Thank you everybody for coming.

I am going to call for this meeting of the legislative and rules committee of the board of representatives this May 26, 2026 at 7.04 p.m.

I know that I've seen attendance representatives blank, Boudreau, Hyde Lepine, myself, Weinberg, representative of the committee, representatives Johnson, Walston.

And I see Representative Hughes as well.

So thank you.

And Representative Stone.

All right.

So with eight out of nine members of the committee present, I declare that we do have a quorum.

Also make a note for the record that Vice Chair Camperelli isn't attendance, but she's stepped out.

But I'll make a note when she arrives.

Do I have a motion to approve this resolution?

So we've s I will thank you.

I hear a motion from Representative Boudreau and a second from Representative Blank.

Two invites four invitees.

We have attorney Chris Delaselva, Director Matt Keonis.

And we also have Luke Buttonwise.

Look, please let me know if I mispronounced these names by the way.

Luke Buttonweiser.

Buttonweezer, but you did it the normal way people mispronounce it, so it's okay.

Fair enough.

Our apologies.

And is Mr.

Feely on?

And I see Ms.

Ryan Feely as well.

Point of order.

Yes.

Before hearing from the guests, we should be holding the public hearing.

Yes.

Thank you.

So I understand that so we are holding a public hearing on this item tonight.

I have I understand that there are no members of the public who have signed up to speak in advance.

But in the event that there are any members of the public, either in person, I see there's one online.

Are there any in person that wish to speak?

All righty.

You've got the floor and you've got three minutes.

Oh, there we go.

Sorry, I had to unmute.

I was expecting so quickly.

Um hello, Gina Calabries.

I live in the cove, Seaside Avenue, in the corner of Cove Road, and I understand parking, you know, but uh school buses need to go somewhere.

Um I do have one question that maybe the guests can answer.

It's my understanding, and I know Mr.

Feely is the finance person for the board of for SPS.

Um, it's my understanding we have a private bus company.

Um, so I was just curious, and I know other people are as to why the city is the lessee of this property for parking the buses.

And um another uh another comment I have is that I know that many residents they might not be here, but there's been a buzz on you know some social media platforms and in the neighborhood about the buses, bringing noise, pollution, and traffic.

Um, those are concerns that I think many on this call, many members of our govern local government just described to NIMBYism, which um, you know, if it were in your backyard, you know, you would probably be the NIMBY then.

But I think we do need to have some context for this.

There's going to be the bus parking lot, and not far away, I believe the zoning board approved a warehouse with the truckloading dock.

So when we are putting these kinds of activities in a residential neighborhood, we need to be the city needs to be um aware of some of the impact and um take steps to mitigate those impacts, such as air quality, traffic noise.

So I I'm looking forward to hearing some ideas for that.

Um, one of the ways to mitigate air quality is of course by maintaining open space, green when we when we talk about other projects in the neighborhood, um, such as changing Courtland Park.

Um, I think it's a concern if we're going to lose trees there or if we're not adding trees.

And finally, this administration, you know, the mayor a few years ago um had some run-ins with the Glenbrook neighborhood.

And for a long time residents there feel like they're not heard and that the concerns are dismissed one minute left.

Okay.

That they're the perception at least by many people on the east side is that their concerns are not taken seriously.

They're not heard um and their preferences are disregarded.

And there was a public national conference in Chicago some years ago.

I can even provide the recording where the the mayor referred to the neighborhood as NIMBY's um and I think that we're seeing some impact on that neighborhood that aren't so great.

People aren't here speaking out and I think it's really incumbent on board of representative members from that district district seven district eight other nearby districts to really look out for the residents of the neighborhood who may not be here to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you Ms.

Calvary are there any other members of the public that wish to speak Mr.

Adams you got three notes so uh thank you for the so uh hi Brady Dave Adams uh Glenbrook um I just had uh a little bit of a procedural question here uh I had a lot of my answer my questions answered when I asked questions online which is good uh thank you um representative um but uh you know according to uh the charter section or nine section nine uh dash 7.1 as is referenced in nine uh dash 7.2 uh bravo uh quote such public hearings shall take place at the same meeting the committees uh consider uh considering the motion uh on for first consideration uh unfortunately the board of finance held this item so I'm not really sure why this committee is actually considering this item at this time or why this public hearing is being held now before the Board of Finance has their conversation which would obviously inform anybody that came to speak uh and you as well um so that's a question of mine uh the other question that I had was uh why doesn't this second property have an actual address um there was some confusion uh it's being labeled as zero Portland Avenue um but it's saying being said it's adjacent to 338 Cortland Avenue and while you can go and reference the the publicly available document online in the legislative record uh that document police document does it has a map but the map is cut off and so it's very difficult to ascertain whether or not we are talking about the same address or not or whether or not there was an uh a further addition to that map that shows a different property so uh that the kind of clarification would be great I think that you know transparency is is uh extremely important in these cases uh the other thing is uh I understand this is real estate to transaction I understand the board of finance held their discussions uh in executive session in regards to the the transaction itself uh however the um immense amount of redactions just really shows a lack of transparency in uh um you know something that is gonna cost the taxpayers a certain amount of money and what kind of money are we talking about you know uh has there been uh an appropriation that I'm aware of that was passed by anyone that would allow for such negotiations uh what is it that the residents can look to as to how much money we're talking about spending here and those are my comments and I hope you uh have a wonderful evening thank you for your time thank you Ms.

Rams all righty are there any other members of the public either in person or online that wish to speak all right seeing none I'm going ahead and close this public hearing on item LR 32.01 eight and move on to discussion as we've already got a motion and a second um some somebody who's on the watch machines yes so director keonis I don't know if you have any opening remarks with respect to this item that you'd like to share now I understand that there are questions that the committee may have that might be better asked in executive session but if you could give at least for the public a brief overview to the extent you can share details that would be that'd be helpful yes I think uh it'd be appropriate uh for me to ask attorney uh Dela Selva to just read uh the terms for the record um and for the public I think this was um mostly captured in in the memo so uh I think to kind of set the tone for uh what we are discussing in terms of the lease agreement um I'll ask him to to just read those into the record thank you Chris you there.

Sorry I I was muted can everyone hear me well yes good evening this is Chris Delasalva assistant court counsel for the city um and you know I just want to put out there I'm not sure why uh my memo to the mayor that that was subsequently sent to the planning board and the board of finance and the border rents was redacted that that wasn't done by the city's legal department um so I'm happy to to canvas the terms of the lease with all of you if if that's helpful uh and and for the most part I'm going to just uh recite what I've already included in that memo uh so that there's no you know uh really a conflict I guess between what I uh what I've already put out there so hold on I I gotta I'm trying to uh switch screens here okay so uh the city intends to um to lease this this parcel of land it's actually two parcels which may answer uh one of the questions that was asked uh during the public section it's it's zero Courtland Avenue and 33 Courtland Avenue the intended use is to park school buses and you know anything that's incidental to that um the the total parcel is just under three acres it's about 2.93 that's what it is on the on the city's records uh zero Courtland Avenue is 1.53 acres and 338 Courtland Avenue is 1.4 acres um the the initial term of the lease is 15 years and it begins in you know july one and the initial rent uh is six hundred thousand dollars a year and the rent goes up two and a half percent each year there are uh available option years they are you know by mutual agreement of the parties though so when the initial 15 years expires if if both parties agree they they can extend uh the rent for two additional five year options so it's a total possible term of 25 years um and again each year goes up two and a half percent the city is responsible for everything it's a what I would call a triple net lease we pay all the utilities the costs the taxes I understand that's a bit strange that we're paying taxes that are owed to the city but that's what we agreed to do, and uh we're gonna make that work the the land, the property owners, the respective property owners have agreed to make certain site improvements before the city takes possession.

There's there was a business there.

Uh there may still be um so they're going to remove all of the the material and then equipment from their business from the site.

Um, and then you know, if if it's economically desirable, the the uh the owners will also make certain improvements to the site uh at the city's request after the city takes possession.

The city has to do some improvements like paving and lighting and fencing and line striping, and and we may have our our you know future bus company do that.

We may want to do it ourselves, or we may ask the owner to do it, depending on whoever will do it uh at the lowest price.

There are no broker fees.

Well, there are broker fees, but the owners are paying them all.

