I think we're gonna get started.

Good evening, everyone.

It's Monday, June 1st, 2026, and I call the regular meeting of the Board of Representatives to order.

The time now is 7 35 p.m.

The invocation tonight will be delivered by Rabbi Shemto.

Welcome.

Good evening, good evening, everyone, and I want to thank you for giving me this honor of being able to be here and speak to you on behalf of the Chabad on behalf of the Jewish community of Stanford, and to share a few words of perhaps inspiration.

I'm not here just as a individual, a citizen of Stanford, or even a rabbi of a specific uh congregation, but I'm also here as a representative of the Labavacharebbe, blessed memory, and here to uh further the mission of Chabad, a mission of inclusion, a mission of inspiration of uplifting, and utilizing every drop of positive energy there is in our world in our city in our streets for good, and the rest I leave to you.

Before I uh give a little prayer, it's interesting that we are this week studying the portion in the Bible that starts off by saying that God instructs Moses as follows to instruct Aaron the high priest.

This happens few days after the dedication of the original temporary temple tabernacle in the desert, right at a year after the Jews came out of Egypt, and it says, when he will light the candelabra, in essence, God is telling Aaron, make the lights go up by themselves.

And our sages teach us what that means is that you're not gonna stand by the candelabra all the time.

Hopefully, you can make those lanterns and the lamps kindled and continue to kindle the world around them.

Standing here in this room, while the rest of Stanford is bustling, nobody knows what's going on over here on the fourth floor.

You guys are doing the hard work.

You're regular citizens, regular people, each one with your own greatnesses and challenges, some days better, some days worse, and you're here to do the people's work.

And you're inspired to be here for the people and to take care of the people of Stanford and have in mind the best interests, and that's a noble cause, a lot of hours.

May God bless you.

That you should have the wisdom, the strength, the mood, and the support that you need to continue.

What are you doing?

It doesn't show up.

Rebono Shalola, master of the universe, we ask your blessings upon the city council and this board and the civic leaders gathered here tonight.

Grant them the wisdom to govern with justice, the compassion to protect the vulnerable, and the and the insight to act as faithful stewards of this community.

Inspire these public servants to put aside the vision, recognizing that every individual in our city is created in your image.

May their decisions bring peace, prosperity, and harmony to all who call the city home.

Bless their work, their families, and our neighborhoods with your light.

And may we say Amen.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Rabbi Shemto.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Clerk Johnson, can you please call the roll?

Absolutely.

Good to see everyone.

Uh quick reminder just for tonight.

If you all could make sure to unmute and talk on your mics whenever we're voting or anything.

Just uh we've had some people comment that have struggled hearing online.

Uh all right.

Representative Adams.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Beckham.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you.

Representative Blank.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Next, Representative Bouchard.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Boudreaux.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Bradford.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Camporelli.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Dela Cruz.

I'll circle back, Representative Didlow.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

You, Representative Dorsey.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Field.

Representative Finkel.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you, Representative Gardner.

Present Mr.

Clark.

Representative Gilbright.

She might be joining later.

Representative Goldberg.

Same story.

Representative Graham.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Thank you.

Representative Gross.

Present.

Thank you.

Representative Hill.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

You Representative Hughes.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Hayat.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

I am here.

Representative LePine.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Parliamentarian McEwen.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Pavia.

I'm here.

Yeah.

Representative Politia.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Present.

Representative Price.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Salas.

President Mr.

Deputy Major Leader Sanford.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

President Shaw.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Shore.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Stone.

Present Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Sylvestri.

President, Mr.

Clerk.

You represent Wolston.

Present.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

You, Representative Weinberg.

Present.

Representative Weirs.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Yeager.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Representative Zachary.

Present, Mr.

Clerk.

Let me circle back to two uh representative Daily Cruz.

You online.

And Representative Fields.

No.

All right.

So with that, I have one, two, three, four, four absent, the remaining present.

Is that match your count, Barbara?

Beautiful.

All right.

So we've got 36 people here.

Uh, that is a quorum.

Thank you so much.

With 36 present for absent or excused.

We have a quorum.

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

Sure, thank you.

Tonight we have uh three three people we'd like to recognize in one of silence.

First, we have uh former representative Dr.

Mary Savage, uh, former Board of Education member, uh Nicola Tarzia, and finally uh Dylan Thomas Graham.

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

All right, communications, um, nothing out of the ordinary.

Our next steering committee uh agenda nominations will be due this coming Wednesday by 5 p.m.

So please submit them to the normal office staff email.

The next actual steering committee will be next Monday, uh June 8th, the week from today.

And then the next regular full board meeting will be Monday, July 6th at 7 30 p.m.

I believe we have one birthday this month.

Uh, uh, Representative Carl Weinberg.

So happy uh happy birthday month.

And that uh I think that's all we have.

Thank you so much.

The next will be the uh BOE liaison report, representative LeBine.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I also want to add my condolences to the Tarzia family on Nicola Tarzi's passing and recognize his years of service to Stanford's education through his work on the board of education.

Um there is a resolution before the board tonight honoring outgoing superintendent Dr.

Tamu Lucero, I'd like to add my gratitude for her service and wish her the very best as she enters this exciting new chapter in her career.

Uh, as has also been communicated, Stanford Public Schools is losing our chief financial officer Ryan Feely as well.

Uh, one of the most pressing matters for the district right now is hiring our next CFO, for which the search is underway.

And similarly, uh, I want to thank Mr.

Feely for his outstanding work in this role, both as CFO and the director of finance for the past six years, and he certainly leaves some big shoes to fill.

Another important change to note is that the district leadership structure is changing from what's been three associate superintendent, one each for elementary, middle, and high school to two assistant superintendents, one for elementary and one for secondary.

This is going to streamline senior leadership and accountability for the district.

And our new incoming superintendent, Dr.

Talley will be here this Friday, June 5th, leading the interview process for these roles, as he is leading the search, not an outside agency.

Uh finally, Dr.

Talley officially takes office on July 1st.

I'm going to be working with the Board of Education and Dr.

Talley's office to make sure that there are ample opportunities for our constituents to meet our new superintendent.

I've also urged the Board of Education members that I've met with, including Board of Ed President Andy George, to invest the board's time into some self-reflection and planning as they move forward to make sure they properly support the new leader of this large district of ours, helping to elevate performance while staying in their designated lane as a board to effectively support our district leader.

Just two calendar items, the West Hill High School groundbreaking ceremony is going to be held tomorrow, June 2nd at 3 p.m.

And the next board of ed meeting is going to be on June 23rd at 7 p.m.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

That concludes my report.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to honorary resolutions, we have three tonight.

The first one is honoring Mr.

James Dockery, United States Navy veteran of World War II, for his extraordinary service and heroism.

Do I have motion to approve?

Is that a second?

Second.

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

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

That resolution passes unanimously.

Would you like to read the resolution?

This is Robin Campbell and uh Bonnie Kim Campbell.

You might not know her.

Um, love.

Would you hold that, please?

Honorary resolution honoring uh James Doherty for his uh extraordinary service and heroism.

Whereas upon the U.S.

uh entry into World War II, James Dockery voluntarily enlisted in the United States Navy at the age of 35 and was assigned to the USS Intrepid, one of the most distinguished ships in American history.

And whereas during the time when the United States military uh maintained racially segregated units, Mr.

Docky was among a group of black sailors trained to operate a 20 millimeter anti-aircraft gun aboard the USS Intrepid, forming what was known as Gunhub 10.

And whereas on October 29th, 1944, during the Battle of Lady Gulf, the USS Intrepid came under attack by a Japanese kamikaze aircraft.

And while facing imminent danger, the courageous men of Gunhub 10 remained at their station and successfully disabled the aircraft before it was struck before it struck the ship directly, saving counts countless lives aboard the vessel.

And whereas the crashing aircraft exploded into Gunhub 10, killing 10 soldiers and severely injuring six others, including Mr.

Dockry, whose extraordinary valor and devotion to duty helped save the USS Intrepid from catastrophic destruction.

And whereas, although the surviving members of Gun Hub 10 were originally recommended for the Navy Cross, the nation's second largest, highest uh military declaration for valor, the award was unjustly downgraded until decades later when a federal court ordered the Navy to correct that injustice.

And whereas on April 5th, 1994, James Dockery stood aboard the USS Intrepid and was formally awarded the Navy Cross in a long overdue ceremony honoring his courage, sacrifice, and service to the nation.

And whereas Mr.

Dockery returned to Stan, returned home to Stanford, raised the family, worked at Perkins Elmer in Norwalk, and lived a life defined by humility, faith, and quiet service to his community until his passing in 1996.

Now, therefore, we are resolved that the Stanford Board of Representatives hereby honors the life, heroism, and legacy of James Dockery as an extraordinary American patriot and a distinguished member of the Stanford community whose courage and perseverance exemplified the highest ideals of the United States of America.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

We had the privilege of the Stanford Veterans Association honoring James during Black History Month.

And there are other things to come because our family would like there to be a bookend of some physical place that holds his name to match with the intrepid.

We thank you for your kindness, your hospitality, and for helping us have something physical for the children in the city to see what somebody like them accomplished for their country.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um the next resolution is honoring Miss Olga Rosencine Rosenstein on her hundredth birthday.

Um do I have a motion to approve?

Is that a second?

Second.

All in favor of approving this resolution, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The resolution passes unanimously.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock, would you like to read the resolution?

Thank you.

Baba, come on up.

You could stand right there.

Uh Representative Pavia, will you read this for me?

That was fantastic.

Okay, Baba, I'm gonna read this.

This is for you.

Okay.

Okay.

It's a sense of aboard, it's an honorary resolution.

Whereas Olga Rosenstein, born in Odessa, Ukraine, on June 7th, 1926, and survived World War II and the Holocaust after fleeing Odessa as a teenager during the German invasion in 1941.

She endured extraordinary hardship, loss, starvation, and displacement during the war years.

And whereas following the war, Olga Rosenstein rebuilt her life from nothing, alongside her husband Rachmil Rosenstein, another Holocaust survivor.

And together they raised their family while living through Russia, Poland, and France before immigrating to the United States in 1962 in search of safety, opportunity, freedom, and a better future.

And whereas, after arriving in America speaking little English, Olga Rosenstein and her family embodied the American dream through perseverance, faith, education, hard work, and devotion to family.

With her daughter Claire becoming an honored lifetime teacher who educated generations of students, and her son Jacob Rosenstein becoming one of the nation's leading spinal surgeons after receiving a full scholarship to John Hopkins University.

And whereas, following the loss of her daughter in 2015, Olga Rosenstein moved to Stanford, Connecticut to live near her family and has proudly called Stanford her home for over a decade.

And whereas Olga Rosenstein is part of a rapidly diminishing generation of Holocaust survivors whose first-hand experience serves as a powerful reminder of both unimaginable tragedy and remarkable resilience.

And today, at nearly 100 years old, continues to inspire not only her family, but also her community and future generations through her strength, courage, perseverance, and unwavering determination, with her life story standing as a powerful example of the American dream made possible through sacrifice, opportunity, and hope.

Now, therefore be it resolved by the 32nd Board of Representatives that I hereby it hereby honors and congratulates Olga Rosenstein, Baba, on the occasion of her 100th birthday and celebrates her extraordinary life, legacy, resilience, and contributions to her family, community, and generations to come.

Baba.

You can hold that.

We are gonna start over here.

Okay, thank you.

Do you want to say anything to all these little people?

No.

Wait, Baba, come here.

Baba, come here.

Baba, you'd like to say in my love the country.

And thank you very much for listening to me.

Okay.

I will give this to Jonathan.

Thank you so much.

We have one more resolution, honoring Dr.

Tamun Lucero for her 13 years of service with Stanford Public Schools.

Do I have a motion to approve?

Is that a second?

All in favor of approving this resolution, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

This resolution passes unanimously.

I've been asked to not read here because they wanted to read it a different occasion and present it to her.

So we will hold her hold the thing for now.

Thank you so much.

Yes, I'll take it.

With that, we will move on to the public participation session.

As provided in the bold rules, there is a period for public comment of 30 minutes, unless extended by a vote of the board to no more than 50 minutes.

Speakers have signed up via email or by calling the board office, 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 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 allotted 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.

Per board rule 4.e.

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.

Um LR 32.018, city lease of 0 and 338 Courtland Avenue for school bus parking.

LU 32.008, Salem Development of 41 Main Street, former Midas site, just 32.011, approving submittal of list of programs to the State Department of Revenue Services in accordance with the provisions of the CD neighborhood assistance act.

With that, um let me set my general timer.

Okay, our first speaking uh speaker here will be Mr.

Kieran Edmondson.

I believe you're remote.

Yes, uh good evening, everybody once again, and a happy first day of June.

This is Kieran Edmondson, a waterside neighborhood resident of the city of Stanford, Connecticut.

And I want to be very brief with there's very moment about the protection of our youthful community for the city of Stanford who are under the ages of 18 and 21 years old from getting involved with many types of substance substance abuse issues, so they shouldn't be using any type of drug cigarettes, cigar vapor, or any other type of dangerous item that they shouldn't be doing to the board of reps.

When it comes to the many young boys and girls who are at a young age and that their brains are currently in the middle of the biological, social, physical, mental, and maturing development that doesn't fully grow until around age 25 or even 32 years old, depending on psychological evidence and that some sense abuser can destroy many lives by going through addictive behavior and having challenging times on how to quit having done one.

I want this proposed item, which is the F 32.075 to be voted in favor of by all board members.

So the Department of Health Services for the City of Stanford can firstly be funded with the negotiating contracts of the mental health services administration so we can look out for the Stanford youth community by preventing them from using substance abuse activities and to allow them to live healthy lives and not getting seriously affected or being put in such a print.

Right, Miss to the board website.

Thank you from Kieran Matthew Edmondson.

Thank you, Mr.

Edmondson.

Our next speaker is Miss Dolores Gambini.

Uh, it says in person, but I don't see her.

Miss Hughes, is she online?

I do not.

No, she's not online.

