Okay.

We'll call this meeting to order.

Uh good evening, everyone.

It's Monday, May 4th, 2026.

And I call to order the regular board meeting of the uh 30 second board of representatives.

Uh the time now is 7 34 p.m.

The invocation tonight will be delivered by Rabbi Daniel Cohen.

Okay.

Good evening.

First, I want to thank everyone for their hospitality this evening and Maureen for uh inviting me.

It's always wonderful uh to come to see you.

How we begin our day shapes how we live our lives.

Most mornings begin with an alarm clock, and the instinct is to press snooze.

But as Zig Ziglar taught, it's not just an alarm clock, it's an opportunity clock.

The question is not only that we have time, but what we do with it.

Jewish tradition offers a powerful starting point.

The first words we say upon waking are modeani.

Thank you.

Thank you for the life.

Thank you for believing in me enough to give me another day.

Every morning is not just a continuation, but every morning is a calling.

At the height of COVID in the year 2020, a 94-year-old Italian man was sick on a ventilator.

Thank God he recovered.

But on his way out of the hospital, when he was told to pay the ventilator bill for one day, he started to cry.

And the doctor advised him and said, Why are you crying over the bill?

Is it because you don't have enough money to pay?

And this is what he said.

And now I know how much one day's breath is worth.

Do you know how much I owe God?

I didn't thank God for that before.

Imagine living with that awareness that every breath is a gift.

Our lives will be deeper, relationships more meaningful, and our sense of responsibility to one another and to this community more profound.

The great teacher, Rabbi Nachman of Breslav says the day you're born is the day when God believes the world needs you.

And every day we have to see ourselves as if we're reborn.

Each person here carries something unique, a perspective, a voice, a capacity to uplift each other in a way that nobody else in the universe can do.

I'm reminded of a good friend to all of us, Senator Joe Lieberman, a son of our city, who lived with a different question when he woke up in the morning.

He didn't ask what do I want, but what is being asked of me?

What can I do today to make the world better?

He shows that it's possible to disagree without disrespect, to stand firm in conviction while still honoring the dignity of those who see the world differently.

And that is the invitation before us today in each and every day.

Every day is truly a gift, an unpolished diamond in our hands.

And what matters most is what we give back, how we go to sleep at the end of the day and say how much light did I radiate from that beautiful diamond that God gave me today.

And God willing, if in every breath we see as a gift, then every decision we make is our chance to give something meaningful back and to lift one another with God-willing words that will heal, that will honor, and that will unite.

God bless you all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rabbi Cohen.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Clerk Johnson, would you please call the role?

Absolutely.

Good to see you all, everyone.

Representative Adams.

Representative Beckham.

Present Representative Blank.

Present.

Representative Bouchard.

Present.

Representative Boudreau.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Bradford.

Present.

Representative Camparelli.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

You uh Representative Dela Cruz.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Dillow.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Dorsey.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Field.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Finkel.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Gardner.

President Mr.

Clark.

Representative Gilbrad.

Present.

Representative Goldberg.

Good evening.

I'm here.

Representative Graham.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Representative Gross.

Present.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Hyatt.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you.

I'm here.

Representative LePine.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Parliamentarian McEwen.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Majority Leader Morsen.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Pavia.

President Clerk.

Representative Politia.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Price.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Sallas.

Representative, Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

President Shaw.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Shore.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Stone.

Present, Mr.

Clark.

Representative Sylvestri.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Walston.

President, Mr.

Clark.

Representative Weathers.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Weinberg.

Present.

Representative Weirs.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Yeager.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

And Representative Zachary.

Present, Mr.

Cork.

I just want to circle back to the two that I didn't get response from just to confirm.

Representative Adams, are you here?

And Representative Salas.

All right.

With that, we have 38 present and two excused.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clerk Johnson.

Could you also read the moment of silence, followed by the communications, please?

Absolutely.

Thanks.

We have three uh three people that we'd like to recognize in the moment of silence tonight.

Rep Reverend Bernadine Thomas Williams, Willie Lee Green, and First Lady Pamela Yvette Gignard.

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

Couple communications, pretty standard.

So the steering committee, as normal, deadline for any submissions is this Wednesday, May 6th by 5 p.m.

Submitted to the normal office staff email.

Of note, this Thursday on the 7th, we have a special meeting.

Uh it's for the budget, final budget vote and approval for the next fiscal year.

Um the steering committee meeting itself will be next Monday on the 11th at 7 p.m.

And then the final regular board meeting is uh June 1st at 7:30.

Uh I believe we have two birthdays this month to celebrate.

Representatives Bradford and Pavia.

So happy early or late birthday to both of you.

And I believe that is it for us.

Thank you so much.

Um there are no honorary resolutions this evening.

So we will move on to the public participation session.

As provided in the board rules, there's a public there's 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 will be no more than two minutes if the public comment period has been extended.

I will be closely 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 all-ordered time has expired.

The board rules provide that the president may keep good order and decorum in any manner authorized by Robert's rules of order, and for the avoidance of doubt may shorten or cancel the speaking time of any speaker during the public comment period deemed in the president's sole discretion to be disruptive or unruly.

For board rule 4.e.3 um a dot 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.

T32.

Chess 32.012, public input on year 52 C D BG and the Home Investment Partnership Program.

Chess 32.013 application presentations for year 52 C D BG.

With that, we will move on.

Our first speaker here is uh Mr.

Kieran Edmondson.

I see you there.

Go ahead, Mr.

Edmundson.

Good evening, everybody.

It's Kieran Edmondson, a water sign neighborhood resident of the city of Stephen, Connecticut.

And I am wanting to share a couple of my brief thoughts to the members of this board about the completion of the playscape area, which is located at the boys and girls club in the Eurocenter.

So many of these young boys and girls who attend every elementary school in a separate public school system must enjoy their recreational activities after their school days in a more safe, enjoyable and I mean manner and fashion.

So talk reps.

When it comes to the boys and girls club in the Euro Center, which happens to be one of the only few places where many young children go to attend, have fun and engage with their own peers and friends right after they finish the school days and as a placecape as one of the background areas that they engage to have fun play and socialize with other kids.

I want the polar represent to take acting tonight to vote in favor of F32.065, which is to provide more additional funding service contributions so the placecaper can be looking in good shape from damages, destruction, and other broken issues, so no young boy or girl can be playing running or walking in such a dangerous area and how to keep the placescape more cleaner, safer and to manage our possible improvements so it can be of good use to the reps.

Thank you again for your time and good night from Kieran Matthew Edmondson.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Edmunds.

Representative Adams, uh, we we see you.

We marked you as present.

You did you wanted to say something else?

No, that was it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, we will move on to Mr.

Robert Viesto.

Are you there, Mr.

Robert?

I do not see him on.

Okay.

Uh our next speaker here is uh Mr.

Mike Papa.

He's here.

Yeah, right here.

Right here.

Hello, you hear me?

Yeah.

Okay, good evening.

Uh, thank you very much for the opportunities.

One of the reasons why I'm very serious, usually that's me, it's a personality.

But uh the fact is that uh, you know, uh Bavia went to uh see the Pope, and uh I see a picture in the advocate about on the travi found.

Okay.

Now that Travi fund was built about 400 years ago.

Now the aqueduct was built 2,000 years ago.

Now we enjoy the work that was done four, two thousand years ago.

How come we have to do these horrible things right here?

Nobody's doing anything about it.

So I want you to first end the scene and also listen something from Einstein.

Intuitive spirit is a gift of nature.

So we have to be very intuitive that we have to get the job done because the job is not done right because the board of finance wants a cut here, a cuts there, used to make uh uh their little vaseline and the taxpayers, but the taxpayers are gonna end up spending a lot more long run.

You know, I remember when I came 50 years ago, that building was brand new that you have to knock it down.

See, also the the Westdale school was brand new.

After 50 years, you have to knock it down.

Okay.

How come the trade fund after 400 years still attract everybody and the foundations that the Romans uh did with the aqueduct?

They still uh the water comes on the trade found and come from the aqueduct build about 2,000 years ago.

I don't want to go on details over here, but this is something uh happened around my house and around the town.

And uh, you know, right here, the that's how you do a billion dollar company that do like with telecity like this.

You know, the trees fall kills people.

The car goes upside down, the police doesn't know why.

I had to tell the police what to do here.

So basically, you know, I want to try to be very clear.

Technically, I don't think the uh part-time thing would do the job, but if you think you could do the job, and then you have to do the job, because I'm telling you, you are you know the way it is, a lot of things are not being done.

So, what we gotta give it to the next generations.

Forget about 500 years from now.

I'm talking about 100 years from now.

What we gotta do, knock down the West Hill school again.

Who's gonna pay for that?

You know, how much you gotta keep on paying, and then you got the board of finance to try to milk the cow here, try to give a little vaseline here and there.

You have 30 seconds.

All right, thank you very much.

This uh right here.

Something needs to be done because we're not gonna keep up with this WPCA with the climate change.

People have to take the responsibility, get this thing done.

If we want to keep stand for their leaders around the world over here, that's what I bring the last time.

And nobody ever told me about whether or not the board shared with everybody else, really.

Thank you, Mr.

Papa.

The next speaker is Mr.

Joe Toner.

Are you there?

I am.

Do you have me?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Yes.

Good evening, Board of Representatives.

My name is Joe Toner.

I'm the executive director with the Connecticut State Building Trades.

And thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

I also believe you're going to bring up the vote on the Project Labor Agreement for Roxbury School.

We also appreciate that consideration.

I think one of the things I would like to share with the Board of Representatives tonight is what a project labor agreement does bring to a community.

That one quality that we do bring is making sure that Stanford residents have an opportunity to work on projects that are in their own community.

So our proposal in the Project Labor Agreement would be to one out of every five construction worker working on the project will be a Stanford resident.

We have many Stanford residents that are in the building trades unions now.

And if we don't have that number, what we will do is we will recruit folks from Stanford to make sure that they're working on the project.

So what we'll do is we'll come in with the Building Trades Training Institute, we'll work with those groups, we'll identify residents that are interested in the building trades, we'll enroll them into our certified apprenticeship programs in the state of Connecticut, and then make sure they have an opportunity to work on the jobs.

I think the beauty with that is they'll start in Stanford and they can finish their career anywhere in the Northeast.

It makes sure that they have a career in the building trades industry, making a livable wage with health benefits and a pension.

Those are the attributes I think that will come along with a project labor agreement.

So not only will you have a timely project, but residents will be included, and more importantly, workforce development will be in the forefront of the project.

Okay, thank you.

We've we've we've completed two projects in Norwalk successfully, timely with incorporating residents.

And right now we're currently on the Norwalk High School project, which is ahead of schedule, uh, also using residents.

So thank you for the consideration, folks.

And and um I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Toner.

Uh our next speaker is Ms.

Gina Calabries.

She's not here.

Um, Ms.

Hughes, is she online?

Yes, she is.

Okay.

Miss Calabries, go ahead.

Thank you.

