Good evening, everyone.

It's Monday, April 6th, 2026.

And I call to order the regular Board of Uh Representatives meeting.

The time now is 7 31 p.m.

The invocation tonight will be delivered by Minister Krishna Rimenard, District 10.

Good evening.

My name is Minister Chris Lemonard, and let's pray.

Heavenly Father, we thank you for this gathering and for the opportunity to serve our beautiful city of Stanford.

As we begin this meeting, we ask that you grant each representative the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job.

Their thoughts, their words, and their decisions.

Help them to recognize the value and voice that each constituent brings and to lead with understanding, humility, and grace.

Let love, peace, and unity fill this room, even in the moments of disagreement.

Father, in a time where a nation faces challenges, remind them that they are not enemies but colleagues called to work together for the greater good.

Remove division and replace it with respect, cooperation, and clarity of purpose.

May every decision made here tonight reflect integrity, justice, and compassion.

It's in the name of Jesus we pray.

Amen.

Thank you, Minister Menon.

Please stand up and join me in the Pledge of Allegrance.

Thank you.

Clerk Johnson, would you please call the roll?

Absolutely.

Hello, everyone.

Representative Adams.

President.

Thank you.

Representative Beckham.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Blank.

Present.

Representative Bouchard.

Representative Boudreau.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camparelli.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Dela Cruz.

President, Mr.

Clark.

You, Representative Didalo.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Dorsey.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Field.

Representative Finkel.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Gardner.

President Mr.

Clark.

Representative Gabriel.

Representative Goldberg.

Good evening.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Representative Graham.

Representative Gross.

Present.

Representative Hill.

Present.

Representative Hughes.

Present.

Representative Hyatt.

Present, Mr.

Clark.

I am here.

Representative LePine.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

You, Parliamentarian McEwen.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Pavia.

Representative Politia.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Price.

You representative Salais.

Representative, sorry, Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

President, Mr.

Clark.

President Shaw.

President, Mr.

Clark.

Representative Shore.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Stone.

Present, Mr.

Clark.

Representative Sylvestry.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Walston.

Present, Mr.

Clark.

Representative Weathers.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Weinberg.

Present.

Representative Weirs.

Present.

Representative Yeager.

And Representative Zachary.

All right, let me circle back to two more.

Representative Bill Bryant, just confirming.

Oh, there you go.

She's here.

And then we have uh Representative Graham.

No, all right.

We have a quorum.

We have three.

We have 37 president uh present and three excused.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Uh with that, I declare a quorum.

Uh Clerk Johnson, would you do the moments of silence, followed by the communications, please?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

So now we have a handful of uh requested moments of silence.

We have Frederick Smith Morton, Sergeant Declan Cody, Sergeant Benjamin Pennington, Captain Cody Cork, Sergeant Nicola Moore, Sergeant Noah Teachins, Major Jeffrey O'Brien, and Chief Warren Officer Robert Marzan.

Let us observe a quick moment of silence for those who have departed before us and let the memory be a blessing to those who love them.

So steering committee agenda submission deadline.

As normal is this Wednesday, 5 p.m., please.

Just a reminder again, send all your submissions or anything to the full board office staff email.

There will be a joint Board of Finance and Board of Representatives fiscal committee hearing meeting this Wednesday at 7 p.m.

It'll be in person only at Ripplewam Middle School.

Steering committee will be next Monday, the 13th at 7 p.m.

And the next full board meeting will be Monday, May 4th at 7.30.

There will be a special budget meeting on Thursday, May 7th.

That's where we'll vote to uh vote on the 2026-2027 fiscal year budget.

Um, Thursday, May 7th at 7 30 p.m.

We also have four birthdays this month.

So happy birthday to representatives Bouchard, Gardner, McEwen, and Weirs.

Sorry.

We're just to them.

All right.

I think that's uh all I have, Rami.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to the report.

The first one is the BA BOE LEASOND report, Representative Lapine.

Thank you, President Shaw, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to serve in this capacity for the 32nd Board of Representatives.

Um, I'll talk briefly about the role creation and the purpose uh per President Shaw's notice.

She sent to the board on March 16th, advising of the creation of this position of the Board of Representative Representatives liaison to the Board of Education.

I'll describe the the uh core intent of the role.

It will endeavor to improve communication between our two boards on matters within the purview of the board of representatives, collaborate with the Board of Education members and provide monthly updates to the Board of Representatives focused on school construction and capital projects, items with fiscal impact that may require board representative actions and other operational updates that would assist members in communicating with our constituents.

What the liaison will not do is engage in or report on policy matters that fall outside of the authority of our board.

Uh a further advice that uh I met with the Board of Education president Andy George on March 24th.

We discussed the new role, and uh President Shaw and President George are fully aligned on this role's focus and purpose.

Over the next several weeks, I'll be meeting with individual members of the Board of Education uh to make sure that I'm hearing their uh concerns and needs as well.

So on that first point of school construction capital budget, capital project and budget updates.

Um, I would encourage uh all board members and our constituents to visit the website of SPSbuilds.com for the most up-to-date information on the various school building projects and register for the FPS Building Excellence newsletter.

It definitely gives the most up-to-date information on all that is going on in the uh school build and capital projects.

Uh, quick note on the West Hill construction project.

So everybody's aware of the largest school project in Connecticut's history.

Uh the funding's been secured, as we're all well aware, and the construction officially kicks off this month, marking a major milestone for this for this key project for our city.

Uh the construction access road via Long Ridge Road is being built to accommodate the project, and there will be a groundbreaking ceremony taking place at a date to be determined in May.

As far as the budget goes, the Board of Ed is going to begin work on the budget as the Board of Finance will set their appropriation on April 14th.

And in other matters, the superintendent search has been narrowed down to six candidates.

Those interviews are going to take place on April 15th.

Those are a closed session with the board and the public will be advised on the outcome of those interviews in the weeks that follow.

The next board of education meeting is going to be held on April 28th, 2026.

I'm happy to take any questions and I yield.

Thank you so much for that very helpful report, Representative Le Pine.

Thank you for taking this on again.

Uh moving on to honorary resolutions.

So we have one honorary resolution tonight, honoring Miss Melissa Moldruni for her 20 years of service as CEO of Stanford Museum and Nature Center on the occasion of her retirement.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Is that a second?

Second.

So all those in favor of approving this resolution, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions.

That resolution is approved unanimously.

Clerk Johnson, would you like to read the resolution for the record, please?

Sure.

Want to read the whole thing?

All right.

All right.

Whereas Melissa Mulroney graduated from the University of Delaware with a degree in theater and English literature and took a position with Broadcasting Magazine, where a mentor advised her she entered into the advising world focused on copywriting and editing, which she did for five years before pivoting to the Delaware Art Museum as their director of public relations.

And whereas, after 11 years at the Delaware Art Museum, Miss Mulroney was offered and accepted a position at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island as her professional museum director.

And after her tenure there, she moved to New York City.

While in New York City, she worked with the nonprofit, she worked with nonprofits before working with the Museum of Art and Design.

In addition to teaching at NYU before briefly returning to the Delaware Art Museum to help with the stalled capital program.

And whereas Ms.

Mulroney was immediately headhunted upon her return to New York for her current job in Stanford.

Ms.

Mulroney started her time as the CEO of the Stanford Museum and Nature Center in September 2005, where she encountered many projects to address, including deferred maintenance and a 1960s era observatory among the different facilities and programs at the Stanford Museum and Nature Center.

And whereas her desire to build upon and improve the facilities and programming at the Stanford Museum and Nature Center led her within the first years of her career there to work with the museum board to create a long-term master plan to look at the next 50 years of the institution and draft a plan for capital improvements that were needed.

And whereas the Stanford Museum and Nature Center, with its main focus on both education and social engagement, is a dynamic 118 anchor acre campus that blends art, history, and nature, with galleries hosting exhibitions in the historic Bendell Mansion and the working Hirschker Farm to the miles of scenic trails and hands-on education programs to the opening of the brand new planetarium and astronomy center, designed to extend STEM and STEAM learning through immersive astronomy experiences.

And whereas the Board of Representatives wishes to record its admiration for her leadership and its gratitude for her foresight and planning for the Stanford Museum and Nature Center.

Although her time leading the organization is ending, the contributions, leadership, and positive impact of Melissa Mulroney will be long remembered and appreciated by the Stanford Museum and Nature Center and the entire city of Stanford.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the 30 second Board of Representatives hereby recognizes and honors Melissa Mulroney for her distinguished service, expresses sincere appreciation for her contributions, and extends heartfelt congratulations to congratulations and best wishes for health, happiness, and fulfillment in the years ahead.

May a copy of this resolution be presented to Melissa Mulroney as permanent expression of the board's gratitude and respect, and in recognition of her outstanding contribution to the City of Stanford.

I'm honored.

And this city is a community that I have lived in for 19, let's see.

Yeah, 19 years.

Working with bodies like the Board of Representatives, the Board of Finance, the executive leadership of these incredible community organizations is powerful.