Okay.

So we'll move on to our next speaker, Miss Sue Halpin.

Are you online?

Yes, she is.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Thank you, uh President Shaw and Board of Rep members for allowing me to speak this evening.

This is Sue Halpern, and I live in the South End.

And I would like to comment on the $125,000 additional capital appropriation to complete a feasibility study for a public boat launch in Casquiasco Park down the South End.

So on April 25th, I sent an email to the full board citing the poor conditions of this park.

Parks Director Kevin Murray's $100,000 request for a design concept plan to upgrade the parking lot, pedestrian pathways, inter replace broken light fixtures was denied.

In light of the fact that this park is clearly in need of remediation and repair, studying the feasibility of a public boat launch seems dismissive of the long-standing maintenance concerns of this former landfill.

It's awesome that grants were awarded to complete this study, but funding needs to be secured to rehabilitate this park, please, for the 14,000 people who live on this peninsula and those who visit from all around.

There are 10 marinas that open into Stanford Harbor from Chipan, Waterside, and the South End.

Negotiating with the developer of the 14-acre former Brewer's Yacht Haven and Harbor Point to provide a public boat launch and an evacuation plan for those of us who live down here may be a better alternative and a nice option to give back to our city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Halbon.

Our next speaker is Mr.

David Berman.

Good evening, President Shaw, members of the board and fellow Stanford residents.

Before I begin, I'd like to wish everyone a happy Pride Month.

Celebrating the diversity of our community gets me thinking about what anchors us here and what will make us proud of Stanford a decade from now.

Because pride and ownership go hand in hand, we take care of what we invest in.

We show up for what we feel responsible for, and we build stronger communities when people have a real stake in the future.

My name is David Berman.

I live in District 12, and this city has become my home.

I've lived here for nearly 10 years, and I hope to be here for many more.

Lately I found myself looking at Stanford's direction through a simple lens.

Stanford should not just grow, it should build lasting value.

I say that with humility.

You manage complicated constraints, competing priorities, and trade-offs that I cannot fully appreciate from the audience.

And I fully respect that.

But I think it's worth asking bigger questions.

When I look at proposals like the Midas redevelopment and the Cortland Avenue lease, I'm not here to say that either one is uniquely problematic.

They simply happen to be the choices before us tonight.

What interests me is the larger question underneath them.

Are we building a city where residents can put down routes, build equity, and share in Stanford's success?

Affordable housing matters, rental housing matters.

Um, but is our overall strategy also creating enough pathways to ownership?

And when we commit public resources over the long term, are we building lasting value for taxpayers?

I understand that the Cortland lease may provide flexibility in future transportation negotiations.

And I was glad to learn it includes a right of first refusal, but the long-term question remains at the end of 15 years, what will Stanford own?

I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do believe these questions are worth asking because beneath questions of housing, public assets, and long-term commitments is a deeper question of ownership.

Who has it?

Who can build it, and who benefits from it?

Ultimately, we are asking something even larger.

Who owns our future?

Ten years from now, our neighbors will not experience these decisions in isolation.

They will live in the city and the economy these decisions helped create.

I hope the next decade of Stanford is defined by not just by growth, but by opportunity, ownership, fiscal responsibility, and the civic pride that comes with having a real stake in the place we all call home.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Berman.

Uh next speaker is Mr.

Dave Adams.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board.

It's almost summer, and uh, but that isn't the one the reason why things are heating up in this town.

Courtland uh Corland Hunt Park, East Side Library.

There is great consternation that revolves around this effort.

There are political insiders who feel as though deeds, legal documents that define intent and restrictions are somewhat whimsical, non-binding.

Open to subject subjective interpretation.

Pro tip, they're not.

During this month's steering, representatives that tried to open this discussion and find out what an administration with over a year of telling us that they were working with the AG's office uh to violate the deeds restrictions on this park have accomplished, especially considering that this is a good gubernatorial election year and the current AG may not be the AG next year.

Oh, it's not a fiscal matter.

So let's put it on pending and forget about it ever happened, eh?

Opponents of this item uh couldn't keep their narrative straight.

It's not appropriate for this committee.

We don't have any updates, it's a legal matter likely to be considered an executive session.

No, it this is public property.

I know folks have a hard time with the term public and what it and what that actually means, but I tell you now that this matter is a matter of public concern, and members have of the public have a right to transparency in any pertinent discussions.

Perhaps you should have just redesignated it to legislative and rules instead of behaving dismissively about it.

Uh next was LR 32.017, uh re regarding the reporting requirements on applications for appointments.

Speaking of transparency, I find it absolutely heartwarming to see that members of this board have finally recognized one of Stanford's greatest political challenges transparency in the appointments process, namely who and how many are applying, what are their demographics, where in Stanford do they live and for how long?

This was a problem identified to me over nine years ago, but is an issue that has been a topic of conversation since Malloy.

The 17th and 18th Charter Revision Commissions tried to correct the problem.

The 29th board took a shot at it, and so did the 30th.

And it became quite dramatic on the 31st board board, culminating in two separate past but vetoed ordinances that wouldn't even go far enough.

The reality is as it stands today, while the charter defines co-branch responsibility on this matter, there is absolutely no accountability for these appointments to the various boards commissions to the public, and no means of the legislative branch to exercise their clearly defined authority to appoint in the absence of executive action.

So thank you for taking this matter up.

Please do not let the administration deflect again.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and have a wonderful evening.

We're counting on you.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

That's all the people who have signed up.

Is there anyone that did not sign up that would like to speak?

Um, if you're online, please raise your hand and we'll promote you.

I'm not seeing any hands.

So that concludes our public participation session.

Thank you to everyone that spoke today.

We'll now move on to our uh standing committees.

Um steering committee report.

Is there a motion to waive student committee report?

Is that a second?

So move.

Second.

Um all in favor of uh waiving steering committee report, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, student committee report is waived.

Uh we will move now on to appointments committee.

Coach, are you giving the report today?

Uh yes, I will.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chairman.

Um, the appointments committee met on uh May 28th, uh at 6 30 p.m.

in the Democratic Caucus Room and by webinar.

And uh we considered the following items.

Uh A32.029 uh for the board of ethics.

Uh the iris steckle is a reappointment to a term that expires December 2028.

Uh item number two, uh uh Jason Kennard uh did not appear before the board, so no action was uh taken.

Uh a 32.035.

Uh Drew McKay for the planning board.

Uh we had spoken with Mr.

McKay as an alternate for the planning board um in the previous meeting, and uh uh a position opened up for him, so was it necessary to meet with them?

Um, but he is now uh uh being considered for a term that expires uh December uh 2028.

Uh item number four, a32.038, the environmental protection board alternate, Stefania uh Artiaga.

Uh this is a reappointment to a term that expires December 2028.

Uh item number five, A32.039, uh the environmental protection board, Patrick Blessinger.

Uh this uh uh application was withdrawn.

Uh item number six, A32040, uh Urban Redevelopment Commission, Joe Miller, uh to a term that expires December 2028.

Item number seven, A32.041, uh school building committee, uh Anthony Stark, uh to a term that expires December 2028.

Uh item number eight, A32.042, the school building committee.

Uh Jackie Heffman.

Uh, this is a reappointment to a term that expires uh December 2026.

Item number nine, uh Board of Ethics, Ellen Bromley, uh to a term that expires uh December 2027 and uh item number 10 uh a32.044, uh parks and recreation commission, Christopher Smythe, uh to a term that expires uh December 20 uh 28.

So I uh I move that items number uh one, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten be moved.

Okay, so there is a motion to move items one, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten.

I'm sorry, one, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten on um consent agenda.

Do I any discussion?

Since it's consent items, is anyone planning to object any of the items here?

Yes, representative Walston.

I will be um rejecting Jackie Heffman, and my reasoning is I know she showed up last year for one of our appointments, but this year um I was on the appointments.

Sorry, I was just gonna let them do the discussion on we can do the discussion on it later.

I just need to know which item it is, and then uh we'll move the other.

So uh item number eight will be taken off consent.

So uh all those in favor of approving items one, three, four, six, seven, nine, and ten.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, so those items passed unanimously.

So um, would you like to now discuss item number eight?

Rev Walston.

Um, yes.

The reason I'm voting no, this um board was she had an appointment with the appointments committee, and um I was on there listening, and uh when had called for her, she she acted in a way like she was entitled.

She was smiling.

Oh, um I'm just coming from my grandson's game, but she knew she had an appointments meeting, so I didn't think she really took it that seriously to be on appointments.

So I voted no before on the 31st board for something else, and I'm voting no again on this board.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Wallston.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, we'll take this battle and call.

All right, uh ready, Barbara.

All right, just let me know.

Yeah, no rush.

Before that, I'd like to announce for the record uh representative Gilbride, Representative Field, and Representative Delacruz are here.

Good.

Beautiful.

All right.

Start at the top.

Representative Adams.

How do you vote?

Just to be clear, this is for appointments 32.042.

Representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative Beckham.

Yes.

Representative Blank.

No.

Representative Bouchard.

Representative Bouchard.

All right.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Yes.

Representative Camperelli.

Yes.

Representative Daily Cruz.

Yes.

Representative Didalow?

Yes.

Representative Dorsey.

Yes.

Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

Yes.

Representative Gardner?

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Yes.

Representative Graham.

Yes.

Representative Gross.

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Yes.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

You, Representative Hyatt?

Yes.

I am a yes.

Representative LePine?

Yes.

Parliamentary McEwen.

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

Yes.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Sallas.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Yes.

President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestri.

Yes.

Representative Walston.

No.

Representative Weathers?

Yes.

Representative Weinbird?

Yes.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

Representative Yeager?

Yes.

Representative Zachary?

Yes.

Just circle back.

I had one.

We passed Representative Bouchard.

Would you like to vote?

I will abstain.

Abstain.

All right.

With that, I have two yeses and one abstention.

Is that what you have, Barbara?

Yep.

Sorry, I meant two no's, not two noses.

Thank you.

Okay, we have 36 yes, two no's and one abstention, so that item passes.

And that concludes your report, Coach Shore.

That concludes my report.

I yield, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to fiscal committee.

Coach Zachary.

Thank you, Madam President.

The fiscal committee met on Tuesday, May 19th at 6 30 p.m., both in the Democratic Cross Caucus Room and by webinar.

We consider the following items.

Item number one, F32.071 for $398,695,000.

An additional appropriation operating funding for emergency obestices abatement services at Yerwood Community Center 90 Fairfield Avenue.

Item two, F32.072 for 2,537,000.

A rejection.

See if I get all the zeros right.

CP400062 Transfer Station, 2 million 537,000, canal wall replacement.073 for $3,437,000.

An additional appropriation capital project CP 4000062.

Okay, item four, F32.074, a resolution amending the capital budget for fiscal year 25-26 by adding an appropriation of $3,437,000 for the transfer station, canal wall replacement, not authorizing $2,762,000 general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation.

Item five, F 32.075 for $25,000.

An additional appropriation grant, Department of Health and Human Services, Project Champion Grant, Substance Use Prevention Initiatives Targeting Youth in Stanford.

Item 6, F 32.076.

A resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Child Health and Development Institute for Project Champion.

Item 7, F 32.077 for $62,500.

An additional appropriation capital.

Item 8, F 32.078, a resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Connecticut Port Authority for financial assistance for the Cummings Marina Dredging Biological Testing Project.

Item 9, F 32.079.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Department of Emergency Management and Public Protection Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Award.

Allocation of $69,500 is already in.080.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Office of Early Childhood OEC for quality enhancement funding under Early Start CT.

Item 11, F 32.081 for 9,925,945.

An additional appropriation capital Project 001460.

Amend FY 2526 budget for improvements to the 1971 building.082 for $125,000.

An additional appropriation capital project 001461.

Stanford Harbor Boat Launch Feasibility Study Phase to complete site evaluations and preliminary boat launch design for a potential public boat launching facility on the Stanford Harbor Shoreline.

Item 13, F32.083, excuse me.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Port Authority for the Stanford Harbor Boat Launch Visibility to Project.

Item 14, F32.084 for $85,000, an additional appropriation grant, supplemental revenue sharing grant funds to provide $50,000 to Project Music Music, excuse me, and $35,000 to ROSCO for youth music education, child care, and enrichment programming serving Stanford residents.

Item 15, F-32.085, a resolution related to the application for a school construction priority science lab alteration and energy conservation grant for Stanford High School.

And finally, item 16, F32.086 resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the U.S.

Economic Development Administration for the East Harbor Canal Retaining Wall Project.

Uh I would like to move items, gotta go back a couple pages, one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen to the consent agenda.

Point of inquiry.

Yes.

Um you guys have taken 12 off of the consent agenda, or it's not on the consent agenda, but doesn't 13 go with 12?

And then if so, if anybody were voting against item 12, wouldn't they want to vote against item 13?

That's a good point.

Yeah.

Then let's move item 12 and 13 off the consent agenda.

Item 12 is already off the consent agenda.

We'll move off item 13 as well.

Okay, so we're moving.

Let me get this straight.

Items one and then three to 11 and then 14, 15, 16 on consent agenda.

Okay.

Um there's a motion to move all these items I just listed on the consent agenda.

Is that a second?

Second.

That's a lot of read.

Um any any discussion on these items.

It's on consent.

So is anyone planning to object any of the consent agenda items?

The other two we will discuss, but if.

Yes.

I have to abstain from um 14.

Okay, that's fine.

We can do that when we when we would.

Okay.

Um, seeing no, you know, objections, we'll take this by voice, but all those in favor of approving items one, three to eleven, three, and then 14, 15, and 16.

Please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions and noted uh representative PBS substantial on 14.

Okay.

With that those items pass.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

With that, we'll move on to item number 12.

Coacher Zagri.

Madam President, let's do item two, please.

Oh, which is not on the consent agenda.

Okay, go for it.

Okay, this is a a brief discussion.

This is a rejection item, and what the committee did was to take no action.

By taking no action, we in fact take no action and it is rejected.