Good evening.

First, I'd like to note that the information to sign up to speak as part of the public comment period did not appear on the Board of Representatives' website today when I checked.

Um, fortunately, I've done this before, so I knew how to sign up.

Um, but someone who hasn't would not know that.

Um next, I'd like to speak to the board about the rule of law, which has a been a big topic in our national discourse these days.

Those of us who have attended No King's protests are have been there to defend the rule of law.

Um since our independence, we we no longer were ruled by a monarchy, but by a system of laws and representative government.

And that relates to the Board of Representatives, because while I would not equate these issues with the current president's violation of the War Powers Act, I'm seeing a very a willingness to disregard the law at the local level.

And it's come up in two places.

One, the willingness to waive the requirement that our fields, it's athletic fields be named after people who have been deceased for at least six months.

The other is yet a more weighty subject, the deed restriction at Courtland Park, which many people seem very willing and very comfortable disregarding in order to fulfill a vision, an idyllic vision of a library at the park.

And in both cases, and I don't know if it's because people perhaps don't have the same understanding of what the law or a legal limitation means as those of us who are lawyers.

But the deed does say that the park, the and I'm talking about Courtland Park, that the land was donated with the restriction that it be used forever as a public playground and park and for no other purpose.

We've been hearing for over a year that the administration is working with the attorney general on this, but we still don't have an answer.

And having looked at the law myself, I suspect the reason is because the answer is no.

The answer is flatly no.

Um, it takes litigation to remove a deed restriction, and it can only be done if the donated land can no longer fulfill its per its purpose.

The federal grant terms were also mentioned.

I had a conversation this morning with Congressmember Himes, who told me that the grant is not dependent on it being in the park, and that it could be located elsewhere on the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would wish to speak that hasn't signed up?

We have a few minutes left.

You see any hands on the attendees?

Okay, there's a hand.

Go ahead, Mr.

Adams.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um, I wanna uh just uh continue on uh what Gina Calabrice was talking about, the East Side Library.

Um, as you heard, uh there was a conversation with uh the representative from the US government who uh got us this grant.

It is um it's really important to understand that this grant is not dependent on being in East uh in the uh Cortland Park.

Um so the real question is is it is it the right thing to do to even attempt to change the deed?

Is that is that the moral thing to do?

Are are we honoring public trust when we just decide that we want to put a you know a building somewhere?

I don't think that I think that the lines and science building is first of all, is that even going to be removed from the park?

Um it should be removed.

I think that was a huge violation of the public trust.

But I want to further on to the to this concept um beyond this.

And you know, I heard uh a member of the public say that there's a paranoia about development.

And I think that there's there's a real delusion that goes on around this town.

And it's this idea that urbanization is going to ever result in more affordable conditions, and if we're we're we're looking at any historical record, it is the exact opposite.

Urbanization is a price driver, it drives the price up of it its area and all of the surrounding areas.

When you build uh uh you know, a so-called luxury building that has a high speculative value, not necessarily based on its actual construction, but has a high speculative value.

It increases the value of the properties around it.

This is this the urbanization will never ever result in more affordable prices.

So development's gonna happen, but it needs to be done in a very, very consciously aware manner, where we are 30 seconds where we are looking to house our people, not people from somewhere else.

And so when we think about development, that's the way we should be thinking about it.

And you know what?

New Rochelle, you know, you can't you can't make an argument based off of an anecdote.

And those are my those are my um comments.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Have a wonderful evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

Anyone else.

All right.

Seeing no other speakers, we will conclude the public participation session.

Thank you for everyone that spoke.

Moving on to the uh BOE liaison report, Representative Le Pine.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Um it's been a busy stretch for the Board of Ed and just a few uh updates, as I think everybody here is aware of.

The Stanford Board of Education unanimously appointed Dr.

Adrian Talley as a new superintendent of Stanford Public Schools on April 28th, 2026.

And Dr.

Talley will officially begin his tenure in Stanford on July 1st of this year, succeeding outgoing superintendent Dr.

Timu Lucero.

Uh we want to congratulate the board on their successful search process, which included extensive community outreach and the input of staff, students, parents, and community leaders.

And we as a board look forward to getting to know Dr.

Talley and working with him.

We also want to extend our gratitude to Dr.

Lucero, who joined our district as an assistant superintendent in 2013 and took on the superintendent's role in April of 2019.

Her commitment to our schools and our community has never wavered.

It's a complex and challenging role to be superintendent in this city, and we're grateful for her many years of service.

I am continuing my uh one-on-one meetings with Board of Ed members in this capacity, and have had five such meetings scheduled over the next two weeks, and I appreciate their time in doing so.

Uh related to the Board of Education budget, as has been previously uh talked about, the Board of Finance reduced the Board of Education's operating budget by 12.1 million uh dollars at their April 14th meetings.

And uh these cuts, which cannot be undone by this board, uh only cut further, were confirmed last week at the fiscal committee's meeting on the 30th, with no further cuts proposed.

What has been talked about uh as a critical footnote to these cuts were the hope and expectation of the state of Connecticut's fiscal year 2027 budget that would include additional education-related funding, the most significant of which would be the education cost sharing grant, ECS.

On Saturday, the Connecticut General Assembly passed the state's budget adjustments for fiscal 2027, and there were increases to municipal aid, specifically targeting education here in Stanford, although not to the previously expected amounts.

We're waiting for those uh final figures, and the final step in this process will be Governor Lamont's approval, which is expected.

Uh the Board of Ed has the final line item authority over how these reductions will be applied to the budget once we have the final numbers from the state.

And finally, just a follow-up note on the uh school construction projects.

Again, encourage all of our constituents to remain up to date with the monthly updates on the SPS Builds website and building excellence newsletter, uh, in addition to the very well publicized new projects for the new West Hill and New Roxbury K-through 8th School.

Uh, there are also several meaningful projects going on throughout the district uh at Strawberry Hill, Westover Magnet, Rippleon Middle School, and Stanford High School, uh, which uh I would encourage everyone to uh to check out.

And the next board of ed meeting will be held on May 26, 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Le Pine.

Uh moving on to this tiering committee report.

Is that a motion to wave steering committee report?

Is that a second?

All in favor, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Steering is waived.

Now we will move on to our standing committees.

The first one is the appointments committee uh co-chair short, I believe.

Yes, uh, thank you for the question.

We met on uh Wednesday, the 29th, uh 2026 at 6.30 in the caucus room and by webinar.

And uh we uh discussed the follow we met with the following people.

Uh number one, A32.021 uh Board of Assessment Appeals.

Uh, this is a reappointment to a term that expires in December 2028, uh submitted by the mayor.

Uh the committee approved uh 700 uh and will be considered on the consent agenda.

Uh second item A32.028.

Board of Ethics uh alternate.

Uh we met with Anthony Martino.

Uh a new appointment to a term that expires December 2028, submitted by the mayor and approved by committee 700 to be considered on the consent agenda.

Uh item number three, board of ethics, uh Ira Stechell, uh a reappointment to a term that expires uh December 2028, submitted by the mayor.

Uh Mr.

Setchel was unable to attend the meeting, so no action was uh taken and presumably will be meeting with Mr.

Setchell at a later date.

Uh item number four, uh historic preservation advisory committee alternate.

Uh we met with Maxwell Lent who uh would be joining for a new term uh expiring in December 2029.

Uh this was submitted by the mayor and approved by committee seven zero zero to be considered on the consent agenda.

Uh item number five, A32.031.

Uh the planning board.

This is a reappointment, Jeremy Linder to a term that expires uh December 2028.

Uh this was submitted by the mayor and approved by committee seven zero zero to be considered on the uh consent agenda.

Uh item number six, uh the planning board, Jennifer Gonzengo.

Uh this is a reappointment to a term that expires in December 2027.

Uh this was submitted by the mayor and approved by committee seven zero zero to be considered on the consent agenda.

Item number seven, a three two dot zero three, uh zoning board of appeals, Jason Kennard, uh, to a term that expires uh December 2027, submitted by the mayor.

Uh Mr.

Kennard was unable to attend the meeting, uh, so no action was taken and presumably will be meeting with Mr.

Kennard at a later date.

Finally, uh zoning board of appeals uh alternate uh Math Matthew uh tripletsiodis.

Uh it's a reappointment to a term that expires in December 2026, submitted by the mayor and approved by committee seven zero zero to be considered on the consent agenda.

Uh so I move that items one, two, four, five, six, seven.

I'm sorry.

Let me repeat that.

Uh I move uh items uh one, two, four, five, six, and eight.

Uh uh be moved uh to uh a vote.

Okay, so that is a motion to move items one, two, four, five, six, and eight.

Is that a second?

So I can these are consent items.

So is that anyone that is opposed, plan to oppose on any of these items?

If you're abstaining, we'll we can do that, but you're not saying no.

Because I just want to make sure we're doing it, not doing that all call if it is.

Okay, we'll we'll do the abstentions when we go through that.

Anyone else uh planning to say no?

Seeing none, we'll take this by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving items one, two, four, five, six, and eight of the appointments committee agenda, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Representative Graham abstains from item number six.

Thank you.

Yes, item number six.

Is that it?

Representative.

Yes, okay.

Thank you.

One abstention noted on uh item number six, but that all these items pass unanimously.

Does that conclude your report, Coach Shore?

That concludes my report.

Thank you.

Moving on to fiscal committee, Coachair Morrison.

Thank you, Madam President.

The fiscal committee met on April 27th in the Democratic Caucus room and by webinar at 6.30 p.m., taking up the following items.

Item number one, F32.062, $19,611.

Additional appropriation grants.

Town clerk contracted services from community investment fees for historic preservation purposes.

Approved 600.

Item two, F32.063, 26,000 26,913.

Additional appropriation grants.

Town clerk contracted services from local capital improvement fees for historic preservation purposes.

Passed 600.

Item 3, F32.064, additional appropriation grants, grant office LGP grant, direct services from transfer in from general fund for early childhood programming.

That passed the committee 601.

Item 4, F32.065 for 175,000.

Additional appropriation grants.

Community development program funds to provide additional funding to the boys and girls club to support completion of the playscape at the Yearwood Center.

That passed 700.

F32.066 for $2 million.

Additional appropriation grants, grant office community development support for renovations at 986 Bedford Street, Family Centers Community Service Site that serves primarily low-income residents of Stanford.

This item was held by the Board of Finance, so we took no action and recommitted it to steering 700.

Item 6, F32.067, a resolution related to the application for a non-priority Heart Magnet Elementary School Roof Replacement Project.

This resolution was approved 700.

Item 7, F32.068 resolution related to the application for a non-priority Turner River School Roof Replacement Project.

This resolution was approved by committee 700.

Item 8, F32.069.

A review, fiscal year 2526, third quarter projections.

A report was made.

And finally, item nine, F32.070 for $6,300,000.

Approval of an appropriation of fiscal year 2024 general fund surplus.

And that was approved by the committee 800.

