I'm gonna go ahead and get it started.

Um so good evening everyone.

Um representative Tom Bouchard.

I am the chair of the public safety and health committee for the Stanford uh Board of Representatives.

Uh you know, now calling to order the sixth meeting of the 32nd Stanford Board of Representatives, Public Safety and Health Committee.

Uh it is 6 31 p.m.

Uh it is the 25th of January, uh excuse me, 25th of June, uh a Thursday.

Again, thank you all for attending.

Um very much uh appreciate everybody coming on board, especially the invitees um who uh will participate and discuss the topics at hand.

Uh I'd like to now take attendance uh for those representatives who are on the uh committee.

Uh I do see representative Terry Adams, um, who vice chair.

Um David Blank, are you on?

I do not see David, uh Matthew Halo, I see you, thank you.

Uh Michael Field, I see you, thank you.

I don't see Cara, uh Gillibride, uh Chanta Graham.

I do see you.

Um Eric called, Eric Morrison called, he will be late.

Uh and Kendra Wallstrom.

Thank you very much for joining.

I see you also.

So we do have a forum.

Um we do have two items uh to discuss um on the agenda.

Um of course I'd also like to uh thank the um uh ex-official members from the the board of representatives who aren't members of the committee who have joined us.

Um, and of course, uh recognizing a Ludarubis, uh head of public safety and health uh here at the city of Stanford.

So I appreciate you joining us, Lou.

Um so the first item is item number one, it's PS 32.008 from the agenda.

This item is a review.

Uh a review item is an overview of the regulations and the use of personal watercraft in the enforcement of these regulations within the jurisdiction of Stanford, Connecticut.

Um so the invitees on this topic uh include and I see uh Sergeant Kevin Murray, who's the director of parks and recreation.

Um he is on board, yes.

I do yep, see him there.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Murray.

I do see uh Sergeant uh Kevin Fitzgibbons, uh sergeant with the Stanford Police Department.

Um I don't see Mr.

Damien Ortelli.

I don't believe he has joined us quite yet.

Um and he is the uh harbor management commission and Yale Greenman, uh the harbor master.

I don't know if he has joined us yet.

Um but anyway, I do want to get it started, and hopefully this gentleman can join us uh as they become available.

So just as background on this item, um, so the use and the safety associated uh with um the personal watercraft did come up with discussions certainly with my constituents um who do live along the water, um, you know, particularly uh in the area of West Scott Cove, around Cummings and West Beach.

Um, and is this item was raised during discussions um, you know, and concern that was expressed uh about the safety.

Um, and I do believe Evan Weiss, uh I don't know if he's on the call.

Um I did extend the information uh the invitation to him.

He is uh with the uh St.

or excuse me, the Vincent Island Stanford LLC.

Um so just as context, um, you know, there is quite a bit of concern as far as what's going on with personal watercraft and the safety associated with the swimmers, uh, and then submerged item uh rocks and stuff associated with what Westcott Cove.

Um so at this time I'd like to entertain the motion uh for item one.

So be.

Great.

Thank you.

So moved and so second.

So I'd like to open the item for discussion.

Um I'd like to open it first of all to our invitees.

If anybody would like to make any initial comments or uh any initial presentations before I open up to the committee members for questions.

Okay, with that.

Uh this is at least I guess it looks like I'm coming up as Tom Bouchard, though.

Do you guys see me as Evan?

That's interesting.

Yeah, I see you.

Um, so I didn't know if you wanted me to speak yet, or if anybody else to speak yet.

Yeah, yeah, why don't we kick it off with you?

Um, you certainly have, you know, you you you forwarded me your documents, and I didn't forward them to the rest of the committee uh associated with uh some of your proposals uh to the uh Harbor Commission.

Um, but if you could take a minute and maybe walk us through those.

Sure.

I could do it at a at a pretty high level, and then you can obviously get the details from the um you know from the documents or ask me later.

Um, a super high level is that uh so Vincent Island, just to refresh everybody is in uh is in Westcock Cove, and um with where it is, it's a very both above the high tide is a private property of which uh I manage the organization that owns it, but also when it goes below high tide, it gets about three times bigger, and that's public land, and there's also a lot of people who live off there, and also the West Beach ramp is the only ramp where public can access with small craft and with uh PwCs and also with kayaks and such.

Uh through being there and and uh managing that, I've gotten a lot of contact both with people who use that area publicly and use Westcock Cove, but also with residents who live along there, usually to complain to me about what's going on, although over the years I've gotten to be uh like they're very supportive of at least like how I'm trying to operate this through a lot of the interactions and with the proposal that I gave like a week ago.

I I put together sort of a plan, and really a lot of that came through talking with a lot of people in the community, a lot of people such as Sergeant Fitzgibbons and how he views his job and just seeing a lot of really different perspectives of it.