They're paying the city's broker fee.

Uh the city does have a right of first refusal to purchase the property.

It doesn't necessarily have an option to buy, it's a right of first refusal.

If the if the owners want to sell the property later, they would do so, subject to our lease.

But we do have an option to purchase the property, as long as we're willing to meet the terms of the other buyer.

As I said before, we're going to uh cover property taxes, but but if the property owner should happen to owe property taxes or delinquent on property taxes for any other properties they may own in the city, we have a right to set off that amount uh by way of a reduction in the rent.

Um and that that is the those are the terms that I included in my uh memo to the mayor and and to these boards.

So what whatever may have been redacted, that's what it should have said.

So uh if there's you know any other information, I you know, I I can provide it.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um, I can also uh you know, while I'm at it, address another question that came from the public about the matter being held by the Board of Finance.

That did happen, but it was subsequently approved.

The board of finance took it up again uh and in fact very shortly after they held it.

So it was taken up again on the night of May 18th when the Board of Finance set the mill rate and it was approved that this lease was approved that night um unanimously the vote of six zero zero.

So no board meetings had been skipped.

And uh that gets us to here where we're seeking your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, uh Director Callis, did you have any further comments that you want to share now?

Or uh yeah, I'll just uh speak to kind of the city's involvement.

Um so the uh board of ed uh is ultimately responsible for the selection um process involving uh bus services for the district.

Um this um item before you comes after uh a several year um effort in conjunction with the board of ed staff uh to look at alternative uh parking options for uh the school bus fleet.

Um the uh primary uh objective was to identify uh city controlled uh location that would allow for the board of ed to facilitate a competitive process in the selection of a uh future or um uh potential uh school bus service.

Um so we had engaged uh the city's real estate broker and Newmark, uh represented this evening by uh Tim Rourke, um, who uh ultimately helped to uh identify location um based off of the the spec and description we had had offered um and have gone through uh several months of negotiations um with through our our legal department with uh the property owner, which is uh what brings us before you this evening.

Uh so happy to to answer questions.

Um I know that uh this is regarding a uh real estate transaction.

So uh there there may be um portions of our discussion better uh meant for executive session.

Um, however, I'd defer to the chair if uh that's the direction that the committee would like to pursue uh at this time, or if there are other questions that we can answer in public forum fair enough thank you very much directors I think uh yeah I think uh that the questions that the committee may have would be better suited in executive session and in that time we can also better identify which questions may be more appropriate to address in public.

So this time I'd like to solicit a motion to enter executive session for the purpose of sorry what was it folks.

So I heard it was quick.

So I hear a motion in a second um so I'm gonna do this one by roll call uh because we need two thirds vote of those presents in voting um so I'm going to begin that's my there we are all right uh representative blank yes representative yes uh yes representative yes representative highett yes uh representative yes representative stone yes weinberg yes and I myself only yes right all right with that uh we are going to finally ask members of the public to step out momentarily we get a holler I will set up a room for the online individuals to join you under your ID here on the and uh just a question to the chair uh if I can if I can request uh in executive session to be joined uh by our uh senior transportation planner um and Ryan feely and uh Tim Rourke uh the real estate broker for the city along with uh Chris Delaselva got it thank you director canus we'd be happy to invite those folks that you enumerated Tim is last name oh I'm sorry R-O-R-I-C-K correct uh yes ma'am oh yes I'll add him and then of course Ms.

Montal is I'm sure you already were planning also the the exitio members that'll tend us you can you shut there too if often then so much uh Ms.

Montal I can't see on my end whether or not we're in executive session.

Okay you guys are supposed to be in that room and I am going to see my way out there's a Renee um there's a you are in room one and that just has the people that are listed it has uh attorney Delaselva ex official member Walston committee member Hyatt Luke Matt yourself President Shaw Ryan feely Ryan Hughes Scott Stone and Tim the realtor and it is I've hit open.

I'm also it looks like it's moving people now I think I'm in when I shouldn't be in okay the main room should still be myself and it should be a few members of the public I think that's a very good idea.

What is it?

Oh, Oh, yeah.

So we we concluded the executive session.

Thank you for your patience.

And also wanted for the record to announce or to state that the representatives in attendance were representatives Blank, Boudreau, Camper, Camparelli, excuse me, Hughes, Hyatt, Johnson, Lepine, Morrison, Shaw, Stone, Weinberg, and myself.

And then also in attendance, we had invitees at Ryan Feely, Chris Delaselba, Luke Buttonweaser, Matt Jonas, and Tom Roarick, and that the executive session was held for the purpose of discussing uh the lease of real property where publicity of the terms of the lease may adversely impact the city's position to negotiate said terms.

And with that, we're still with a pending motion before.

Yes.

I believe we're supposed to specify the no vote for the.

You're right.

I did while I was muted.

So thank you.

And no decisions or votes were taken while in executive session.

And with that, does anybody wish to seat the floor for discussion?

Representative.

Yeah.

So just a quick question on this.

Um with the uh the Courtland Avenue site, um, there's a good number of uh dump truck routes going through that area, a lot of uh heavy vehicle traffic there.

Um so I just had a had heard concerns from residents uh regarding whether putting additional tonnage from school buses would adversely impact the road itself and the safety of the road going forward, as we've had some uh uh fatality on the road, uh I believe last year.

Sure.

Um Cortland Avenue is a uh state-owned uh state highway, um, owned and maintained by the state of Connecticut Department of Transportation.

Uh due to that, it is actually built with a thicker pavement um uh cross section than you know uh maybe a local road would be.

It's also recently rebuilt within the last 10 years with new asphalt, uh new road base, etc.

Um, so in terms of like asphalt deterioration, uh this is a heavier built road.

And then from a safety perspective, uh the board of representatives uh you all just approved in our recent uh budget capital budget improvements for safety um on Cortland Avenue as part of our vision zero action plan implementation.

Thank you, I yield.

Thank you, Representative Boudreau.

Uh, Vice Chair Camper.

Um my question is to uh Mr.

Fiely, will will this contract save the city money?

Thank you for that question.

Uh the city's lease of this property will allow the board of education to competitively bid for school bus services, uh, which will certainly I think it's fair to say save the city money in the long run, perhaps in the short run.

And and if we don't approve this contract, what do you think happening?

Without uh city control of this property, the board of education would remain um in its current uh dynamic with our provider.

Um which is disadvantageous uh in terms of competitive bid.

Thank you.

And then my second question is to um Luke.

And it is has the city done a traffic study?

Or what do we what do you anticipate happening with traffic in the area?

Yes, no, as part of uh the city's like selection of the site.

We did look at what the existing operations are from our current um provider's bus depot as well as this.

Um, you know, it's located in a manufacturing zone.

Um it doesn't butt up against any residential uh properties.

It's buffered by a commercial zone as well, um, and also bordered by some more major streets, unlike the current um operation at the current facility where buses do route down uh neighborhood uh you know residential streets.

Um so it's more aligned with uh designated truck routes like Cortland Avenue, for instance.

Thank you.

I yield thank you by streaming.

Representative Stone, you've got the floor.

Can you confirm that there would be sufficient parking for the drivers on site as opposed to in the neighborhood?

And also anything that you can talk about of potential down the road, uh switching to an electrical fleet, which would have positive impacts on both the noise concerns as well as pollution concerns.

Um related to the first item uh driver parking is incorporated as part of the uh site design site layout.

I also like to point out the site is a very close walking distance to the Metro North uh Glenbrook train station, allowing easy access for um uh drivers to take the train, as well as it's right off of ACT transit uh bus route as well, uh, which goes straight to the main uh Stanford train station and other uh routes within Stanford, giving more um not just driving options uh but uh multiple transit options for drivers as well.

And then I think I've um refer to uh Ryan or to the electric uh bus question.

Yes, thank you.

Uh there are several state regulations concerning electrification required electrification in the coming years, uh, which Stanford will work on in concert with whatever bus company um is uh is supplying our services.

Uh and so that is the long-term plan for the Stanford transportation program, whatever site uh we would be operating on.

Thank you very much, and I'll thank you, Representative Stone.

Representative Weinberg.

Uh thank you.

I wanted to just follow up on a couple of uh environmental quality life issues.

Um when the buses are in the when the buses are in the site, um are they gonna be parked with their primarily?