It is a close-out item on a so that they essentially it's a bookkeeping item so that the city can close one section of its books and reopen them somewhere else.

If we take no action and don't do anything, the city will be able to go ahead and make the accounting adjustment without any problem.

There's really nothing to discuss about it otherwise.

So the best solution we could construct was to take no action.

That is what we recommend now.

Okay.

Yes.

Would you like me to be clear?

Thank you.

So is that a motion to take this item up?

Seeing none, then we will no action will be taken on this item.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So items 12 and 13, which are tied together.

There was a discussion in committee about whether or not the Stanford Harborough boat launch feasibility study and the 125,000 dollars was city funded.

And the answer is so far as we can determine, no, it is not.

We believe, uh, I'm not sure I have the exact history right, but I think there was a grant from 2022.

Sorry, yes.

All right, you have to take motion, make a motion to take this item first and then we'll do discussion.

I'd like to take this item items 12 and 13 are tied together.

Let's start with item 12.

Okay.

Um, there's a motion to take item number 12 of the okay.

Now discussion.

No, Chair Zagri.

Sorry, thank you.

It's okay.

Uh anyway, the there was some discussion about whether this was city funded, and the answer is no, it is not.

All the money comes from either a private grant of I believe 60 or 65,000, and the other portion is from a previous grant awarded to the city of $60,000.

Can you hear me?

Yes, no, yes, okay.

$60,000.

So there's no city money allocated for this.

Um, and that was uh one of the key issues at the time.

Um, yes.

Okay, um, hang on.

Um, uh representative McEwen, and then representative Graham.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, so the this respect for the feasibility study for the construction of a public boat launching facility is difficult for me to support uh as we come out of an exceptionally difficult budget cycle, a budget cycle in which we said to many nonprofit organizations that were there were requests for four or six hundred dollars to address areas of public service, homelessness, food scarcity, etc.

Uh, were simply not going to be approved because the city of Stanford couldn't afford it.

In the same budget cycle, we reduced uh a budget for architectural plans to build a library on the east side by a hundred thousand dollars.

In the wake of that messaging, I find it of great concern that we're telling nonprofit organizations that struggle to make ends meet, whose organizations are committed to public service, that their need for a couple hundred dollars is of less need and are more infeasible than that of a boat launch, which obviously benefits a much smaller community of Stanford, especially when the proposed site is in critical need of investment and revitalization.

That being said, or that being said, I've I've heard that those in support of approving this item have cited that half of the funds come from state grants and the other half comes from monies previously given to the Harbor Management Commission from a private source, and as a result, there is no burden on the tax player, taxpayer, excuse me.

And I I have two two issues with that.

The monies previously given to the Harbor Management Commission were not necessarily specifically identified for this use from that private source.

Uh, and there's other important work that would have greater impact in my opinion than this proposed plan.

Uh separately, when I've asked the question as to how much the ultimate project might be, uh nobody was able to give me an answer.

I think that's a critical question.

Are we talking one million?

We're talking five million.

I have no idea.

And when I've asked people, they also had no idea.

There was no insight.

There was also from what I've gathered, no proposal on where the balance of those funds come from.

Is that also going to be grant funded?

Or is that coming out of the pockets of taxpayers ultimately?

These are questions that I feel are important for us to know before making an informed decision.

I think it's important for the public to know.

Uh, in an environment where we are telling nonprofits their small appropriation requests are not fundable.

I think we need to think twice what messaging we send to the city as a whole when we sit here tonight and approve this funding and explore the potential creation of a boat launch.

And with that I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I wanted to piggyback off of what my colleague uh representative McEwen said.

Uh the park is in uh in dire need of uh repair.

We have an issue with lighting.

Um we've asked previously for a grant just for a blue light for park goers.

Um there's some um conflicts with the boaters and other park users.

If we if a a launch were to go on that piece of parcel and you have children out there as a safety concern, I have uh a concern about um environmental issues, uh maybe oil spills or um uh wildlife disturbance.

And the last was um a bottleneck on the weekends.

The park is it's not that large to have traffic go around the park to for people to uh launch boats, and you have different activities going on in the same space.

You have a gazebo up there, you have a softball field up there, you have a park for children.

So I just don't think that this is a feasible plan, and I think it just equals up to waste.

And I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Graham.

Uh Majority Adam Morrison, followed by uh representative Hughes.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh to to piggyback on um what uh uh my colleague representative McEwen had said, yeah, the the funding comes uh uh it's it's for a study of a boat launch, and the Harbor Commission has has determined that this is the best location that they'd like to explore.

Uh half of the money comes from a state grant, half of the money comes from uh the state grant was in 2022.

Uh the private donation was made in 2019 to the Harbor Commission uh as a restricted donation exclusively for water use.

So uh I fully agree with my colleague representative Graham that the park needs more attention and more money put on it, but as this was a uh restricted donation, the money can't be used for anything in the park other than uh water use.

Um so it can't be used for for broad uh use to up uh to bring the park uh to to it uh the gem that it should be.

Uh as far as the cost of the final project, there is no final project yet.

That's what the study is for, to determine uh if the recommendation for a boat launch at uh K park is is the best location.

If it is a good location, what will the project look like?

At that point, uh, you know, once uh once the study is done, that will determine the direction that design and cost will take.

So it it doesn't surprise me that there isn't a cost yet to to reflect on because there's no project to price yet because the study isn't done.

So um, you know, I I am uh I'm not gonna stop, I'm not gonna vote against uh the money that has been uh acquired by grant and by restricted donation from being spent on the study to then determine whether or not K Park uh is the location or how big or if at all a project like this goes forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Representative Hughes.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I just wanted to echo what uh representatives Graham and McCuben said.

Um this park is you know, a gem, it's you know one of our best parks, I think, in the whole entire state.

Um I just don't see there a need for a public uh boat ramp.

Um that's not something there's a shortage of in the area.

Um, and I question using um, you know, city land that is so needed and utilized by folks who live in the South End and live downtown, and uh I I question uh going out of our way to make something and spend money on something that is going to be utilized by the rich and people who don't actually live in our neighborhoods.

Um that isn't to say everyone in our neighborhoods, uh there aren't folks who don't own boats, but I mean, let's be honest about the majority of who would be using this boat ramp.

And I agree too with representative cramps concerns about safety uh and just adding boats to this park and the potential to add boats on loading and offloading.

I I don't think mixed as well as with its current use.

So I'm gonna be a no on it and I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Hughes.

Uh next is representative de la Cruz, followed by representative Camperley.

You know, okay.

Representative Delacruz, go ahead.

Well, I lower my hand.

I think some of the the comments that were made uh I would be repeating.

So I thank you, representative de la Cruz.

Next one is uh representative Didalo.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I'm gonna be supporting this.

I think uh what uh representative Morrison already said.

Um I'm also a person that happens to love the water.

I have two kayaks at home and I'm inland, I'm in district 16.

So in order to go through and place boats in the water, um, I have to go through and I need a place to put them in.

Luckily, the city of Stanford has at West Beach now some racks as well as at Cove Island, but for other people that don't live directly on Long Island Sound, they do have access.

Yeah, I agree that some of those concerns are regarding um boats getting into the water.

You know, I'm down by the water a lot.

You know, my mom as well.

She spends time, that's her favorite thing during the summertime.

When she's off, she's down at West Beach.

And yeah, boats come in and out, people get boats in the water.

A lot of it is more personal watercraft too, which are jet skis where people are taking them in and out one time a day.

Um, I'm gonna be supporting it again for that reason is that a lot of that funding is already in place, and also putting on my other public safety hat, there isn't really many access points for public safety issues on that side of Stanford and on that side of Chapan Point.

That is a consideration.

I know for some people, it's like, okay, Chipan point to get around with a boat is hard.

And during stormy weather or whatever is going on, a thunderstorm where someone's capsized or boat off by the brake wall, it can be half an hour to get out to the person by the water.

It is another access point if we need to get a zodiac over there to get someone quicker than going all the way around Chapan Point.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, representative Diddle, representative Sanford.

Sorry, I wasn't ready.

Um I think we're missing a point here, though.

The the marina, the Stanford Harbor offers boat slips for residents.

They pay a fee to the city to keep their boat there.

The I haven't looked at the rules lately, because I wasn't, but I'm just trying to look it up.

The the preference goes to to Stanford residents.

You show your proof of residency, and then it goes to out of city residents.

So it's a service we offer our residents, and they pay a fee.

So to give a boat launch, we're giving something in return for what they're paying for.

So to Representative Dillow's point, you know, it's, you know, another access point, but the one I know we used to use was down at West Beach, which had to go under renovations, and when they closed that down, it's a whole debacle.

We need it.

And you can't just put a boat launch anywhere.

You can't just show up and you have to look at the tide, you have to look at the there's a whole bunch of stuff.

So that's why we have to do the study.

Anyway, I don't think people are really understanding that it's the residents pay a fee to use the slip for the season.

And this is a service that we provide.

Anyway, I yield.

That's what I got.

Thank you, representative Sanwood, representative shore.

Yeah, um, I I've been uh a boat owner on and off for 30 years, and um, I mean, I I would certainly love to know the nature of these grants and how they could be reapplied.

Uh you know, the city just completed work on a new boat ramp at West Beach, and it's a it's a great facility.

Uh, it can handle a lot of traffic.

Uh it's it's it's more than adequate.

Uh I understand representative Didalow's point about getting around Chapan Point.

Uh I'd be surprised to know that the only uh boat ramp on the Stanford Harbor side, there is no boat ramp on the Stanford Harbor side.

Uh, but that point notwithstanding, I I just there's no public boat ramp.

No public boat ramp.

No public boat ramp, yeah.

But you know, that's a beautiful, serene park.

It really is.

It and the idea of you know pickup trucks coming in with trailers.

Uh first of all, pickup trucks and trailers together are like 25, 30 feet long.

They they clog up the parking lot.

Uh, you know, their, you know, their priorities and the priorities of other people uh using the park would be at odds with each other.

That's a relatively tight parking lot.

And I also go back to Ms.

Halpern's point earlier this evening, which is, you know, that's a that's a park that's desperately in need of some love.

And and even if it isn't taxpayer money that's gonna go into that improvement, I just think it's a bad look to be spending a hundred and twenty-five thousand bucks that could uh on a feasibility study for a boat ramp when the park needs so much work, and with that I yield.

Thank you, representative short representative Gilbright.

I just wanted to go back to say that I said representative Gilbright.

Oh, I'll come back to you next.

Go ahead, representative Gilbright.

Thank you.

Um, so free money's free money.

I did do it.

Yeah, are we good?

Okay, thank you.

Um, free money is free money, and I don't want this board to get in the habit of saying no to free money.

Um, that to me is utterly ridiculous.

Um, as a boater, um, we have a boat at Chesick Marina.

Um, it's a city marina, and um, you know, it takes a little longer to get out into the water, but I'm very, very um upset to hear somebody say that um the boating is only used by rich people and people that are not in our neighborhood and invite that person and anybody to come to our marina and see the diversity that is there.

Um, it's fantastic, and um, it makes me really actually proud to be a resident of Stanford and and have that as something that's a benefit to anybody.

Um, if they do the feasibility study and it's not feasible, great.

Um the boaters of this town have waited years for all the upgrades that have been currently happening.

Um, and we're really thrilled that they've gotten it.

I'm a fairly new boater.

Um, I'm a queen's kid, not raised in the water whatsoever, so um, and we've been rescued by our neighbors more than once.

Um, so I would just say to my fellow reps, um, you know, one, it's free money, don't worry about that.

Um, I'll happily give money to the poor to feed people, so don't worry about that.

Um, and you know, please come to my marina if you think boating's only for rich people and people that don't live in Stanford.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Gilbright.

Representative Waltston, did you have your hand raised?

Okay, go ahead.

Um, I will be voting no.

Um, for one thing, I remember from last year, I put some calls out to uh to the Parks and Rack person.

I'm not gonna call his name here, and um I thought, you know, the lights were coming in.

Now there's no funding.

Um the park is just kind of it's it's to it's kind of trashy.

I see the people walking around from the high rises, and uh the boat slip is just not gonna work.

It's a lot of people walking with their dogs with their babies and all of that, and uh, and it's more and more people coming onto the South End.

And we have to think about also we're still not done with the air quality.

There still is a problem on the South End with the air quality, and so now you want the boats, they'll be idling.

So it's just so much more.

Um, that's with this, and everything that is free, it's not free because eventually um the head is going to rise.

So you'll see what's not free.

We have free money, but it's not free.

So with that, I'm encouraging my fellow reps to please vote no, and for the sake of the people who live on the South End, they already have enough traffic coming in and out of there.

So thank you, and I yield the floor.

Thank you, representative Walton.

Representative Camparelli.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Um, I just wanted to say that I I someone people keep saying that this is not tax dollars, but grants that come from the state are actually our tax dollars.

And so I just wanted to correct the record and say these are this is not free money.

We're not saying no to free money, we're saying let's not spend our tax money in this way.

Um the other thing is that part of this is private funding.

Someone is spending their private money to have this study done.

And to me, that means that they have a good idea of what this is gonna cost on the back end.

Nobody's spending their private money to have a study done if they don't know what the actual launch is going to cost.

Um, and so uh I would like to have more information on that.

Uh so at this point, I think I would be a no.

I think we need more information about the ultimate project before voting for this.

I yield.

Thank you, representative Camborelli, representative Finkel.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I I've got a problem with optics.

As been said before, we just went through a very difficult budget season.

And the optics of spending money for a boat launch when we have cut not-for-profits, we've cut capital programs, we've postponed physical items that the police and fire could utilize, and now we're potentially spending money as far as optics are concerned, as far as what the public knows and sees, I have a problem being able to spend 125,000 for this type of operation.

And I yield.

Thank you, representative Finkel, Representative Graham, for the second time.

And when I moved there uh in 1981, it was so quiet at night, you can roll over the street and nobody would even notice you on the corner of Dyke Lane and Elmcroft.

Now the building one Elmcroft Road is going to be turned into 200 and something apartments.