It's how we have been successful because you believed in what we were coming to the city for, what we needed your support on.

And again, it is what makes my job work.

Um we just opened the new planetarium and astronomy center in November.

We're really having fun.

Um, it is catching hold with our beautiful public schools and our private and parochial.

And again, I'm not going anywhere.

I'm living in this community.

I live two and a half miles away from the museum.

You will see me around this community, because this is my home, and you are part of my family.

So I thank you.

Again, another honor.

Another milestone.

And I love you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Mulroney.

We wish you the very best.

Moving on to the public participation session, as provided in the board rules, there is a period for public comment of 30 minutes unless extended by a vote of the board to no more than 50 minutes.

Speakers have signed up via email or by calling the board office and will have no more than three minutes to speak.

The time for each person to speak may be shortened to no less than one and a half minutes, depending upon the number of people who have signed up, or would be no more than two minutes.

If public comment period has been extended, I will be closely monitoring the time and will provide each speaker with a 30-second warning to ensure fairness and allow everyone an opportunity to be heard.

I ask that all speakers conclude their remarks promptly before their allocated time has expired.

The board rules provide that the president may keep good order and decorum in any manner authorized by Roberts Rules of Order.

And for the avoidance of doubt, may shorten or cancel the speaking time of any speaker during public common period deemed in the president's sole discretion to be disruptive or unruly.

But board rule um section 4.e.3.8 out three speakers may only speak on items that have not been subject to a prior public hearing.

The following items previously had a public hearing.

OPR 32.002 concerning building permit fees on commercial projects.

OPR 32.003, amending chapter 214 of the Code of Ordinances.

With that, we will start the session with our first speaker here is Mr.

Kieran Edmondson.

Mr.

Edmundson, go ahead.

Hi, border website and a happy belated Easter to those who celebrate and a heavy passover to those who sell Bay.

It is Kieran Edmondson, a resident of the Water Side neighborhood of the city of Stephen, Connecticut.

And I want to take a very brief moment to draw your attention as members of this board of representatives about entering agreements with the Connecticut Division of Emergency Ministry and Homer's security.

So the city of Stanford can't have such a strong response to this, but it comes to dangerous hazards of criminal activities, um, terrorist attacks, um the warnings of weather or any other kinds of unexpected problems that ends up have uh a continuing process to safeguard your protect and look over our citizens of Stanford to protect the board of episode when it comes to living in one of the most difficult times of other human civilization that Stanford attempts to have many important officials, including the police, firefires of the EMS growth, the Army, the National Guardia, Centation Workers, elected officials, and many other important individuals whose jobs are always a leader, work of servant and protectable times.

I need all board members to vote in favor tonight of F32.055 and F32.056, which otherwise says the local government of Stanford to formalize agreements for the process of taking serious action for Stanford to have more effective control of how to safeguard our citizens or protect our homes during during the weather, bring those individuals to justice or for their wrongdoings and keep a further eye on for terrorist threats and many other important factors for further further evidence to talk to border officer.

Thank you again every time concurrent Matthew Edmondson.

Thank you, Mr.

Edmondson.

Our next speaker here is Mr.

Chris Frixel.

Are you online?

Yes, I am.

I'm online.

Okay, go ahead.

Go ahead.

You have three minutes.

Hello, everybody.

Uh, my name is Chris Frixel.

I'm the president of the Connecticut chapter of the associated builders and contractors.

We are a statewide trade association representing merit shop contractors in the construction industry.

I'm here uh tonight, and thank you for your time uh to urge you to reject the resolution approving a project labor agreement for the Roxbury Hill School Construction Project.

Um, our experience and data suggests that project labor agreements vastly increase the cost of school construction.

Uh studies show by as much as 20%.

Um, and they don't provide any benefit.

There's no public benefit to the school construction under a project labor agreement.

Uh, there's not an increase in safety.

Um, in fact, all it will do is suppress bidders on the project.

Uh project labor agreements, they discriminate against open shop contractors.

So open shop contractors will not bid on project labor agreement uh construction jobs, which is something that uh contributes very much to the rise in construction projects, uh, cost of construction projects.

So on a project labor agreement, if you're reducing the open shop contractors in Connecticut, open shop construction is about 85% of the industry.

So if you eliminate 85% of the available workforce and uh responsible contractors from the opportunity to bid, costs are going to increase.

Now, Stanford has some experience here.

Uh first I'll mention the Strawberry Hill School, which some of you may remember a number of years ago that was put out with a project labor agreement.

There were only two bidders, 17 million dollars over budget.

Uh the project was pulled back.

The PLA was taken off of it, and the project went out to bid, came in on time on budget.

Uh 40% of the workforce was uh sorry, 40% of the work was done by union contractors.

So our position is not union versus open shop.

Our position is that 100% of the responsible available contractors should have an opportunity to compete.

Uh the other one, and it was mentioned earlier, West Hill Middle School.

I know this one just went out to bid and bids came back.

Uh I think 50 million dollars under budget.

If you go through those bid results, you'll realize with a project labor agreement.

A lot of those contractors would not have participated, and the cost of the construction would be far, far higher.

So thank you for your time.

I hope that you will reject the project labor agreement and allow 100% of responsible contractors to participate in the bidding.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr.

Frixal.

Our next speaker is Mr.

Mike Papa.

Only Christ, the one big safe.

Anyway, the last time I did um you know, bring this booklet and uh some of the other stuff.

Mostly the reason I bring this book because uh we talk about subdivisions, and we are gonna go like wanted to grow like in York City over here.

Okay, now even though I don't agree about doing the same because we are not building a rock like New York City does, but at least we gotta do an excellent job when it comes to these things because it looks like that we pump billions into things.

The high school, you know.

I remember I can't, I'm here in 1971.

Okay, I remember the high school was built, and now we have to knock it down.

In Italy, my school is still there.

So the idea is that we don't maintain.

We build and we don't maintain.

And the president of the board is supposed to follow up on this.

That's why I give it the president of the board, the majority of leaders, some very precious information to share with everybody.

They're not even doing that.

No, now I'm not gonna say why they haven't doing that because they're too young, they're not experienced, and they think that what we're doing is right.

No, what we're doing is wrong.

And that's why I pass this along with everybody.

You know, this is uh first of all, a tree that falls it's a hollow tree.

And you can see that from number uh number two, the picture number two, it shows that tree was there 20 years ago when I complained to Fidelity to come to look, he said, no, it's a LT3.

Okay, the three wardens supposed to know the hollow tree gets full of water fall done.

I told the insurance when it break my garage to tell the city that never did.

Now it broke my truck, it could have killed somebody.

And uh, when the lawyer came over here, they said it's an act of nature.

I'm gonna fight this until I die.

If I'm gonna I'm gonna go to the next board of finance, then I gotta go to the state that to the EPA and to the Wall Street Journal and to the to everything until this is fixed.

I lost my truck, and I was uh, you know, the the lawyer, they don't care, they don't care.

But until I die, I fight for this.

Another thing, I collaborated from the bottom of my heart with Mill Real.

We spent five million dollars on this carousel over here, right?

Last year I showed them how to fix the drainage.

A number, this is a number 12 uh 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

It's this is anaerobic soil, produces alcohol.

All right, they didn't fix it because they don't give you the money.

You got five million dollars from the city of Stanford to give it to them right here, Friedman over here.

He did an excellent job, but the Martin uh field over here using organic fields because uh it belongs to him was beneficial.

But the park over here right next to the station, or they put the bluegrass, which uh then it's high maintenance grass in a low maintenance zone.

So it doesn't work.

And uh and the truck, this truck over here, you know, just my wife just got hit with a car coming 40 miles an hour because the other car didn't stop at the stop sign, it went right through it from to avoid the frontal thing, you'll get and the and the another tropical form there.

Okay, thank you.

You don't want to listen to people, but you will listen to the newspaper, believe me.

The last thing I do in my life over here.

Thank you, Mr.

Papa.

I'm not too sure that this information which is a very thank you, Mr.

Papa.

The next speaker is Miss Sue Halpin.

Good evening.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

My name is Sue Halper, and I've lived in the South End of Stanford for 40 years.

I've was born here, but I've lived in the South End for 40 years.

I am following up on my two emails that I sent to the Board of Representatives, one on March 28th regarding stormwater violations, and one this morning signing the Stanford Stormwater Management Plan of 2020.

I have been taking photos and videos around my neighborhood since the remediation and construction of Harbor Point in 2018, where runoff construct construction runoff was a major issue.

Currently, four noxious industries are located on the waterfront where most catch basins are labeled do not dump drains into waterways.

Flows directly into local waterways and ultimately into Long Island Sound.

On Canal Street, trucks drag out asphalt crumbs, oil, grease, freeon, and other contaminants from the junkyard and ash flow plant.

The cement processing plant on Davenport Street in Waterside processes rocks and makes cement.

Washing off of trucks was observed, allowing runoff with silica dust to be discharged into a catch basin.

Also, Mark, do not dump.