Madam President, I would like to move my consent agenda consisting of items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9.

Okay, there is a motion to move items fiscal committee items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9.

Is there a second?

Second.

These are consent items.

Is there anyone that's planning to vote no on any of these items?

Okay, seeing none, we'll take this by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving fiscal committee items one, two, three, four, six, seven, and nine.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Representative Graham abstaining from item number two.

F32.063.

Okay, noted.

Uh representative Graham abstains on item number two.

Representative LePine abstaining from item number three, F32.064.

Okay.

Uh representative LePine abstaining on item number three.

With the noted abstentions, these items pass unanimously.

Thank you, Madam President.

That concludes my report.

Thank you, Co-Chair Morrison.

Moving on to legislative and rules committee.

Chair McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

The legislative and rules committee met at 7.01 p.m.

Tuesday, April 28th.

I considered two items, LR32.016 and LR32.017.

Uh after a fulsome discussion, the committee voted to postpone both items definitely to its next board meeting.

And I have nothing further to report.

Thank you, Chair McEwen.

Moving on to personnel committee.

Chair Weinberger.

Thank you.

We met uh on April 20th at 7 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room.

Also by webinar.

We had one item on the agenda, D32.003.

A review of the city's HR policies and programs, including classification systems, employment programs, and post-retirement benefit programs for the education of personnel committee members.

While not indicated here in the agenda, we did meet on April 20th.

Uh reports were made on both employee benefits as well as on the city's defined benefit pension plans.

We received those reports.

Uh thank you to uh director of human resources and to uh and to her staff.

And with that, I conclude my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Weinberg.

Moving on to land use urban redevelopment committee.

I believe this was Chair Hughes.

Okay, go ahead, Coacher.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Uh the land use and urban redevelopment committee met on Wednesday, April 22nd at 7 p.m.

by webinar.

And uh the first item we considered was LU32.006 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.

Uh we the uh committee voted to recommit this item to steering uh seven two zero zero.

Uh the next item for consideration that the committee considered was LU32.007.

It's approval of the second amendment to the IQS Stamford Contract for integrated land records and vital statistics recording system RFP number eight five nine.

And this was approved by the committee eight to zero to zero.

And uh at this time, I'd like to move it to be considered on the consent agenda.

Okay, there is a motion to move item LU32.007.

Um is there a second?

Since this is a consent IDA, is there anyone planning to oppose to this item?

Seeing none, we'll take this by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving item LU 32.007, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Representative Graham abstaining from item number two, LU32.007.

Okay.

Uh noted one abstract one abstention from Representative Graham on item number two.

With that, the that item passes unanimously.

Thank you, and I yield uh President Shaw.

Thank you so much, Coach Hughes.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

The operations parks and recreation committee met on Thursday, April 23rd, 2026 at 7 p.m.

Uh by webinar.

We had three items.

First item OPR 32.009, a resolution waiving the requirements of Section 21-3B of the code of ordinances in order to name the Stanford High School baseball, softball, and soccer fields for names set forth in the resolution.

Item number two, OPR 32.010 resolution naming of the Stanford High School Baseball, softball and soccer fields with the names as set forth in the resolution.

And item number three, OPR 32.008, a review of the city's snow removal process and the snow emergency preparedness.

At this time, I would like to move items one and two to be considered on the consent agenda.

Okay, that is a motion to move items one and two on the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um I know the first one is a consent agenda item.

Um since it's a waiving of requirements, we will do this by uh roll call vote.

And just to be clear, um, if you are in favor of supporting the waiver and supporting the naming, you vote yes.

Um otherwise you vote no.

And we would need just for the first one for the waiving the requirements for this item number one.

We will need 30 yes affirmative votes to pass this item.

Is everyone clear?

Yes, representative Walsden.

Uh it's a consent item, but if you're taking off consent, you could, if you want to have a discussion, you are you taking it off consent.

You could you should have to take it off consent first.

Okay, so that item is taken of consent.

Okay, we'll have a discussion now on that item.

Go ahead.

Good evening, everyone and everyone who's tuned in to us tonight.

And um, I've been pretty vocal about this, um, these two resolutions, and I wrote the board a letter that I would like to have read into the record.

So I don't get pointed at and say um things I'm not.

And it reads, hi, I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing to respectfully encourage thoughtful consideration of Stanford's premier athletes when discussing the naming of the baseball field at Stanford High School.

This request is not intended to diminish or take away from any individuals or families who have contributed to athletics in the city of Stanford.

Rather, it is to ensure that the full scope of impactful contributors are honestly evaluated.

In particular, I would like to highlight the contribution of the Cobb family, often referred to as the Cobb Brothers, whose influence has been significant and shaping the traject trajectory of Stanford High School athletics.

Their dedication, performance, leadership, and lasting impact helped elevate the visibility, competitiveness, and pride associated with Stanford Athletics.

Their legacy extends beyond wins and statistics.

They helped inspire younger athletes, build community support, and set a standard of excellence that continues to resonate today.

As the city considers honoring individuals through field naming, it is important that this that the decision reflects both historical impact and community influence.

The Cobb family's role in changing the scope and perception of Stanford High School athletics deserves thoughtful review alongside all other deserving candidates.

This is simply a request for a fair and comprehensive evaluation, one that acknowledges the many individuals who have helped build Stanford's athletic tradition.

Recognizing those contributions strengthens community pride and ensures that future generations understand the legacy they are stepping into.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and continued commitment to honoring Stanford's athletic history.

So I just wanted that read into the record.

And my only concern, I have a few concerns about this.

And I know in the 31st board, we waived the rules twice.

And I'm seeing this resolution.

It has three names, and we're voting on this as a ticket.

And my thing is I feel like this resolution, we should be voting on three separate resolutions.

Not just one.

We're not doing a three for one.

So in the future, you know, we can ask ourselves if if we're setting a precedence.

And if so, that means there's something wrong with our ordinance that we need to take a look at, because the ordinance clearly states that someone has to be six months deceased.

And the last two people who were alive that we passed, thank God they were here to see it, but they deceased right after that.

So and I'm just not saying that for here.

So my question is how many times are we going to waive the requirements?

Will this keep happening?

Uh what is the point of having ordinance uh 21 regarding the clause that one must be deceased for six months?

Do we need to take another look at this particular ordinance?

I said that before.

Is this ordinance antiquated?

And my disturbed disturbance is that the people nominated, they don't represent the school.

The school is made up of a lot of people, different types of people.

Stanford High School was and is made up of varying backgrounds who all came together to accomplish what Stanford is trying to do, which is to have citizen citizenry that is.

You have one minute left representative Wallston.

One more minute.

Yes, please.

Okay.

Multicultural, multifaceted in a city that works.

And one of the members here, they told me, do I have an alternative?

And for days and days, I thought about an alternative.

And I would like to see, if anything, Jimmy Cobb.

I would love to see a statue erected by the Stanford High School baseball field.

He was honored in 2007.

He's not named on the field.

There are no people who look like me who the fields are named after.

But it would be nice if he could be honored.

He did a lot for the baseball team here.

And we have so many different people and the legacy down the road.

Stanford High is Stanford, it represents us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see representative Pavia's hand up.

Would you like to speak on this?

Representative Pavia.

Yes, Madam President.

Okay, go ahead.

Just like it noted for the record that um Sir James Cobb was in the first class of the is in the Hall of Fame at Stanford High School, right next to Andy Robostelli and Senator Joseph Leverman.

Um, but to Representative Walston's point, um just because maybe she has a disagreement in in the positions that these people are getting does not mean that these are very qualified people.

Um Donald Lapino um has done more for women's sports than anybody, and this is before Title IX.

Um Bobby Augustine, if you're from Stanford, you know that he's a legend.

Everybody that played baseball with him knows that he's a legend.

Mario uh Kemanidi um dedicated more than 40 years to Stanford High School, both as a teacher and a department head and a coach.

Um 42 years of that as the boys' soccer coach, 35 as the head coach.

I get and Kurt Tinnen, who we're not talking about here.

Um, folks, because uh he he's part of this, but he passed away.

Um, was the girls um girls' basketball coach for years.

Um, and up until the day he died, had everybody coming and talking about him and thanking him for all the things that he did for that school system.

Um again, we might have uh some people might have problems with the people that are are being named here, but that doesn't mean that they're not qualified because they certainly are based on that little spiel that I gave you about all three of them.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, representative Pavia.

Representative Walton, you have two minutes this time.

That's why I read the letter.

So I don't get stigmatized that I don't think these people are qualified enough.

They are qualified.

But I was just saying, you know, it would have been nice to have some diversity there.

That's my problem with it.

I'm not taking no sign off nobody here.

And that's why I'm I'm I'm trying to put out an alternative that a statue in the name of Jimmy Cobb, that would be a great alternative.

Before there was a legacy, there was James, a once-in-a-generation athlete who captain three varsity sports simultaneously in last Stanford High School to state's most coveted football title, served as captain of the Black Knights football, basketball, and baseball teams in 1970.

A rare triple capitancy that speaks to his respect and leadership across every court and field, named all-state running back, the highest individual honor for a football player in Connecticut, named all FCAC outfielder for the Stanford High baseball team, earning conference-wide recognition in one of the most competitive athletic leagues in New England.

Record setting touchdowns in a single game versus Ripple Mom.

When Stanford hosted the um World Series at Chibetta Stadium, James rose to the moment, delivering a key home run that helped power the championship team to glory on their home field.

And then he went on and earned a scholarship at Dartmouth College.

After his playing days, James spent uh roughly 15 years coaching football, basketball, and baseball at Stanford's junior high schools and Stanford High, shaping the next generation of black knights and even teaching tennis along the way.

So that's I'm not trying to disparage anybody, so please don't look at me like that.

I was just wondering, you know, why didn't we have it say so?

When I was the little girl, I heard of the Cobb family.

I heard of those brothers as a little girl.

He can be honored for tw uh 2007, but that's okay if he doesn't get a feel.

What about a statue?

That's only I'm asking for a statue as an alternative.

That'd be great.

I know he's supposed to be honored um in a few months with the old timers to have a ceremony.

He was honored in 2007.

He's being honored in a few months.

But where's his name?

Where's his name?

Put his name outside so when little children, who is that?

That's Jimmy Cobb.

He did this, this, and that.

And you know, little kids like to do their history.

That's the only thing I'm asking.

I don't have a problem with the renaming.

I just want now for it to be considered from the athletic director, Chris Pasimino, Tony Rinaldi, Mr.

Forker, and uh the old timers and all of them who sent this um who sent the resolution.

Would you please consider putting a statue outside of the Stanford baseball field, Stanford High?

And that's it.

I yield, but I'm not disparaging anybody.

So please don't think that.

Everybody's qualified.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Walson.

Anyone else?

I see um representative Delacruz's uh hand up.

Go ahead, representative Delacruz.

Uh thank you, uh President Shaw.

I just want to comment that I find the proposition of a statue intriguing.