Will they be parked with their engines off or will they be spending meaningful time uh idling?

It is not intended for buses to be idling except for prior to starting their routes early in the morning.

In general, buses should be off when on the site.

Thank you.

And um the primary the the primary uh times of day when the buses are exiting the location and when they're re-entering the location.

This is maybe a question for uh for Luke.

Um, to what extent will that compete with peak uh driving times in uh in the uh in the major streets around there?

Um for the buses to start and access their routes, they would be most likely before the main peak hours um of traffic.

I obviously the buses would be driving on their designated appointed routes during traffic uh you know peak hours, but from the if you're asking for like a main exodus and in of buses, it would be outside of the general uh peak traffic hours.

Okay, thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Is there any other representatives that wish to seek the floor?

Representative President Charles, you have the floor.

Thank you so much.

I don't personally have a question, but I'd like to offer some of the thoughts I had as not only as a representative but as a parent.

Um I know in my time as a parent, I don't know, it'd be having kids in elementary middle school, now in high school, um, you know, being part of the parent teacher organizations you you start to deal with the uh the you know being you know responsible for having field trips for the for the schools, and I've interacted with Mr.

Feely many a times about the bus and the costs and and uh all of that related to these trips and it is it has been a um sometimes it's been hard to um hard to tell parents or even the schools to say, well, we can't afford a field trip because the buses are expensive because we don't have uh, you know, yeah, for whatever reason the buses are expensive.

So I'm finally uh glad that we're able to at least look at a you know a place and haven't been able to um get some competitive beds so we can subsidize these for our school kids because I mean there's no price to it.

Um, and I I think it's going to like in the long run, um, like um Mr.

Feeling and Director Kenya said, I think in the long run, it is in fact it is going to serve the purpose for many of those uh disadvantaged kids who are not otherwise able to afford to go on a longer field jobs because it is expensive um to be able to get the buses.

So thank you.

That's all.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Are there any other members that wish to seat the floor?

Already seeing none, um, I have uh a couple of remarks.

Um, you know, I think that um I actually live quite close uh within walking distance of where this proposed site is, and I can definitely understand the concerns with respect to the impact on traffic with respect to impact on noise pollution or other types of pollution.

Uh, and I certainly share those concerns, and I think that the responses we've heard tonight with the diligence that has been done with respect to those impacts has been satisfactory to me.

Um, I think that the for the longevity of the city with respect to its transportation.

I think that there's a lot of value that can come from positioning ourselves with that look towards the future.

Um I plan to vote in favor.

Um, and I think that uh it is it is a challenge to any neighborhood uh for this kind of proposal, but I think that it's hard to find you know suitable locations in the city generally, um, and that this one ultimately will have substantially more net positives than the net cons.

Um, already so seeing no other folks seeking the floor, let's hold this by roll call.

Uh, one moment, so it's our two dot zero eight.

Uh, just for the committee's benefit.

This is the question before the committee is approval of the resolution uh with respect to the approving the lease of 038 Corland Avenue for school bus parking.

Uh by Chair Caparelli.

How do you?

Yes.

Uh Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

Representative Le Pine, yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

And I myself am a yes.

That is nine votes in favor.

Any abstention?

Well, that's that's everybody.

That's the so.

Alrighty.

With that, the motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Um, for those that spoke in the public hearing, and also thank you for your patience while we were in executive session.

And thank you, of course, to our invitees for their assistance in working, you know, and filling our questions and helping us consider this issue.

Uh moving on to LR 32.019.

Do I have a motion to approve uh the ordinance establishing the conservation commission?

Oh, so thank you.

I have a motion with a second.

Uh, are there any members that wish to seek the floor?

Um I was gonna say some comments about the meeting that's kind of gone on the wall, so I'm thinking that I was just yes, so I think I think yes, yes, of course.

Sure, sure.

I would like to spot it with um this bill, so excuse me.

Sure.

Hi, hello.

My name is Jeanette Village Nancy.

I'm a lifelong resident of Stanford who appreciates the natural habitats and wildlife of the city.

From the cranes of Holly Pond, the hawks and deer in my backyard, suburban Turner River, Stanford.

Thank you for inviting me to speak on promoting a separate conservation commission.

The Board of Reps has the power to create so that we can protect our natural resources and open spaces.

First, I would like to thank Mr.

Closy for making the initial recommendation for a separate conservation commission while taking on the task of updating the medical regulations in 2024.

Clarify, I'm not an expert on natural resources, and I would defer any questions to Mr.

Closie.

I'm here as a concerned Stanford citizen promoting a conservation commission to protect our natural resources and open spaces that would allow for more public participation and provide a landing spot for citywide efforts within a conservation commission.

Natural resources and open space matter to the citizens of Stanford.

The comprehensive plan results are a testament of that sentence.

The public engagement of 20,000 in the person and survey and a public hearing where people came and supported preserving tree canopies and open space.

Ultimately, a core vision of Stanford being a healthy city was created among four other visions.

For the vision, Stanford will prioritize resident well-being by protecting and maintaining open spaces, expanding waterfront access, enhancing climate resilience, and supporting a low-carbon sustainable future through thoughtful environmental stewardship and investment.

Citizens also provide testimony in support of a tree ordinance.

The mayor's public workshops in 2023 and how to make Stanford a greener city, garner various recommendations from composting to night sky initiatives.

What is clearly evident after the comprehensive plan, tree ordinance testimony and workshop is that Stanford citizens care about their natural resources in open spaces, which is why the Board of Repships create a standalone commission solely dedicated to protecting them.

While this administration has prioritized sustainability and the previous Board of Representatives drafted eco-friendly ordinances, we are not guaranteed that future city administrations will be forward-thinking.

Sadly, we are also witnessing environmental federal protections being rolled back.

A separate conservation commission will promote efforts to protect our natural resources and open space in an environment of federal deregulation and defunding.

There is a lot of work to be done with limited resources, but it is important work.

The EPB is limited in their abilities to act as a conservation commission.

The sustainability coordinator position is part-time.

However, never underestimate the power of a voluntary board with passion.

In combination with the city's efforts and resources that include public engagement, a conservation commission with motivated members, and the ability to receive donations can make a difference.

The previous board asked how do we fund and find and find the resources for such an endeavor?

Ways of funding or grant applications, fees for new projects, bonding for larger projects like for larger projects and land acquisitions.

Fundraising ideas include a gala and a recognition award for conservation efforts.

Regarding not-for-profit resources, Stanford has an array of ecologically minded organizations such as the Barth Arborita, Stanford Nature Center, Soundwaters, and the Mill River Collaborative and Garden Funds, to name a few that can also be included in the efforts of a conservation commission.

Additional resources include the emerging technology of AI that is being used for conservation purposes.

For example, Google uses artificial intelligence and high resolution aerial imagery to map, measure, and manage urban tree canopies.

This technology helps cities combat extreme heat, identifying vulnerable neighborhoods, and strategically plan tree planting efforts to ensure equitable shape distribution.

I would also ask if there is a way for individuals with a level of expertise in ecology and biology that serve on other boards like EPB and have a desire to provide their expert opinion that they be allowed to serve in an advisory capacity in the absence of dedicated staff, which will need to be funded.

Additionally, if applicants exceed the number of available conservation seats, those citizens who have that same level of technical expertise can also serve in an advisory capacity.

Included in the advisory capacity can also be individuals who have an interest in grant writing as well.

Cathy WIC, the Connecticut Association of Conservation Commissions and Inland and Wetland Commissions is also a valuable resource to conservation commissions here in Connecticut.

The non-for-profit has developed a handbook for commission members, and they are available to answer questions about the commission should the need arise.

UConn's Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaption, which I forward to the Board of Reps last year, also offers ideas for funding resources and conservation commission activities.

Our neighboring towns have conservation commissions, Norwark and Greenwich, but none of Connecticut's largest cities have a standalone conservation commission.

Stanford could be the first, incorporating recommendations from a 2035 comprehensive plan, prioritizing natural resources in open state space along with priorities of a growing city.

To that end, the Conservation Commission task can also be to provide recommendations like night sky initiatives that would help migratory birds during land use and development reviews near natural resources.

Finally, I would like to share with you the flight of the beloved Marinoch Butterfly who passes through Connecticut on its long migration to Mexico.