And one of the big things uh on the proposal was that there's in Westcock Cove there uh two unmarked hazards.

Um a few years ago, somebody actually hit that, and there was a woman who had an injured shoulder out there and was trying to get you know, had to get help, and uh someone else was stranded there on their boat overnight.

And it's I get a lot of oh, that's just an accident waiting to happen.

So I did some of the background work of the GPS locations and getting the stuff, and I don't think it's a big deal beyond working with the harbor master to get those marked, but I am noting that it is part of a fabric of yeah, like getting this, yeah, getting Westcock Cove to be safer.

Um another issue that I brought up was signage.

Um, both to operate a PWC, you just have to get your certificate and you have it for life.

So there's both a bunch of rules for the people to be reminded of.

There's also a bunch of restrictions for people to be reminded of, and in general, there's a lot of really cool people doing it out there, and they're having a nice time with their family.

But there's also a lot of people racing and misbehaving, and you know, it can I have a lot of videos people have sent me of just improper behavior, and you know, we've tried to bolster that over the years through the CDU, and you know, there's a even with talking with uh the officers who operate the CDUs, they find themselves educating the public a lot about the rules.

So the idea was to get better signage.

I can have signage at Vincent Island on the private part, uh having signage at West Beach Ramp, uh, and basically getting that assignage approved.

I nailing down exactly what it should say, and uh being oriented towards safety and and proper operations.

Um and so then the last point that I brought up was um uh changing what the slow no wake area is, and this is one's kind of a bigger lift and definitely probably involves getting BOR or whatever, but you guys figure out the process, but right now and from actions that happened in I believe it was like 2013 or something, uh the west side of East West uh Cove over on the Chapan side, both for erosion reasons and also for noise and safety reasons because there's West Beach there and stuff, that's all slow no wake.

There's a 200 yard wherever the shoreline is, but that thing's always moving.

So for an officer to see it from far away or for an operator to know where it is, it's it's kind of ambiguous and very hard to police.

So being the proposal is to pick more slow no-wake zones that we could also have on those signs to make it obvious where people can be safe, but a lot of especially the inner part of Westcock Cove, there's there's uh it uh ocean open water swimmers, there's kayakers, there's people on standard paddle boards, and these PwCs can go to 75 miles an hour within they're like Teslas.

They can cruise super quick and they might miss somebody in their little orange buoy, you know, because it's just before they know it, it's up.

So, again, like that on this topic, it's everybody says that I get texts from different communities, all different walks of life telling me it's just a matter of time uh until someone gets hurt.

So, really, all this is it's about safety, but there's also noise and just not having you know excessive activity the way that it goes on, and really it becomes a cluster almost like orcas going around, it makes the people can't operate it recreationally because there's just a lot of people racing their their PwC around.

And I'm not anti-PWC, it's just kind of what's going on there through community, you know, just the activity.

So that that's kind of the high level of what I presented.

Um, so yeah.

No, I appreciate that.

Thanks.

Um, so I guess it kind of causes me a couple of questions to think about, and it's probably directed at uh Sergeant Fitzgibbons, as far as the current status of policing that area, as far as you know, kind of what's the pace, and you know, what do you guys look at as far as how often you're out on the water, and how are you guys um thinking about controlling some of those activities?

So um jet skis are now ubiquitous, they're kind of become the new kind of uh electric scooter of the water, as the you know, as the prices come down and they're under 10,000, it's really kind of drawing a whole new crowd out on the water who are not that experienced.

So, you know, the three E's, we go with uh uh education engineering and then enforcement, so we try and leave the enforcement to last, but particularly for the Westcock Cove area, we daily uh patrol, and we generally stay within the area between the West Beach boat ramp and Vincent Island.

So the number of jet skis that you do see that are causing trouble for the most part, you're probably only seeing a very small amount of the ones that we have already turned away.

So when we're at the boat ramp, we check car registrations, driver's licenses, we check to make sure that their trailers are registered, um, and obviously as soon as that vessel hits the water, we do a vessel safety inspection, make sure that they have the proper life saving equipment on board, uh, and that it's properly registered with state of Connecticut or state of New York or any others.

So we look at you know, layers of the things that we can actually enforce, and then if they don't make that criteria, they don't hit the water.

We we send many people packing before their vessel ever hits the water.

So between the boat ramp and the island, we'll generally hover in that area.

So the same thing is when we know that there's a large group that are gonna ferry people out to Vincent's Island for a picnic or a party.

Uh, same thing, we'll just hammer them with safety inspections, registration checks, license checks.

So uh if they pass all of them, there's not much we can do at that point, you know.

They but they just get to go on their way.