It would be similar to the statue on Stillwater Avenue on the Ray Joe Lewis.

So perhaps there is room for that uh suggestion.

Uh and I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Delacruz.

Anyone else would like to speak?

I'm abstaining.

Okay, if there isn't anyone else, then we will take this by roll call vote.

Again, if you are in favor of approving the waiver and renaming, you would, yes.

Sorry, yes.

We're we're voting on item number one, OPR 30.

I'm sorry, yes.

We're voting on item number one, which is what um, and then for the other one, it's just a simple majority, so we can figure it out.

Sorry, I didn't see you.

Did you did you wanted to speak?

Okay.

Did you want it?

Did you want to speak now?

Yes.

So ahead.

I just wanted to um congratulate um representative Wilson on being so brave for writing her letter and for taking a stand on what she believed.

Um I am somewhat in agreement with her.

I think what we would like to ask is for the boards or committees in the future to be a little bit more mindful and considerate that when they're proposing resolutions in these lists that they be more equitable and have a little bit more inclusion.

Um I think that might I'm not gonna try to speak for her, but uh I believe that's her her spirit and her sentiments of saying we want equity and we want inclusion.

And so when these types of boards and committees come together, just be a little bit more mindful of that.

Thank you very much, and I yield thank you, Ms.

Weathers.

Um did anyone have a question?

Um Representative Weinberg, did you have something else that you okay?

So we're voting right now.

We're voting on OPR 32.009, which is item number one, and then we'll get to the next one.

Okay, all right.

Uh Representative Adams, how do you vote?

Yes, Representative Beckham?

Yes, Representative Blank.

Yes, Representative Bouchard, yes, Representative Boudreau?

Yes, Representative Bradford, yes, representative Camp Rally, yes, Representative Daly Cruz, yes, uh Representative Didalo, yes, Representative Dorsey, yes, representative Field, Representative Finkel?

Yes, yes, uh Representative Gardner, yes, Representative Gilbride, yes, Representative Goldberg, yes, representative Graham Yes, uh Representative Gross.

Yes, Representative Hill, yes, Representative Hughes, yes, representative Hyatt?

No, uh I myself am a yes, representative LePine, yes, representative uh oopsor, parliamentarian McEwen, yes, majority leader Morrison, yes, representative Pavia, yes, representative Politia, yes, representative Pollock, or Deputy Majority Leader Pollock, sorry, yes, uh Representative Price, yes, Representative Salas, yes, uh Rep Deputy Majority Leader Sanford, yes, President Shaw, yes, representative Shore, yes, Representative Stone, yes, uh Representative Sylvestri, yes, Representative Walston.

No, Representative Weathers, yes.

Uh Representative Weinberg, yes.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

Uh Representative Yeager.

Yes.

And Representative Zachary.

Yes.

All right.

By my count, we have 38 yeses and two no's.

Does that match?

No.

All right.

In that case, we have the required 30.

Thank you.

So uh we do, it's 38 to what uh 38 to 2, so we do have the uh uh that votes for the waiver.

Um with that we will move on to the uh next item, which is a resolution.

Um we will not need a um 30 on this because it's a resolution following, so we could this could be a simple majority, but if any is that anyone planning to say no to the resolution itself?

If so, we will take this by roll call.

Otherwise, we'll do a voice vote.

Okay, so we'll do this by roll call.

We will do it by roll.

We will do it by roll call, sorry, yes.

Yeah, so this is just a resolution accompanying the approval of the item.

All right, so this is for opr 32.010.

Uh representative Adams.

Yes, representative Beckham.

Yes, Representative Blank.

Yes, Representative Bouchard?

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Yes.

Representative Camp Raleigh?

Yes.

Representative Daily Cruz.

Representative Daily Cruz.

Uh yes.

Thank you.

Representative Jillow.

Yes.

Representative Dorsey?

Yes.

Representative Field.

Yes.

Representative Finkel?

Yes.

Representative Gardner?

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Representative Gilbride.

All right.

Representative Goldberg?

Yes.

Uh Representative Gilbride, was that uh your answer?

Yeah, I've said yes a few times.

I'm not sure if you can hear me.

I apologize.

Now I can.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And just for Representative Goldberg, you were also yes.

Thank you.

Representative Graham.

I'd like to pass, please.

Okay.

Representative Gross?

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Thanks.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

I myself am a yes.

Representative LePine?

Yes.

Parliamentary McEwen.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morsen.

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

Yes.

Sorry.

Good.

Thank you.

Representative Pleachia.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Sellas?

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Yes.

President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestry.

Yes.

Representative Walston.

No.

Uh Representative Others.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

Representative Yeager.

Yes.

And Representative Zachary?

Yes.

Right.

Let me go back to I had two people that passed.

Uh Representative Graham, would you like to vote?

Like to vote no, please.

No.

And Representative Hyatt, would you like to vote?

No, please.

Thank you.

You got it.

All right.

I believe I have 37 yeses and three no's.

That match what you have, Barbara.

Great.

So with that.

Okay.

So the 37 yes and re notes.

That item passes.

Madam President, that concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair Sanford.

Moving on to Public Safety and Health Committee.

Chair Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam President.

The public safety and health committee uh held their meeting on a Wednesday, April 29th, 2026 at 6.30 p.m.

via webinar.

Vice Chair Adams chaired the meeting.

We had one item for review that was PS32.006.

It's an overview of the Stanford Police Department provided by uh police chief shaw.

Uh a report was submitted.

Uh that ends my commentary.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Bushad.

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

Okay, Coach Silvestre.

Go ahead.

Uh the chess committee met, had two separate meetings on one was held on Tuesday, April 21st.

That one was hybrid.

And then the second meeting was held on Thursday, April 30th, and that was by webinar.

Um the first item, chess 32.012 was a public hearing to solicit public input on the program year 52 community development block grant and home investment partnership program.

A report was made on that one.

The second item was chess 32.013, another public hearing of the year 52.

C D BG proposal for years for year 26 to 27.

Uh report was made for that.

And then the third item was chess 32.005, a resolution approved by the committee 530.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That one was authorizing a project labor agreement, PLA for the Roxbury School Construction Project, and that was approved by the committee 533.

And I would like to move item 530.

And I would like to move item number three.

Thank you.

There's a motion to move item chess item uh chess 32.005.

Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion.

Representative Campurelli.

The labor movement in this country was not built in boardrooms.

It was built in factories on job sites and in the streets, often at great cost.

Workers fought and in many cases died for basic protections we now take for granted.

Fair wages, safe working conditions, and the dignity of being treated as more than disposable labor.

Those efforts didn't just benefit workers.

They helped build the American middle class.

They created pathways to stability, homeownership and opportunity, and generations of families.

The legacy, this legacy is what we are talking about when we discuss PLA labor agreements.

PLAs are not new and they are not theoretical.

They are commonly used on public construction projects, including school construction in cities like New Haven, Bridgeport, Hart Fit Hartford, and Waterbury.

They have been part of how we deliver complex public projects for years.

And there's a reason for that.

At the federal level, even the Bureau of Land Management, as recently as April 2024 establish incentives for the use of project labor agreements.

The U.S.

Department of Labor has made clear that PLAs are an effective tool to help ensure projects are completed on time and and at or under budget.

Provide a reliable, high, highly skilled workforce, increase diversity and expand equitable workplace development, and improve worker health and safety on the job.

These are not abstract benefits.

These are outcomes that matter to taxpayers, to workers, and to the communities that we serve.

At the end of the day, this is about how we choose to build not just what we choose to build, but how we choose to build it and who benefits along the way.

Do we prioritize stability, safety, and workforce development?

Do we invest in skilled labor and the long-term strength of our communities?

Or do we treat public construction as just another transaction?

This is not about excluding anyone.

It's about setting standards.

It's about ensuring that what we invest our public dollars in.

We are also investing in quality, safety, and opportunity.

We owe that not only to today's workforce, but to the generations of workers in Stanford and everywhere else in the country that made these protections possible.

And to the communities that depend on us to get this right.

This is good for Stanford.

I just I want to read two things.

There was a UCL Berkeley study in 2024 that showed that.

Sorry.

It does not, it does not reach a definitive conclusion that PLAs either increase or decrease project costs.

Instead, it outlined that the competing arguments and research find that inform that is ongoing debate.

Arguments suggested potential cost increases to higher wage and benefit structures associated with labor unions, the possibility of reduction reduced competition if some contractors choose not to build under PLA requirements.

Countervailing arguments highlight that PLAs may improve project efficiencies through standard work rules, reduce the risk of delays, disruptions, or labor disputes, provide access to a skilled and coordinated labor force.

The report notes that studies on this issue have produced mixed results.

So we can't use them here today to say that that it would increase our costs.

What we do know is that it will help us create jobs in Stanford and a skilled labor force.

And I will be voting in favor of this.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Campbell, representative Gardner.

Thank you, President Schul.

There's definitely a little of emotion around the uh the PLA topic, uh, which we're discussing tonight.

And uh definitely some representatives are trying to frame this as a union versus non-union labor uh argument and a choice, but really it's not.

Um voting against the PLA is fundamentally not anti-union.

If we skip the PLA, uh local union shops can absolutely still work on these projects.

They don't lose any right to work, they just have to do so in a way that every other corporation in America does, and that is by competing.

Uh they can still bid, they can still win, they can still build us a wonderful school.

They just have to be competitive.

The problem with the PLA is that it narrows the playing field uh before the game is even started.

And if we want to see what happens in this country when competition fails to exist, all you have to do is just look at the news.

Uh spirit airlines, spirit airlines just went bust, as we all know.

And uh now that they've gone, do you think Delta and United are going to be celebrating by lowering the prices for everyone?

Of course they're not.

They're gonna do what every business does when the when they're the only game in town, and they're going to be raising their prices and charging people more just because they can.

So if we limit who can bid on our projects here in Stanford, we're effectively choosing to be that traveler who lives near an airport which only has one airline.

We're saying to the taxpayers of Stanford, we're okay with paying a premium to limit our options, and I just don't think it's right.

Um, free market competition is the backbone of our American economy, and it is for a reason.

It forces everyone to bring their A game to step come forward with their best foot forward and their best price up front.

And artificially shrinking that pool with a PLA is a terrible deal for Stanford, and I think is not a financially responsible move, which our taxpayers would appreciate.

So I urge everyone to keep the bidding open, let the free market do its work, and let the best possible value be achieved for our Stanford taxpayers and for our students.

I urge people to vote no on this motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Gardner representative field, and then followed by representative gross.

Go ahead and thank you, Madam President.

I don't agree with this idea that's been stated that union labor means the job will be a higher cost.

With union workers, we get consistently skilled workers, lower risk of delays, and less likely to have schedule slippage.

There are multiple reports that once you factor in productivity and reduced overruns, union projects can actually cost less overall, even if the hourly rates are higher.

Unions have been the only powerful and effective voice working people have ever had in the history of this country, giving dignity to labor.

And I will be supporting the PLA and hope everyone else will as well.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, representative field.