A core vision of the 2035 comprehensive plan is a healthy city.

To get there, the plan claims it will promote community health by addressing pollution and supporting personal well-being, especially in areas facing environmental injustice.

The city needs to take action to mitigate the impacts of these industries and construction by following best management practices outlined in the stormwater management plan.

Many people are unaware, unaware that they are contributing to the pollution.

So an educational campaign would be helpful.

May I suggest the board of reps do a review of this plan and rally the troops?

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Miss Halpin.

Those are the people that have signed up to speak.

Is there anyone that did not sign up and wish to speak?

If you are, raise your hand and we will admit you to speak.

Mr.

Batinelli.

You can unmute him.

Yeah, he has to unmute himself.

Okay.

Are you able to unmute?

Okay.

We'll come back to you.

Well, I see Mr.

Dave Adams' hand raised.

Go ahead, Mr.

Adams.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board.

Um, it's budget season.

So there's a lot of things to talk about in terms of uh how we spend our money.

And uh, you know, that does equate to how much taxes people pay on their property, uh, cars, land, etc.

Um, we spend a lot of money on different things.

Uh, but I think it's a uh something of significance that we are spending or we are uh forecasting spending seven percent more than we were last year.

We were lucky enough to get uh a mill rate drop last year.

Uh I just don't understand why we got a jump more than double or or even triple what we normally get in an increase in the budget.

Obviously, there's some there's some ways to cut, and I hope you do.

One of the things that I think you should definitely cut is the Eastside Library redesign.

Why?

Because we're for we're proposing to install that library on a piece of property that was deeded to the city for the explicit purpose as a park and or playground.

The state violated that when they installed this the signs and lines building.

What the appropriate thing to do with Courland Park is to return it to a park.

As far as where to put the East Side Library.

If I remember correctly, to do exactly that.

Reopen the Glenberg Community Center.

Get those programs running again.

Possibly put a library in there.

That's what we should be doing.

We should be rejecting any further notion to put a library with an expansive parking lot, impermeable surfaces, and on a piece of property that was gifted to the city with the explicit purpose for being a park.

I think it's very clear, and I don't understand why keep we keep beating our heads against this wall.

You have 30 seconds.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you and have a great evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Mr.

Batinelli, are you able to unmute?

I have I unmuted.

Am I good?

I think you're good.

Go ahead.

Okay, good, because I'm not good at this stuff.

Uh uh my name is Michael Batinelli.

I live in Glenbrook.

Uh we were the original openers of the Glenberg Community Center when it when it opened back in the uh actually in the late 60s, early 70s.

Oh, it's uh it disheartens me to see what's happening to the building.

We we did bring up when they wanted to open up that library over at Cortland Park, which was which is against the deed restrictions that are there to begin with.

We we we we petitioned the city, said we could it could be opened up at the community center.

There's more than enough parking, it's a good building, and uh right now, due to the fact that it was damaged back in the uh the the uh another a winter ago, it should be uh insurre the insurance should fix that building to uh up to up to standard codes now.

It's not gonna cost the city much at all.

And I just and and like the previous speaker, I don't understand why the the city keeps on for uh keeps on fighting back.

Uh uh we we've had this um save our center group here ever since they wanted to try and sell it four years ago or whatever.

We've uh uh we've we've we've petitioned, we've met with the city, we've met with Mac Minonis, we've met with the mayor, and we just can't seem to make get it through anyone's head that this people of Glenbrook want a community center, and the and it's a it would be a perfect spot for a library because our section of Stanford is not you know we are very blue-collar, very multicultural, and there's a lot of the there's really a lot of people that can use a library on that side of town.

Who's gonna walk out to Cortland Avenue?

The center of Glenbrook is right down there where the community center is.

It's it's an ideal location, it's a piece of property the city owns already, and it's already there.

It's gonna be renovated to the point of of the most recent uh uh zoning, uh the the most most recent construction uh uh levels of that that they that they that they have.

It's gonna be what it's gonna be up to date, and there's no reason for us not to do that.

I I would like someone on the board to give me one reason why we can't why we have to go to Cortland Park and not be there.

There's more than enough room with the they've they've the Springdale Springdale Library is not much bigger than uh probably the same size building, but uh they they seem to do very well up there.

Uh and you know what Glenbrook needs the community center, it's been closed, we've been fighting to get it back open again, and the city of Stanford just doesn't seem to want to agree with us.

I would really uh I really uh would love for this board of reps to take this on and and and give Glenbrook back what they what they had, what they what they were what was taken away.

You have 30 seconds.

Okay, thank you.

And uh and give us back what we what we what we've been asking for.

We went around door to door to just ask people, would you want to open the center again?

And an ultimate a great majority of them would love to see it open.

We had we've had I I've had lists of people that wanted to move into the center along with um along with possibly doing a library, um uh ways to run it.

It wouldn't, it would hardly wouldn't cost the city much, and I would love you to for you to uh thank you, Mr.

Berk Nelly.

Your time is up.

All right, thank you very much for your time.

I'll uh I would love to see you bring this up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Please raise your hands.

I don't see anyone.

Okay, we will close the public participation session now.

Thanks to everyone that's up today.

We will now move on to our regular agenda.

Um first starting with the steering committee.

Is that a is that a motion to wave steering?

Is that a second?

All in favor of waiving steering, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions.

Okay.

Steering is waived.

So the next one is appointments committee.

Co-Chair Gardner.

Thank you, Madam President.

The appointments committee met on Wednesday, March 25th at 6 30 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by Zoom webinar.

We interviewed seven candidates, and they are as follows.

Item one, Alpha 32.020, Board of Assessment Appeals.

Larry Ginsberg for a time the term expiring December 1st, 2028.

We approve that 700.

Item number two, Alpha 32.022 zoning board, Jerry Bozak.

Uh we approve that 700.

Item number three, Alpha 32.023 for the zoning board, Keith Walker, term expiring December 1st, 2027.

We approve that 700.

Uh item number four, Alpha 32.024 for the planning board, Chet Salit with a term expiring December 1st, 2026.

We approved 700.

Item number five, Alpha 32.025 for the planning board and alternate, Drew McKay, with a term expiring December 1st, 2027.

We approved 700.

Item number six for the planning board and alternate.

Ashley Lai with a term expiring December 1st, 2028.

We approved 700.

And finally, item number seven, Alpha 32.027 Parks and Recreation.

Uh Sri Nadella with a term expiring December 1st, 2028.

Uh approved 700.

Uh Madam President, this time I uh move we take items one through seven to be considered on the consent agenda.

Okay, there is a motion to move items one through seven on consent agenda.

Is that a second?

Second.

Is anyone planning to oppose any of these items?

Or anyone would like to take anything off consent.

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

All those in favor of approving appointment committee agenda, items one through seven, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Representative Morrison abstains from item three.

Okay.

Noted abstention.

Okay.

With uh with the one noted one abstention, all these items passed unanimously.

Is there anything else?

That concludes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Coach Gardner.

Moving on to fiscal committee, Co-Chair Zachary.

Good evening, Madam Chairman.

The fiscal committee met on Monday, March 23rd at 6.30 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

I'd like to read the following items into the uh record.

Item number one, F32.053 for $50,000.

An additional appropriation operating mayor's office, Stanford Boys and Girls Club, location Yearwood Center, amount from contingency, mayor, contracted services to cover two months of lost rental income resulting from the city's need to evict tenants due to a abessis abatement is approved by 800 by committee.

Item number two, F32.054.

Resolution with respect to the authorization, issuance and sale of not exceeding 65 million dollars.

City of Stanford General Obligation Refunding Bonds.

Approved by Committee 900.

Item number three, F32.055 resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Secret Sorry, Homeland Security for the City of Stanford Cybersecurity Navigator Risk Management Project.

Approved 900.

Item number four, F32.056.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Division of Emergency.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry.

I can't tell that I you can't hear me.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security for the City of Stanford.

Implement endpoint detection and response project.

Approved 900.

Item F5, F32.057 for 2.5 million dollars.

Additional appropriation capital project CP for 000091.

I hope I got the right number of zeros.

Latham wider community center renovations, capital improvements, fund source.

Private contributions and federal grant.

Approved 801 by committee.

Item number six, F32.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Lathen Wider project approved 801.

Item 7, F32.059, 75,000.

An additional appropriation grant.

Community development project funds to support outreach and community engagement for free public Wi-Fi at the Lathan Wider Community Center in Cove Island Park, including activation in digital connectivity assistance.

No new city funding required.

Approved 801 by committee.

Item 8, F32.060, 86,308.

An additional appropriation grant.

Emergency Communications Center, 911 telecommunications to cover the salary of four public safety dispatchers.

Approved 801.

And final item number nine, F32.061 for 156,200.

An additional appropriation grant.

Technology management services funds awarded to hire a cybersecurity consultant to lead cybersecurity risk management efforts approved 801.

I would like to move items one, three through nine to the consent agenda.

Okay, items one and three to nine of the fiscal committee agenda are moved.