And so the traffic there with additional cars on that small residential street is going to increase, along with the the fact that um the traffic on Dyke Lane, Washington Boulevard, with uh numerous businesses um being constructed, like uh some of the medical practices and so forth and so on.

On the weekends, it's crazy around there, and you could probably walk down Washington Boulevard faster than you can drive some days.

So to add um insult to injury, we don't we do not want an additional burden on the citizens that utilize that park.

And I uh some people do like the vote, but some people just want quiet and so to sit in the park with their family and enjoy their day.

So again, um I'm going to vote no, and I hope, like uh Kendria said, uh excuse me, Representative Walston, that everybody uh supports the clause, and thank you.

I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Graham.

Any other discussion?

Okay, seeing none, we'll take this by roll call role.

All right.

Um this is for fiscal item 32.082.

Um, the 125,000 dollar appropriation.

Uh we'll start at the top.

Representative Adams.

How would you like to vote?

No.

No.

Representative Beckham?

No.

Representative Blank.

No.

Representative Bouchard.

Uh I'm a no.

Sorry, one more time.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Boudreaux?

No.

Representative Bradford.

Abstain.

Uh Representative Camprelli?

No.

Representative Dela Cruz.

No.

Representative Didlow?

Pass.

Uh Representative Dorsey?

No.

Uh Representative Field?

No.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner?

Yes.

Representative Kilbride.

Yes.

Uh Representative here.

Representative Graham.

No.

Representative Gross?

No.

Representative Hill.

No.

Representative Hughes?

No.

Representative Hyatt?

No.

I myself am a yes.

Representative LePine.

No.

Parliamentary McEwen.

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

No.

Representative Politia?

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Abstain.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Sellas?

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

Yes.

President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore?

No.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestri.

No.

Representative Alston?

No.

Representative Weathers.

No.

Sorry, did you mind saying that one more time?

No.

Thank you so much.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

Representative Yeager.

No.

Representative Zachary?

Abstain.

All right.

I had one pass.

Representative Didalo.

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

With that, let me count on three abstentions.

Eight yeses.

Nine.

10.

Yeah.

Yep.

Okay.

We've got 10 yes, 26 no, and three abstentions.

So that item failed.

Would you like to move on to the next item, Coach Zachary?

Yes, I would.

Thank you, Madam President.

It is item 13, a resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Port Authority for the Stanford Harbor Boat Bonds feasibility to project.

You'd like to move that item.

Since I'd like to move that item.

Is that a second?

Point of order.

Yes.

Madam President, considering we've just failed to pass item 12 and procedurally, it wouldn't really make so much sense to pass item 13 in lower given that I'd object to consideration of that motion.

We have we've always taken the, we've always, any, since it's in its own item, we've we have to take up the item and do the voting again, unfortunately.

Respectfully, I would just advise that we needn't take up any item.

We've had a matter of fact, we've done that already earlier this meeting.

If there's no motion to approve it, which I'm objecting to.

Of course, the body or the chair can rule otherwise, but my for the record, my motion, or my, excuse me, I'm just objecting to consideration of the question before it's in the hands of the assembly, so there's been situations in the past where people would vote on the item appropriation and then vote on the resolution separately, so we can't assume that it's going to be the same way, which is why we will uh uh can the mayor actually enter into and sign agreements with the connecticut port authority for this purpose if the additional appropriation has not been approved, yes, okay.

Thank you.

We will move on with the resolution, anyways.

So there is a motion to move the uh resolution.

Is that a second?

Second, okay.

We've had extensive discussion.

Is that any more discussion we want to have on this item?

Yes, I was gonna say we could take no action on this, instead of not anymore, you already know.

We've already moved it, so we have to point of order.

Okay, representative Zachary asked permission from the body to withdraw his motion, no, yes, Deputy Majority.

I mean Majority Leader Morrison.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh with respect to uh Parliamentary McEwen's point that we've already done it this evening, that was a rejection item and the procedure is different by taking no action, but uh this is in the body of the the motion's in the hands of the body at this point, and in the past, even when there have been uh connected resolutions, we have always voted on them separately, even if the vote goes exactly the same way.

Uh and uh listen, if if the resolution were to pass, even though we have uh failed the this piece of the funding in the previous item, the mayor could on approval of uh we could approve the mayor to enter an agreement into an agreement, and the administration would be free to try to find another way to fund it.

So if if the intent of those who voted no on the um allocation of the money is to stop the project at the moment, I would urge those who uh who align with that to vote down number 13 and not take action.

Thank you.

Okay, any other anything else, uh coach, otherwise we'll go into the no, no, okay.

We'll do it all called for this.

All right, this is uh F 32.083.

Representative Adams, how do you vote?

No.

Representative Beckham?

No, Representative Blank.

Representative Blank.

No.

Uh Representative Bouchard.

Representative Boudreaux.

No.

Representative Bradford.

Abstain.

Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative de la Cruz.

Would you say it one more time?

Representative David Cruz.

No.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Didalo.

No.

Representative Dorsey.

Representative Fields.

No.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Yes.

Representative Graham.

No.

Representative Gross?

No.

Representative Hill.

No.

Representative Hughes?

Representative Hyatt?

No.

I myself am a no.

Representative Le Pine.

No.

Parliamentary McEwen.

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

No.

Representative Pabia.

No.

Representative Pleachia.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

No.

Representative Price.

No.

Representative Salais.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

No.

President Shaw.

No.

Representative Shore?

No.

Representative Stone?

No.

Representative Sylvestri?

No.

Representative Walston?

No.

Representative Weathers?

No.

Representative Weinberg?

No.

You uh Representative Weirs?

No.

Representative Jaeger?

No.

And Representative Zachary.

No.

All right.

I've got two yeses and one abstention, with the remaining being no's.

Thanks.

Yeah, Representative Blank.

We missed it there.

No.

No.

Thank you.

Okay, so we have two yeses, 36 no's, one abstention.

So that item fails.

And that concludes the report from the fiscal committee.

Thank you so much.

Coach Zachary.

Moving on to legislative and rules committee, Chair McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

The legislative and rules committee met at 7.04 p.m.

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2026 in the Democratic caucus room and by webinar.

Considered four items in that meeting.

The first of which was LR 32.018, a resolution and public hearing related to the city lease of 0 and 338 Cortland Avenue for school bus parking.019, an ordinance for publication, an ordinance establishing a conservation commission.

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

Sorry, just to be clever, you're only making a motion for item number one at this point.

That is correct.

Okay, there's a motion to approve item number one in the LNR committee report.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so consent items.

So we will take this by is anybody planning to oppose.

Yes, representative gross.

Um thank you, President Shaw.

Um, you planning for post?

Yes, I'm planning to, yes, I'm planning to reposition.

Okay, so we will take this off consent then.

Okay.

That items have consent so discussion.

So go ahead, representative gross.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, I'm I'm currently in opposition.

I just think we really have to, you know, I'm not sure the city has really fully considered the um traffic implications of uh putting this massive bus depot on Courtland Avenue, which is a already highly, highly trafficked uh sort of street that you know connects 95 and the merit.

I mean, it's incredibly busy in the morning, it's incredibly busy in the evening, and I think adding a uh bus depot that's just going to um you know worsen already serious traffic concerns in the neighborhood.

Um, you know, it's not something that's going to be helping the residents um in that district, you know, all throughout the campaign.

You know, we're talking about, you know, traffic calming, how we can make people people's lives easier.

Um, and I really don't think that adding uh, you know, this major bus depot, despite, you know, I'm sure there there, you know, there's this sort of promise of maybe we might get you know a better deal in the future.

There might be some, you know, more compelling financial implications down the line, but I think as it appears right now, you know, it's not going to make people's lives, it's not going to make people's commutes um, you know, any easier.

Um, and so for those reasons I plan to oppose.

Thank you, Representative Gross Representative Boutreaux.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

Uh I I want to address uh representative growth's point about traffic because we did um discuss this item in the in the committee meeting with the city's senior transportation planner, uh Luke Buttonweiser.

Um and the the takeaway that I had from that is that the major time at which buses will be passing through this area is prior to the peak commuting hours.

So while there will be a traffic impact, the traffic impact is not going to be, you know, hitting the rush hour.

It's not going to be creating a massive congestion.

And the second point I want to address about that is that the alternative that we are currently in, our current situation, is for the buses to be parked elsewhere in the city and to be parked, in fact, uh on less well-equipped roads.

Portland Avenue is a state road, it's built to a higher standard than many of the other roads in the city.

It is better capable to take the additional traffic.

So I recognize that there is a concern there.

And as someone who, you know, lives in that neighborhood, I'm not completely thrilled about it.

But I do think that this is the best place that we have been able to find for bus parking.

And so I'm planning to support this.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you so much.

Representative Hill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Yeah, I live around a corner from where this is, and I'm concerned about the traffic as well.

But if it's the location I think it is, they're already Darien school buses parked there.

And um I'd I you know talk about the optics that Darien can park their buses there, but we can't park ours there.

Uh, you know, we have legitimate needs.

So I think that uh I would vote in favor of it.

Thank you so much.

Uh representative Walston.

I will be voting in favor of this because the West side, uh, we need relief over there from the school buses.

We have little roads over there.

And as I had spoken earlier in the committee meeting, I lived it with the buses right in the back backyard.

So it would be a good thing since Cortland is a straightaway.

I don't know if they're going to hit the highway or not, but um, I think it's a good location.

And uh I I think um it was said something about sound barriers, and I think that'd be great.

And it won't like where they're located right now on Bonner Street, is residential.

And where they're going, the site, from what I saw, it's a pretty good site.

It's not residential where the buses are, so the people won't be disturbed as much as the people are on uh Bonner Street.

And let me just give you an example why I think uh the bus, I'll call it the bus depot should move.

There are a lot of people on the west side, they have to be to work at seven o'clock.

And uh with the buses, you have to get out at least by 625, 630, in order to not get caught behind one bus on this street, or you're going to get caught on another bus here, and then they make multiple stops.

So by being over there on the east side, I think it's going to work out pretty pretty good for the west side, and I yield.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, I mean, anyone who lives on the east side, um, anyone who's familiar with Cortland Avenue, I mean, knows uh, you know, just how busy it gets um to the to the point made about um it's sort of being outside of hours.

So so perhaps when the buses leave the depot, it might be you know before rush hour, but I think when they're coming back is going to be sort of prime rush hour traffic, to my understanding.

You know, if school gets out at two o'clock, you know, I mean these buses are gonna be returning four or five o'clock when Cortland Avenue is really at its busiest, um, and it's not really going to be helping residents in the slightest.

Um, you know, and I mean this is this is a one-lane road here, and we're planning on putting, you know, I don't have the exact number in front of me, but you know, 40, 50 buses that are going to be sort of returning from their routes um into this uh, you know, this neighborhood.

And it's you know, you say, oh, it's commercial.

Uh no, you know, it's gonna affect all of Cortland Avenue.

People live all up and down Cortland Avenue.

Um, you know, I'm in a condo complex, you know, there's plenty of condos, it's high density sort of housing uh around Cortland Avenue.

So even though that specific lot isn't residential, I mean it's going to affect everyone's commutes and talk about people who just live on that side of town, whether you're traveling to get to the merit or to 95, everyone uses Cortland Avenue.

Uh, this is a, you know, very, very, you know, highly trafficked road.

Um, you know, so adding the bus depot there, you know, it might, you know, perhaps it might help you in the other side of town, but it's certainly not gonna help us.

Um, you know, and as a representative of uh the east side, you know, it's sort of my I'm incumbent, it's incumbent upon me to oppose this.

So thank you.

Thank you, representative Cruz, Cliff Johnson.

Let's just say I want to largely echo what uh representative Walston said.

I think right now so much of that traffic and and burden is concentrated in the west side.

I think this is largely a dilution effort, right?

Buses slow traffic down.

That's a fact of life.

There's no way around it short of having every kid in the system walk to school, which isn't an option.

Um I think it's about sharing that responsibility throughout the city.

Uh for now, I think this is a first step down the line.

If this works out, maybe there's more smaller depots, different parts of town.

But I think this is a very helpful first step.

Thank you, Clark Johnson.

Uh representative blank.

Sorry, thank you.

Uh if I may, I'll share some of the uh information we gleaned from the committee, may help uh enlighten some of those in the room who do not uh understand what why we need the bus depot.

Um the bus depot is designed to allow Stanford to mitigate the monopoly that first student bus service has currently.

That is the first and foremost of effort here.

Um the bus depot will hold up to uh from what we were told, approximately 90 buses, including the vehicles used by the bus drivers, and possibly avail themselves of the train station down the street.

Uh the bus depot will allow for us to get a better service for our schools at a lower cost than first student is willing to do, and bring us into compliance with regards to GPS tracking and other uh issues that are outstanding with first student.

Uh with regards to the traffic, we were told again as uh representative uh my apologies.

Wallstein behind me mentioned um that we uh that there was a traffic study completed, and that that traffic study showed uh little effect to the overall traffic within the neighborhood.

The facility that it's going in is currently Paramount Stone.

Part of the problem people did not understand is that zero doesn't exist.

Uh that's what's called zero.

So we apologi you know, those of us who were on the committee, I apologize for that, but we did not draw up the lease.

Uh so I I hope that information helps people make a better and a more informed decision with regards to why we need the bus depot and why it needs to go where it's going.

Um the added appreciation of the West Side being alleviated from the current situation of bus parking and the current situation with regards to first student is a bonus.

And we uh I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative blank, representative Le Pine.

Thank you, madam president.

Uh, and thank you, Representative Blank, for sharing some of that information from the committee.

Um, I just wanted to uh build on that just uh a little bit.

One of the uh constituents who spoke tonight in the public session talked about the often challenging complex decisions we have to make.

I think this is one of those.

And there's uh, you know, while the vote from the Board of Finance was 6-0 and the committee, L and R committee was 9-0.

Uh I don't know that there's a member of either one of those committees that loves the solution.