Not that they're not gonna cause a problem or cause some sort of inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm later, but they've they've passed muster, they've they've got the right stuff to actually be there.

So when we do catch them, actually violating a speed zone, you know, we hammer them, we we give them a ticket.

Can I ask how much the ticket is?

Sure.

Look it up for you.

I believe it's uh 150 dollars.

Okay.

Is there currently signage at that boat ramp?

But I'm I'm making the assumption that most of the folks who are conducting activities in the West Cut Cove area are taking their putting their vessels in the water at the West Beach ramp.

Right.

Um that's generally boat that's the busiest uh that we have.

Okay.

Um is there a sign there?

Cove Cove Island after I think it was 2017, Cove Island.

It used to be where they could go through, and then it switched over to that's the only place.

And then talking with neighbors, another issue with this is noise.

These things are each as loud as uh leaf blowers, which have a noise ordinance is a big deal with them.

And now there's 20 of them blasting around in front of a ton of neighborhoods, and it just carries very loud over the water.

And so also not just the people in the front, but also in the back, I've talked to people who've complained to me about noise as well, but really safety is the top thing, but you know, it contributes quality of life.

Okay, and I guess is there currently a sign at West Beach ramp as far as what the rules are?

Um, I know that would have been one of your propositions.

Yep.

So there are multiple signs at the West Beach boat ramp um regarding different rules, but specifically if you're talking about rules for a uh PWC, you know, no.

I'd uh often brought up to the Harbor Commission that a kind of almost like a sand table, like a larger model depicting where the uh slow no wake zones are.

But one of the other um, you know, out of as already saying, between uh education, you know, engineering education enforcement.

So one of the things I do, I carry a large um supply of informational pamphlets from the harbor commission, which depict where these zones are.

So when we do catch people that are putting their jet ski in, uh, we will question them, hey, are you familiar with the area?

You know where this is, we'll bust it out.

We'll literally show them where they can and can't go, as well as where those hidden rocks and hazards are, you know.

So we'll do our best to educate them as we're putting them in the water.

Yeah, but it does seem like um uh signage um would be uh a good idea relative to, you know, because you obviously can't be there 24-7.

Um, that's what I was saying.

So if you had like a large sand table model or you know, kind of uh uh pictograph that would literally, you know, infograph that would show them, you know, the same thing as the pamphlet, but blown up would be perfect.

And my uh proposal has sort of in the work of making slow no wake zones and even in noting the other hazard, sort of shows a bunch of the maps.

So if you guys look at that, you can kind of see an example of what different hazards exist there from the NOAA maps as well as uh in the proposed zones.

And one of the things about the zones and like the way the rules go, if you're not familiar with it, is that uh from the within 200 feet of shore is slow no wake.

So there are a existent, but besides the west, also by a larger zone.

The west of it uh kind of from West Beach over to the point of Chapan is slow no wake.

The rest of it has a ridge and also around Vincent Island, but 200 feet both isn't very big when you look at it, and it makes it so that even right there, it's both very shallow water.

So it's actually a lot of places where you can even almost practically walk, but um, and so thus want to swim or kayak.

Um, but there's actually a lot of space where people can go really fast, right where people would otherwise want to swim, and it's totally lawful for them to do it.

Um, but it's maybe not the most appropriate place to do it just by kind of configuration of the cove.

Um, and then thus it also makes it because it changes, and especially it moves quickly during the middle of the tide section, it makes it really hard for people to like shift what they're doing, and again for the policing.

So even in trying to make the sign, it became tricky to be like what sign do you even put up there to show where where is okay to do what you can do?

I don't mean to monopolize the questions.

Yeah, I don't mean to monopolize the questions, but I I will follow how difficult is it to expand the no-wake zone to the area.

I think it's the uh that basically encompasses the entirety of Westcott Cove.

Do we know the process for that and how do we accomplish that?

Would you would you like me to so without the aid of having the uh Stanford Harbor Master here, that would be a heavily a heavy lift.

So you're going to have to engage um the United States Coast Guard, it's gonna have to go through um multiple layers of like uh site surveys and approvals.

But um, yeah, so it's not as easy as just saying, okay, hey, we've decided as a quorum that we're gonna call this a slow no wake now.

It wouldn't fly, it would have to be changed on navigational charts, um, you know, through NOAA.

That's why I broke my proposal into three parts, but you know, you gotta start somewhere, right?

So uh and I was gonna say you did a beautiful job on the proposal.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, you said, yeah.

And and also I didn't include this in the proposal, but I wanted to bring up up with you guys, and again, it goes like as a you see things when you do things like cross-cuttingly.

I'm not a Greenwich, I'm I'm not a Stanford resident, I'm actually Greenwich resident.

And when the Stanford Ramp, the West Beach ramp closed last year, I had to get my boat in in a different way.