Is that a second?

Second.

Okay.

These are all consent items.

Is anyone opposing or wanting to take anything else off consent?

Okay, seeing none, let's take this by voice board.

All those in favor of approving item number one and three through nine of the fiscal committee agenda, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, those items passed two.

Abstentions, President Shaw, I apologize.

Go ahead.

Representative LePine.

Abstaining from items five and seven.

Five and seven.

Okay.

Um noted.

And then I will be abstaining from items five, six, and seven.

Okay, but noted abstentions.

Those items passed unanimously.

Go ahead, Representative Zachary.

And then on item two, F32.054 on the refunding agreement for the 65 million dollars, the city of Stanford General Obligation Refunding Bonds.

I'd like to make an emotion.

Uh open the four to I'm not sure exactly the right way to do this, but I'd like to make an emotion to amend this.

Is that how do I motion to motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Sorry, you I would like to I would like to make a motion to amend, but how do I do that?

So first you have to make a motion to approve, and then we'll make a motion to amend.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Second.

Okay.

Any any discussion?

Okay, seeing none, we'll we'll take this.

Do you want to make the motion to move?

Okay, now you can make a motion.

Hang on.

Um representative uh Delacruz, Representative Zachary still has the floor and he's he's wanting to speak.

Go ahead.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to amend this to put a date of an end date on this of six months from today, which would be October 6th, sorry, October 2nd, 2026, and that the resolution will expire on that date.

If the city wishes to extend this, they will need to come back to the Board of Finance and to the fiscal committee to get approval to extend the date for to uh continue refunding in the future.

Second.

Okay.

Any other discussion representative Delacruz, did you need to speak on this?

I wanted to second the motion, so it has been seconded.

Okay.

So I guess now we have discussion.

Yes, I already called for discussion.

So do you wish to speak?

Uh I support uh the proposed uh amendment amendment.

I think it's uh prudent to take a breather on this given the uh economic conditions of the time.

Uh thank you and I yield.

Thank you, representative Delacruz, representative McHughin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I simply have a question, a point of information for Representative Zachary with respect to the your motion.

Are you moving to amend effectively to strike the words December 31st, 2026 and replace them with October 6, 2026?

October 2nd, October 2nd and 2023.

Yes, that would be my motion.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Any other discussion.

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

All those in favor of making the amendment to item number two as suggested by Co Chair Zachary, please say aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions.

Okay, Representative Gilbride abstains on item number two.

Okay.

Yes.

Are you abstaining?

I abstain from his amendment.

So okay.

So representative Walston is abstaining from the amendment to item number two as well.

Okay.

With that noted mention uh noted uh abstentions, the amendment passes.

Now do we make I intend a motion to approve that I submitted a motion to uh approve the amended resolution.

Okay.

Is that a second to okay?

So do we have to vote on still?

Okay.

All those in favor of approving the amendment, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

The amendment passes.

Anything else?

Oh uh I that is it.

Thank you very much.

That concludes your report.

That concludes my report.

Thank you so much, Co-Chair Zachary.

One of information.

Yes.

Yes, just for clarification.

It's the motion as amended that passed, not the amendment.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Yes, the motion as amended passed.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

Moving on to legislative and rules.

Chair McEwen.

Thank you, President Shaw.

The legislative and rules committee met on Tuesday, March 24th, 2026 at 6 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

We considered one item, LR 32.016, an ordinance for publication to repeal the appointments commission per Article 17 of chapter 6, including sections 6-121 through 6-124 of the code of ordinances as submitted by uh Mayor Caroline Simmons uh during the meeting.

Um we had presentations from Chief of Uh Staff, Bridget Fox and former chair of the appointments commission, Steve Garst.

Uh and following that discussion, the committee felt that it was best served by postponing this item to the committee's subsequent meeting uh in order to hear more feedback from stakeholders and consider enshrining reporting requirements to better equip the board with the tools it needs uh to dispatch its its role in the appointments process.

And that's all I have to report.

Thank you so much, Chair McEwen.

Moving on to personnel committee, Chair Weinberg.

Uh thank you, President Shaw.

Uh the personnel committee met on Monday, March 16th at 7 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

We had one item on the agenda.

It was P32.003, a review of the city's HR policies and programs, including the classification systems, employee benefit programs, and her post-retirement benefit programs for the education of personnel committee members.

Uh a report was made on the civil service collective bargaining and labor relations structure, uh portion of those programs.

Uh and then the remaining uh was held.

Uh I especially want to thank Director Russell and her team uh for some just outstanding presentations that are really going to help us do a better job.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you so much, Chair Weinberg.

Moving on to land use and urban redevelopment committee.

Co-Chair Price.

Thank you, Madam President.

The land use and urban redevelopment committee met on Wednesday, March 18th, 2026.

Uh we met uh excuse me.

Virtually um, and we considered one item LU 32.006, a resolution accepting Pembroke Drive as a city street by property owners pending certification by the city engineer that Pembroke Drive meets the qualifications for acceptance.

It was recommitted to steering by committee 700.

And that is that concludes my report.

Thank you, Co-Chair Price.

Moving on to operations parks and recreation committee, Chair Sanford.

Thank you, ma'am.

Operations parks and rec committee met on Thursday, March 19th, 2026 at 6 p.m.

via webinar.

We had four items.

First item was OPR 32 002 resolution for public hearing and final adoption concerning the building permit fees on commercial projects exceeding a million dollars, which approved by Committee 800.

Item 2, OPR 32.003 in ordinance for public hearing and final adoption, amending Chapter 214 of the code ordinances concerning excavation permits enforcement, administrative fees, and cost recovery.

That was approved by Committee 800.

Item 3, OPR 32.006 and approval of an agreement between the City of Stanford and Wendell Energy Services for Street Light Audit LED conversion plan development and construction administration, which was RFP 2026.0063.

That was approved by Committee 900.

And item number four, OPR 32.007, a resolution to establish a commercial building permit fee exemption for qualifying grocery stores located downtown in the South End.

That was recommitted to steering by uh committee uh 800.

At this time, I'd like to move items one, two, and three uh for approval and consent.

Second.

Um there's a motion and a second discussion.

Yes, representative Campbell.

I'd like to make a motion to remove OPR 32.002 from the consent agenda.

Okay, you don't need a motion, but we will take that off consent.

So, Chair Sanford, would you like to move forward with the two consent items first?

At this time, I would like to go ahead and move items two and three for approval on the consent agenda, then.

Okay, that is a motion to approve operations parks and recommend two and three on consent.

Is that a second?

Okay.

Anyone planning to oppose any of those two items.

Okay.

Seeing none, let's take that by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving items two and three of the operations parks and committee um agenda, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Items two and three passed unanimously.

Okay.

Now let's move on to item number one.

I'll open it up for discussion.

Go ahead.

Go.

Oh, sorry.

We'll we'll we'll have to take a motion to approve since we took it off consent.

Uh do I have a motion to approve?

Zero second.

Okay, discussion.

Representative Campbelly.

I voted for and helped write the resolution on the 31st board to remove building permit fees for nonprofits and affordable housing.

That made sense.

That was targeted.

That was about supporting mission-driven work and addressing real community needs.

But we also need to be honest about what that means.

Those costs didn't disappear.

They were absorbed by the city and ultimately by the taxpayers of Stanford.

This proposal, 002 is something very different, and I will be voting against it.

We are about to vote on a mayor's budget that currently reflects roughly a 7% increase.

We are telling taxpayers that costs are up, gas is up, salaries are up, materials are up, insurance is up, energy is up.

Every department in this city is feeling those increases.

And it stands to reason that the services required to issue building permit fees have also increased.

Please plan review inspections, administrative processes, and enforcement.

These are not abstract functions.

They require staff, time, expertise, vehicles, systems, all of those costs have gone up over the past six years since the last time we raised these fees.

And importantly, the fees level being proposed here do not even account for inflation over that time period.

We are effectively talking about rolling back fees to levels that in today's dollars are significantly lower than they were six years ago.

So I have to ask, how do we justify this?

How do we go back to taxpayers and say your taxes are going up because everything costs more while at the same time reducing fees for for-profit developers and businesses?

This is a disconnect.

Permit fees are not arbitrary.

They are meant to offset the costs and services required to review, inspect, and approve construction.

If we reduce those fees without reducing the underlying costs, and we are not doing that, then we are simply shifting even more of that burden onto taxpayers of Stanford.

Taxpayers who already are absorbing the costs, we removed for the nonprofits and affordable housings.

And I don't think that's fair.

If the argument is that we want to encourage development, then there are plenty of ways to do that, but permit fees are a small fraction of overall projected costs.

They are not what determines whether a project moves forward or not.

This will not stop development.

This will not raise anybody's rent.

There's nothing to support that claim.

What this does do is creep is create a gap, one that somehow someone has to fill.

And under this proposal, that someone is the taxpayer.

We made a deliberate and thoughtful decision when we supported nonprofits and affordable housing.

That was a policy choice rooted in equity and need.