Representative Gross.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me just start off by saying that the free market is not the backbone of our economy, but workers, workers are the backbone of our economy.

Now to get on to the actual PLA that's before us, um, you know, opponents claim that the PLA is raising costs and it's limiting our options, it's limiting compet it's limiting our competition that we're receiving for these bids.

Um but that's just not the case.

Um the city is um you know statutorily prevented um from discriminating based on an organization's union or non-union status.

Um the quote that we have um from Director Kinone is uh the legal department has opined that Connecticut statute explicitly prohibits discrimination between bidders based on labor organization affiliation.

The PLA must permit the selection of the lowest responsible qualified bidder without regard to labor organization affiliation.

Um he then continues on the successful non-union bidder can use non-union employees to perform 100% of the work.

Uh however, if they need to hire employees to perform the to perform the work, if they're their labor force is not sufficient to meet the project, then they're going then they should go to the union hiring hall.

Um so the argument that we're limiting competition here is uh frankly not not borne out by the facts.

Um, you know, union and non-union shops can bid on any number of the 20 to 30 bids that we're going to be putting out um for this project.

Um and the city has to take, you know, the city can't discriminate.

We have to take the lowest responsible qualified bidder, and that is uh stated in Stanford ordinances uh as well.

Um so you know, why are we saying competition is limited if there's nothing, you know, there's we are prevented from from limiting the competition.

There has to be fair competition.

Um, the difference uh with using the PLA is that uh really the city's interests are uh we're protected in that when the firm bids, if they don't have the required labor uh to complete the project, we can ful we can supplement that with good, reliable union labor that's going to get the project done uh on time.

And really, you know, I would argue it's bad for the for the non-union contractors if they're not bidding on these projects.

You know, these are profitable for them.

Um, they're missing out on this state grant money um by not bidding on these projects.

Uh and to my and it's my understanding, it's what's been communicated to me that it would be, you know, it'd be very bizarre if if there were no bids.

Um, you know, w whether whether or not there's a PLA or not, there's going to be a mix of union labor and non-union labor.

That's sort of just how these projects work.

Um crucially, without the PLA, we are missing out on this great workforce development component that is present in the resolution that the union is going to do.

Regardless of whether all of the bids go to non-union uh non union shops, this workforce development aspect is going to be present when we pass uh when we pass this PLA.

Um, we're going to be utilizing the infrastructure of these unions to develop uh people here in Stanford to have people have these valuable learning experiences by being on these projects, gaining valuable skills, um, you know, and really participating and and and ultimately being put into this pipeline to end up with a good uh good paying union job, you know, right out of school.

Um so really the issue here, you know, what we're if you're opposing the PLA and you know, people have said there's other ways to accomplish this uh, you know, apprenticeship program.

Uh really the the question is whether or not you want it to happen.

Because it's you know, it's not going to happen otherwise.

Uh the city has said, you know, they're not, you know, it doesn't make sense to just out, you know, the city can't create its own apprenticeship program.

We're utilizing the infrastructure of the labor union.

Um, you know, and likewise non-union shops just simply do not have uh the same level of apprenticeship programs to to fill in the gaps.

So really what the question is is whether whether we want to support this um whether we want to support this workforce development aspect of the PLA or whether you you don't, whether you don't want to develop um workers here in Stanford.

Um I will uh and likewise, you know, you can point to any number, as my colleagues have pointed out, that you can point to any on any number of school projects around the state that have been used successfully um with PLAs, um, you know, including right here, right next to us in Norwalk um with the Norwalk High School project um as well as in major cities around the world, including New York and Boston.

Um I will rest my remarks there.

Thank you, representative Gross.

There's a lot of speakers here.

We have Clerk Johnson followed by representative Weinberg, Diddle, Shore, Lewis, and Hugh.

So and Representative Goldberg.

So we'll start with okay.

All right.

Uh Clerk Johnson is next.

I just want to briefly explain why I plan to vote plan to vote no on this this PLA.

And it is, I think, as someone before rightly said, it's not a union versus non-union.

It's very possible that without this PLA, 100% of the project could be done with union labor, or vice versa.

So that's the question in front of us is strictly about the PLA, not union versus non-union.

And my hesitation actually, I I had different remarks prepared, uh, but in discussions with many other members and and some city council uh or city uh staff today, actually changed my mind a bit on what my hesitation is, and that's around the fact that we actually don't have a contract in front of us.

What we have in front of us is a resolution that highlights sort of the desired outcomes from the city's angle that uh Director Kenyonis and his team have put forward, which are all very great outcomes.

What I think is missing from that is the cost of those outcomes.

And that's what comes in the 40, 50, 60 page contract that this memorandum gives the power to our CIMAR to negotiate on our behalf.

And so that is, I think the the risk we are all taking is we're signing up for a contract that we don't actually know what the cost is at the moment.

And I don't when I say cost, I don't mean dollar amount cost.

I mean the cost of uh potential little ways to limit competition, things of that sort.

We don't see that currently because it's not we don't have a contract in front of us to review.

And the way the memorandum is currently written, or sorry, resolution I should say is currently written.

We are giving that authority away to someone we've contracted.

Um and then ultimately we will be given a copy of that agreement for information purposes only.

So with that, I will uh pass it back to you.

Thank you, Clerk Johnson.

Next is uh representative Weinberg.

Uh thank you.

Um I I I acknowledge that uh that the presence of a PLA could uh increase, somewhat increase the cost of this uh of this project.

Nevertheless, I will be voting in favor of this resolution and in favor of the PLA.

Uh I'll be doing that for two reasons.

Uh first, I believe that there are several factors that will uh that that will mitigate um this uh this alleged cost premium.

Um one of them, of course, that nobody's really mentioned is the fact that the uh state will be paying for 80 percent of the project, and there um and the uh and their um the the amount that they are willing to reimburse uh incorporates the expectation that there will be a PLA.

So they've already baked that into what they're willing to reimburse.

So to the extent that there is any kind of a cost premium due to a PLA, um uh the the uh taxpayers of Stanford will only be paying for very small part of that cost premium.

The rest of that cost will be borne by uh by the by the by the state.

Um that's that that's one way that the cost the premium cost premium could be will be mitigated.

The other is the fact that instead of, as we've discussed previously, instead of um hiring a general contractor as the city has done on other major construction projects, uh the city has already hired a construction manager at risk uh without boring the public that uh the the presence of a construction manager at risk who works for us, not the general contractor, um, will do many things to improve the brid process um and to um and to uh and to increase competition in the bid process.

So I'm I'm confident that the uh a cost premium due to a PLA to the extent it will exist uh will be mitigated by these significant factors.

But there's a more important uh reason why I support the PLA.

I believe Representative Gross uh talked a bit about this, and that is the presence in the plan, in the city's plan to create this pre-apprenticeship program.

Um that is uh to my way of thinking an excellent investment for the city.

It will by using um not-for-profits, schools and other organizations that are already embedded in underserved communities, it will uh in our city.

It will uh I believe will be successful in significantly increasing the construction labor pool of local of local residents.

Um they will earn uh good wages here in Stanford.

They will spend the money they earn here in Stanford, which of course, because of the velocity of money will uh will also uh create additional good paying jobs here in Stanford.

Um so I have a lot of confidence in this the administration's plan for this um this uh this pre-apprenticeship uh program.

It's really not feasible to do the pre-apprentip program without the without uh a PLA that uh that that utilizes the uh the union's apprenticeship programs.

Um so if we really want this pre-apprenticeship program, from my perspective, we have we need to to to do the the PLA.

So those are the two big reasons why I'm supporting the PLA.

First, because I believe that the cost premiums can be mitigated uh and will be mitigated, and second, because um I have so much confidence in this pre-apprenticeship program.

Now, one speaker has spoken, has alluded to the to the the fact that we don't have the detailed um uh metrics for the pre-attentist program.

I understand that.

And you know, generally I'm a big metrics person.

But this is a new program.

This will be a new program, a new effort.

Um, and I I'm I'm confident that it will be a good idea.

Yes, I'm confident that we'll that it will succeed.

And of course, if it doesn't, then we will have learned not to go down this route again.

But to me, that's a worthwhile investment.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the PLA.

With that, I yield.

Thank you, representative Weinberg, representative Didlow.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh a little anxious talking because whenever I talk on a you know hot button issue, I end up in the news the next day here.

So I don't know.

So there we go.

A little chuckle there.

Um also on to that note, I really do appreciate and it's refreshing having spirited debate in this body um on this matter and on something that people both have a lot of passion on.

Um to get it out of the way, I will be voting in favor of the PLA, and it's something that I thought about a lot.

Um and we made comparisons to the Strawberry Hill Project.

Um, and I think again, some people have reiterated that it really is an apples and oranges.

Um really it's hard to understand in the research that I've done to go say, does a PLA really go and raise those costs?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

Certain agencies say yes, certain agencies say no, certain have political leanings that are going and saying, well, yeah, it raises costs, but they're leaning conservative, more likely to be anti-union.

Some say no, it doesn't raise cost, but they're more liberal.

Of course, they're gonna be more pro-union.

So I haven't really gotten a straight answer.

And really what did go and sell me was a few things were the fact that we would be able to resource labor on these projects from around the state through a PLA, and it would make it much more easy to do that.

Getting work to Stanford is difficult, and being part of a union does involve traveling and PLA can ensure that those workers get here.

Um then on top of that, I really do think having an apprentice program in shape.

I am in education.

I see students, I talk with them in the classroom, I talk with juniors, I talk with seniors in high school and go and say, hey, what are you doing next year?

Or what are you doing two years from now?

And they're like, ah, I'm not sure.

And I always go and say, and a lot of kids will go and say, hey, I want to go into a trade, but I don't know that pathway.

And this is giving a lot of students at Wright Tech at Stanford High at West Hill at AITE, an easy path that on June 14th this year, sorry, I don't remember the date of graduation.

When they graduate 17th, thank you.

Appreciate it.

On June 17th, is that a Friday?

Wednesday only.

Okay.

So there you go.

Point stand.

On June 18th, when they graduate, they can be going June 19th and be on a job site and begin working.

And I think that is a value that we need to consider.

And that is hard to put a price and a number on because that is something that we're projecting in the future.

I'm happy to hear that people on this board disagree with me, and I am more than welcome to hearing those disagreements, and I've already heard some of those tonight.

But I will be voting in favor of this PLA after very thorough research and a lot of consideration and a lot of consultation with my colleagues, research on my own, and with individuals in the city of Stanford.

Thank you, and I yield.

All right.

Rom, you had to step out, so you ask me to keep things going.

Uh Representative Shore, you are recognized next.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

So we're here to make a decision about how Stanford's going to build this next school.

And I just want to make sure we're asking the right questions before we do this.

And I raise these questions because the conversation around PLAs too often gets reduced to a single number on a bid sheet.

And I'm not sure that's the right way to evaluate a 50-year asset that's going to serve the children of our city.