Today, the eastern migratory population is estimated to have declined by approximately 80%.

The Western migratory population has declined by more than 95% since the 1980s.

During the same period, the probability of extension extinction for Eastern monarchs ranged from 56 to 74%, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Services' most recent species status assessment.

The important work to save species must continue on a state and local level in absence of prioritizing on a federal level due to policy changes of the Trump administration.

Non-for-profits like Monarch Watch and state and local agencies have the know-how.

A conservation commission would provide a launching point and a means of organizing efforts from one city administration to another as long as the commission remains active.

Please support a standalone conservation commission.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak on the matter.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Klausy, if you had a couple of remarks that you wanted to share.

Yeah, I um Miss Bill Zniansky is uh I think you're an expert.

So uh thank you for your comments and uh I commend uh your committee for taking up the idea here and uh I I think it'd be great as as uh was just stated that we push uh this near term goal of the uh uh 2035 comprehensive plan uh to the Board of Reps for their consideration.

Uh the environmental protection board, which currently on paper is the Conservation Commission as well as practically the Inland Wetland and Watercourses Agency and the Flood and Erosion Control Board uh has looked at this uh idea uh last fall and this spring.

Uh last fall is a general concept, and this spring they looked at the uh the ordinance you have before you, and they uh unanimous unanimously support the uh establishment of a standalone conservation commission.

Uh as was just stated, conservation commissions that are separate from inland wetland commissions or planning and zoning commissions uh are a best municipal best management practice that is uh recommended by both uh uh the uh professional uh board, which is the uh Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions.

Uh, they say that every Connecticut town should have a conservation commission, and that the duties and responsibilities of that commission should not be combined with another town board or agency.

And uh recent study, uh fairly recent study showed that well over 75% of the towns in Connecticut do have separate commissions, so uh Stanford would be getting you know into the uh mainstream by doing this.

Um, and you know, I think the the key thing is a standalone commission could provide significant value added uh for the citizens of Stanford.

The uh as was stated, uh the topics that they could comment on on development proposals range much more widely than uh uh my wetland board can or a flood and erosion control board can.

And you know, to have a commission that had uh dedicated uh informed citizens who are motivated uh would be a great uh uh push toward uh improving environmental quality and maintaining environmental quality in Stanford.

Uh the such a commission could take a more holistic view of the environmental challenges facing the city, and would have the potential to take advantage of advantage of opportunities and new partnerships.

Um Ms.

Bill Zianski stated uh were great.

I mean, partnerships, ideas, funding sources, uh, environmental outreach and education, coordinations in the event of a uh of response in the event of a drought, which I think is something that falls through the cracks right now in the city structure, uh planning for targeted open space acquisitions and developing greenways.

These are other things that a conservation commission, if it felt were important to the citizens of Stanford, could uh address.

And uh, how a commission in now, uh, you all are considering this tonight.

I hope you move it forward to the full board of representatives.

Uh, I can tell you that we have had discussions with Director Kinonis and uh Ralph Blessing, land use uh bureau chief, and I think we all think that a commission can be established and provided with basic support from existing city staff.

That would not just be EPB staff but would be planning staff and others.

But in my opinion, the full potential of such a commission will never be achieved without dedicated technical staff who can support implementation of the initiatives the volunteer commission members feel are important.

So I hope you put this ordinance forward to the Board of Reps in its current state.

Uh, and I do hope they adopt it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Clause.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Chair Canberra, yield the floor, followed by Representative Hughes.

Um, good evening, everyone.

I wanted to take a minute to provide some context and background on this ordinance and why I believe it's an important and thoughtful step forward for the city of Stanford.

This idea did not originate with me alone in the late 2025.

Members of the public, along with the environmental protection board executive director Bob Clousey came before the board and asked that we modernize outdated language in our code and better define the separate and separate the responsibilities currently assigned to the environmental protection board.

Strongly supported the creation of a standalone conservation commission and articulated why this structure would be would better serve Stanford moving forward.

That's sitting next to me, um, several times before moving forward and bringing this before the board.

Um he also supported the concept and continues to support it now.

More recently, uh, I provided a draft to Director Canonis so that he could be he could review it with the various city boards.

He did, and it was also supported by uh Chief Blessing.

Importantly, this draft ordinance was not created in isolation, it was developed collaborative, collaboratively with input from the different boards in the city.

At its core, the ordinance does something simple but important.

It creates a dedicated conservation commission for Stanford.

Right now, conservation responsibilities technically exist in within the EPB, but in practice, much of the board's time is understandably consumed by its statutory inland wetlands, floodplain responsibilities.

This leaves limited opportunity for broader conservation planning, climate resilience work, environmental research, and long-term advisory efforts.

I want I want to make clear that this commission is advisory only.

It will advise the administration and the various land use boards.

It can't block anything that the city wants to do.

Creating a separate conservation commission allows Stanford to take a more proactive approach to protecting natural resources, planning for climate resilience, preserving open space, and integrating sustainability into how our city grows and develops.

This is also not a new experimental concept.

In fact, it aligns with statewide best practices.

The Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission recommends that municipalities maintain a separate conservation commission rather than combining those responsibilities into a single board.

It also directly aligns with Stanford 2035 comprehensive plan, which specifically calls for the creation of a standalone conservation commission to help guide climate action, sustainability initiatives, and environmental protection efforts.

In addition, organizations such as CERCA, the Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaption at UConn have emphasized the important role of conservation commissions and that they play in municipalities addressing flooding, erosion, extreme heat, water quality, and other climate-related challenges through smart nature-based planning.

Beyond policy alignment, this ordinance creates practical value for the city.

Strengthens advisory support for our land use boards, increases opportunities for public engagement and education, and helps position Stanford to better pursue environmental and climate related initiatives and partnerships.

Finally, the ordinance also cleans up outdated and conflicting language in our code by clarifying that the Environmental Protection Board serves as Stanford's aqua aquifert protection agency.

Stanford continues to have to experience significant growth and development.

The question is not whether we grow, because growth is welcomed and inevitable.

The question is how we grow.

Representative Hughes, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair McEwen.

And forgive me.

So I would have raised this during then.

But I guess my first question through you, Chair to Vice Chair Camporelli, is why was this raised in LNR and not land use when it was raised in land use last year as LU 31.058?

It encompasses changing the code, and I'm on this committee.

So we're changing code that already exists.

Okay.

I guess just my concern, and I don't know if parliamentarian you can weigh in on this.

Is just for the last five to 15 minutes, we've been covering stuff that should be covered in land use committee.

You know, this is a land use ordinance.

Folks have been talking about land use, like I said, the last five to 15 minutes.

So I just don't know that this is the appropriate place to have these combos to begin with, given that the other co-chair of that committee is not here, and the other land use members are not here.

Um I would, I don't know if I'm able to make a motion at this time to uh, you know, recommitted to that committee.

Um, but that's just kind of my thoughts, um, and I'll yield to you, Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

One more moment.

Um as to your procedural question on the on that motion specifically.

I don't think there is any procedural obstacle to a committee, at least attempting to commit an item to another committee.

That being said, of course, the full board has the authority to supersede that if it chooses to and redirect it wherever it wishes.

But if you wish to make that motion, we we can see if there is support from a second.

Yeah, I'd like to make that motion.

Okay.

All right.

So the motion before the committee is to commit this item to land use.

Is there a second?

Second.

There's a second, the motion and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Are you on this one?

Representative Weinberg.

Yeah, I'd like to I'd like to propose uh uh chair Hughes.

Thanks for thanks for raising the concern.

Um I'd like to propose an alternate solution, um, and see if it's a if if it's amenable uh to you as as chair of the land use committee.

Um this is uh the the question before L and R is this ordinance for publication, which as we all know is the first step in moving a potential ordinance forward uh for ultimate approval.

Um what we could do the next step if this is um i if the board if the full board were to approve the ordinance for publication, then the next step would be to move to a public hearing.

What we could do is at that time have a joint committee meeting of the two committees and have the public hearing uh and then and then subsequent discussion uh following that public hearing to appear before uh it to take place in the presence of both committees.

Uh both committees would take their own would take their votes at that time in terms of moving it forward to the full board um for you know for final consideration or to sending it back for uh for additional work.