And so I registered my boat for the first time with Greenwich and got to use their marina facilities for the first time, and they required insurance, and which Stanford didn't, and it ended up that just through like my mailing address change or whatever, I didn't actually have insurance on that boat, and it was so easy for me to add, and also my umbrella, and thus then I got insurance and now I had it.

But Greenwich to use any of the facilities there, you want to get a mooring within the public, you want to use the marina facilities, you want to get a ramp permit or whatever.

Insurance is part of their thing.

Now, again, like where this reaches in your processes and whatnot.

When people are using when you go to the heart, and I go to a lot of the harbor commission meetings where I watch them too.

So much stuff is like, oh, this boat sunk, and now what are we gonna do with it?

And it's the hit for the city to do that.

And having insurance requirements, I'm not showing for the insurance industry, but it creates a safety net for the people who are using all these jet skiers going out and they finally hit someone.

What if there's someone who doesn't have insurance?

But like, you know, we gave them a permit or Sanford gave them a permit to use the West Beach ramp to go and do that for 35 bucks for a whole season, but they don't have any insurance, and like Stanford's taking the risk for that.

So again, this is maybe a longitudinal thing, and then because I'm I don't know how many of these meetings are gonna come do.

It's something I'm throwing out to you about that.

Okay, that that's probably a larger discussion that we could have to go in a different form.

But I see Matt on the cracker.

So thanks.

Uh Matt, go ahead and ask your question.

Yeah, you know, I I got my kayak down at West Beach, so I take it out and I see the I see some of those guys, you know, people out over there and riding around.

Is what's the is it the criteria for the personal watercraft getting a license for it different than your normal boating license?

You know, are these guys these guys should be knowing you know, no wake zones and be familiar with who has right of way on the water and stuff like that.

Or is it like, hey, you complete this class online and you're ready to go.

I I'm not familiar, you know, I'm familiar on the kayak, you know, where you don't have to do anything, you can go through as opposed to a full, you know, under what is it, 19 17 feet, you need to have a certain boat.

So I don't know if you could offer some clarification on that if it's the same or different.

Different.

So generally you have to go for your boat or safety certificate, but the PWC is a separate course, which you are correct online, answer a few questions, take the test, get your certificate.

Once you get your certificate, present it to the Connecticut Department of Uh Environmental Protection, they will give you your PWC license.

So a lot of people don't know the second half of how you actually have to get that uh verified through deep and then actually have it added to your um license.

So a lot of times we're presented with just certif the certificate that I passed the class, but so it's still a violation.

We we'd wind up hitting them with that.

Okay, so they should still be, you know, familiar though in that course with all that, you know.

So they can't be pleading ignorance here.

Yeah, okay.

No, so almost to you know, give you guys kind of a background too that um 90% of the fatalities out on Long Island now are paddle craft, so kayaks, canoes, paddle boards, that's where all the drownings are come from.

Um, so if you're talking actually, and even with our own uh incidents in Westcott, they're fast, they look dangerous, you know what I mean, and the people on them may be doing things that you know upset people, but almost to vent uh to Evans' point, a lot of it is just legal.

You know, they're they're not breaking a law.

But like I said, we're we are on them, you know, as far as as soon as we do see a violation, you know, we hammer them with it.

Or just tell them, hey, you're you're done for the day.

Pull that out of the water.

You're you're out.

All right.

Thanks.

Steve, go ahead and ask your question.

Representative Short, excuse me.

Thank you, Chair Bashard.

I just want to get back to a question that Chairman uh Brashard uh offered uh a few minutes ago regarding uh prohibiting uh creating uh an awake zone in all of Westcott Cove I I'd like to back off of that a little bit and and uh my question is um can we mark out on the eastern side of Westcott Cove uh that 200 foot uh area can we put a series of those white horizontal markers on that side I understand why the west side of Westcott Cove is marked uh because the boat channel's there and so they want to create an awake zone through the boat channel.

I should also add I'm a member of the ALC beach community so I'm on the west side of Westcock Cove facing east.

I understand the beef that the Westcock Cove community has because a lot of the activity is on the uh east side of Westcott Cove and I'm also of two minds because as a kid I grew up water skiing in Westcock Cove that east side of Westcott cove is the best water skiing spot in Stanford.

So you know that does make noise that does lay awake I'm afraid but um but getting back to my question um could could an awake zone be marked off on the east side without going through the Coast Guard to NOAA etc etc on that oh I I yield uh sorry uh I would have yeah no I I would have to say that I think um if you're gonna try and change any uh speed section you're gonna wind up having to go through uh department of environmental protection as well as Coast Guard to have noah change it and put it on maps to make it any way shape or form enforceable um any of the even the rock buoys the fishing you know pier buoys all of that needs to be approved through the state yeah so even the marking of the two rock outcroppings that come up to the surface at low tide in order to mark those that is something you're gonna have to put through a more rigorous process associated with marking okay officially yeah okay not to say that if somebody were to go out there and mark them.