Now, I've heard a lot of talk about lack of competition in the bid process.

But the way I understand the bid process works is that all of the component parts of the project, and this would include electrical and HVAC and drywall and so on, uh, is referred to as a package.

And the estimate that I've received from uh operations is that there will be somewhere between 20 and 30 packages that compose of the estimate for the cost of the total uh project.

Uh each one of those 20 to 30 packages will be triple bid.

So by the time the bid process is complete, we'll have probably heard from somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 or 80 different contractors.

So for those who oppose the PLA because of the perception that competition is limited and thus leading to higher costs.

I guess one question would be uh what's the sufficient level of competition with with with that many bidders, you know, theoretically involved.

Um a second.

I've got next question is the matter of labor stability.

School construction delays are not abstractions.

School construction delays mean that students are displaced.

Academic calendars are torn apart, costs that spiral well past whatever was saved at the bid time.

A PLA delivers contractual labor stability.

It closes the door on work stoppages, it provides access to union dispatching halls that can flex to meet demand when a project hits a critical phase.

Uh under an open bid scenario in today's Fairfield County construction market, which is tight, competitive, and showing real workforce strain, how would we protect ourselves against the risk of workforce shortage-based delays?

I've yet to hear a satisfying answer to that question.

We're going to be building a school that Stanford's children will be walking into for the next 50 years.

50 years.

And we're being asked to weigh that against the big price.

So my next question is, is the lowest responsible bidder really the correct metric for a decision of this magnitude?

And I'd ask PLA opponents, how exactly is uh the word responsible defined?

Because in my experience, that word does a lot of work in a low bid contract, and it's not necessarily the work we need it to do.

Now, a broader truth that we're sitting with is that the building trades are facing a generational crisis.

Uh the skilled workforce is aging out, and not enough young people are coming in behind them.

And as has been mentioned before, what's more, uh tradespeople really don't like coming to Stanford.

They hate the commute.

Uh somebody alluded to the fact that there's this untapped workforce in Stanford.

That's just not the case.

We're relying on people from further away upstate who, given an opportunity to work closer to home, are going to take it.

So it's imperative that we do.

I'm sorry.

So it's imperative that we begin to develop our own workforce here in town.

And uh plenty has been said about that.

But let's please keep in mind that at the very moment when AI is reshaping the economy, and those high school students that Representative Didlow referred to, you know, are facing uh uh, you know, or are facing uh uh a future where entry-level white-collar work is could conceivably be cut in half over the course of the next five years.

The building trades represents something that AI can't replicate, which is hands-on, tactile, skilled labor that has to be performed in the physical world.

You can't offshore a pipe fitter, you can't automate a finished copper uh carpenter, and in a country that's facing a housing shortage, the people who can build are going to matter enormously and have a great future.

So I've asked you to consider the PLA and to vote yes.

And with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative Shore.

Representative Lewis Finkel.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Madam President.

Let me start by saying this is not framed as anti-union.

When I was teaching up at Central Connecticut in the construction management program, I was in the professors' union, and my wife, when she worked for the State, was shop steward.

So this is not an anti-union scenario.

What this is looking for the better interest of the citizens of Stanford.

Now one of the arguments is on the pre-apprentice program and getting a pipeline for labor force.

That doesn't necessarily have to be a union scenario, because ABC, the Associated Building Contractors, which is the non-union association, they have their own apprentice program.

In addition to that, when you're talking about studies, you can find studies all over the place, and you can basically find a study that backs up whatever your position is.

Obviously, I found some that say that PLAs cost more money.

I also found some that said they don't.

But some of the things that I did find, there was an annual report to the Governor and Legislature in New Jersey on the use of project labor agreements and public work building projects in physical year 2008 from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

And there was a report in 2010.

And in this report, it basically said school projects that use a PLA tended to have higher building costs unmeasured on a per square foot basis.

And that report was talking about a 30 percent potential penalty.

Now when you're talking about a construction management contract and packages, you're giving out individual bids for the individual components of a particular construction project.

And as such, as Representative Shore said, you're gonna have a package for HVAC, a package for electrical, a package for carpentry, package for concrete, et cetera.

Where I disagree with him is the fact that he says you're gonna get at least three bids on every particular package.

In reality, in many cases with PLAs, that's not the case.

Examples.

In South Winder Orchard Hill School.

They had a PLA.

Actually, they did not have a PLA.

And 17 of the 23 trade packages went to union shops.

On the Torrington High School, they had 26 bid packages, and only eight had more than three bidders.

Ten of the packages had only two.

On a Buckley High School, they had tremendous problems getting bids.

And four packages had one bidder, and structural steel had no bidders.

What happens when there's a PLA, and I I agree with Representative Gross that the city is mandated to take the lowest responsible bidder, whether it's union or non-union.

However, in reality, the nonunion companies normally do not bid on PLA projects.

So you are limiting your competition.

And that's what happened in Strawberry Hill, even though it wasn't a PLA with a general with a construction manager, it had a general contractor.

You ended up with minimum competition, so you owned it up only ended up with two bidders.

And when the PLA went away, you ended up with six bidders.

And when companies were questioned of why they did not bid when the PLA was in place, companies said they did not bid because of the PLA.

And when you look at the numbers, the You have 30 seconds.

One of the bidders, ONG, who was it, 65 million dollars, ended up at just over 45 million dollars, and there was about $8 million of value engineering or cost cutting within the project.

So they dropped effectively 12 million dollars, and then you're in a position where you ended up with about a time separate increase in cost on the PLA.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Um representative Hughes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I'll try to be brief and not repeat any points that uh that have been made.

Uh, but I want to talk just briefly about my background.

I'm the son of two union social workers and the grandson of laborers, Irish immigrants, English and Swedish immigrants who never had the opportunity to join a union.

Uh I come from a middle class family, and I can give all credit to that to the unions.

Uh I'd ask everyone for a moment to just stop and and think about Stanford and our city.

When you walk around and drive around this amazing city, one thing you will notice, and this is a similar theme across Connecticut, is great economic and wealth inequality.

One of the number one things this body should be asking ourselves is what can we do to level the playing field and to address this economic inequality that is across the city.

There are neighborhoods that are clearly doing well, and there are neighborhoods that are clearly lacking opportunity and access to jobs.

We should do something about it.

We should support workers.

Uh a PLA to me creates opportunity, creates economic opportunity for people to create a career and have a good paying job with benefits, a job with benefits.

How rare is that now?

And so passing up on a PLA is something that I think would be a big mistake by this body.

It'd be a big mistake in passing up a tool that has been proven to help address economic inequality, and that's unions and working class union labor.

But it truly is wrong and incorrect to say that voting against the PLA is not anti-union.

The moment to show up for workers is now, and I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Hughes.

Representative Weathers.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I think this evening I will be voting yes on this item.

And the reason is because of the um pre-apprenticeship program.

Um I hear the whole sales pitch of serving underserved youth and um making economic um equality.

My concern is sometimes people sell you one thing, and then in reality, something different takes place.

Um if anybody knows anything about me thus far, I'm a type of person to hold your feet to the fire, and I hold you accountable.

Um I will be driving by some of these construction sites and taking pictures.

And if I have to, I'll put in a fix-it ticket.

They know me upstairs.

I am the queen of fix it tickets.

And I will be saying, this is not equality.

This is not what I voted yes for.

You promised me that you were going to help underserve youth, and that's not what I'm seeing.

When I drive around Stanford and I'm looking at these construction sites with a with the um with the pre-apprentip, and that's not the type of children I'm seeing participating.

Don't sell me one thing and I vote yes, and then you implement a whole nother thing.

I don't appreciate it.

So whoever's in charge of this, all these non-from-profits, did you say they're gonna be doing the recruitment and the management of these youth?

I'm holding you accountable.

And do not favor one particular minority either.

Because we say, oh, but we have minority youth.

Which minority?

And I think you guys know what I'm talking about.

I want to see some, I'm gonna say some black children out there.

I want to see some African American youth benefiting from what transitioning over to union jobs, getting wages, getting pensions and benefits.

So they can hopefully provide a good life for themselves and their families.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weathers.

Representative Delacruz.

Uh thank you, Chair Shaw.

Uh President Scho.

First, let me last time I looked, I paid taxes to the state as well as to the city.

So how this is funded, there is a tax implication, no matter who's paying for it.

Uh initially, I had the same concerns, which I still have that others have about the cost implications of the PLA.

However, I see the community benefit of the apprenticeship programs.

And in the final analysis, there is a safety valve, because if the bids for each of the 30, 40 packages with and with the PLA come in, and the results are not what expected, then the package will be rebid with other PLA.

So there is that safety valve that uh prevents uh you know an excessive cost for an event package.

And with that safety valve, uh, I'm okay.

I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Delacruz, Representative Hill.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chairman.

Uh I'm speaking in support of voting for the PLA jobs.

Uh I have not had the luxury in my life of understanding uh major building projects.

But for 50 years, I have walked with people, and most of them have been marginalized people.

People who wanted an opportunity and found the door closed.

35 years ago, I walked with the workers from the nursing homes and from the hospitals.

They were unionized.

I left this community for a few years and returned.

And people actually greeted me on the street and hugged me for the support that I gave them because they were able to send this children to school.

They were able to buy their first home, many of them in middle age.

This is not an expenditure in my view, but an investment.

And there are a lot of young people of all colors and all religions, and that's what I like about the United States of America.

We don't always live up to our creed, but at least we've declared our creed to be a nation where your religion doesn't matter or your race doesn't matter.

And I think that we have to be very careful not to slide down the path uh in our own ethnic interest to destroy the bigger vision.

And I would ask everyone uh on this board to please consider voting for in and in favor of the PLA as an investment in our community and in all of our citizens.

Thank you.

I yield, man.

Thank you, representative Hill.

Uh representative Beckham.

Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening.

Um, I came in tonight with a hard no um for this vote, but after hearing all sides, and I also have the same concerns that representative weathers spoke about as well.

I just need to be clear that there's gonna be oversight over what they're promising because so many times this has happened.

I think this would be a great opportunity for the disenfranchised communities.

But who's get who's watching who's making sure who's dotting the I's and who's crossing the T's.

Um, if that can be guaranteed that it's gonna happen, or if there can be a subcommittee of maybe some representatives or or a uh community subcommittee to make sure this happens for, then maybe I can do a hard yes.

Right now I'm neutral, I'm torn, I'm in the middle, but I do have those concerns as well.

So if there was a little more guarantee, it would be a definite yes for me.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Beckham.

Representative Sanford.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I I agree with I think what um Clerk Johnson and Representative uh Finkel and stuff were saying.

I don't have a lot of prepared remarks, I'm just kind of have some bullet points, so just bear with me for about 30 seconds.

I I think what I've heard a lot though, too, because we don't have really anything in hard writing, is is a lot of optimism.

And I've heard from some of the reps, you know, we we we have confidence in this, we we believe in this, we we hope that this will happen and we have all these grand ideas of what we think is gonna be the the end result.