It's one of those difficult, complex solutions that has uh a lot of challenges to it.

But as was pointed out, we're in a tough spot, and if we don't do something about it, that spot's only gonna get tougher, and these options are gonna get more narrow.

This property was not for sale.

This property was dug up and investigated, and resulted in the city having the option now to buy it.

Uh and if we pass on it, uh Lisa, my apologies.

If we pass on it, there's been a lot of studies to figure out where that second location can be.

We don't have a viable option right now, and there are serious consequences to not having those options.

So uh, I don't love it, but I absolutely support it.

And I think it's one of those hard decisions that we're here to make, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Any other discussion?

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

All right.

Uh let's take a vote on LR 32.1018.

Uh Representative Adams.

How would you like to vote?

Yes.

You, Representative Beckham?

Yes.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard?

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Yes.

Representative Camparelli.

Yes.

Representative Dela Cruz.

Yes.

You uh Representative Jolo.

Yes.

Representative Dorsey?

Yes.

Representative Field?

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

Yes.

Representative Gardner?

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Yes.

Representative Graham.

Yes.

Representative Gross?

No.

Representative Hill?

Yes.

Representative Hughes?

No.

Representative Hayek?

Yes.

I am a yes.

Representative Le Pine?

Yes.

Parliamentary McEwen.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison?

Yes.

Representative Pavia.

Yes.

Representative Pleachia.

Yes.

Deputy Major Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

No.

Representative Sulas?

Yes.

Representative Sanford.

Uh Deputy Major Leader Sanford, apologies.

Yes.

Uh President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestri.

Yes.

Representative Walston?

Yes.

Representative Weathers?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Weirs.

Yes.

Representative Yeager?

No.

Last but certainly not least, Representative Zachary.

Yes.

Two, three.

You've got three notes.

Four notes.

Yeah.

35 yes and four no.

So that item passes.

Go ahead, Chad McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um item number two LR 32.019 was voted to recommit to steering by the committee.

So no action taken there.

Uh and at this time, um, I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of considering item number four before item number three, simply because as done in committee, um, it makes substantially more sense to decide the the resolution on three after knowing what the future of four looks like.

So there's a motion to um just reverse the order for uh items three and four.

Uh in order to suspend the rules, we need two-thirds.

Is there anyone planning to object?

If not, we can do this by voice board, otherwise we'd have to do a roll call.

Anyone?

Uh well, I need a four for second.

Yeah, there's a second here.

Sorry, I just went on.

Um, so there's a motion in a second.

Is there anyone objecting to do the uh suspend the rules?

Thank you, madam president.

Uh yes, only because items three and four are related.

They're kind of of the same concept considered together.

The committee usually considers four before three, um, because there isn't really much substantive discussion remaining on three, but we typically in the committee at least we also suspended the rules to change this order so that we knew how the committee would dispose of four so that we were better informed as to how we should vote for three.

If in the event this board does not approve four, for example, the committee in the past, and I would recommend tonight that we also similarly push three um as well so they can continue to be considered together.

So the motion at this point is just to reverse the order.

So to take up item number four before we take up item number three.

But if four is not going to be an ordinance right now, why does it matter?

Sorry, it's it is an item that was taken, but I'm saying if we if the board feels a certain way towards four, it doesn't matter because it's not gonna go into law anyway.

So what does it matter if it goes first?

Those are two separate items.

We they're still separate items.

So in the committee, it was taken it that way.

So Chair McHugh and his recommending we we take it that way.

That's all.

Uh can I speak briefly to why I made the motion to take them up in this order in committee?

Uh the the reasoning for that is that the repeal of the ord uh the appointments commission number three, uh we didn't want to just repeal it without having any framework for um accountability to replace it.

So my vote to repeal it uh as I voted in committee was contingent upon number four passing and having a framework for accountability associated with the appointments process to replace it.

Uh, because I didn't want to get rid of what already exists, even though I felt that it wasn't working without having something else to fill in that gap.

Thank you.

Do you have a question?

Yes, yes, I do.

Um what what did I didn't read the whole thing?

So what is meant by repeal the appointments commission?

So there's an appointment commission and there's an appointment committee.

The two different bodies.

So we have to just do the motion first and then we can when we talk through that item itself, we'll discuss that if that's okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

So is anyone objecting to reverse the order and take up item number four?

I see no objections, so we will reverse the order.

Go ahead, Chair McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

With respect to LR 32.017, I move to approve this ordinance.

So there's a motion to approve uh item number four, LR32.017.

Is that a second?

Okay, any discussion on item number four?

Point of personal privilege, Madam President.

Go ahead, Chair McEwen.

I just wanted to clarify my motion is to uh my motion is to approve this for public hearing.

So it yes, it's so it's it's not it's not okay.

So we'd have to change this to ordinance for public hearing and the orders today to approve for public hearing, a motion to approve for public hearing.

Is that clear?

Okay.

Any discussion right now on this item number four?

Yes.

Uh so uh really question for the parliamentarian, I think.

Um do we do we uh if we approve it for a public hearing, the public hearing takes place.

Uh and then uh pen pending what the committee does after that public hearing, uh then at our next meeting it will move to a final vote, right?

Um doesn't that violate don't uh isn't it supposed to be three meetings that it comes up at?

That then an ordinance, a potential ordinance supposed to come up at one for publication, a vote here for publication, second is um then the the committee will um presumably approve it for a public hearing um or recommend it for a public hearing and the board will will then at our at our July meeting a vote on whether to move it forward to a public hearing and then third in August, then have a final vote.

Isn't do I do I understand the the process correctly or not?

Okay, thank you madam president to you to Representative Weinberg.

That's not my understanding of the process.

Um haven't been here very long.

Um, but I have never seen us require three separate meetings of approvals in order to get an ordinance from enact to be enacted into law.

My understanding is that the vote tonight would be to publish a notice of a public hearing, which is required, and then following that absent any amendments, we would then move on to approve it at the subsequent meeting.

So I chair McEwan, are you good?

Okay, yes, madam president.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes, representative Hill.

The um conflicts between this, what we're proposing and the city charter itself.

Chair McEwen.

There's a question if you'd like to answer.

I apologize, representative hill, if you wouldn't mind repeating your question.

Are there any conflicts between what we're proposing and this and the and the city charter itself?

Thank you.

Uh to you through uh Madam President.

Um with respect to LR 32.017, it's my personal opinion that there is no conflict with the charter.

I have had conversations with legislative council and they are in agreement with the concept.

Um the ordinance itself cites the authority granted to this board in the charter to demand records generally.

Um and also I will say that this specific ordinance really only requires the collection of data which is already being actively required uh collected by the administration.

So no, I in my personal opinion, I don't think this ordinance conflicts with the charter in any way.

Okay, any other any other discussion on this item?

Okay, uh seeing none, let's take this by roll call one.

There was there was no words in the committee, so I want to make sure that we give the opportunity for all right, let's take a quick vote on LR 32.017.

Sure, go ahead.

Exactly what we're voting on.

So we're going to vote on item number four in the L L and R agenda, which is the ordinance for public it's for sending it to public hearing, which is the which is the it with the requirements that are established for the uh yeah, is that good?

Okay, all right.

Uh Representative Adams, how would you like to vote?

Yes, Representative Beckham?

Yes, Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Yes.

Representative Goodrow?

Yes.

Representative Bradford?

Yes.

Uh Representative Ken Prelects.

Yes.

Representative Dale Cruz.

Yes.

Representative Dillow?

Yes.

Representative Dorsey?

Yes.

Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel?

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride?

Pass.

Uh Representative Graham.

Yes.

Representative Gross?

Yes.

Representative Hill?

Representative Hughes?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt?

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh I am a yes.

Representative Le Pine.

Yes.

Uh Parliamentary McEwen.

Sorry.

Uh Michael.

Apologies.

My vote is uh in favor.

Yes.

You got it.

Thank you.

Uh Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Uh Majority.

Uh sorry, Representative Pavia.

Yes.

Representative Politia?

Yes.

Uh Deputy Major Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Salas.

Yes.

Uh Deputy Majority of Sanford?

Yes.

Uh President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore?

Yes.

Representative Stone.

Yes.

Representative Sylvestri?

Yes.

Representative Walston.

Yes.

Representative Weathers?

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

No.

Representative Weirs?

Yes.

Representative Yeager?

Yes.

Representative Zachary?

Yes.

And coming back, uh, Representative Gilbry, would you like to vote?

No.

No, your vote is no or no, you don't want to vote.

Thank you.

All right.

So with that, I believe we have two no's and 37 yeses.

Okay, so we have 37 yes and two no.

So that item passes back to you, Chair McEwan.

Thank you, Madam President.

At this time, I would move LR 32.016 uh for uh publication and public hearing.

So there's a motion to move item number three for publication and public hearing.

Is that a second?

Sorry.

Any discussion on this?

Seeing this is considered a consent item, is there anyone who's planning to object?

Uh uh Representative Hill, you had a question, didn't you?

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Um, my question is uh to repeal the appointments commission.

What is the end of that?

What what do we achieve by doing that?

Chair McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

To you uh through you to Representative Hill.

Um this item was submitted by Mayor Simmons.

Uh so you know, my summary will be my opinion of her opinion.

Um but my understanding is that the administration is is of the opinion that the appointments commission, which is not the board's appointments committee, it's a separate body, um, largely is an administrative hurdle that doesn't bring a lot of value to the process now, um, that it has achieved the missions that it was set out to achieve in terms of increasing representation with uh unaffiliated and independent voters.

Um that it simply is not useful to staff any longer.

Uh and again, I just want to qualify that that's my understanding of her opinion.

Uh, but you know, she of course can feel free to correct that.

By voice vote.

All those in favor of approving item number three of the uh legislative and rules committee agenda, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, that item passes unanimously.

Thank you, madam president.

Uh, and I believe that concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair McEwen.

Moving on to personnel committee.

Chair Weinberg.

The personnel committee met on uh May 18th at 7 o'clock in the Democratic Caucus room.

And by webinar, we had two items on the agenda.

Uh the first uh P32.009, approval of an employment contract for diversity equity and inclusion officer.

Uh since that had been held by the Board of Finance, uh no action was taken by the committee.

The second item, P32.010, approval of a clerk of the works two contract uh with Mr.

Alan Hoyt.

That was approved by the committee 600, and I move uh to place that on the consent agenda.

There's a motion to move item number two of the personal committee agenda.

Is that a second?

Second.

Okay, since it's a consent item, is anyone planning to take this off consent?

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

All those in favor of approving item number two of the personal committee agenda, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that item passes unanimously.

That concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair Weinberg.

Moving on to land use redevelop urban development committee.

Is that um?

May I ask a question of the committee?

On the last yes, point of information, yes.

Yeah, and and what was the problem with the uh Board of Finance that they did they did not want a DEI position, or what what was the conversation around that?

Well, the short answer is I don't know.

Uh for certain uh the fact that they held the item and didn't reject the item uh suggests that they will take it up at a sense to me that uh they will take it up at a uh subsequent meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Moving on to land use urban redevelopment committee, is that co chair price?

Okay, go.

Thank you, madam president.

The land use and urban redevelopment committee met on May 21st, 2026 at 7 p.m.

by webinar.

We considered two items, LU32.008, a resolution in public hearing for the sale and development of 41 Main Street, which was colloquially known as the former MITIS site.

That was approved by committee seven to zero to one.

We also discussed LU 32.006, a resolution accepting Pembroke Drive as a city street by property owners, pending certification by the city engineer that Pembroke Drive meets the qualifications for acceptance, and that was uh recommitted to steering by committee eight zero zero.

Uh I move that LU 32.008 be moved to the consent agenda.

Okay, so there's a motion to move LU 32.008 to the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Is anyone planning to vote no or take it off consent?

I plan to vote no.

Okay, so since uh there's some no woods, we will take it off consent and I will open it up now for discussion, discussion.

Madam President.

Go ahead, Representative Beckham.

Thank you.

I'm voting no on LU 32.008.

Um, I just feel like this needs to be put on hold and have another opportunity for a public hearing.

There was a hearing held on the 21st with no one from the public showed up.

I believe that is because we it was lack of due diligence in getting the information out to the constituents.

Um that area is overpopulated, highly trafficked area.

Um noise has been on the rise in that area as well.

Also, I'm not sure if there are studies that have been done on the site that they're proposed to sell, which was uh automotive uh repair shops.

Um I'm concerned about the environment.

Um, also concerned about um complaints that have come in about safety walking the streets in that area, and also um just to talk about the tax credit properties.

Um, on a meeting last week, I asked, was this gonna be a tax credit property?

You were okay.

Sorry, can you please mute?

Yeah, right.

So um, you know, we we hung up on the term affordable affordable housing, and I'm not anti-housing, but we also have an opportunity as um board of rep members to to have a balance of development and quality of life.

So we really have I'm asking the board and urging the board to, you know, vote no on this for now and put it on hold, have another public hearing where the public can be educated on how this um properties worked with tax um credit.

They're income qualified, and your rent is not income-based.

So I'm just asking for my uh colleagues to to vote no.

I yield.

Okay.

Yes.

Uh, is there a way that this can be returned to committee for a set for a second public hearing?

Yes, we will have to do the discussion, and then we'll, you know, if the if the chair decides to do that, we could do so.

But if someone makes a motion, but I'm gonna let the discussion go on.

Point of information.

Uh maybe through you, presumably to the parliamentarian.

If if we were to vote no as a body on this item, would it be held or would it be effectively dead?

Thank you, madam president.

Um, not with respect to the substance of the item, but just the item itself, it would be effectively dead.

Yeah, I just I just want to start with uh there are certain elements of the sale that we can't talk about because we aren't in executive session, um, which is why I want to also mention that um and folks are totally valid to express their concerns and vote against this.

Um, but it would have been helpful in this process if folks did come to the original meeting.

Um, you know, no one from the public came and spoke against this.

Um I also want to speak from my perspective as someone whose neighborhood this is.

Um, I can see this location literally from my living room.

Um, I understand safety concerns on that corner.

