon have a you know somewhat finished product in the next couple of meetings um having said that i would entertain a motion to recommit item opr32.007 resolution to establish commercial building permit fee exemption for qualifying grocery stores located downtown and in the south end to steering so move is there a second second there is a second uh that is it for discussion so all those in favor please say aye aye aye aye aye we have nine zero zero to recommit opr 32.007 to steering is that correct Sheila or did I mess something up again?

Um that's correct.

Hey I got it right.

All right.

Um that is it for tonight's meeting and if nobody else has anything else I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I still move.

Is there a second?

Second you guys have a fantastic evening and a great weekend if I don't see you guys.

Have a great night everybody good night