And I in my big point, and I don't know if this has been stated yet, is that you know, when I was campaigning the last couple of times, you know, my my concern and the things I've been trying to address with my constituents is just the affordability and bringing costs down in general in the city.

And I think that is where my take on this is that if by removing the PLA element out of this contract and it opens it up to a little bit more competition to bring the cost down, then that's my responsibility.

And if a union shop wins it because they went back and everyone went back and sharpened their pencil a little bit and came in a little bit more competitive, then God bless them.

And and they won and then and and they won fair and square.

And if it's I I don't understand, you know, we've got 20 or 30 packages out there to be is it 20 or is it 30?

I mean, we're we're not even uh that's a big swing.

And so, you know, what's the right number?

It's two or three people.

Well, why not five or six?

Let's let's open it up a little bit, and if we can get you know some competition, because now these two people know that they've got more competition, they're gonna have to, you know, go back and recalculate some numbers, then that's just our job as as reps as it's our fiduciary responsibility to make sure that you know we're taking this thing seriously.

It's it's a lot of money.

So I understand the the concerns, I understand the the sentiment.

I understand that I'm just coming back from a purely financial responsibility of of what I feel like my obligation is for that I yield.

Thanks.

Thank you, representative Sanford, representative Camp Rally for the second time.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I just just want to remind everybody that the city itself is bringing this forward.

Um, the city who is paid to be here and study these things, you know, and make sure that these projects that are spending millions of dollars are done correctly.

Um the other thing is that I'm hearing a lot of representatives saying that this is not union versus non-union.

And that in part is true because a non-union shop can compete for this, right?

So so in part that's true.

But if we don't vote, if we in a in a blue city with a Democratic mayor and a 40-body democratic board of reps, don't vote for unions now, then when do we vote for them?

Like when does this happen?

Unions are declining in this country, and along with those unions declining, so is the middle class.

I hear people arguing that the free market is God, but the free market has led this country also without guardrails in place to make sure that workers are being treated fairly, has led us down a path to not having a middle class.

And that's not okay.

Um if the city thought it could orchestrate uh having all of these uh training things that the union is gonna provide, then the city would have done it without the unions.

Um so that argument for me is not a good one.

Um I think that bringing costs down, the concept of bringing costs down at the expense of workers, is not doing our constituents any great favor.

It's not doing the city a great favor, it's not doing the state a great favor, and it is harming our country.

Um the other thing is that if if if we have a PLA and that increases costs so much, why would anyone that is non-union shop be afraid to compete against that?

I I don't understand this concept.

Um, wouldn't that make it easier for them to compete?

Uh and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camp Rally.

There's a few more first time speakers, so we're gonna go to them and then we'll go to the other.

So representative Graham, next thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that.

Uh President Shaw, excuse me.

So I'm just gonna uh start with a story.

Um my dad, who was born and raised uh here and who went to Stanford High School, and by the way, he was the wrestling champion for the state and gymnastics, but uh he also went to right technical school for plumbing.

So back in the early in the 80s, he worked for a lot of the construction companies, FD Rich, and he helped construct uh Pitney Bow's headquarters and so forth and so on in our neighborhood.

But um I see a lack when we're talking about the PLAs.

My only concern right now is safety.

Um, you know, on the South End, I've been there for over 40 something years.

I watched all those buildings go up under BLT, and there were a lot of safety issues, I feel, because they used um quote unquote cheap labor.

And um they didn't uh you know use the labor from the unions, and that causes um a safety hazard for our residents.

So my only concern I'm in favor of the PLA because I also want uh the the uh people in the community to benefit from having opportunity to work, but we have to also if we're gonna approve something like that, we have to continue on and look at every aspect of what's going on with the project and regulate it and um approve things or or not approve them based on what's going on because we're putting up buildings left and right, but you know, we don't know who's building these buildings, and we don't know if they're qualified.

And I understand there are apprenticeship programs, but again, we want to use qualified individuals for construction projects as much as we can.

So um I yield.

I just wanted to say that my concern after seeing the uh roof of the pool come down at one of the buildings that was practically brand new.

I am definitely concerned about construction.

And we have also other issues with buildings that are brand new.

We have an issue with the building right here on Atlantic Street on the corner of Atlantic and Tressor, where they uh constantly go without water because there's an issue with the building.

So it may look shiny and in brand new, but they're not functioning the way that they should, and I yield.

Thank you, representative Graham representative Goldberg, followed by representative Adams.

Oh well, I guess I am gonna talk about this.

I had originally not intended to.

So I'm gonna free associate for a few moments.

I know you're all excited to hear that.

Um what I hear happening in this room right now is two of our core principles are in conflict.

The first principle is we do not want to burden our taxpayers with more costs than they should have to deal with.

That's important to those of us that represent older neighborhoods where we have a lot of retirees.

When I was out campaigning, I had several people indicate to me that they didn't know if they were gonna be able to continue to live in Westover because they could no longer afford their property taxes.

So that's the first core principle we're dealing with is how do we respect those that helped us build where we are today by not overburdening them?

The second core principle that we have in conflict is our commitment to fair labor.

Now, you can call that unionized labor whatever, but the fact of the matter is we're committed to fair labor.

So this is the problem that the Democratic Party in a blue city, whatever that means, has today.

I don't know.

Go ahead.

Uh those online, I have lost audio.

Okay, hold on, hang on a second.

Hang on a second.

It might be just uh the mic.

Hold on.

Can you want to try that one?

Uh representative Goldberg, see if that works.

Does it work now?

Can you hear now?

Uh yes.

Now we go.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead with that.

So my last free associating thought before I was so rudely interrupted by technology, was that I don't know what it means to be a blue city or a 40 Democratic board.

You know, the Democratic Party is a huge tent, right?

We have everybody from AOC to Joe Mansion.

Like what are we talking about here?

It's not being a good or a bad Democrat is are you being a good or a bad fiduciary?

And a fiduciary is somebody who puts the other person's views and needs ahead of your own.

That's what you are as a politician.

Have you forgotten that?

And we don't want to, you know, we're we're making judgments about who's good and who's bad based on things that are reasonably in conflict that we can reasonably disagree in, disagree about.

And that's what frustrates me right now.

I'm not gonna tell you how I'm gonna vote.

You'll wait and you'll see.

But what I want you to do is to stop being mean to each other and saying you're not a good this or a that because you don't see it the way I do.

What you need to do is see it the way the people you represent see it.

That's what you need to do, and that's my charge to you.

I yield.

Thank you, representative Goldberg, representative Adams.

Yes, I I wasn't gonna talk about um the subject, but uh I'm I'm in agreement with everybody else of support the PLA.

And I think this is a great opportunity to change um to train our youth.

Um, and I would rather have youth um go through the apprentice program to be trained um to get ready uh for the the remaining school in Stanford uh to be built, and they would be trained and ready to um form the job.

Um not all these contractors um have trained workers.

I mean, a lot of them go down to the day labor site, pick up labors um and then have them on the job and train try to find something for them to do on the job until the job is finished, then they go to the next site.

But this this way here, we would have trained workers that for the next five to ten years, whatever it takes to build our schools out, they'll be ready to go on the job and perform and and build our school a lot cheaper and a lot faster.

And just put me in the mind of when you take your car to the mechanic shop.

Do you want to take your car to a mechanic shop where you got trained mechanics?

Or do you want um somebody to get somebody from the daily labor spot to come work on your car?

So if we train these people to work on these schools and they are able to go in the job and perform at a high level, that'll be better than any contractors picking up day labors to build our schools.

So I 100% um support this opportunity for the POA and also for the training program, would make Stanford workers um better in the future.

And um, I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Adams representative Walston.

Okay.

Um if you if you had a family member who worked the union, you would understand why some of us are voting yes for the PLA.

I am one of them.

And um, I have been on the receiving end of non you non-union contractors, and they pick up the people off the street.

And so with this PLA, we have to look at the children.

We have to invest in our future.

Every child is not going to college, they're not interested in going to college and incurring that college bill.

Nothing beats on the job training, nothing beats it.

Especially with the old school, as they're getting older, you know, uh, they get older, the younger people, their their strength is there.

So it's it's a balance going on.

And you'll see the younger people as they start growing in Stanford.

Hopefully, you know, these apartments won't, you know, hinder them from getting a house.

But I think someone said it builds the middle class, it helps with the middle class, or it helps the youth.

I'm just talking about the youth, so they can look forward to something.

Because right now it's hard in Stanford for them to look forward to anything with the cost of everything.

So that's what my take is.

I will be voting for the PLA.

My uncle, he was in the union, and I know what the union could do for people.

And like I said, I was on the receiving end.

Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

So I just encourage everyone to please reconsider the ones who who are not with the PLA.

And don't let how do you say it?

Uh it cost you to be cheap.

Or you pay double when you try to be cheap.

And I rest.

Thank you, Representative Walston, representative Shaw for the second time.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Uh three things.

First of all, just a little history.

You know, from the time of FDR, the Democratic Party has been a coalition of three fundamental elements.

And when LBJ signed the recently decimated voting rights act, we lost the South.

So we were left with organized labor and liberals.

And the simple fact that I sit here before a body of 40 Democrats and zero Republicans, yet I find myself in the position of defending organized labor is to be honest with you.

It's uh I find it to be stunning.

Um I just also want to clear up one other little uh thing that came up earlier, uh, which is that the the notion of discussing 20 to 30 packages in this upcoming project is some kind of vagary.

Uh that's really not the case.

We're still in the planning stage.

And then until that bid program is fully developed, you just don't know exactly how many packages there will be.

I I might also add that I'm a proud union member, my wife is a proud union member.

We received three union pensions.

Um and I spent my life bidding on projects, not necessarily construction projects, but I I certainly understand that.

Uh finally, and this is just for information purposes, and and just for the information of anyone who fears that they're being sold a bill of goods.

As a reminder, I just like to read a couple of passages from the resolution because I sort of feel like that's been lost over the course of this debate.

So if you'll just indulge me for a couple of minutes.

We have a minute and a half.

So I'm not going to read the whole thing.

The Trades Count one, the Trades Council will make good faith efforts to achieve project hiring goals of Stanford residents, minorities, women, veterans, and apprentices who reside in Stanford.

Two, to assist the Trades Council in achieving these goals, the city will hire a third-party entity with demonstrated experience in recruiting Stanford construction workers and in delivering apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship, and workforce readiness programs for Stanford residents.

That entity will recruit no fewer than 100 program participants requiring Stanford residency, prioritizing disadvantaged youth and make good faith efforts to achieve hiring goals of 60 percent minorities, 40 percent women, and 10 percent uh veterans.

Beginning in the fall of 2026 and annually thereafter, during the project's duration, the council shall hold a career fair aimed at recruiting Stanford residents to registered apprenticeship programs.

It shall also enlist the assistance of the Connecticut State Building Trades Training Institute in this recruitment.

And uh and I challenge Representative Finkel to to demonstrate how some sort of non-union apprenticeship program is more effective than the uh certified training programs that almost every building trades union offers.