I think what would make safety for the neighborhood and that corner worse is a vacant MITIS property that sits there for another year.

Uh, there's already trash that builds up on the site.

There are already folks who loiter on it.

Um, you know, we have to make difficult decisions that we don't a hundred percent uh you necessarily agree with or might have wanted to see something else go there.

I personally would have loved to see it be uh senior housing.

There are a lot of seniors on that street uh who sometimes feel stuck in that they want to change where they live.

There's a year-long wait list.

Um, if you look around and you see the apartments downtown that are being built, they're mostly market rate housing.

The average rent in downtown Stanford is 2,700.

Okay.

We have an opportunity tonight to build 55 units of below market rate affordable housing.

Okay, those units aren't gonna be going for 2,700.

I think this is a missed opportunity for the board to pass up on this.

Due to the nature of real estate, I my understanding is if we don't approve this, the sale's dead.

They will have to go, the city will have to go through another RFP process.

The lot will sit there and continue to do nothing.

It won't build any value for the land uh grand list, won't build any value for the neighborhood.

It is literally going to be a vacant property unless we do something about it.

I think we have a misconception about what we're able to do as this body.

This is, it should be mixed use, it should be this, it should be that.

That's not our job.

It's either to it's to look at this, assess is this good for the neighborhood.

Approve the sale or not.

Not approving the sale has implications for the neighborhood.

Um I'm gonna yield, uh, but I just really hope folks uh really consider uh voting no on this.

And I yield, thank you.

What do you don't know?

Oh, sorry, voting to uh approve, or I should say hold or not hold, not hold.

Sorry.

Madam Chair, Madam Chairman, um, we have other people waiting to speak up to us.

Sorry.

Representative Weinberg, you still wish to seek the floor?

Okay, you're good.

Okay, um, representative Le Pine.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, I just want to speak to the one point that's been raised a couple times about the attendance at the public hearing, and I really uh strongly support the words of representative Hughes.

The the proposal was publicly before the planning board on April 28th.

It was on the steering committee agenda and publicly listed for the hearing uh by May 11th, and it didn't occur the hearing itself until May 21st.

And yet we're here saying that the reason people didn't show up is because they didn't know about it.

Uh, while there may be truth to that, I don't know that factually.

And at some point, I I do think we are here to represent our constituents and get the word out for issues that impact our community.

The information was out there, people didn't show up.

I take that as an endorsement.

I I certainly not an objection or a failure of um community awareness.

So I would hate to see this held up again.

This is I think a limited opportunity and one that we don't have um uh the control over to designate that property any way we see fit.

And I think this is a a great use of it.

Uh maybe not the ideal use, but a great use at the right time for our community, and I yield.

Thank you, representative Le Pine.

Represent uh Clerk Johnson.

I think uh my my colleague representative Hughes said a lot of things perfectly, so I just want to echo most of what he said.

And I think it's uh this is not the perfect development, in my opinion, right?

I would have loved to see probably even more units, a different, maybe affordability structure than it currently is.

Let's see, maybe a grocery store on the first floor, et cetera, et cetera.

My wish list is big, right?

But that's not my choice.

I'm not the developer.

If I had a hundred million dollars to show up and build that property, maybe I would get to make those calls, but I don't.

Um, and so I think you know, the the question in front of us is do we want this to be 55 units of below market rate housing that can help people in downtown Stanford live more affordable than they are today, or do we want this to sit for who knows how many number of years as an abandoned auto-body shop?

I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Clark Johnson, the presentator Walton.

For some of you here, you have not seen what it looks like when residents rise up about their neighborhood.

I've seen it over 20 years ago.

And when they come together, and then there be other people to help them to stick together and get what they want.

So it is, it is our job, of course, to vote to say yes or no to put this um apartment building in the neighborhood.

And not, and for you or any of us to not even give the public, the residents who will live in that neighborhood a chance not to speak up, it's not gonna be good.

That's one.

Secondly, it's amazing to me that for the year of 2025, we didn't have any BMR apartments.

But here we are for this little location on the west side, we're going to have a BMR apartment.

That's amazing to me.

Why?

So if you looked at the RFP and what uh Mr.

McClutchy, we talked about this about Mr.

McClutchy and his low-down payment.

That was just that was a red flag for me.

And uh that 250,000 is public knowledge, everybody can go and look at it.

So it it just it didn't bold right with me.

So with that being said, I think we need to have a public hearing, have it set up again, and it silence doesn't mean consent.

The people in that neighborhood, everybody's not tech savvy.

Um the people living in that neighborhood, there need to be flyers in the lobby, flyers put underneath their door, so that they can come out and speak.

Or better yet, you can take it to them and go to their meeting area and let them have um you have the we meet the people where they are.

Instead of them coming here, we can meet them.

Um, and you'll hear exactly what they expect and what they want.

And so um I will be voting for a second public hearing.

I will stand with uh District 5 reps on this because it could be a ripple effect on me.

And I already know what District 9 already went through along with the Water Side District when the people, when the border reps make decisions for the people.

So I urge you to please let's have another hearing on this and send it back.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Walston.

Representative Price.

I want to reflect uh and echo on co-chair Hughes's remarks on how important it is, I think that we get this done tonight.

We have all been talking about since the day we got elected affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing.

Here is an opportunity now to put in more affordable housing in Stanford, and we may miss this opportunity for 55 units, and I think that would be shameful.

So I would encourage you all to vote for this and move it forward, and I yield my time.

Thank you so much.

Uh Coacher Price, representative Hill.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Um I think that this points out a number of issues that maybe Wednesday night we can talk about them better.

One is that disenfranchise people.

There are very few times when they show up for these kinds of meetings because they feel that they are powerless already.

So they're they're not attending is not necessarily uh support.

It may not be that they're against it either.

Uh but um I I don't want to just disenfranchise them.

I think they should have a voice.

The second thing is that I do know that affordable housing is needed in the city of Stanford.

And too often, whether we live in North Stanford or whether we live on the west side or in the district I represent, when we talk about affordable housing, it becomes a real bear in the room or lying at the door.

And um, I would hope that the 40 of us can bring ourselves to represent the city of Stanford instead of the few blocks we represent.

I just voted for buses to be parked in the zone that I represent in the district I represent.

And I would hope that all of us would question ourselves, examine ourselves, and ask ourselves what's best for the total city of Stanford, and not necessarily how we see the few blocks in which we live.

So, you know, I just hope we can do that.

Thank you, Representative Hill.

Representative Didillo.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh Representative Hill kind of nabbed my uh buzzword on disenfranchised.

Um, but it is, and I think when we are going into considering communities, I think that's an essential part of the process, is ensuring that all voices are heard, and that part of Stanford is absolutely more an area that is not heard as much as the rest of Stanford when you're North and Amerit Parkway or South in Japan.

Certain parts of Stanford speak a lot louder and a lot more often than other parts of Stanford.

Um that being said, I also understand Representative Hughes' perspective on what our role and responsibility and our scope of practice as the board of reps.

And I hate that, and it's something that I've come to grapple with.

And as someone that teaches civics, it's a tough thing to get across in that role of what do we actually have authority in.

And it's tough to explain to people because you're getting into strong mayor versus weak mayor versus council, which is a whole college class.

And that's a tough decision.

These are definitely issues.

I think we do need to have a discussion.

And as a board is saying how do we engage people that are inherently disenfranchised in this community?

How do we reach out to them or what is the best ways to access them?

Maybe going through and adding flyers onto their board, getting into those buildings, right?

That I think should be a priority for this board.

However, I think there's also a point to be taken about what Representative Hughes says is what can we actively do?

We cannot go and make those zoning changes.

That is out of our purview.

And in my opinion, having an empty lot there is going to be worse.

And from what I've heard from other members, is that effectively us holding this will kill this deal.

And that's a concern.

And I would argue, and respectfully, my colleagues may disagree.

Is having that empty lot for some people may be the better thing for them, but I disagree that I think the empty lot is going to be the worst thing there.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, representative Diddle, representative Adams.

Yes, I like to make a motion to recommit this back to Steering.

I think the community uh deserve an opposite another opportunity to speak on this.

Um, those that was caught off guard.

I still think this is a good location for affordable housing.

And I think it um will still happen.

I don't think nobody walking away for 55 units for 250,000, knowing that the developer only got to put 15,000 down.

I mean, Rachel would take that deal.

So I'm I wouldn't make a um uh recommendation we that we um send it back to committee.

Thank you.

I just want to ask you for the sake of courtesy.

That is uh there's a few people that would like to speak, representative Adams.

Would you be willing to let them speak before we make that motion?

Yes, go ahead.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

I'm gonna let um representative next.

I wanted to say that I will be voting to hold as well.

Um representative Walson took a lot of the comments that I actually wanted to make um her sentiments.

That's all I wanted to say that I'm gonna be voting to hold as well.

Thank you.

I you thank you.

Uh Representative Gardner.

Thank you, President Shu.

Um I want to echo the comments of uh Representative Hughes and just remind everyone that this is an active real estate transaction that's taken which is taking place.

Uh we have no uh no knowledge that holding this may in fact impact the transaction that may be very, very unwise and uh may effectively stop the development of forty f 405 units, which would be a terrible thing for our city.

Um, and if we did effectively stop this and force a public hearing to take place, there may well be a situation where there's nothing to discuss in the public hearing because the deal is off and there's nothing to build in the first place.

So it'd be a total waste of time for us all.

And I think we will have to remember that we're in the middle of a housing crisis here in Stanford and delaying the construction of 55 units, which is something many, many, many, many people in our city need is a truly disgraceful move for us to delay that in any way, shape, or form.

So I'm strongly in favor that we maintain our existing uh you know motion that's on the floor.

We vote on it and we get this done and we get those houses built.

I yield.

Thank you so much, representative Gardner, representative Gilbride.

Uh a logistics question, I'm not sure.

Actually, it's probably um to the president through the president to um uh coach air use.

Um, is there a timeline required for us to get this passed for the deal to go through?

Go ahead.

I I don't have the supporting docs in front of me, um, but that was my understanding, yes, that this was time sensitive.

And as a follow-up question, if we do consider holding it doing another public meeting, that's uh at least a two-month delay, is that correct?

Yeah, it'll be essentially about two months by the time we approve it.

Yeah, okay.

And the third question, um, if this is somebody who's perhaps to uh majority leader Morrison, if we have ever a situation where we've granted two public hearings on a topic without any changes.

Um have we ever has there been any reason for having two public hearings on a topic in the past in your knowledge?

Uh, not to my immediate recollection, but if there have been no changes, you can if there's nothing that says there's nothing in the rule that prohibits a second public hearing.

My question was if there were no changes, we've never had two public hearings.

Not to my immediate knowledge, no.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, um representative Camparelli and then representative Pavio.

Thank you.

Um I just wanna say that the idea that we're gonna lose this deal because we're voting to hold it for one month, and that's what I believe it would be.

It would be one month because we would have the public hearing in the next round and then send it to the full board.

So it's just about a month.

The idea that we would lose this deal over one month, I think is is really silly.

Um I'm going to support holding this because the black members of this body are asking me to, and it's their neighborhood that is affected.

And it will likely be minorities that are that are going to be in this housing and they are they are asking this body to hold that.

Um, and I feel out of respect for them, even though I would like this housing and I was in support of it before coming into this meeting, um, they are bringing up the fact that their community is disenfranchised and was not able to come out and was not aware that this was happening, and that they have some questions and and things that they might like us to support regarding this housing.

And and I think that holding this in support of them and in in them getting the word out to hear some members of the public speak is important.

I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Camperelli representative Pavia, followed by representative Stone.

So if I'm understanding correctly, we have two options, and that's to pass this so uh this can all begin.

Or um not.

And that kind of screws over a whole a whole um disenfranchised part of the uh of our population.

It's like Reverend Hill said and and uh um representative Walston and Representative Camparelli said um just because they're not showing up here doesn't I mean I don't see any of these notices.

If this was so urgent, what w what's the process for changing this and getting this out there?

Representative Walson said about like putting this on people's on people's um doors and everything like that, the notices for this stuff.

Why are we doing that?

So we're not in this situation right now.

Or we're like, well, we can either vote for it so it can begin, or we just screw the people over and we just slip one by them.

I mean, because that's what it looks like.

Even though it's not maybe that, that's what it looks like.

I was like, what what can we do better here?

I mean, just for the process's sake, I'd vote to hold this.

And risk what I agree with Representative Camparelli is ridiculous.

They're not gonna not, you know, uh go forward with this project.

But we all have to be better about this.

The administration does too about getting the word out, and that includes with bids and contracts and everything.

That I yield.

Thank you, representative pavia, representative stone for the first time.

The lack of public comment that we've had on this is regrettable, but we have a relatively simple decision.

We can keep the land empty for now, or we can make 55 houses and make life better for 55 people right now.

There is a risk of losing this deal if this doesn't go through.

And in my opinion, we have to go to the old adage of perfect could be the enemy of good.

This is still going to be an improvement.

It may not be the exact design that everybody wants, but it is still going to be a positive thing.

And I urge my colleagues to support this.

I yield.

Thank you to presentative stone.

Um, I'll go to the ones who wanted to go ahead to President Apollo.

Um, I think everybody here is right.

Nobody here has said anything that is outlandish, and I'm hoping somebody could give me an answer just for clarification.

Is it or is it not?

Does anybody have any knowledge that there is a high risk that this deal will fall through?

It's not about waiting another month or arguably two months.

I know from almost everyone I've spoken to on this board that the number one issue is affordable housing, and I've seen what happens in the past when we delay and we lose deals, and I see vacant lots, blighted neighborhoods, and being the co-chair of the housing and social services committee, every single meeting, every public speaker, people are begging us to do something about affordable housing.

And I think we could do both.

I think we can move it on to the next step.

I think we could take action on Wednesday.

We're having a meeting about things we could do better in the city, and I think we could encourage our constituents or anyone who reaches out to go to zoning and planning and put their voices in, and we could lead and guide and have people be part of the conversation, but I wouldn't be able to sleep tonight, blocking affordable housing for the chance for somebody else to speak again when we could still continue to use our voices.