This is not.

This is a broad reduction that benefits for profit activity at a time when we are asking residents to absorb higher costs across the board.

I cannot support that, and I hope you won't either.

We live in an incredible city.

There will be no lack of developers wanting to build in Stanford because of fees.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camporelli and Representative Hughes.

Thank you, Chair.

I want to open with, I just I have the utmost respect for the previous board and the board members who uh voted for this.

Uh, but I take a different approach to why uh we should support lowering it than raising it.

Uh since we're going to talk about inflation, uh inflation is a lot of different uh causes, and there's little that we can do in this room to fight inflation.

However, there are things that we can do on our end to lower costs to build apartments, to build commercial uh space, to build retail space, which is all directly related to this fee.

Uh, this fee disproportionately impacts downtown Stanford because of how much more expensive it is to build downtown given that land has higher value.

That alone speaks to how that uh any project above one million dollars, which is much more likely to reach that level downtown, is going to be charged more under the previous fee schedule.

Uh it makes no sense during a time of inflation to then as a government body raise fees and prices more.

Uh the idea that developers look for places that uh have higher fees is just not true.

Uh, during my time uh so far, I've had you know developers as well as other people reach out to me and thank me for sponsoring this item uh because they felt that the previous board did not listen to them, did not listen to the businesses in downtown Stanford and Stanford broadly.

Uh, I want to read some testimony uh briefly that uh is from the downtown special services district president Mike Moore, who is a business leader in our community and downtown.

Uh Stanford Downtown wishes to reiterate its commitments, comments submitted during this past summer regarding the need to keep building permit fees at a lower competitive level.

Building permit fees have a disproportionate impact on the ability of a developer and property owner to secure financing for new mixed-use investment and investment in Stanford supply of office buildings and much needed upgraded in to down upgraded space to ground floor retail space.

Lower competitive building permit fees are also needed to combat the affordability issues facing many Stanford residents.

Higher development costs will slow multifamily residential construction, which will lead to even higher housing costs because an increase in housing supply is the only real solution to the current housing crisis.

Uh I've not heard one person or one business uh owner tell me that lowering the fees is a bad idea or bad for business.

So I yield and strongly will be supporting this resolution.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, representative Hughes.

Representative Delacruz, and then representative Boudreau would be next.

Uh thank you.

Uh President Shaw.

Uh I couldn't agree more with with representative Camporelli on her analysis of the subject.

Uh, with respect to inflation.

These fees haven't been changed in many, many years.

And inflation working underground takes its toll.

And what everybody does, businesses.

As inflation increases their costs.

They increase their prices.

The city is not immune to that need.

As the city costs increase, it has to increase its prices.

That's you want to kind of stay as a city.

In considering this, it should be known that when we asked about what is the cost of the uh building permits for what is the cost of issuing building permits, we were cautioned by representative by Director Kinonis that looking at the budget didn't tell the full story.

Because there were there are many other departments that support the building uh department in issuing and enforcing the building permits.

And those costs are unknown.

I specifically ask if the Oracle system that is being implemented or has been implemented, which promised the ability to aggregate the costs of other departments supporting any department in its uh service that it was unknown if that facility has yet been implemented.

So we really don't know what the cost of issuing uh permit a building permit is, but we do know that whatever that cost was six, eight years ago is a lot higher now, and the city needs to stay abreast of its costs.

Uh so it is not surprising that knob business supporting lower their fees.

Of course, what else would you expect?

It says, Oh, yes, please raise my building permit fees.

That's that's not realistic.

Of course, every business is going to say, no, no, lower my charges.

Uh so I think it makes eminent sense to revisit this.

And I support Representative Campo Reali.

Uh, thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

I have Representative Boudreau, followed by Majority Leader Borson, Representative Weinberg, and then a couple of other people after that.

So go ahead, representative Boudreau.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Uh, the most critical challenge that I see in Stanford right now is the affordability of housing.

Um, not enough housing is coming in, and what is coming in isn't affordable to most people.

Uh we are dependent in our current situation on the private housing market.

I don't like this, uh, but we're not in a position to have public housing pick up the slack where private housing fails to.

With that in mind, I don't cite how we can be placing any additional cost burden on construction beyond the already increasing external costs of materials and labor.

Private developers are only going to build what is profitable for them.

And by driving up their costs, it raises the bar further for what they consider to be profitable and pushes them towards the high end of housing construction.

It constrains competition.

It drives up rent.

This isn't just theory either.

The only city I know around here where the rent is actually going down is in New Rochelle in New York, where their permit fees are half of what ours are at $16 per thousand.

Rent there fell 2% in the 2020 to 2023 period, which was the peak of inflation.

I don't go that far with this resolution, but I believe this resolution is a good first step in the right direction.

Finally, to uh representative Camparelli's point about the building department costs.

The operations committee uh did look into this and take this up with uh Director Canonis.

Uh, they determined that the permit fees were greater than were needed.

Uh the building department, if I recall correctly, um I wasn't in the meeting, but this is what I heard from the committee members.

Uh, the building department approved of the change.

Uh, and the operations committee approved this change with this input.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Boudreau, Majority Leader Morrison.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I love the fulsome discussion on this item, but let's remember that this is a motion to bring this forward for another month.

We're gonna have a public hearing, and then we will have our final discussion on this in a month.

It was this month.

Okay.

Never mind, thank you.

I've never done the huskies.

Um representative Weinbert.

Well, I'll try to be as brief as Representative Morrison, but I suspect I'll fail.

Um the inflation issue has been has been raised uh by several opponents of this resolution.

And it's a pretty compelling argument uh until you actually look at the numbers.

Umflation, increased building fees, permit fees are actually built into the formula because the building fees are a certain dollar amount per thousand dollars of uh of estimated cost of the project.

So as inflation occurs, the cost of the project increases, and therefore for the same kind of project, for the identical project, the inflation uh the cost of building the project increases the building fees.

So I submit that inflation is already built into the formula, and and therefore it fails as an argument to oppose this resolution.

And with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Uh Deputy Majority, you're done.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Goldberg.

Thank you.

I appreciate being recognized.

Actually, Representative Weinberg made the point I was going to make, which is to remind everyone that this is not our fees are not indexed, so as inflation changes, we don't move the bar up and down.

And actually, if you think about it, by raising the um by raising the threshold, we had actually kind of given a break.

Relative to the amount that inflation was driving up costs.

So think about it.

A project that used to cost, so to put some numbers around Representative Weinberg's example.

Um let's say a project cost five million dollars with inflation over the last five years.

That same project probably costs seven or eight million dollars today.

So we've automatically driven up the costs of our uh the cost to the end user, to the to the uh contractor.

Our cost to run the department have stayed more or less stable because we lock in our labor costs.

We own our building.

So our if you look at the profitability, which those of us on the fiscal committee do on a regular basis, we've been bringing in something on the order of three or four million dollars more in fees than it costs us to run the department.

So you know, this idea that we're somehow disadvantaging our taxpayers, uh I think just falls a little short.

As a matter of fact, it feels like we're sort of gouging.

If we're making four or five million dollars, we're kind of gouging people here, is my view.

Now I know that that's going to be a bit of an extreme view for some of you, but it seems like to me that this is wholly reasonable to take it back to a million dollars, and I fully support it, and with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

Um all these points were ones that I expressed in the multiple committee meetings that we held for this item and concerns that I expressed and reached out to my fellow committee members, uh, especially regarding the funding for the building department.

And going off of what uh Representative Goldberg said, right, is that we're gouging.

And private companies aren't going to accept that gouging.

They're just going to pass it on to renters.

And if affordability is the issue, and I understand that's counterintuitive, right?

We're charging these people fees.

How does that go on to renters?

It's a counterintuitive economic principle.

That's what matters.

These fees are ultimately getting passed down onto renters, especially in the downtown area where a lot of these projects are occurring.

That's the really crux of this argument here is that that is ultimately getting passed down onto those renters.

They don't absorb the costs.

They just pass them down.

They're going to make the same profit, whether they like it or not, and they're just going to charge more rent.

Thank you.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Didallo.

Representative Camparelli.

Thank you, Madam President.

There is not one study that anybody here can point to that shows a link between rent prices and building permit fees.

Zero, not one study, nothing.

There are cities in Connecticut that have lower rents than us that have higher building permit fees.

We don't we wouldn't, we do not right now have the highest building permit fee.

The materials provided to this board show project volume and the fees collected based on construction value, but they do not include any analysis of what it actually costs this city to review, inspect, and issue those permits.

There is no cost of service data to all of the financial minds in this room, no breakdown of staffing or operation expenses, and no calculation of cost per permit of any project.

Without that, there is no way to determine whether the proposed fee reduction would cover the costs of this city.

Let's let's just look at how much we're raising taxes right now.

All of those things that we're raising go into to the cost that we have to cover as a city.

Additionally, the proposed reduction does not account for for lots of things that have happened in the past six years, during which labor, fuel, materials, administrative costs have all increased.