Um what I'm suggesting through this approach is we can keep uh moving forward, um, while ensuring that both committees um have uh you know have full opportunities to vote independently on um uh the ordinance and to have robust discussions on the ordinance before so voting.

So I make that suggestion, uh Chair Hughes.

Um, you know, in the spirit of collaboration with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Is anybody else that wishes to seek the floor with Representative Levine?

Oh, no, I don't know.

Okay, I'm sorry, majority leader Morrison.

No, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh may I suggest that uh given that uh on what committee an item uh ends up on the agenda is largely is the purview of the steering committee.

Uh may I suggest that we move this forward uh and then add steering when the item comes up uh next month uh on your agenda for LNR, uh that we discuss whether or not to make the second committee uh secondary on this item, and then that way we can uh include both committees on the discussion without uh without derailing its forward momentum, but I I think recommitting it to steering without defining committing it to another committee uh would be inappropriate.

I think just sending it back to steering and letting the steering committee have this piece of the substantial conversation at that time is the appropriate way to handle it.

I agree.

And and do you yield?

Yes, I do, thank you.

Thank you, majority.

So representative, you have the floor.

I guess this very conversation underscores some of my concern about this uh this proposal.

I I support everything that's been spoken about it, and uh, and yet I don't believe necessarily, I'm not convinced this is the right approach to get there.

Um, and uh because the way we're currently functioning isn't working, creating another entity with another layer of guidance, another set of voices to weigh in.

I I don't know that that's the answer, and I don't know that um uh this committee is best suited to take that conversation up first.

So I I think Representative Hughes raises an important point, and um I'd like to hear what his committee has to say about it.

And I yield to us.

I have gotcha.

Uh President Shaw, and thank you, Representative.

Thank you, Chair McHugh.

And just have a question for you.

Um, if we do end up having, let's say for argument's sake, if we do end up having um land use as a secondary committee, would they be allowed to vote at the same time or have the all the predominant all the discussions at the same time in the same way in the same manner as they would have been able to do in their own committee if this was an item in land use?

I I think the answer to that is yes.

I mean, board rules talk about suggestive scheduling and having the members of a secondary committee attend the meeting of that primary committee to the extent they can so that they benefit from the discussion there to then have a discussion in their secondary committee.

Um, but more direct to your question as to whether or not that secondary committee is otherwise impeded in holding a discussion or vote.

I don't think there is any sort of obstacle.

Ultimately, the end of the day, the work we do in committee is advisory.

Uh we do have amendments here, but ultimately everything is at the approval of the board, the larger board as a whole.

Uh so if land use and L and R come to differing opinions on this, in theory, that the board would have to kind of figure out how to handle it from there.

Thank you for the clarification.

I I do understand um representative Hughes's concern, and I do think that after hearing, I actually came to this meeting thinking it's more on the uh legality of the the item itself, but I think as I've heard the you know, last 15 to 20 minutes of discussion, I do think that that is a real benefit for the land use committee to um provide their inputs in and and uh sit in on it.

So I I leave it up to the this committee to decide however it is.

But it if we I would like you know I would like to um offer my support to um their land use committee also um hearing it and offering their discussions um whether you know we either move it to steering and um reallocate it to our land use, or if we have land use as a secondary committee for the next time, whatever I I will let this committee decide, but I definitely would like that committee to be involved with this as well.

With that I yield, thank you.

Thank you, Representative Shaw, and to the benefit of those in attendance to correct a statement I made.

The board rules are less festive, they do require that if there's a secondary committee assigned to an item that and if the meeting of the primary committee occurs after the meeting of the secondary committee, the secondary committee may discuss and vote on the item only after consideration of the item at the primary committee.

So if we were to have two committees looking at this, we would just have to coordinate schedule and with respect to the primary and secondary before the primary goes first.

Otherwise, we may essentially lose a month in the offerness there.

Um next year, even land use will still be a second, like it won't be a primary committee, right?

Because your meeting is after theirs, isn't it?

If they are assigned to be a second committee by either the board or steering, um, if their meeting is before hours, uh they couldn't hold any vote or discuss it unless they have a special meeting after the primary committee.

It would be us.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Do you have a point of order?

Yeah, I have a well actually a question.

Point of order.

Once we have a point of order.

Sorry, we have a point of order in the room.

Uh yeah, why uh is there anything in the rules that would prevent the two committees or meeting from meeting at the same time?

Um, and um and each committee voting at that time.

I don't see anything in the rules that would prohibit that.

Okay, that's thank you.

And Representative Hughes, to your point of order.

Thank you, Chairman Cuan.

And can we have a vote on the motion that was on the floor?

Uh we still have members that have expressed an interest to discuss the merits of the motion.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

You have the floor.

I just wanted to say that while this is not on the land use committee's agenda, that this ordinance was created and basically is being supported by the director of operations, the city's land use board, and the EPB, which is the second basic land use board.

Everything that is in this ordinance is already, it already is allowed for the EPB's rule.

In other words, the EPB has the power to do anything that this commission is now going to do.

But the EPB and the director of operations and the land use board of the city of Stanford are saying that there's too much work for the one board, and they would appreciate having the second board filled with volunteers and some staff to take to take the workload off so that we could properly plan as a city.

And so I don't really understand, I guess, what the controversy is or you know, or why it wasn't mentioned at steering that somebody wanted to have this on land use instead of instead of where it is.

So I guess that's my question.

All right, you mean do you?

Yes, yes, all right.

Um I see hands from Representative Q, uh President Shaw, Majority Leader Morrison.

Are you still seeking the floor?

Yes, sir, if you'll have me for one more minute.

Yes, uh, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Uh procedurally, uh going back to the point made earlier.

Um, it is common um for a secondary committee to attend the primary committee's meeting and for the chair of the secondary committee to call a vote of that secondary committee during that meeting to accomplish the same thing.

Um, and you and I I'd like to discuss with you the order of meetings that you were referring to before, but functionally they can meet together and take their individual votes together.

Thank you.

Thank you, majority leader Morrison.

Are there any other members that are seeking the floor?

Well, yes, yeah.

May I ask Representative the Chair Hughes' question?

If he'd like to answer it, you can certainly.

You could ask.

Do I have your permission, Ryan?

Yes, yes, rep Weiberg.

Um, does um it does having a joint meeting of the two committees with each committee having its own vote at that um in terms of moving whether it whether or not to um you know to move it forward into a public hearing?

Um, does that satisfy your concern?

You know, it it doesn't with no disrespect to this committee.

I I think it's a land use and a land use issue only.

Um, you know, it's I it would to me it's as if I would be taking up an item in land use about you know the board rules.

It just doesn't I don't think it makes sense having this be the primary committee on this item.

I think there's a lot of uh edits and amendments to this that are needed in land use by you know members of the land use committee um and the co-chairs.

Um so I I'd like to vote on the motion as is, and I yield.

Thank you.

Represent Wagner.

Okay.

Is anybody else that wishes to seat the floor?

Uh Majority Leader Morrison.

Is that your hand again?

It is procedurally, sir.

Sure, go for it.

Um my recommendation hearing everything uh that was that's been said is for someone to uh amend the motion to simply recommit it to steering and let steering make the decision uh about whether the the item is moved to a different committee or a different committee, a second committee is assigned as secondary at the time, but I don't think it's the purview uh it's never been the purview of a given committee to um uh make that decision outside of steering.

So I would recommend uh that someone move to amend the motion to recommit to land use committee to simply recommit to steering.

Thank you.

Thank you, majority.

Is there anybody else that wishes to seek the floor?

Seeing the yes, representative.

Uh as some move to amend uh to amend the motion on the floor uh to recommit.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

There's a motion and a second to amend the motion to commit it to steering rather than land use.

Is there anybody that wishes to seek the floor with respect to the amendments?

Seeing and hearing none.

Sorry, votes.

Um I'd love to try this by roll.

Actually, by voice.

Um, all those in favor of the amendment to amend the motion to commit.

There's not a vote to commit.

This is a motion to amend the motion to commit to instead re uh commit it to steering rather than land use.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Any abstentions?

One abstention.

Alrighty.

And with that, the amendment passes.

Uh so now we fall back to the motion to commit to steering.

Uh is there anybody that wishes to seek the floor?

I'll seek the floor.