We will yeah that's that is certainly would be contemplated but not recommended um and that's been done in the past yeah yes okay um I think it's been a good discussion I think there's a few things that we can continue to uh explore um you know certainly we're gonna resolve anything this evening but it's but it's good to get some perspective and and know that it is an item uh that is certainly for that is concern for folks who who use Cummings Beach and um it is not a situation uh associated with um you know this is gonna go away anytime soon um and it's probably gonna get worse as the temperature gets gets uh you know better and the weather gets better for the rest of the summer but um certainly do appreciate the efforts um to to get other and police side activities so thank you very much Sergeant Fitzgibbons and and your team out there um so at this point um I'd like to conclude discussion on item number one uh and move to item number two on the agenda um this is uh PS 32.009 uh again this is an item for review and overview of the Stanford Park police and the enforcement of quality of life issues uh in Stamford Parks including e-bike use and loud music and and loud cars uh the invitees for this discussion include Mr.

Peter Gould uh the uh park uh police coordinator officer Gould I should say uh and uh Captain Chris Baker I don't know if he's joined us um the captain oh there you are a captain on the Stanford police force um this item was submitted by me but uh was recommended uh by representative uh Kindera Walsh Walstron um as as something has come up to her interest and certainly uh I know a number of uh folks on the board of representative have heard from their constituents um as far as some of the activities uh that are taking place in Stanford Parks uh in beaches which you know obviously is a concern it is a it's a tremendous resource that we have in our in our city uh that attracts um you know makes the city more attractive uh and now is the time of the year we see more of uh our our uh city residents out enjoying the parks uh with their families uh but it does attract a pretty uh extensive uh crowd of folks who seek to socialize and recreate uh maybe not always in positive uh perspective in in consideration for the rest of the residents um so at this point I'd like to entertain a motion to pick up item number two.

So moved so moved.

Thank you.

So so moved and seconded uh so I'd like to um open the item up for discussion um I would give the opportunity for the invitees uh Officer Gould uh and or officer baker to provide some opening remarks so Pete uh I I think the best thing to do would be uh to defer to you for kind of a a general explanation of what you're seeing right now and then if uh if I can fill in some gaps I certainly will after you're done and answer any questions you have.

Sounds good Captain um so good evening everybody um I know many of you but not all of you uh I'm Peter Gould I've been with the park police since hopefully I don't look this old 1979 um so I've I've been here through a lot of uh ups and downs and changes in uh uh techniques and priorities and so on um park police share enforcement in the parks with the Stanford police patrol bureau uh when I started here were 31 park police officers uh today there are two myself and one uh part-time officer we believe we're gonna be adding an additional officer in uh December uh who is retiring from the Norwalk police department but lives in Stanford um because of the training requirements for police we no longer put somebody through police academy to become a park police officer so we're we're looking for existing state certified law enforcement officers who are uh interested in continuing in uh uh in this capacity and uh under this administration both on the police side uh and the the city side uh we are slowly rebuilding that capability but in the meantime um uh the uh the sharing of responsibilities of course is difficult because the patrol bureau is trying to police the entire city uh park police can focus specifically on the quality of life issues in the parks but uh with only two of us generally one working on a particular day and a team of uh non-sworn uh uh park rangers uh who do not have and cannot be given actual enforcement authority uh there are some limits so a lot of what we see in the parks probably the the principal complaint uh these days um are specifically quality of life rather than uh serious criminal offenses uh the probably the biggest one that we see every single day in many different locations is uh uh amplified music.

Uh secondarily, we see uh, as the city is seeing on a citywide basis, uh the uh the invasion of um what we refer to as uh uh motorized recreational vehicles, which uh include uh unregistered dirt bikes, um uh ATVs, uh vehicles that were never designed to be on the public roadway, but these days are on the public roadway.

And uh that produces both a quality of life and a public safety issue.

Um members of this committee are probably aware of the fact that uh uh more than a year ago uh the city adopted an ordinance to deal with uh both actually two different ordinances to deal with both of these issues.

Umplified music through the use of external amplifiers and external loudspeakers attached to motor vehicles has a heightened penalty over uh simple loud music played out of the existing car stereo or a boombox.

Um the uh proliferation of unregistered dirt bikes and and those types of vehicles uh under the uh ordinance specifically having to do with MRVs, motorized recreational vehicles, uh, also have a heightened penalty uh above and beyond that of the typical unregistered motor vehicle that was designed for use on the street, but has an expired registration or doesn't have license plates or whatever.