Uh meaning the fee is effectively being reduced in real terms if we leave it the same.

As a result, this board is being asked to make a financial decision without the information necessary to evaluate its impact.

I want to just talk about um rents going down in Neuroshell.

I'm from the Neurochell area, and rents are going down there because people don't want to live in Norishell.

Okay, everybody wants to live in in Stanford.

It's demand and and what's available that that is stopping it.

And a building permit fee is not going to stop anyone from building, especially in the downtown area.

We are going to see a building boom in the downtown area with the new 2035 comprehensive plan.

We should at least be covering the city's costs.

Um fees are lower than so many other cities in Stanford.

Uh the only testimony we heard at the public hearing, unfortunately, were was from one for-profit builder and from the person running downtown special services.

And of course, he's going to speak for for the people that he works for and who's who pay his salary.

Um again, I I hope that you guys will not be voting for this because you will definitely be voting for probably one of the biggest tax increases this city has seen in a decade.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli, Representative Sanford, followed by Representative Hughes.

Thank you, ma'am.

President.

I think it's also, and I understand the argument for for housing.

It's it's an enormous issue.

It's a it's a national issue.

I think Congress is now talking about this.

I I'm gonna butcher the name of it, but it's the five million homes, it's the homes for the 21st century act.

I don't know where where it's working its way through.

It's at the state level, it's at the municipal level.

People are asking for what are cities' plans to address the uh housing crisis.

So to go back to someone and say, oh, don't worry, we raised our fees is not an appropriate plan.

The other thing to really understand is that this is commercial projects.

So it's it's restaurants, it's dentists' office, doctor's office.

If you have uh uh a business that's in downtown that that wants to expand and knock down a wall and hire more people, they have to build that out.

That's a commercial project.

So you add a bathroom in a in a commercial building, you can be up to a million dollars in 10 minutes.

So you it's not just housing, which we're talking about, it's all commercial projects.

So it's a it's an economic um you know incentive that we're doing as well that that we need because the other thing too is is that um I'm kind of losing my train of thought, but but my my big thing is I understand that the housing part is is getting a lot of the spotlight, but it's it's all commercial projects that I think we need to remember.

So with that I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Sanford, representative Hughes.

Well, I just want to start and say I mean, I think the president of Stanford Downtown supports you know this because he wants a vibrant downtown, uh, has nothing to do with who pays his salary.

So I do uh don't appreciate that.

Um but so when it comes to uh other municipalities in Connecticut's uh fees, we want to have lower fees than them.

That makes us more competitive.

Uh as Chair Samford just mentioned.

This is about businesses.

Uh housing comes in on the mixed-use side.

For example, I live at 66 Summer Street.

When that was built, even though that has an apartment over it, it would have uh gone and paid this fee and the cost to build that building, which is a vibrant building, has lots of housing, has businesses below it, the type of building that we want to build in Stanford, the type of building that makes downtown vibrant.

You know, that this fee on that building was raised by the previous Board of Representatives during a time of inflation and a time when businesses are struggling.

I think that's wrong.

Uh so I I yield, and I just want to remind folks that the more expensive it is to build, the more likely you're gonna see the types of luxury development continue to be built.

And I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Hughes, representative Delacruz.

Thank you, President Shaw.

You know, are someone that has developed properties in New York City?

Greenwich Connecticut and Stanford.

The building permit fee.

It's a rounding error in the cost of the project.

If the building permit fee would determine whether I proceeded with the project or not, the project was too risky to touch.

The building permit fee.

So this concern that development will come to a halt.

And so on.

If the building permit fee was a factor, the project wouldn't go through it.

So that really has no bearing on this discussion.

That the building permit fee is going to slow development away.

And I yield.

Thank you, uh Presidential.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

I'm going to let Representative Finkel go first, and then Representative Didalow for the second time.

Go ahead, Representative Finkel.

Thank you, Madam President.

Just a couple of things.

Number one, uh, we took the time to talk to our chief building official about the permit fees.

And he was all in favor of lowering it down to the 25,000 from the 35,000.

Uh number two, I also took the liberty of speaking to at least one developer in town.

And his comment to me was it may not be a position where you end up with not having a building, but the quality of the product going into the building would be diminished.

And if it's a rental property, that means the people who are moving in will end up having an apartment that is not as nice as it would have been had the project gone normally.

What you're talking about on the projects that are in town, especially downtown, you're talking anywhere in 20 million to 80 million or 100 million dollars.

And at $10 per thousand, you're talking extra million or two million dollars.

That is not a rounding error.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Finkel.

Representative Didalo for the second time.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um Representative Delacruz said, um, this isn't about stopping development.

The development is going to happen regardless.

This is about those extra costs that are being put into those development.

Multiple members have already said, um, talking about luxury apartments and those being built, those are where there's the largest margins for developers.

Um looking at it also, if we look at one item that was on the packet that was given to us by Director Kionas is the Longridge Road project.

With the 35 per thousand dollar fee, that would have been an extra two million dollars in permit fees for that project.

That was almost over a 200 million dollar project that was brought to the building department.

Over $2 million extra in fees.

They're not going to eat that cost.

And that cost is going to go back down to the people that are renting that property.

Okay.

I don't know how many people are there.

I don't can't tell you off the top of my head how many units there were.

I believe there were a couple hundred doing quick math.

That's about an extra thousand dollars that they per unit that that developer has to make up.

That's what the focus of this lowering permit fee is.

It's going through those costs that are going to the developer.

The developer is not going to eat those costs.

And I understand that's counterintuitive.

Okay.

It's a counterintuitive economic concept, but that is what happens in reality.

Thank you.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative.

Representative Gorba, did you hand your head up?

Go ahead.

Uh, yes, thank you for recognizing me.

Uh, I just wanted to respond to Representative Campirelli's um suggestion that there were no peer-reviewed economic studies that support the argument that um econom that the there's a correlation between fees and uh building.

There actually are three peer-reviewed studies.

One by Dirsch and Shefferman in 1997 found that the impact fees in California increased housing prices and reduced new construction, especially in price-sensitive markets.

Eiferfeld and Sean Nassie, I butchered that in 2004, showed that higher impact fees reduce single family housing starts multifamily effects varied by region and Skidmore and Petal in 1998 demonstrated that development fees can depress construction activity unless offset by infrastructure improvements that raise land values.

And finally, Bean Elliott and Goodell in 2019 found that regulatory costs, including fees are associated with lower housing supply elasticity in construction market in uh I'm sorry, constrained markets.

So there are in fact a plethora of peer reviewed.

And for those of you that don't know what peer reviewed means, that means that individuals with expertise in this area reviewed it and took the time to critically assess and offer an opinion as to whether or not the paper met academic stringent standards.

So peer-reviewed studies, four of them in the last 20 years that clearly demonstrate these fees impact price elasticity in markets.

I yield.

Thank you to the point of information.

Go ahead, Representative Dela Cruz.

Uh Representative Goldberg referred to impact fees on regulatory fees.

We're talking about building permit fees.

Hold on, Representative Delacruz, there's a point of order.

Go ahead.

Representative Delacruz.

Yes.

There's a point of order.

Hold on.

Oh, I thought I had a point of order.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So can represent Goldberg clarify.

Representative Del Cruz.

Yes.

Please, you have to stop.

There's a point of order here.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

I thought I thought you were giving me the go ahead.

You had the point of information, but there's a point of order now.

So hang on.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to assert that a point of information is an improper method or vehicle to provide additional information and should only be used to solicit questions or you with respect to the current speaker who may or may not be required to answer them.

Thank you.

I was thinking that he was getting to a question somewhere, but representative Delacruz, uh if you would like an answer or for a question, if you have a question to ask very direct question, go ahead.

Otherwise, we will move on.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Representative Goldberg, uh, could you clarify whether impact fees on regulatory fees are the same as building pyramid fees, which is what we're discussing this evening.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Can you verify I'm online?

Okay.

So uh you're right.

There is a there is a difference between impact fees and other regulatory fees and permit fees, but these three, I'm sorry, four studies actually uh confirm that permit fees specifically influence permit volume.

So while fewer studies isolate permit fees, several municipal level and uh analyses show that when cities increase permit fees, applications permits drop temporarily as developers rush to file before the increase or delayed projects afterwards.

In high cost markets, even modest fees increase, increases can tip marginal projects into in-feasibility, and that reduces total building activity.

And in fast growing markets, fees have a smaller dampening effect because demand is strong enough to absorb the cost.

So that does somewhat offset the idea that if you live in a highly desirable market, which one would argue that Stanford is, that maybe we can do that.

I I mean we can get away with it.

I'm sure we can get away with it.

The question is, is it good public policy?

That's what we're debating here.

We're not talking about price elasticity.

We're talking about do we want to be a welcoming community for people to develop in?

Do we want to encourage growth?

Do we want to be part of the solution of housing shortage in this country?

Or do we want to be part of the problem?

I want to be part of the solution.

How about you?

I yield.

Thank you.

Well thank you.