Yes, represent uh Vice Chair Campbell.

I'm gonna be voting against this.

I have no problem having land use as a secondary committee.

I have done a lot of work on this ordinance.

I would like to have a vote on this ordinance.

I'm not on the land use committee.

Um, I don't think it matters which committee this is on.

You have the support of every land use person in the city.

It was written by, it was co-written by the land use board.

So I just I don't even understand what amendments would be made on this ordinance.

It's so straightforward and so simple.

That I just don't even understand what the controversy is.

You that's it, I know.

Alrighty, thank you, Vice Chair Camarelli.

Is there anybody else that wishes the uh representative Walston?

You have the floor.

I just want to say that I agree with Representative Camperau.

And um we basically have the heads, they're giving their okay to this ordinance.

And I'm sure it had uh gone past uh corporate council to make sure that you know everything is tight and right.

So, you know, I just wish we can go forward with this.

I'm in agreement with representative camperal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Is there anybody else that wishes to seek the floor?

Representative Hughes?

I mean, it's those individuals mentioned or not here and did not speak on this item.

So I just want the record to reflect that.

Well, one of them did just to correct that right now.

I mean, point on point of order.

Those aren't important, but if I share those are those are statements.

I I yield.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Representative Weinberg.

Uh may I ask Representative Hughes to acknowledge that uh that um that the V voice could be uh director uh clousey, uh, who is one of the people that representative camperelli was referring to did speak before this committee at this meeting?

And you can will you?

I meant before the land use committee.

Okay, I heal.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Are there any are there any other members who wish to seek the floor?

I would probably ask one additional statement.

Representative, yeah, Vice Chair Cameron, um, the floor.

So all of the members of the EPB uh help to to author this ordinance and are all in agreement.

Um Representative Weinberg was with me at a meeting with Director Canonis and can verify that he is in support of this ordinance.

Unfortunately, Director Pinnonis texted me and said that he had a child care issue and could not remain in the meeting because the first went too long.

And also a meeting was had with uh land use chief blessing and the EPB heads and Director Canonis, and they were all in agreement that they would dedicate staff to this, um, and that the ordinance was good as written.

You were in the office.

Could you would you mind just yes?

I was a I would never make a statement.

Yes.

Saying that that someone in the administration had okayed something if it hadn't happened.

So I yield.

Thank you, Vice Chair Camparelli.

Uh is there anybody uh President Shaw?

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chairman McEwen.

I just wanted to say I I know I understand that there's many people that have looked at it, um, and some others that it reminded us we're not here, but it's been appropriately looked at many committees and stuff.

We've had this kind of things in the past where we've gone through this path, we've gotten something from the administration, and we've said, oh, we needed more time to look at it.

Um so I unless there's this very sense of urgency that we have to like get this going at this month.

I'm not sure why we can't have the the land use members weigh in and look at whatever they wanted to see and perhaps even discuss with you uh by Chair Camperelli.

Um maybe there isn't any changes, but I at least want to give our board the opportunity to kind of look through it in a little bit that way if they wanted to uh before before going forward.

So that's just my uh my thought.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Representative Olson, you have the floor.

Quick question to Representative Camporelli.

Are the people you're talking about?

Are they considered experts in the field?

Absolutely.

Okay, I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walson.

Are there any other members that wish to seek the floor with respect to the motion to commit?

Seeing none, let's go by roll call.

Vice Chair Camarelli.

Representative blank?

No.

Representative Boudreau?

I'm staying.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Uh Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

Representative?

Yes.

Representative Stone?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

I'm a self-manno.

That is one, two, three, four, five.

Five votes in favor.

The motion passes.

And for the record, three votes against and one abstention.

All right.

Moving on to I.

Yes.

That mo that, yeah.

So in that case, LR 32.019 is committed to CRA.

Uh before we move on to the next item, just from a housekeeping perspective, I just anticipate we have more discussion on four than three.

Do we have a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of taking up item four over three?

So motion.

Thank you.

There's a motion and a second.

Um, let's see if we can do roll vote or voice vote, even though we do need two-thirds.

Um, all in favor, five.

Any against?

Any abstentions?

The motion passes, or the rules are suspended to take up item four.

Do out of the work.

Uh, do we have a motion to approve LR 32.017?

So moved.

Thank you.

Uh second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

The question before the committee is the approval of LR 32.017.

Does anybody wish to seek the floor?

Yes.

Representative Boudron.

Uh so if I recall correctly from our discussions on this uh last month, uh, I think the committee was um probably ready to take a vote on this, except for the potential that the amendment we made, uh the five four amendment, uh, might uh I'm actually blanking on what amendment that was.

Um I believe it was the expiration report uh might um induced the mayor to veto this ordinance, and that was kind of the one concern that we had that caused us to recommit this.

So um I did not have a chance to speak with anyone from the administration on this item.

Uh, but if anyone did, then thank you very much.

Is anybody else that wishes to seek the floor?

Representative Weinberg.

Yes, this is this is on um uh 32017, correct?

That's correct.

Yes.

Um I think that this is a I think this proposed ordinance is a mistake.

Um so I want to do what I can to try to try to persuade you to to that effect.

Um the problem, as I see it, the problem with the problem with this ordinance is the parts that that ask for information, um, aggregated information on um on applications.

I fully support um uh uh robust demographic information on people who are appointed, on individuals who are appointed to our voluntary boards and commission.

Um if we wish to expand it to people who are nominated, uh, you know, because of that there are people who are nominated and not confirmed.

I I could be okay with that.

But I think it's a mistake to start collecting uh and publicizing data on people who merely apply for a volunteer board and commission.

And the reason for that is that it provides it has enormous potential to provide accurate but misleading information.

It it in a number of different in a number of different ways.

Um it runs the it runs the risk of essentially we are then saying that look, there are people who apply for to serve on a particular law to your border commission who simply don't have the background or the qualifications for it.

If I were to send if if I, for example, were to apply to serve on the environmental protection board, I would hope that the mayor and the mayor's office would have the good sense not to spend their time interviewing me, because it would be clear from my resume that I'm not qualified to serve on that boiler.

Um and there are going to be examples of that left and left and right in the people who may apply.

So if we start to draw inferences based on the number of people who've applied, based on the demographic information of the people who apply, we're going to draw misleading inferences.

The metrics that are worth measuring, that really tell us something that's useful, is where do we stand in terms of position, volunteer positions on these boards and commissions that are filled, or how many are filled, how many are vacant, how many are you know are held by people whose terms have expired, particularly people whose terms have expired several months, several months, several months ago, since we have so many terms that expire on December 1st of each of each year, which creates all sorts of problems in terms of after December 1st, we're always going to have a lot of um expired expirees serving on board because it's simply not possible for either the mayor and the mayor's office or for the appointments to commission to get the interviews done.

Um so that's where that's information that's worth collecting and worth disseminating to the public.

Um information on gender, um, aggregated information on the on the on gender people who are serving on these volunteer boards and commissions in volunteer positions, is also very useful information.

Information on the ethnicity of those uh of those volunteers who are serving is also very useful, useful information for giving us an idea of whether or not these um boards and commit these volunteer boards and commissions are filled with people who represent the diversity of our uh of this of the Stanford community, but information on the applicants themselves when we have no control or no uh who and how many people are actually applying, does not really provide us with information that tells us anything, and it has enormous potential for providing us with uh with with um with misleading information.

So I would recommend recommitting this ordinance to steering so that this committee or using your uh the chair's technique of just tabling it for the committee directly, um, so that this committee can narrow the focus of this ordinance, so it requires this administration, which is totally on board with doing this, as well as future administrations with collecting the kinds of information that will truly be useful to both the board of representatives and the community at large in understanding and feeling confident that the volunteer boards and commissions represent the um represent the diversity of our of the Stanford community.

Another weakness in the way the ordinance is currently written, many of these boards have a combination of both volunteers uh serving on them and a staff or appointees serving on them.

They could be appointees directly from the board of representatives, it could be appointees from the someone from the Board of Finance, um, and the owners all, or from you know, or from the administration and stuff, employees of the city.

And this ordinance makes in terms of the numbers, makes no distinction between whether the volunteer positions are filled or the non-volunteer positions are filled, uh, when clearly our interest is where do we stand in terms of the volunteer positions being filled?