So can anyone who is knowledgeable if there is a high risk that the developer can lose the deal?

Well, Chair Hughes, do you would you like to address that?

I I don't know that I can comfortably answer that without being in executive session to be completely transparent.

Okay, I I heard a few times tonight that there's high risk.

I've heard that there's a just a possibility.

Um I will be voting to move forward and not hold it, but I would also um be there with everybody to help bring the public out as much as possible in any form.

Uh I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative shore.

Going back to our earlier discussion in caucus, if I understand this correctly, uh the objection to this housing.

Stand.

Oh, sorry, Siri.

Uh the the objection is caucus.

Yes.

Well, by referring to it.

Just be mindful that you're not specifying anything that was discussed or just my understanding is that by building this housing, we'd be putting pressure on certain services that uh the area is a bit of a food desert.

Uh there aren't many uh grocery stores.

Uh there are there isn't an available health care clinic, that there are certain services that the neighborhood desperately needs.

And I guess what I don't understand is that by not moving forward with this housing, uh that doesn't necessarily assure the the installation of a supermarket.

That doesn't assure the installation of an urgent care clinic.

Uh what it does ensure is a vacant lot where there's already garbage piling up.

They're already loitering going on, and we'd be depriving the community of uh or at least 55 families of housing.

So I I just don't think these things uh one begets the other by not building the housing, we're gonna automatically uh provide the services that seem to be missing in that neighborhood.

These seem like two separate issues to me.

So I'm gonna be voting to move forward with the uh with the housing.

I also think uh before I yield that um any business deal is a very fragile thing.

I mean, until it's consummated, if there's no deal in place, and to stall this thing, that may just be all it takes to scotch the deal.

So I think that uh we should be mindful of that risk.

Uh, with that I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh, we'll move on to speakers who wanted to speak for the second time.

Uh representative Graham and then representative Beckham after that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Shaw.

It's for actually my first time speaking um for this item.

That's okay.

I just wanted to um to go back to uh what Representative Adams said, it's a great deal, and now that we've seen the hand, it I I believe it's a great opportunity for any uh developer to go into that spot.

So I don't think you it's going to go down um wasted.

And number two, um, I understand that the public notice does go into the Stanford Advocate, but usually I, you know, that's my block.

I walk around there lunchtime.

There's usually a big sign that's posted on the property to notify the community of what is going to be uh changed or the public notice, and I don't remember seeing that there.

I've seen signs that have expired on Summer Street, on Long Ridge Road, on High Ridge Road, any China type of changes.

I just feel like I I don't remember seeing the sign posted.

So if we can just give the community an opportunity to show up uh um at another um instant to uh decide whether or not that's something that and maybe because there are no homes really on that street, the neighborhood really wasn't notified.

It's only a handful of houses on Clinton Avenue, and that too um might be an issue with why no one was notified.

Because if you're a renter, they don't really consider your opinion.

Um, and that street is full of renting uh residents.

So I want to go back to um the original notice and um give the community an opportunity.

I know um that's something that um my colleagues may not want to do, but I'm gonna vote uh on Terry uh Representative Adams' motion to recommit that back to um committee.

Thank you so much.

Uh representative Beckham.

Thank you, madam president.

I'm gonna stand on voting to hold it.

Um I just want to give you an example, and I'm not anti-housing, I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-housing, but I think we're getting hung up on the word affordable.

And when you're talking to the residents in that area, district five sits right on the back of that district and it's burdened with traffic, is burdened with noise, is burdened with a pedestrian vehicular accidents.

We've never had this many in the history of Stanford that I can recall.

It's just overpopulated.

This developer is very strategic in where he wants to develop because he knows that this section of town really doesn't come out because not necessarily don't want to, but they may not know or have the in information at hand.

These buildings are old school buildings.

You really have to go knock on the doors, slide the flyers under the door.

So at that best, they were never really given a fair opportunity to come out and voice their opinion.

I'm gonna stand on my my no, and I will just also give you a quick example.

I would urge everyone to do your homework on low-income housing tax credit properties when our constituents here affordable housing, they're used to Section 8 vouchers where your rent is based 30% of your income.

Tax credit properties, the rents are based on the area income and not the residence income.

So if someone falls in a certain window, whether they're on the lower end of that window or the higher end of that window, their rent is still the same.

There's no fluctuation.

And if they max out of that program, then they're they don't no longer qualify.

If they don't make enough, they don't even get an application.

So there's a lot of pieces that we as a board need to be educated on, as well as our constituents.

And I'm gonna stand on my no, and I'm asking to hold and that we get another public hearing and give the people a fair chance to voice what they want.

And I yield.

Thank you, representative Beckham.

Representative Hughes, would you like to speak for the second time?

Yes, thank you.

Uh I'll try and be brief and uh I I appreciate everyone's perspectives on this, and it is clear how deeply everyone cares about this issue.

Um, but I just think we're missing the the, you know, 4,000 foot view of the reason why housing, by and large in Stanford, whether you're buying a home or your renting is unaffordable, it's because of supply.

We live in a great community with access to great jobs, great hospitals, great schools, great restaurants, great people.

Who wouldn't want to live here?

Okay, there's strong demand.

When you have a lack of supply, which is what we have, a lack of housing of all types, not just below market rate.

We don't have enough multi-family units, we don't have enough Section 8 units.

You create scarcity, and when that scarcity happens, landlords and these corporations that own these apartments can charge more.

And so, passing this along and not allowing this sale to go through and this development to happen does nothing to address that issue.

And if we are unable to decide that a uh 55 unit development in a dense urban area where we need infill to happen, the less infill and development that happens downtown, the more that has to happen in North Stanford or other areas where folks are concerned about tree canopy.

I mean, that's a fact.

So the question is how if we can't figure out how to do this, how are we going to be able to address the other large land use questions of our time?

Uh, because right now we're not on track to make housing in Stanford affordable.

One way to get there is through projects like this one.

I understand folks wanting community input, but the fact is there were multiple instances for it, and folks didn't show up.

I think part of that is folks are busy with their day-to-day life, and it's not their job to figure out how to make housing in their city affordable.

It's ours.

And so I totally understand folks' concern uh with this, but I think we're really missing the large picture, and we're missing the process.

Uh, we're a large body.

We're never gonna be able to come up with a sale uh agreement that all 40 people in here will be happy with.

We also need to have a conversation, though, about the more expensive housing gets in Stanford, who gets priced out.

That's what this is about.

It's those communities that we care about most not getting priced out who get priced out when we don't build affordable housing.

It's those communities who get priced out when we don't build enough market rate housing because then the price goes up.

So I I'll yield, but I I think folks should start coming to the land use committee, and I yield.

Thank you, representative Hughes, uh, representative Sanford.

And thanks, Madam President.

I'll try to make it quick.

I I understand the process is not perfect and it it needs to be improved in a lot of ways, but you know, we we have a process and it's there, and you know, who's to say that what if we we send this back to and have another public and no one shows up to that one?

What are we gonna do then?

So it's it's not perfect, but we had the process, the steps were taken.

Um, you know, if we can wave a magic wand and put the exact amenities of everything we want in that spot, you know, great, but that's that's not what it is.

We we had a proposal out there.

This is what came back.

These are our options empty lot, housing.

So, you know, I don't want to delay, I'm gonna I support representative Hughes.

I know it's his district, and and I'm gonna move forward and keep going.

So thanks, I yield.

Um representative Weirs for the first time, and then I'll go to the Thank you, Madam President um I think it's important that people do understand that we're in the very early stage of building a new building however it's being used um I was just reviewing the RFP which dates back to 2024 on this so that kind of shows how long this has already been going um I do think it's important I don't I can't speak to exactly what the process is going to be going forward if this were to be approved but there will be multiple public hearings throughout the upcoming process that will include you know planning zoning design how the how the the property is used we're here tonight just to talk about the sale of the property um if and which takes it on to the next step so there will be this is not the end of public hearing of the ability of of the public to come and speak on how they feel about it how they feel it should be be designed I just wanted to be sure that that was clear.

Thank you.

Thank you representative weirs um representative.

I think Representative Weirs just uh said the core of what I just wanted to make clear is that this is about the sale because it's city property and there will be a public hearing in front of the zoning uh board and that is absolutely a time for the residents to show up and speak about that's also when the sign gets posted outside that's why there was no sign posted um because for a property sale it doesn't get posted for the zoning hearing it gets posted is my understanding um and uh and that will take place and that absolutely is a time for residents to show up and talk about what they need and want in their neighborhood and what should be allowed and for that uh committee to weigh heavily on now with this property being owned and uh a suggested development plan for it what the neighborhood actually um will accept so this this is the hearing for the sale that we're approving and I yield thank you uh representative weathers for the second time thank you madam chair um I personally don't feel that this deal will fall through if we put it on hold um this is Stanford and it's the gateway to Connecticut um prime property here and I think any developer will be glad to build here in Stanford um Stanford all the way this is not Mayberry thank you and I yield thank you um representative weathers representative walston for the second um I received an email today um from Gina Calabries and she was I can't answer all of her questions but she had questions about the RFP and she asked um I'm just going to write what she read what she says specifically says the housing will be for students seniors and income restrained households the RFP doesn't say the housing would be for UConn students and uh many of the UConn students are living downtown not over there BLT but there are many of them um downtown um I think that was Chase Bank up in that little prospect street that's what it is if you go over prospect street you'll see a lot of students um living over there and uh when the RFP mentioned students why are students getting a it seemed like they're going to get a priority over people who live in Stanford mothers with children seniors who are income constrained these are her words single adults so they want to build something to include students who are here temporary.

So you build something permanent for somebody temporary to be uh uh a rolling door, as opposed to people who wants to uh live here.

And uh I'm just going to speak from what I've seen, the exodus of black Americans out of Stanford due to the increased rents here in Stanford.

So when they're coming through with this tax credit, and the rent is one way, it's it's afford that's not affordable.

And we're not using the word I hear.

We're not using deeply affordable in here.

We're saying affordable.

What's affordable?

Somebody making 85,000, that's affordable to them.

But what if someone's making less than 50?

45, they gotta work about two or three jobs in order to live here in Stanford.

So we need to start using this word deeply affordable to call it what it is, but right now the BMR is the BMR stand for below market rate apartments.

But when you get into a below market rate apartment, it's not deeply affordable, and it's not based on someone's 30% income.

And that's I think we need to be looking at Mr.

McClutchy, he he has that two hundred and fifty thousand dollars down.

I don't think he's gonna walk away because he's getting this almost at a steel.

So I just think let's just go ahead and have this hearing for the people on the west side because they're the one who's going to be affected.

And as Representative Weather said, across the bridge, that little walk bridge that they have, they just built those apartments.

Who's going to live there?

Who is going to live in those?

The students, because it's still close to Yukon.

So I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Wallstone.

Representative Hill, followed by Representative Finkel.

Thank you very much.

Um I think we need to really kind of focus a little bit.

Um in the United States, I'm I'm thankful to say that you can't build housing for a group of people, um, whether it's students or black people or white people.

The other thing that happens in Stanford, because I'm a clergy person, I talk to other clergy persons.

Not only have black people moved away from Stanford because they could not afford it, but many white people have moved away from Stanford because they could not afford it.

And I do think the affordability issue is a major issue in our city.

And if I were homeless tonight, or if I was on a limited income, um, I know that I would vote 100% for whatever kind of housing you could put up that I could move into because it beats living on the street.

Uh I do think that the west side or North Stanford or Glenbrook.

Um we have this thing that we're not a city.

We kind of see ourselves as individual neighborhoods.

And it's kind of like not in my neighborhood, but it's someplace else.

Uh, and there is no place else.

So uh this is a difficult night for me.

I have always advocated for affordable housing.

I've always fought for it.

So tonight I'm in a dilemma because I I my heart says that we need affordable housing in the city, not because I need it, but somebody else needs it.

And it and I I passed to some of those people, and um for the developers.

There are community leaders who are legitimate that you can reach out to who can help you to get people out to the meetings, because I think people can be sold on it.

I don't think people are absolutely against it, but when people are powerless, it's easier to say no than it is to say yes.

So as we move forward, we have to get a uh some strategic plan for the whole city and not just for one neighborhood in the city.

Thank you.

Uh representative Finkel.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, just two things.

The RFP may say students, but the response to the RFP is basically for families, and it has a distribution of percentage of AMI for each of the different apartments in the 55 units in the proposal that is in public record.

And with all the due respect to everybody, I would move the previous question.

There's a motion.

You're making a motion to move the question.

There's a motion to make a second.

Okay.

There's no discussion on moving the question, so we'll take this by roll call vote.

Are there still hands up?

All right.

Uh the point of information for me as well.

My understanding is that moving the previous question would preclude any motion to recommit.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, for the motion on the table.

So if this is approved, then it goes to a final vote, and there will be no vote on whether or not to recommit.

Correct.

So if this no, if this gets, sorry.

If this gets if the motion to move the question, that that's just for the discussion on this item, but we no one has made a motion yet to recommit.

So we're still discussing.

We're just going to see if I'm a question.

Sounds awful.

Lazy.

I've heard a rumor.

Who is that?

President Shaw.

Point of information.

Um I believe that Representative Adams did make a motion.

I'm sorry, he did make a motion, and I had asked him.

Yes, you're right.

I apologize.

Thank you.

It's been a lot of speakers.

I lost.

That motion is not on the floor yet, because we said we will finish the discussion on this.

So, if we move the question, then we would essentially preclude the if I may, President Shaw.

So my understanding is the motion in front of us currently is to move the previous question.

So we'll vote yes or no on that.

If that is successful and the previous question is moved, the there will be no more discussion.

And the only question in front of us is a yes or no vote on this ordinance.

Meaning there will there is no holding, it won't come back, it doesn't go to steering.

There's no second hearing, it's it's a simple yes or no.

That is that is the next two steps.

Okay, point of order then.