You answered my question.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Is that anyone else who wish who would at this point like do seek the floor?

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's hard to follow up.

Um so you know, permit fees are really intended to cover the cost of administering the permitting process.

That includes the review, issuance, inspections, the certificate of occupancy of the building department, and the various other departments in the city.

They're not intended to be a revenue generating tax that we can stash away in our general fund for use later on.

Um the building the building department uh provided the board, you know, with the data for the commercial permits for over a million dollars, fiscal year 24, 25, 26, uh 26 being to date uh as that fiscal year uh is not over yet.

Um in fiscal year 2024.

Uh permit this again, this is commercial permit fees generated approximately 5.3 million dollars in permit revenue fiscal year 25, 11.3 million dollars.

And in fiscal year 26, we're already at 13.2 million dollars.

Um for some context, because the uh you know some might call out oh fiscal year 24 was a little low.

Uh the audited financials are also publicly available um for all of the permit fees.

Um that pulled in 10 million dollars in 2024.

So we don't have the audit financials yet for fiscal year 25 or 26, but I can guarantee that once we have all of the rest of the building department's fees in there, they're gonna be significant because they're already over 10 million dollars free to the latter years.

Now let's compare that.

Um looking at the building department's operating budget, um, also available, as many of you know, we're going through that right now.

Um that's all available online, available to the public.

Um fiscal year 24, 1.65 million.

Fiscal year 25, 1.8 million.

Fiscal year 26, the per uh was 1.86 million.

Um again, that's only the building department.

Um, you know, while we may not have kind of as other representatives stated, the per cost, you know, per permit cost, um, the total for the other departments budgets that are involved, um, as I myself been through the permitting processes process.

I know the permitting process for at a residential level, I've researched it at the commercial level, involves other departments such as land use engineering and help.

Um, land use obviously has quite a few more departments um below that that are also involved, but they're all within land use.

Um, even if we account for the entirety of those departments budgets, there's a surplus from the fees.

Um I'm not gonna speak towards building inflation, that's been covered in a great deal.

So come on, my question here is what are the fees really for?

Is it a tax?

Is it a fee?

Um, you know, I'm gonna in my opinion, we're it's a tax.

Um we we have a surplus.

Um if the goal here is to recover costs, then fees should reasonably align with what the actual costs and services are.

Um again, while we don't have the per cost per permit, the information's all public available to get to it.

Um maybe in future years, you know, we had can have such great systems where we can get how many hours each you know person worked on a permit.

That would be great as an accountant myself.

I would love that.

Um but uh one day we'll get there.

Um so we have to use what's publicly available now.

Um another great thing for commercial projects is they bring jobs, they expand the tax base, they contribute to the long-term ec economic health of the city.

Um, I get calls from constituents um over the last past few weeks, you know, go going on about the budget and how much it's gonna cost them.

Um that's a concern than me.

But in this case of this item, it's we're not supposed to use those fees to cover shortages and other departments outside of the building department process.

Um that's it's not really about limiting fees as for aligning them with the purpose that they're supposed to be for.

Um and I am in support of lowering the fees back to what they were, and that is it, and I yield the floor.

Thank you so much, representative Pelicia.

Anyone else would like to seek the floor at this time?

If not, we'll close discussion and we'll take this by roll call.

Does anyone have any questions on how to vote on this item?

Said yes, representative blank.

So if you yeah, if you if you're in favor of approving the resolution, which is to lower the building permit fees, then you vote yes.

Zach Claire.

Okay.

Sorry, hold on.

You had.

Okay.

Got it.

Barbara, are you good?

Perfect.

All right.

Uh we'll go down the roll in alphabetical order.

Uh, representative Adams.

How do you vote?

Yes.

Uh Representative Beckham.

Yes.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Representative De Drew?

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Yes.

Uh Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative Daly Cruz.

No.

Representative Didalo.

Yes.

Representative Dorsey.

Representative Field.

Yeah.

Representative Finkel.

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Yes.

Representative Goldberg.

Yes.

Representative Gross.

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Yes.

Representative Hughes?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

I myself am a yes.

Uh Representative LePine?

Yes.

Parliamentarian McEwen.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

I need to abstain.

Representative Price.

Yes.

Representative Silas.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Yes.

President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestry.

Yes.

Representative Walston.

Representative Weathers.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

And Representative Zachary.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Give us one second to tally the votes real quick.

I've got 32 yes, three abstain, and two no's.

Is that much?

Perfect.

All right.

Uh, just to in case no one didn't hear, I've got 32 yeses, three abstentions, and two no's.

Uh so that I believe it passes.

Thank you.

That item did pass.

Thanks again.

And with that, madam president, that concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Moving on to public safety and health committee, Chair Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, the public safety and health committee held its meeting um on Thursday, March 26th at 6.30 p.m.

by webinar.

Uh, we had two items uh for review.

First item, PS32.004, was a review item of the security and public safety conditions at the abandoned building located at 200 Henry Street.

Uh this was discussion was uh review is uh led by Vice Chair Adams, covered the uh unsafe conditions at this abandoned building.

We heard from the city legal department, buildings department, and operations department, and a report was made.

The second item uh number two is PS32.005 was an overview of the Stanford Fire Department, which was led by uh fire chief Rex Morris.

Uh covered the structure overview and missions of the Stanford Fire Department.

Uh the houses, including the integration and training of the professional and volunteer houses.

Uh a report was made also.

Uh that concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair Bouchard.

Moving on to community development, housing, education, social services, state and commerce chess committee.

Go chair Pollock.

Thank you.

The chess committee, we met Tuesday, March 17th at 6.30 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

Item one, chess 32.006 was a review item of the CDBG program review.

Overview of the CDBG progress or process, the chess committee's role and responsibilities and the potential program year 52 calendar.

And a report was made.

Item two, chess 32.003 approval.

DBI projects, LLC contract for owners representative services at Ripawam Indoor Air Quality Project.

And that was approved 900.

Item number three, chess 32.004.

Approval of a proposed contract with Arcadis U.S.

Inc.

for owners representative services at the Newfield Elementary School Indoor Air Quality Project.

And that was approved by the committee 900.

Item number four, chess 32.005 was a resolution authorizing a project labor agreement for the Roxbury School Construction Project.

That was approved by committee 801.

And chess item five, chess 32.007 is a review item of state legislation, Connecticut Bill 5283 regarding municipal authority to prohibit the retail sale of cats and dogs and rabbits in pet shops.

And a wonderful report was made.

Second.

Okay, there's a motion to move items, chess items two and three and a second.

Does anyone plan to oppose or take it off consent?

Okay, seeing none, let's take this by voice board.

All those in favor of approving chess committee items two and three, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions.

Okay.

Those two items passed unanimously.

Go ahead.

Um, I would like to move item four to the floor.

Um, for approval.

Second.

Okay, there's a motion to move item number four and a second.

Any discussion.

Representative Finkel.

Thank you, Madam President.

I I would like to recommit this item.

Uh my concern is that a project labor agreement would potentially raise the costs of the construction for Roxbury School, because it limits the competition for bidding of the contractors to only union shops.

And uh the example I'm gonna use is the Strawberry Hill School, uh, which one of our public speakers talked about.

And uh there representative Finkel.

We're gonna just make a if you're making a motion to recommit, we'll do a second and then you can discuss more.

Okay.

Uh then I'll make a motion to recommit.

Okay, there's a motion to recommit, and there's a second.

You can go ahead with your discussion.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um as I was saying, Strawberry Hills School uh had a project labor agreement.

They bid the job.

It came substantially over budget.

Uh they tweaked it a little bit, but they took the project labor agreement out.

They were able to rebid it, and it came in on budget.

They had multiple bidders the second time they only had two bidders the first time.

Uh it does not preclude union contractors from bidding, it just opens up competition.

So I'd like to recommit it so that there's additional study.

Thank you.

Just to clarify, you're recommitting this to steering.

Yes, I'm recommitting to steering.

Okay.

Any more discussion?

Representative gross on the motion to recommit.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Um, to the uh proponent of the amendment, I'm just wondering um, you know, to what benefit are we recommitting this?

You know, if you oppose using a project labor agreement, um, then I, you know, then you should vote in that way and and we should vote right here now.

I I don't really see why what additional studies we could gain from just pushing this back a month.

So um, you know, if there's more you can offer on that of what of you know what exactly there is that needs to be studied on this issue, I I'd be interested.

Thank you, representative growth.

Representative Delacruz, are you having your hand raised for the motion to recommit?

Uh yes.

Um, ahead.

Yes.

Uh to directly answer the representative questions about why recommend.

Uh touching the project labor agreement, the PLA to the uh construction of the Roxbury School is a case of mission creep.

But there are other ways in which the intentions and goals of the project labor agreement, which I support, those are very audible goals.

There are other ways to achieve it with a compromising risk and cost on the construction of the Roxbury Agreement.

Uh to ask a contractor to take on the duties of uh a teacher.

For example, Soundwaters program for people that want to go into the marine trades.