Uh that's more of a technical concern I have with it, but it further suggests that we need to send this back and rework it so that it's genuinely providing the board of reps and the and um and the public with information that's useful and productive with that ideal.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

You have the floor.

Thank you, sir.

Um I I want to thank Representative Weinberg for the uh for the analysis from several angles that he just presented.

Uh I I agree with uh the points he's made.

Uh and I would even I would further suggest that maybe we uh have a report that is um proposed by this ordinance generated, and let's see what it looks like, whether it properly reflects or doesn't the kind of information uh that we'd like uh to find useful.

Um, you know, plus uh as as people apply, it also says that they're not required to provide any or all pieces of the demographic information uh that we seek.

So you know, you know, given the uh variable size of the applicant pool at a given time uh that could disproportionately skew the results um you know further to representative Weinberg's point.

Um I I would agree with him and uh suggest that we uh recommit and uh uh suggest that we have a report generated to see what it looks like we before we codify its requirement.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Representative LeGrow, you have the floor.

Um so there's I believe two main points that I heard from representatives Weinberg and Morrison.

First is the concern about uh collecting the data on applicants, and I actually uh I disagree with Representative Weinberg.

I think there is a very useful um data point that we get for learning about applications because it tells us it can help inform it doesn't tell us straight up uh where we're losing hold uh because I personally have an interest that I've been right in advance of trying to get younger folks involved and boards and commissions and trying to recruit at that point.

And if we see that there are a lot of young applicants but not a lot of young appointees or um nominees then we either need to do a better job coaching we need to do a better job training we need to get a better job building qualifications in these people whereas if I see that there are just no young people applying then the primary thing I need to address is outreach.

I need to get people and let them know that these options are available and uh that they have the opportunity serve on board and commission.

So I do think that there is a value in seeing on the outvocate pool because it can help inform where we need to do outreach.

And then the second point is I don't really agree with the idea of recommitting either.

I think potentially you had a valid amendment um that you described uh which I'm going oh yes uh which was about the uh appointees and the uh from the administration ex creating an exception where you know board of representatives members or administration members might be excluded from uh the data but I don't see any to recommit to make that amendment if we want to make that amendment we can just make that amendment in this meeting and thank you representative are the other members that wish to seat the floor uh camperelli um I I actually agree with your your point about young people because I was gonna make that point with women uh women currently I think serve on only 27% of the boards and commissions and to me that's a real miss.

I want to see how many women are actually uh applying to boards and commissions and if if it's that they're not applying then have outreach specifically to women I mean I I think that's a really important point with young people as well.

Um so that that was my main point um regarding having these kind of data points this is actually done I believe by the government but in the private sector all the time like they definitely aggregate and keep track of who is applying for jobs whether you know I I don't know the metrics that they use but I know uh that race is one of them gender is one of them these things are are kept track of and so I don't think it's unusual to keep track of them or say that you know they're not going to be accurate because we're using the same metrics that we use in the city of Stanford when we're hiring people for uh for boards and commission where people are not getting paid so I don't I don't really see the difference there.

Um we have the power to request all of these things on a monthly basis even if we don't pass this ordinance um I think I think we do the city justice by by putting this ordinance through somebody had suggested um in the last meeting that I don't remember who it was but that if citizens wanted this they could just FOIA the information they would have it in four days um but that's not actually accurate.

So what you would have in four days back from FOIA is a letter acknowledging that you had requested something from FOIA that is all that FOIA guarantees.

FOIA does not guarantee that you would have information in four days I myself have FOIA things and I have friends and people that I know that have FOIA things that have taken seven eight nine months to get information on.

So that's not really a way to govern in in my mind.

I think those were the points that I want to make, and so I I will yield the floor.

Thank you the Vice Chair Camperelli.

And before Representative Weinberg for the second time, I had some remarks I wish to share as well.

I agree with the remarks from Vice Chair Camparelli and representative Boudron disagree with those of Representative Weinberg and Majority leader Morrison for the following reasons.

It was said that you know these data points may lead to inaccurate conclusions, and we may act on that information in a way that that might miss the actual truth.

And I disagree that that is an outcome that is likely, specifically because data doesn't necessarily lead to conclusions, leads to, you know, potentially inferences.

However, at the end of the day, this data is intended to lead to questions.

This data is intended to lead us or give us the opportunity to ask informed questions, um, and that's critical for us to be able to do our job effectively.

Uh and you know, if we I have very little concern for this administration uh in terms of the example I'm about to give, but if we have a circumstance where, for example, all of the boards and commissions are only served or only having uh men appointed to them, and we ask the question with no data, why are there why is there no greater representation of women?

And if the administration at that time, let's hope in the distant future, uh again, no concerns of this administration, if the administration at that time says, Well, only men applied, we we have no we have no ability to combat that assertion.

Um obviously, of course, at that time we could we could demand the data, but why should we position ourselves for a fight in the future we can where we can lay the groundwork and expectation and practice now?

Um additionally, I think it was mentioned that the more important metric is holdovers, vacancies.

Uh, I think those are important metrics, but it is certainly not necessarily a more important metric, and also, of course, uh that information is readily accessible.

We can do the legwork of necessarily counting that information.

Matter of fact, this board, or maybe not this board, but the 31st board certainly had their eye on that prize to see where the holdovers were where the vacancy boards representative wanderer have aggregated very helpful data on that issue specifically.

We do not have the capability to do the same thing with respect to applicants.

Um the other reason why the data on applicants is important is because, again, to the points of Representative Boudreau and Vice Chair Camparelli, that data provides us more information that shows a story about the pipeline generally.

I also am not qualified to be on an environmental focus uh border commission.

Um, think it's important, I'm not qualified.

Um, that being said, if we are seeing a hundred or a thousand applicants for that border commission, and there is a vacancy, and we don't know how many applicants they have gotten, and despite the fact that they've gotten a thousand applicants, uh, they've selected no one.

I find it really challenging to believe that no one is qualified to be on that border commission, despite the fact that I'm um I'm sure there are qualified people.

We wouldn't know that necessarily without the information on those applicants.

Uh, and then finally, at least for now, um, I want to make it abundantly clear to everybody in attendance.

The data is being collected now.

If you try to apply to a border commission, the information is being collected, it's being requested of you.

There are certain fields that are required, there are certain fields that are voluntary.

Those fields and their requirements, whether or not they are required or voluntary, is mirrored in this ordinance to a 99% degree.

There might be one additional point that is included or one that's left out, but it's largely codifying an existing practice of data collection so that we can enshrine the practice for administrations in the future that find transparency to be less valuable.

Uh, and those are the comments I have now that I yield to Representative Weinberg.

If you still wish to see the colour.

So if data is being publicized on applicants, um, what prevents a political opponent of a mayor from reaching out to other political opponents of that mayor and flooding the mayor's office with applications of by applications from people for a board or commission for which they are clearly um don't have don't have the qualifications.

And just as important, the public is reacting to what is essentially fallacious fallacious information that doesn't really tell us anything.

What sounds like if some it sounds like sounds like someone saying um if I know that a lot of young people are applying, but they're not getting nominated.

Um I know we don't have to work on you know on getting people to apply, we have to work on getting them to be better prepared for the interviews or you know, you know, or you know, or more focused in what um board or commission they apply for.

Um the fact of the matter, the fact of the matter is we never have sufficient pipeline.

Um because volunteering for one of these being volunteering and being nominated and confirmed for one of these one of these boards and commissions means that a person is willing to make a significant commitment of volunteer time.

We certainly know that serving on the board of reps.

I certainly experienced that serving for nine years on the personnel commission.

Um so we always need to be active and energetic, talking to everyone we can, doing what Representative Caporelli did on next door a couple of days ago.

We always need to be actively encouraging people to apply because the number of applicants is never going to be never going to be robust, but what we really care about is who's serving from demographic standpoint, who is serving on these volunteer enforcement commissions.

Um that's the information that we should be, we've we can use this ordinance to collect, but we will have, I promise you, a host of unintended consequences and misunderstood and misinterpreted in messages if we start um publicizing application data.

Um and with that idea, thank you, Representative Windward.

Are there any other members that wish to seek the floor?

Uh President Shaw.

Thank you, Chair McEwen.

Um, I necessarily don't have any um opposition to the ordinance itself.