Both of those uh require an infrastructure set up by the city, which I understand is nearing uh uh completion or uh may even be complete, but I haven't been told that yet.

Uh, because in order to activate or use either of those two ordinances, uh we need hearing officers appointed to hear cases in which either a speaker system or a uh an unregistered, unregistrable off-road vehicle has been seized because the ordinances allow both of those types of devices uh essentially to be confiscated.

The speaker systems can be sold at auction and the uh uh the um unregistered vehicles uh subject to certain limitations can be uh destroyed and not returned to their respective owners.

But in order to do that, there has to be due process.

And in order for due process to exist, there has to be a hearing process put in place, and we're I believe fairly far along in that being done.

But at the meantime, the way we're dealing with these things right now is primarily through the ordinary motor vehicle ordinances, the ordinary park regulations or uh laws pertaining to creating public disturbances as far as loud music is concerned.

Um so once that is done, then the loud music becomes very easy to deal with.

The uh unregistered vehicles have a whole other layer of complication, uh having to do with how you apprehend them given the propensity of the typical operator of that sort of vehicle to flee when red and blue lights come on behind it.

Uh there are other communities that have developed very innovative programs to deal with that.

Stanford is working on similar innovations.

Um police pursuits of those types of vehicles when the entire reason for the pursuit is the motor vehicle violation, um, are problematic, dangerous, and therefore uh largely prohibited.

Um there's a there's a whole uh set of uh strategies involved in trying to do those kinds of apprehensions without actually engaging in a pursuit.

And the fine details of that uh you may appreciate we don't really want to talk too much about in public uh because we don't want to hand the people who are doing this stuff uh uh a rule book for how to evade.

And with that, um I'd be happy to entertain any questions or if uh if you have questions for the captain.

Kevin Baker, did you have anything you wanted to add?

Or uh should we uh go to questions?

Well, sir, you can go right to questions uh i mean you know in in terms of my understanding the agenda i mean uh everything that was appropriate to go over i think pete did uh but that said i could i could certainly fill in any gaps if you have any questions all right so let me uh let me do uh uh choose uh uh representative walston uh for the first question please good evening officer oh you got you are logged in twice yeah so you need to close one out you are on mute where you where the there you are you see me still getting some feedback go to the next person let me figure this out okay uh hey Lou I actually just have a quick question for you um so with the hearing officer kind of where are we in that process can you give us a little bit more uh color on that yeah absolutely so uh I believe it was last month or uh this coming month I believe uh in my conversation with Bridget Fox the mayor's chief of staff I believe they were putting forward uh potentially four or five people um to serve in those roles and I think that would uh we felt that that would put a big uh a big boost to getting some of these uh appeals heard and resolved through the process because in the past there was only one person serving in that role um but since there was a big influx of interest uh from volunteers who put in for it uh we move forward with several good candidates I would have to ask Bridget where we are in that process but I know it was in the next well hopefully within the next month or so that would all be resolved and in place okay uh so this is a volunteer position they're not appointed judges um do they're required to be lawyers or anything like that or just no I don't believe so I I don't believe so okay interesting um all right representative Wallstrom you want to try again yes can you hear me yes perfectly I oh good evening Officer Goal good to see you and good evening to everyone including Lou so um I'm really really concerned about these fast bikes that I see all over Stanford now like even today I saw a young man he must have been going like 35 miles an hour so what can we do because I'm sure both bikes are going to be all over the parts and at the beach.

So that's a different categorization versus the ATV.

This is something you're I mean you're referring to the the electrical powered the e-bikes and e-scooters and those types of uh vehicles is that fall under a different category officer Gould it does in the sense that the e-bike doesn't uh uh doesn't count in the same way as an unregistered gasoline-powered dirt bike so e-bikes are are covered by a separate body of law it does still raise the same issue in terms of apprehension when you have somebody on a vehicle that can travel at substantial speed and reacts to efforts to pull them over by increasing speed departing the roadway going between houses or into alleyways or uh doing things to evade and uh and so this is an issue that is constantly being debated and strategized uh because you know, once upon a time, police could initiate a pursuit for motor vehicle violation and pursue until uh the pursuit terminated one way or the other.

It was later decided that uh and then this is something that's developed really across the country.

This isn't specific to Stanford or even the state of Connecticut, that pursuits for motor vehicle violations only created more hazard to not only the person pursued, not only the per the pursuing officers, but to uh members of the public who weren't involved in the pursuit at all, and therefore uh our ability to chase somebody who's decided they're not going to stop, uh, is very, very limited.

And therefore, uh, as I mentioned, there are there are other strategies being uh uh followed in order to try to make those uh uh those stops.