Yes, go ahead, representative Adams.

Um if you do that, then you eliminate taking my motion that was up first before the movement of the question.

So that is you would have to come back to my motion.

Get a second and vote on it before you can take up the um moving the question.

Thank you.

And let's Lou withdraws his motion.

But you know what?

So you made a motion, but we didn't we didn't actually have a formal motion.

You proposed to take a motion and we said we'll finish discussion, right?

So no one seconded your motion.

Well, you didn't let anybody because I I did ask, yes, that's correct.

Because I did ask um to have other people speak, and so you said you will make your motion afterwards.

If I may make a suggestion, would Representative Finkel consider holding on his motion?

So, yeah, I I please can you please talk?

So Representative Finkel says only a few hands.

It anyway goes back to that motion.

So would you consider that the two people speak because otherwise it will eliminate this motion?

Okay, thank you.

And if the other person does, we could skip this whole thing and just move on.

I think the second person was me.

I'll also withdraw if it means we can vote on representative Adams' motion.

I think I was.

I was last so I'd yield my time directly to Representative Adams.

So it wasn't seconded.

Yeah, it wasn't seconded.

I don't think we give another.

So motion to recommit.

Can I get a second?

Okay.

So now the motion is to recommit, and there's a second.

So we've had extensive discussions, so can we move this to a roll call, please?

Okay.

All right.

This is the vote to recommit uh the item back to steering.

Um this L U 32.008, just to be clear, recommit.

Uh Representative Adams, how would you like to vote?

Yes.

Representative Beckham?

Yes.

Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard?

No.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

No.

Representative Camp Relly?

Yes.

Representative Jayla Cruz.

Yes.

Representative Didalo.

No.

Representative Dorsey.

Representative Field.

No.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner.

No.

Representative Gilbride?

Pass.

Representative Graham.

Yes.

Representative Gross?

No.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hayat.

I myself am a no.

Representative LePine.

No.

Parliamentarian McEwen.

Yes.

Yes.

Representative Pavia?

Yes.

Representative Politia.

No.

Representative.

Oopsor.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

No.

Representative Price.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Stanford.

No.

President Shaw.

No.

Representative Shore.

No.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestri.

Yes.

Representative Walston.

Yes.

Representative Weathers.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg?

No.

Representative Weirs.

No.

Representative Yeager?

No.

Representative Zachary?

No.

And uh Representative Gilbright, would you like to vote?

Abstain.

All right.

With that, I believe we have uh Barbara, yep, you've got it.

21 no's, 16 yeses with one abstention.

Which from my understanding means uh the the question remains a force or that that motion fails.

So the motion to recommit fails.

So we're back to the original motion.

Would you would you like?

Is that any more discussion?

Yes, I just want to make maybe one hopefully final point before we vote on this.

That the uh or maybe second to final point.

Um that the the question now in front of us, there there is no option to have another hearing and reconsider this.

I do want to full heartedly agree with I believe it was Representative Pavia that mentioned the the flaws in our system.

I think it is fundamentally broken.

That's one of my chief complaints in our notification system.

Unfortunately, it is largely governed by state law and our charter, so we even in a scenario which currently is not on the table, but even in a scenario where we were able to have another hearing, the process would look exactly the same.

There would be no sign, there would be no flyers.

That's just that's not the process we have currently, and I would love to change that.

Um so long story short, question in front of us is a yes on the steel or no on the steal.

There, there is no such thing as holding this.

Thank you, Claire Johnson.

I would like to say a few words, so I will renounce the chair for now and uh I will ask Majority Leader Morrison to take the chair for now.

I'll recognize President Shaw.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Although I am uh currently Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Um I'll keep it very quick.

I know everyone has spoken already a lot.

I know this thing about noticing is being talked about.

Uh representative Lapine had given all the dates and how clear and how much noticing was done.

And and even in our board, I mean this item was in the agenda.

It was after steering, it's there.

It's been there since May, I don't know, the second week, May 8th, 9th, whatever that is.

So it's been on the agenda.

So I would ask this board, please look at the agenda items.

And then if you see something in that this item was there, and if you're if you know this was going to be a public hearing, and if you wanted to talk to your constituents about it, you had plenty of chance to talk to about it, right?

So we have to be better about looking at our agenda and and making sure that we are coming to those committee meetings and asking the questions we want to ask and raising the concerns to the chairs and the co-chairs before it gets there.

So, you know, this, I understand it.

I mean, there's obviously I'm, you know, you know, I'm always about like re-innovating and like redoing the processes, but there is there's that's there's stuff out there.

We just need to look at it and we just need to get it out there.

Um and this notion, I do not agree with this notion that Stanford is an attractive city, and I know developers will come as you know whenever it feels like.

We have seen so many deals like that has happened and like it got rejected and there was nothing more that happened to it.

So I don't want this opportunity to be missed.

And again, like Club Johnson said, now we have what we have here is that there's no noticeing there's no like public hearing again.

And and quite frankly, like there was no one that came.

So I'm worried that we're gonna wait another month and then no one will come, and we've now maybe potentially lost this 55 units.

This is also a city-owned land.

Like it is hard to find, it is hard to come around.

So let's let's not base this opportunity to give 55 families something that they need.

So I really strongly encourage this board to support this and move forward.

Thank you.

With that I yield.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Recognize Deputy Major Leader Pollack.

Thank you.

Um, I'm not President Shaw.

I'm back to being Representative Pollack.

Um I I second what um Rami just said and what we all spoke about earlier, and I wanna reiterate next steps public hearing what people want.

I I wanna hear what people actually want and have concerns with.

Again, it goes to planning board, goes to zoning, and that's where a lot of the decisions are made and arguably has way more power than we do on this board.

So if there's specifics, that's where we go.

And I'm happy to help try to continue that communication, looking at the schedules with everyone.

And I also encourage anyone who's reached out or heard from their constituents that they wanted to have a public hearing, submit your letters.

It's never too late after a public hearing.

Submit your letters, send it to the planning board and zoning board and to the board of reps.

Thank you.

I yield, thank you, Majority Leader Pollock.

Are there any other speakers on the issue?

Any other items?

Any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none, we'll take this to a roll call vote.

Clerk Johnson.

Thank you, thank you.

All right, so final vote on LU 32.008.

All right, we will start at the top page.

We've got representative Adams.

How would you like to vote?

Sorry, what was that?

One more time.

All right, thank you.

Uh Representative Beckham.

No.

No, Representative Blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Yes.

Uh, Representative Camparelli.

Uh Representative Jelly Cruz.

Uh.

Stain.

Representative Didallo?

Yes.

Representative Dorsey.

No.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

Yes.

Representative Gardner.

Yes.

Representative Gilbride.

Yes.

Uh Representative Kubrick's.

Representative Graham.

No.

Representative Gross?

Yes.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes?

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

I myself am a yes.

Representative LePine.

Yes.

Parliamentary McEwen.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison.

Yes.

Representative Pabia.

Yes.

Representative Pleachia.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Sellas.

Uh Deputy Major Leader Samford.

Yes.

President Shaw.

Yes.

Representative Shore.

Yes.

Representative Stone?

Yes.

Representative Sylvestri.

I abstain.

Stain, uh Representative Walston.

Yes.

She's asking to be let in.

Oh, Representative Boston.

Representative Boston's.

I have Representative Walston here.

How would Representative Representative Austin if you're with us?

How would you like to vote?

We'll we'll circle back to Representative Walston.

Uh Representative Others.

Abstain.

Representative Weinberg.

Yes.

Representative Weirs.

Yes.

Representative Yeager?

Yes.

Representative Zachary.

Yes.

Let me go back.

We had a handful of passes.

Representative Adams.

Abstain.

Representative Kemperelli.

Are you with us?

And would you like to vote?

I'm gonna abstain.

Abstinction for Camp Relly.

Uh we had.

And Representative Walston.

Are you with us?

And would you like to vote?

Can you hear me?

I'm going to be voting now.

All right.

Thank you.

Then in that case, I believe we have five no's and six abstentions, with the remainder of 27 being a yes.

Okay.

And with that vote, the motion passes 2756.

Is that correct?

One off the screen.

Yeah.

2756.

The motion passes.

Yep.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

That concludes my report, Madam President.

Thank you so much.

That's a long report, Coach Price.

You need a clapping for that.

Moving on to Operations Parks and Recreation Committee, Chair Sanford.

Thank you, Madam President.

Operations Parks and Rec Committee met on Thursday, May 21st at 6 30 p.m.

via webinar.

We had two items.

OPR 32.011 approval request to modify agreement 2026.0184 city waiver with Gabrielle Truck Sales and Milford for MACOEM parts and service out of section 23-18.3b1A.

That was approved by committee 800 and item number two, OPR 32.008, a review item of the city snow removal process and snow emergency preparedness.

At this time, I would like to move item one on consent.

Okay, there's a motion to move item number one on operations parks and recreation committee.

Is that a second?

It's a consent item.

Is there anyone planning to object on it?

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

All those in favor of approving item number one on the operations parks and rec committee, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

That item passes unanimously.

That concludes my report.

Thank you so much, Chair Sanford.

Moving out to public health and safety committee.

Chad Bouchard.

Thank you, Madam President.

The uh public safety and health committee held a meeting on Thursday, 28 May at 6 30 p.m.

via webinar.

We had one item was reviewed that was uh PS 32.007, which was an overview of the Stanford restaurant inspection and rating system and the public notification process.

Uh Ms.

Jody Bishop Poland, Director of Health and Human Services, along with two of her colleagues presented.

Uh a report was submitted, uh, and that concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Bouchard.

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

Thank you, President Shaw.

Okay, we met via hybrid on Tuesday, May 19th at 6 30 p.m.

in the Republican caucus room.

And we considered the following items.

Number one, chess 32.011 resolution and public hearing, approving submittal of attached list of programs to the State Department of Revenue Services in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act.

Item two, chess 32.014.

It was a rejection item of an allocation of 2.1 million dollars to the Heritage Housing Inc.

St.

John Urban Redevelopment Corp to redevelop 305 units of the affordable housing at the St.

John Towers property.

That committee we passed it 701.

Back to the second item.

That one failed.

Um to reject by committee 080.

Item number three, chess 32.015.

It was a presentation from the mayor's office of the CDBG program year 52, and a report was made.016.

It was a review and finalize the results from the evaluation form for the final recommendations for the CDBG program year 52.

A report was made.

Chess 32.017 approval of the CDG C D BG program year 52.

And that was approved by committee 800.

Lastly, item six, chess 32.018, a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit the year 52 annual action plan for the community development program for the city of Stanford, Connecticut.

And that was approved 800.

At this time, I would like to move items one, three, four, five, and six on the consent.

Sorry, is it just one five and six?

Because two is a rejection item.

So sorry.

Yes.

One, five, and six.

One, five, and six.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

So there's a motion to approve items one, five, and six of the chess committee.

Is that a second?

Second.

These are consent items.

Is there anyone trying to take anything off consent?

Okay.

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

All those have been favor of approving items one, five, and six of the chess committee agenda, please say aye.

Any abstentions?

Okay, those three items pass unanimously.

Thank you.

And then I would like to move item two as a rejection item.

Please explain how we do a rejection item.

Yes.

So I'm trying to do this in the interest of time.

If we could do this by voice vote.

So this is a rejection item.

So if we want to pass it or if we want to approve the fund, we will have to reject.

So it which means you have to vote no.

So if I when I if we do buy this by voice when I ask all those in favor of approving the rejection, you say no.

Point of order.

Yes.

We have to vote.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

Um, we have a meeting on the um say john uh project.

So this is a real surprise to me that it was rejected.

No, so um coach polak, would you like to um yeah?

Would you explain?

So a rejection, we have to reject this item to receive the money.

So essentially we are saying yes, we would like to move forward.

This is the fun confusing part of rejection items.

So it sounds like majority leader would like to continue.

Thank you, madam deputy.

There are certain items that when they come before us, the charter says we can only consider them as rejection items, and this is one of them.

So in order to approve the money, we have to do the opposite.

We have to reject the rejection.

In other words, vote no.

So when President Shaw calls for a vote, if you are in favor of the money, you will not say yes, you will vote no.

Thank you.

Excellent.

One uh not planning to approve the money.

Okay.

In that case, we'll try this rejection by voice board.

All those in favor of rejecting the item.

Please say aye.

No.

Oh, not what are we trying to do?

So we have to we have to not say aye, we just have to say nay.

So when I say all those in favor of rejecting the item, you say no.

Okay, we'll try this again.

All those in favor of approving the item, please say yes.

Sorry.

We just do the full call.

All those in favor of rejecting the item, please say aye.

No.

No.

All those in favor of not rejecting the item, please say no.

No.

No.

Anybody abstaining?

Okay, this item is rejected.

Item is not rejected.

This item is not rejected.

Okay.

Does that conclude your report?

Um, co-chair pallock?

Is it a yes or no for concluding the report?

Uh I conclude.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to Transportation Committee.

Chair Weirs.

Thank you, Madam President.

I promise this won't be as fun as that was.

Um we met uh the transportation committee met on Monday, May 18th by webinar.

Uh we had one item.

It was uh item T32.004, an approval.

First amendment to Desmond contract for on-call engineering consulting services for city parking facilities, RFP 813.

This was approved by committee 800, and I would like to move this item to the consent agenda.

Okay, there's a motion to move um T32.004.

Is that a second?

Second, it's a consent item.

Is that anybody planning to take it off consent or would no?

Okay, seeing none, let's try this by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving item T32.004, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay, that item passes unanimously.

The last item here is the approval of the minutes.

Approval of May 4th, 2026 regular board meeting minutes, approval of May 7th, special uh 2026 special budget meeting minutes, and approval of May 20th, 2026 special board meeting minutes.

Is there a motion to approve these?

Is that a second?

Second, okay.

All in favor of approving these minutes, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

All these uh minutes are approved.

Uh finally a motion to adjourn.

Second, okay.

The meeting is adjourned at 10 20 10 38 p.m.

Have a good night, folks.