Uh and with that I yield.

Thank you, representative show, representative Weinberg for the second time.

Uh thank you.

Um I don't have the lived experience of others here that uh that might be contributing to their skepticism about the pre-apprenticeship program.

But I do have considerable experience holding people accountable for their promises and commitments.

Uh I would be honored to join Representatives Weathers and Beckham and any others on this board in holding the administration accountable for their promises concerning the pre-apprentip.

And with that I yield.

Thank you, representative Weinberg.

Um, representative Hughes for the second time.

Thank you, President Shaw.

And I actually want to echo what Representative Weinberg said, and I want to thank Representative Beckham and Representative Weathers for their comment.

Um I would love if after if this passes after at the appropriate time, we have a review item uh that would make clear where we would all have the opportunity to talk with the administration about our expectations of the pre-apprentice program.

But you know, without the PLA, there would be no pre-apprentip.

So therefore I uh encourage everyone to uh support the PLA, and I truly want to thank those who you know came in thinking they were going to vote no, but have uh listened to the arguments and are now in favor.

And I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Thank you, representative Hughes.

Uh representative Vathers for the second time, followed by representative Gardner.

Thank you, my friends.

I yield representative Gardner.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Um, first thing, uh, we heard the assertion that uh non-union labor is not quality, just a few from a few representatives.

And I think that is honestly horribly offensive to some of the some of the non-union workers and uh you know professionals we have working in our city and living here.

I think that's absolutely no evidence to suggest that's the case uh to start with.

And then secondly, just to address uh Representative Beckham, um, who was asking for some guarantees around this with the PLA and what would be delivered and what the city would be achieved would be getting out of it.

Uh the answer is there are no guarantees.

We don't haven't even seen the full PLA document from start to finish.

We haven't seen the contract, but nobody knows exactly what's part of it.

So uh to answer your question, uh Representative Brecken, there is no guarantee at all.

And uh, and as Representative Shaw said when he read that excerpt from the from the PLA memorandum, it's all good faith-based.

So a lot of these elements which we're expecting, these additional add-ons, the you know, the pre-apprenticeship program and things like that, it's all based around a principle of good faith.

It's not actually contractually obligated by the contractor to be delivered.

And they could not deliver it, and the city has no recourse whatsoever.

There's no way for us to cancel the contract if they don't deliver the pre-apprentipogram.

There's no recourse at all.

Um finally, the two other two other topics which we can talk about the pre-apprentipog program and the workers.

The pre-apprentipogram, people are saying that that can be only be delivered if there's a PLA.

No PLA, no pre-apprenticeship.

That is just not true.

Absolutely.

Some of these non-union contracting outfits are enormous companies with their own apprenticeship programs, which we can draw upon to suggest that a massive contractor, a non-union contractor doesn't have its own hiring pipeline, is absolutely outrageous.

These companies are hiring people non-stop.

And uh and they absolutely have apprenticeship programs, which we could write into our contracts as something that we necessitate for this contract.

And finally, the workers.

As we know, if the PLA goes ahead and we we are forced to hire a union shop for some of these workers, if the need for more workers arises, say for example, we don't have enough electricians in our school project, we don't have enough in the local area, we have to get more of them.

Well, as stipulated by the union contract, we have to get those workers from union halls.

And you know what?

It might well be that those workers end up taking the bus down from Boston where their union hall is to come work in Stanford to uh to complete this project because we don't have enough electricians.

Whereas a non-union shop, because they're not obligated to hire from a union hall and they can hire from everywhere, can just put a job advert on indeed for electricians in Stanford and just get local talent.

Uh surely that's a far better solution for the city.

Representative Shaw, you said that we don't have a labor market for for the trades in Stanford.

Maybe that's true.

Maybe it isn't.

I don't know.

Um, but surely actually putting job ads and building our labor market in our city to develop that is the first step, is it not?

If we have the union, we're just gonna bring people down from wherever they are in their union.

You know, you have to put ads out if you want to build a job market.

I feel that's the first step.

Thank you so much, I yield.

Thank you, Representative Gardner.

Um Representative Adams, did you wanted to speak for the second time?

Or is your hand up from last time?

All right.

Representative Adams.

Okay, we'll come back.

Uh representative Finkel for the second time.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I think there's a misconception.

Uh when you're talking about a municipal contract, and you're talking about municipal construction, you're talking about what they call prevailing rate.

That's the wages that the contractors have to pay at a minimum.

And that rate is not only what they get in their pocket for how many dollars they earn per hour, but it's also the equivalent of what the union fringes are.

So the contractors that would be bidding on these types of projects would be bidding using prevailing rate.

So they're paying their contracting employees the same or in some cases more than what the union workers are getting at scale.

I hear people talking about non-union contractors as if they really can't perform the work.

At least that's the impression I'm getting, listening to some of the discussion here.

If it's that important to have a PLA and to have union contractors, why wasn't there a PLA on West Hill High School?

It's the largest construction school in the state of Connecticut.

It went out with multiple bid packages.

They had union and non-union contractors bidding in those bid packages.

And union contractors got some uh bid packages.

It's not unusual on a non-PLA job to have union and non-union contractors.

It's also not mandated that you can't have your pre-apprentice program and your pipeline only because you have a union PLA contract in place.

If you're hiring somebody to organize it and to do the recruiting, that could be done with it as a union contractor mandate or not.

In addition, AGC, the Associated General Contractors.

Now that's the association for union contractors.

They did a survey of their own members.

And in the survey, they asked.

You have 30 seconds.

Okay, thank you.

88% responded PLAs would raise costs compared to 0% responding responding that it would lower cost.

78 responded it would lengthen the time to complete projects.

78 responded it would be harder to find workers and subcontractors than I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Field for the second time.

Thank you.

That they're all similar, or the implication.

But the fact is that union construction jobs have 25% fewer lost workdays incidents, 23% fewer lost workday claims from musculoskeletal injuries, 16% fewer claims for critical or severe injuries.

Union work sites are 19% less likely to have an OSHA violation and 34% fewer violations per inspection compared to non-union job sites, which are credit credited with violations 65% of the time, and 77% of construction fatalities occurred on non-usion non-union sites in 2023.

I think there is an enormous difference and gap when you use union workers, and there are many, many studies.

Anyone can see that for themselves, and I encourage everyone to do the research.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative feel uh Cliff Johnson.

Thanks.

I'll be very quick because I think most of what I wanted to say has already been said in the past half hour or so in the second round of remarks.

Um but the the main point I want to make now is that I very much agree with what Representative Weathers and I believe it was Beckham, if I recall, shared around the need to enforce uh what we're discussing here.

I think that's critical because I I actually personally discount most of the cost uh discussion.

All those studies you you can largely buy studies, right?

You can find a study that says it makes it more expensive, less expensive.

I I personally discount most of that.

But I think what is the most valuable is the local workforce development.

And uh as a reminder, what we are approving tonight is not a PLA.

It's an approval for a third-party company, ONG, to negotiate a PLA on our behalf.

And so that is currently we have absolutely no mechanism for enforcement uh outside of hoping ONG keeps our preferences in mind when they negotiate this.

Uh with that, I yield.

Thank you, Clerk Johnson.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Seeing none, we will take this by roll call vote.

Representative Adams or um Gilbright or Beckham.

Can you see the screen with the voting?

Uh can you guys see that screen online?

Yes, yes, yes.

Yeah.

Okay, perfect.

Hold on a minute.

Hold on.

Okay, so we can't see it here, but okay, hold on.

The other screen thank you.

Sorry to share on tries to share.

Can you guys see it now?

Can you guys see the voting screen?

Yes.

No, it was on before.

It was on before it was removed.

We used to be able to.

The last time it came on screen, it was from the last vote in.

Now we can see it, but it already got an X in yes.

37 to 20.

Well, as long as you can see a screen, it's fine.

We can no they can see.

Can you see it now?

Yes, but it's saying um X in yes.

38 to 2.

Yeah, but it's a wrong item.

Okay, just but we'll just get to the right tab, and then you'll see the right thing, hopefully.

I know it's getting late, folks.

Sorry.

There we go.

Can you see that now, Representative Adams?

The correct one?

Yes, yes, we good.

Yes, excellent.

Now we can definitely do a roll call vote.

All right.

Uh this is a vote for chess item uh 32.005.

Um representative Adams.

How would you vote?

Yes, Representative Beckham?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau?

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Yes.

Representative Camparelli.

Yes.

Representative Dela Cruz.

Yes.

Representative Didalo?

Yes.

Representative Dorsey.

Yes.

Representative Field.

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner?

No.

Representative Gilbride?

Yes.

Representative Goldberg.

No.

Representative Graham.

Pass.

Representative Gross.

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

I myself am a no.

Representative LePine.

Representative McEwen.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

Yes.

Representative Politia.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price.

Yes.

Representative Salais.

See, okay.

Representative Sanford.

No.

President Shaw.

No.

Representative Shore.

Yes.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestri.

No.

Representative Walston.

Yes.

Representative Weathers.

Yes.

Sorry.

Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

Representative Yeager.

Yes.

Representative Zachary?

Yes.

All right.

Let me go back to Representative Beckham.

Would you like to vote?

My answer is no.

My vote is no.

No.

Thank you.

And Representative Graham, would you like to vote?

Yes.

All right.

And then Representative Hyatt.

Would you like to vote?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

My tally.

I have 28 yeses.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven no's.

Does that match for you, Barbara?

All right.

Did we miss anybody?

Okay.

So there's 28 yeses and 11 no's.

So that item passes.

And that concludes my report.

Thank you, Representative Sylvistry.

Good job today.

Moving on to Transportation Committee.

Chair Weirs.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Transportation Committee met on uh Monday, April 20th at 6 30 p.m.

by webinar.

We have one item.

Uh it's item T32.003, an ordinance for public hearing and final adoption.

Uh that meeting was a public hearing to dissolve the Stanford Transit District per section 59-8 of the code of ordinances.

It passed to the committee 700, and I'd like to move this item.

There's a motion to approve item number 232.003.

Okay.

Um was passed.

Um since it's a consent, is anybody planning to take it off consent or vote?

No, on this item.

Okay.

Uh seeing none, let's take this by voice vote.

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

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

The next is the approval of the um April 6, 2026 regular uh board meeting minutes.

Do I have a motion?

Is that a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, the minutes are approved.

Um would like to say a few words.

Thank you, Madam President.

I've been on this is my ninth year on this board, and I have to say that I am honored, thrilled, so impressed with how this board just handled such a controversial issue, an issue with multiple points of view, clear sides, the homework, the preparation, the respectful debate.

This is the board of representatives that uh I'm just very proud of to be part of this uh this board with all of you.

This was very well done.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Majority Leader Morrison.

With that, a motion to adjourn.

So move.

Second.

All in favor.

Okay.

The meeting is agenda at 9 57 p.m.

Thanks, everyone.

Have a good night.