I'm gonna defer to the uh uh to Captain Baker on how much he wants to say in a public meeting about what those strategies are.

Uh, but we're definitely doing things to try to address that problem.

It is, however, an enormous problem and a and a growing one.

And uh every law enforcement agency in the state is aware of that and are all simultaneously uh producing or uh pursuing similar strategies to try to address it.

One more question.

Are we prepared in the event that I think when the ATBs and is it called a takedown, stand down, whatever it's called?

When all of those ATVs they start riding on the highways, then they come through the town and start blocking traffic.

They call it uh they call it a street takeover, representative.

Street takeover.

Are we prepared in case they come here?

Um we have we often get intelligence information in advance of uh events like that that are upcoming uh through a variety of means and engage in uh uh preventive efforts, and uh we've been very, very successful, as you could probably tell, at discouraging those events from occurring.

So you've seen them in New Haven, you've seen them in West Haven, you've seen them in Milford.

Um, and uh we are uh acutely aware of the potential, whether it's in our public parks or elsewhere, uh, for those events to come to Stanford, if not strategized against.

Um, and uh so far uh the administration of this police department has been very, very successful.

Uh kudos to Captain Baker and the Patrol Bureau in uh in being able to make those very difficult to do.

And I yield, thank you so much.

Thank you, Representative Lost.

Um I'd like to recognize Representative Adams.

Yes.

Uh my question is, um, well, these bites um that's unregister uh when you catch them, are we ticking them and educating them that they just can't run any Stanford, not as his own private property?

Um so are they being ticketed at all?

Uh we are doing that when we're uh able to make an apprehension, which is not infrequent at the moment, in the absence of the ordinance we've just been talking about that requires hearing officers, uh, they are dealt with as unregistered, uninsured motor vehicles, often operated by somebody without a license or with a suspended license, uh in those circumstances towing and impoundment of the vehicle is authorized because it's an unregistered vehicle.

The difference between the way it's being pursued currently and the way it would be pursued under the ordinance is that currently the person does get a ticket.

They may get a uh a summons requiring them to appear in court if their uh driving privileges suspended, but ultimately they'll get the bike back again, even if it's an unregistered uh uninsured, unin you know, uh non-street legal uh vehicle, there is no provision to retain them.

The problem is of these vehicles is so pervasive throughout the state that several years ago, the General Assembly passed an enabling statute, which is what allowed the city to pass the ordinance that now would allow uh seizure and ultimately potentially destruction of those vehicles um when operated in a particularly egregious manner or uh, you know, repeat violations, that's uh that sort of thing.

Um, and that obviously is going to have a much greater preventive effect.

It's one thing if um taking your unregistered dirt bike out means you're gonna have to pay a fine, maybe over the internet, never even appear in court, and you're done, and you get your bike back.

It's another thing entirely if we're talking about a thousand dollar fine uh and potentially you lose your bike, and um and and that sort of step up uh for some of the violations we're seeing is is what we're looking for in terms of a greater preventive effect.

But yes, we do give we we do give that kind of education.

Number one, they do get a ticket.

Number two, the uh officers who handle these violations, including myself, uh absolutely explain to them what the limitations are.

Um, but a lot of the people who do this stuff don't care about the limitation.

All they care about is how much of a penalty there is, and if it isn't enough, they'll do it again.

Okay, but um between the ticket and the tone and the recovery and this and the storage, um, I'm imagining it's about 500-700 in accumulation.

How much is the ticket when you when you um drive in on the public street uh with an unregistered vehicle?

Um and then and also the tolling that accommodate that.

The um the ticket I'd have to look up, but it's uh I think it's somewhere on the in the neighborhood of 120 to 150 dollars.

It's not a massive fine for operating on an unregistered.

If the person's driving privilege is also suspended, that's a court appearance and a fine that is set by a judge rather than according to a it's not a specific figure.

It's a it's a fine within a range.

Towing is a state statute set uh fee, and it is based on how many miles the towing is and how many days the vehicle is impounded and so on.

I don't have a hard figure for that, but I think your ballpark is about is probably about right by the time you get into um a total amount that 500 to 750 all told.

You you're probably you're probably right in that range.

And I guess my second question uh about these kids with the lowest music boxes in the back of their cars that are disturbing people.

Uh, are we stopping and ticking in them and educating them then um these kids that they can't just can't have this uh volume of of noise in the back of their car?

Because I think it's out of ignorance.

They just don't know.

They just want to have the biggest and the baddest um amplify system in their car.

And I I don't think they really know until they get ticket, um, and then the policy can't pay the ticket and probably their parents gonna have to pay it.

Uh um, so do we uh ticket them and educate them that you just can't have this in your car?