There are other nonprofits that offer that for plumbers, electricians, masons, carpenters, et cetera, which the city can provide without encumbering the contractor to take on those additional duties.

Yes.

Hold on.

There's a point of order.

Point of order.

I'm not sure that the comments are germane to the um to the motion to uh to recommit.

Uh they sound like they're on the motion itself.

But I could be wrong.

Representative Delacruz, can you keep it your points very pertaining to recommitting?

I know it kind of is harder, but just if you can make it brief.

Yes, right.

Uh essentially I was providing support for the reason to recommit.

So there is more analysis of this proposal and its impact on alternatives for achieving the same goals.

Uh thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Representative Gross for the second time.

Um, just respectfully, I mean uh if we choose to recommit this here, it's going to um return to committee uh where it passed uh unanimously.

Um and I think if there were opposition, um, you know, if there were opposition to this item in committee, then you should have spoken in committee.

Um so and with that I yield.

Thank you, representative growth.

Representative Weinberg.

Uh thank you.

I just want to very briefly make sure that the public is aware that if this is recommitted and um and the um and the chess committee uh decides under reconsideration uh not to support the PLA, uh that it has no effect, no negative effect on um the wages and benefits, uh the total remuneration that the uh laborers, the workers on these projects receive, because um any successful bid requires the contractor to pay prevailing wages, which means you pay union scale.

Uh so recommitting if it ends up um uh uh causing the PLA to be rejected uh will uh not uh negatively affect the workers on the Roxbury project whatsoever.

And with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Any other discussion on motion to recommit?

Yes.

For the record, I'm going to stand with Representative Gross.

I'm in agreement with what he said.

Thank you, Representative Walsden.

Representative Delacruz, you have your hand up again to discuss just on this.

I might permit it to speak.

Yeah, you have you can you're permitted one more time to speak on just the motion to recommit for now.

Uh yes, I just want to concur with Representative Weinberg's uh comment, which is a very important thing to understand.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Representative Shore.

Yes, but just to be clear, uh the the wages would be the same, but the fringe benefits to the workers would not.

Is that correct or am I misunderstanding that the question is?

You asking a question.

Uh well, yeah.

But so uh just to just to clarify, uh that question is more not for recommitting.

The what the discussion here is whether to uh recommit this item or not.

So I'm going to just table that off for now.

Any anyone else just wishes to speak on the recommitting.

Yes, Representative McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh generally I uh agree with the comments from Representative Gross.

Um, you know, I've listened to well, what have ended up being merits on the main item, uh, and I've yet to hear strong arguments as to what additional information we could gather or discuss uh that in a subsequent committee meeting that we couldn't already discuss here.

And so similar to Representative Gross, I'm open to hearing what those additional pieces of information may be.

Uh, but if there's further discussion to be had on the item, I would think we could have it now.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative McHugh and Representative Goldberg.

Uh, yes, thank you for recognizing me.

Um, with respect to my two colleagues, I I understand where you're coming from.

I would say that at this point, it seems to me that the reason to recommit is because we want to have a more fulsome discussion in a more casual environment of the committee where it can be a little bit more free-flowing, where we don't have quite the constraints that we have here on the floor.

Seems like to me that this is relatively easily resolved by a simple vote of whether or not we're going to recommit it or not.

So we'll know here in a few minutes uh whether or not there's more to talk about tonight or not.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Any other discussion on recommitting this item.

Yes, go ahead.

Um, through you, uh, uh to representative Finkel.

When you had the discussions with Quinones, was that who you were speaking with about this item?

Did they did he mention anything about any time constraints that this would affect anything within the next 30 days?

Go ahead.

Uh thank you.

Uh my discussion with uh Director Cionas.

Uh it would not radically affect anything uh because they they have to go out to bid and after they go out to bid, it comes back to us to approve the contract and not the case.

And if it comes in over bid, then they're gonna have to retool and go back out to bid again.

So it that actually would potentially save them time.

So by by recommitting and being able to have further discussion and being able to talk to some of the players that are involved, because Mr.

Director Creone has told me he was not able to make the chess committee meeting himself.

Uh it probably would assist in making a good decision for the city.

And uh I'm not anti-union, but I am pro-city saving money.

Thank you, representative Finkel.

Is that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

Representative Le Pine.

Yes, thank you.

Um we just had a robust discussion on the prior issue about the upcoming budget uh votes and the importance of being very critical of the cost to the residents of the city.

If we are running the risk uh through this uh agreement, uh the PLA of paying 15 to 20 percent more is historically using the Strawberry Hill example has been proven out, then that should be of the utmost concern of the same people who spoke out on the last matter.

Um to the question of why put this, why send it back to to committee?

If there is a way that we can potentially all align on the idea that we want to both support union labor and protect the residents of the city, the taxpayers of the city, maybe there's a way to split the baby there.

Maybe there's a threshold that we can find that we can put in that would that would default to um to union labor if we are able to put a cap on where that tolerance level could be.

I would like to better understand what those mechanisms could be, and I think that's best discussed with more facts, and that would be my reason and my answer to Representative Gross as to why I think there's value in sending it back to committee.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Okay, you're good.

Okay.

Uh Representative Goldberg.

Thank you.

I just had actually a question for you, Chair, um, since you also chaired the steering committee.

And if this gets recommitted, it goes back to the steering committee where you run it.

Um this originally was put on the chess committee um agenda.

Uh I think a lot of what we're hearing about tonight though falls more under operations.

Uh but I'm not clear.

How are you going to be thinking about if it does get recommitted, what committee this is going to go back to?

I I think that as much as I'd like to send it back to some other committee, I'm not I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it has to go back to the same committee.

Uh it doesn't have to.

But I I think we'll make the determination as a discussion when we take it back in steering if it does go back to steering.

Yeah.

Understood.

Thank you.

Any other discussion before we vote on the motion to recommit?

Seeing none, we'll take this by roll call.

Can you please restate the motion?

Sorry, say that again.

Can you just restate the motion?

Yes.

This is the motion to recommit chess item 32.005 authorizing a project labor agreement for Rox Party School Construction Project.

So if you're in favor of recommitting this item to steering, you vote yes.

Otherwise, you vote no.

Great.

Barbara you ready?

All right.

We'll go uh as usual down the list alphabetically.

Representative Adams, how do you vote?

Yes.

Representative Beckham.

Yes.

Representative Blank?

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford?

Yes.

Representative Camparelli.

Yes.

Representative J.

Lacruz.

Yes.

Representative Dillow?

Pass.

Representative Dorsey.

Representative Field?

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

Yes, Madam.

Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride?

No.

Representative Goldberg.

Yes.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hayat?

Yes.

I myself, I'm a yes.

Representative Le Pine.

Yes.

Parliamentarian McEwen.

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Pass.

Representative Price?

No.

Representative Sallas.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Stanford.

Yes.

Represent Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestri?

Yes.

Representative Austin.

No.

Thank you.

Representative Weathers.

No.

Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

Representative Weirs?

No.

Representative Zachary.

Going back to the two that passed.

Representative Dillow, would you like to vote?

No.

And Representative, Deputy Major Leader Pollock.

No.

All right.

In one second, we will tell you this up.

Can I change?

Yes, we're done.

Hang on.

Representative Field.

I think there's a word split.

You change your vote to no.

Okay.

I think it's multidisciplinary.

I think we need to have 12 times.

That match.

No change.

Yeah.

Oh, yep.

13.

13.

13.

Yep.

13 no.

Uh zero abstentions and three present.

So that would mean 27 yeses.

24.

Yes, sorry.

I just can't do math.

Slate.

Past my bedtime.

Okay.

So there's 24 yeses and 13 no's.

So the motion to recommit passes.

Okay.

Anything else?

That concludes my report.

Thank you, Co-Chair Pollack.

Moving on to uh transportation committee, Chair Weirs.

Thank you, Madam President.

Transportation Committee meet uh met uh by webinar on Monday, March 16th.

Uh we had one item, uh T32.003.

An ordinance for publication to dissolve the Stanford Transit District per section 59-8 of the Court of Ordinances this pass 800.

I'd like to recommend this be committed to the consent agenda.

Okay, there is a motion to approve item number one on transportation committee agenda.

Is that a second?

Okay, this is a uh consent item.

Is does anybody plan to oppose or vote no?

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

All those in favor of approving item T32.003, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that item passes unanimously.

That concludes my thank you, Chair Weirs.

Okay, the last item here is the approval of the March twenty uh March second twenty twenty-six regular board meeting minutes.

Is there a motion to approve the minute?

So moved.

Is there second?

Okay.

All those in favor of approving March 2nd, 2026 regular board meeting minutes, please say aye.

Aye.

Any appeal?

Any opposed?

Any abstention?

Representative can't representative camparelli abstains.

Okay.

Thank you.

Representative Camparelli noted one abstention.

With that, the minutes are approved.

And a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

The mo the meeting is adjourned at 9 26 p.m.

Gov Haskies.

Good night, everyone.

Good night, everyone.