Um I just I just want to make sure that I'm all for collecting all the data uh we want.

I just want to make sure that we don't lose uh the end goal of why we're doing this uh by uh you know adding that oh I like this bill, I don't like this well, I want this, I don't want this.

I'm all for collecting everything without violating anyone's privacy.

Um I do I don't I do want to say that you know if all the in I mean in the last I don't know four months we've seen the volume of people come through um the board information's and commissions, all these holdovers being filled and everything, and I and I understand the concern that this might not be a concern for this this um administration, but it we're we want to make sure something we want something long long-term sustaining, but we can also see the same thing about this board, we can put something now together and the next board can come and just say I don't want any of it I want to amend this ordinance right so I want us to be mindful of um what we're asking and I do think that that is a appetite uh from the administration to provide the information we need um and like you said Karen McEwen a lot of information is being collected already it is just kind of trying to make it what what could be publicly available and what could not be so I just wanted to just um just kind of remind the committee that I while I understand there's concerns about you know what we can what we need and what we don't need I again I don't want us to lose sight of the end goal that is to have the voting commissions filled with qualified and representative people which you know we're starting to see and we keep the momentum going so with that I yield.

Thank you President Shaw.

Are there any other members that wish to seek the flight Vice Chair Campbell um I just want to say uh regarding the the comment that the president just made um respectfully that you know it's not just about this board.

On the 31st board we had tons of citizens come to us and at least I did in in my district and ask for more transparency around the appointments process.

The last ordinance was overturned we're talking about repealing a commission it just seems that any time we even touch any kind of transparency issues were we're smacked down but I'm here asking for this on behalf of my constituents you know that's real.

So so for me it's not about this mayor or the mayor you know that that comes after this it's about transparency and I don't think that this is a lot to ask to gain transparency.

I'm having a hard time understanding why people are opposing this representative weinberg I somebody could flood the mayor's office for jobs with applicants and do the same type of shenanigans that you're you're expressing on the the volunteer boards and commissions um I don't think that that's going to happen.

I think that that's a little far fetched and I I say that with the utmost respect um I that won't that wouldn't help me weigh on my decision either way because I don't think that it would happen.

And those those were my only my own points on this thank you to I check everyone represent weinberg yeah the difference between um the reason why no one will flood um I think we know no one will you know create a tsunami of applications for jobs with the city is that the jobs have all include specific criteria that an ex that an acceptable applicant has to meet whether it's testing score or I think or as a particular academic degree or you know or or a certain level of experience whereas for these volunteer jobs and commission volunteer boards and and commissions truly anybody who anybody can can apply um the if we pass if we transparency is valuable um but transparency that provides unclear or misleading information is that's transparency that doesn't really inform anyone.

It doesn't inform the board of representatives, it doesn't inform the public.

Right now women hold approximately 30% of the seats on the volunteer boards and commissions.

People of color hold about 20%.

Those are the numbers.

Those numbers need to be higher.

I completely agree with that.

And we members of the board, as some of the principal recruiters, should be emphasizing that in our, you know, in speaking to our speaking to our constituents.

Those are the numbers that I want to see us grow.

Because the number is not the number the number of applicants.

I want to see us grow the number of people who are actually confirmed, nominated, and confirmed for these for these volunteer positions.

And that's the data that we should be collecting.

When I stop talking, if I say it's gonna have one of these days, somebody's gonna stop talking, I'm gonna start and they said, I didn't heal the chair, and then all of a sudden, look at then uh representative, but you should have.

If memory serves me correctly, uh regarding the boards and commission and this volunteer, and it's for anybody in this, you know, a resident who wants to serve, it doesn't mention about you know their educational background or anything, but our board is supposed to look like our city, and uh I'm interested in this information because I see who comes across who's from last year and this year.

I see who's interviewing, and I think the numbers that representative Weinberg, they might be just a little off, and uh I really hope that we can get some transparency.

It's important to me, and it's important for me if I want to talk it up to my constituents.

I don't want them going in there, oh, every everybody has a master degree.

It seems like all of the people who have been coming through the appointments, they have master degrees.

What happened to, you know, I want to see someone someone come through to sit on one of the boards who's willing to learn, who's interested.

They don't have to have uh uh a degree, but they got common sense.

So that's I think that's why it's important uh that we bring this issue up and keep talking about the transparency.

There are plenty of people who have applied to the job.

We don't know why they were rejected, all of that's important to me, their ethnicity, all kinds of demographics.

Very, very important.

So if they're using it at the city level to say who's coming in to interview, why can't we still use the same metrics for the people who are um applying for our commission, although they're not getting paid?

And I yield the floor.

Thanks.

Thank you, Representative Walsh.

Are there any other members seeking the floor?

Yeah, that's representative Weinberg.

Um just bear with me for a second.

Um Representative Weinberg, you want to yield and come back to you?

Um sorry, I'm looking for something in the legislative record to respond to.

Representative Blank would like to speak.

Can he go while you're looking for?

So if I just want to respond to uh the representative's comment that my numbers are not exactly correct.

Accurate.

Um, looking at an item that's in the legislative record for uh the personnel commission uh ordinance discussion.

Um it says that um that twenty nine percent of the city of Stanford boards and commissions breakdown, female 29%, male 71%.

So I apologize for misspeaking and saying that it was 37.

I apologize for the error.

Um and in terms of ethnicity, um, it says that um that African American nine percent, Hispanic 8%, Asian uh Asian American 2%, that's 19%.

I said 20%, so I don't again apologize for the grievous uh rounding error, rounding that I did in that.

Uh so the numbers, I submit that the numbers that I stated were in fact accurate.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative.

Blank.

Um I I I've been listening quietly, which is over there for me.

Um to this entire discussion.

Um, my memory serves, which rarely it does lately, um, the intent of this ordinance was to vacate the need for the appointments commission.

Um that was why we came up.

Um I think I think we should not lose sight of A, that is what we've working towards.

Two.

Um we're collecting this data as been spoken before.

And I I want to point out that rehashing this again and again is only rehashing it, and that we should move on, either uh up or down vote, and at this point I push it, I can't call for a poll.

But I I would love to.

Um, but I would I if with respect to uh representative weinberg, um I think we're going around Robin on this too many times and maybe to make a decision because it's not our final decision.

We can still vote again.

The board's gonna vote on it, and and I hate to say that because there's certain people I remember who would love to say that, but the board is going to vote on it, and then at that point, if people really are not satisfied with it, we will have to reaction it again.

But I think we have something that's valid and that's big, it's workable, and we should use it and move on.

So I will thank you, Representative Blank.

Are there any other members that wish to seek the floor?

Seeing none, uh let's do this by roll call.

This is a motion to approve LR 32.017, which is an ordinance amending the code of ordinance to establish information reporting requirements of the office of the mayor with respect to the applicants and appointees of the city voice and commissions.

Uh Vice Chair Caporelli.

Yes.

Uh Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hyatt.

Yes.

Representative Pine?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg?

No.

And I myself am a that is seven votes in favor, two against, and no abstentions.

The motion passes.

Okay.

Um moving back to our last item of the agenda.

Uh LR 32.016, an ordinance for publication uh to repeal the appointments commission for Article 17 of chapter 6, including sections 6-121 through 6-124 of the code of ordinances.

Can we vote to approve?

Thank you.

I hear a motion and a second.

Is there anybody that wishes to seek the floor?

Hearing and seeing none.

Let's still try it by roll call.

Well, not try it.

We will go back.

Oh, um, motion to approve LR 32.016.

Uh, this point of information.

Yes.

Uh this is will go to public hearing.

This is an ordinance, right?

So is the other.

Yes.

We'll both be going to public hearing.

Okay.

Um, if it has, yes, of course.

If it passes.

Vice Chair Campanelli.

This is this is theory, right?

This is the question.

Representative blank?

Yes.

Representative Boudreaux?

Yes.

Representative Hughes?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt?

Yes.

Yes.

Representative Stone?

Yes.

Yes.

I'm solving me.

Yes.

That is nine in favor.

Zero against.

And zero center.

Motion to absence.

And with that, that concludes our business for today.

Do I'm open to adjourn?

Motion to motion to move the consecutive.

We are adjourned at 9.56 p.m.

May 26, 2026.