If you do, um, just what the decimal you can turn it up to, but if you turn beyond that, this is what um can have we can actually take this system because these kids are spend pretty good money on these systems, but they don't know that they can't ride down and as a stoplight and it's blasted out.

Yeah, that educational effort is is pretty constant and ongoing.

Um, ever since the ordinance was introduced and before it was even passed, I was already explaining to the people operating these systems that there was a law coming uh that would allow the the seizure of the equipment, and that the reason for it was that um the people other than themselves, whether they were other park patrons or park neighbors or uh other people in the community, because of course that problem isn't limited to the parks, it's just I happen to work in the parks, and therefore that's where I see it.

Uh, that the problem was found to be so offensive that uh that those laws were passed.

And the population of people who operate these systems kind of divides into two groups.

There is the group you're talking about who simply didn't understand and are amenable to the explanation.

And then there's another, there's another category of person who knows full well what the requirements are, what the limits are, and they simply don't care.

Uh and some seem to delight in actually annoying other people and aim the speakers directly at houses and um, and those are the ones that the that the seizure and uh uh auction process were really designed for.

Um, one of the things that we went into in some detail when the ordinance was up for consideration was that we weren't planning on targeting every single person who operates a system like this even out of innocent ignorance of the law uh and that that this was really for the person who's who's egregiously doing this and doing it intentionally uh but yeah there's been a lot of education going on um and that's that's going to continue and the uh this the seizure provision is really for the the the person who knows darn well the other thing I would mention by the way and I had to do some research into this um you're absolutely right there's a significant investment in these systems in some cases we're talking about about roughly five thousand dollars just for a sound system between the uh speaker system and the amplifier and to put that into perspective I've seen uh audio amplifiers driving these systems that are 5,000 watts for comparison the the amplifier that drives the police or fire engine siren is 200 watts 200 compared to 5000 so if that if that gives you perspective on how loud these things get when they're really being abused um that was I found that to be an eye opener yes I mean I I know but most of you kids trying to get the biggest in the batteries and um and uh I just hope that we educate them but but I thank you for your answer and I appreciate you thank you I yield the floor thank you thank you representative adams um I'll turn to representative field ask your question please thank you um I'm interested in trying to understand the you know we received a ton of emails about loud music from Mill River Park this week I'm sure everyone's aware of that and from the reading of the emails that I saw it seemed like a couple times that when constituents called the police department they were told well we can't really do anything about that and I don't know if it was a manpower issue or what what it was really meant by that or even if that happened but I'm just curious like I heard somebody was like three and four miles away from the park and yet their windows were rattling and um I haven't been to a concert in Stanford in a long time since the great old live at five days which I miss but when they stopped letting kids go because we used to take our kids there and it was great it was loud but it what didn't seem it was earth shattering so what can be done in a situation like this past weekend when people complain and it's obviously at a level that's really not you know conducive to the quality of life for the people who happen to live close by or in this case even far away well you raised an interesting issue and uh since you mentioned alive at five uh the the issue is that the um the the loud music ordinance in the specifically in the parks applies to loud music without a permit so an event like alive at five having been a a city sanctioned event uh was exempt from that and so you'd have a live band uh performing at Columbus Park uh with very high sound pressure levels something that that would be prohibited anywhere else but because it was city plan city sanctioned authorized uh it was exempt from those rules now millriver park is a little bit of a unique creature because if you go into um ordinance 175-1 which covers the creation of of uh park regulations.

Some years ago, the uh authority to create park regulations was split with the city's parks and recreation commission creating park regulations for every park and recreational facility with the sole exemption of Mill River Park.

And the rulemaking authority for Mill River Park was given to the Mill River Collaborative, which is the nonprofit that maintains that park.

In each case, the relevant rulemaking body, either the parks and rec commission or the Mill River Collaborative, creates a draft of regulations for the respective parks and submits it to the uh parks and recreation committee of the board, or uh now it's a combined committee, and I forget what the combination is.

I've been here too long and I remember the old name, uh, which ultimately presents it to the full board, and once ratified by the full board, those regulations become enforceable.

Um, so in order to properly answer your question, it comes to what are the regulations for music in Mill River Park.

When an event is sanctioned, is it sanctioned by the collaborative or is it sanctioned by the city?

And then the uh regulation of it becomes an administrative one within the regul with the the relative the uh relevant entity.

In other words, these aren't unauthorized um uh performances.

These are authorized performances by an entity that is authorized to grant that privilege of operating that that uh music system, so it's not really a police matter, and that's where I think you probably ran into issues of uh of enforcement.

When something is expressly authorized, it would have been like somebody calling the police to report that an alive at five concert was too loud.

Well, what can the police do?

It's expressly authorized, it's live music, it's gonna have a uh a sound system.

I went by Mill River Park that night.

To me, it sounded like what you'd expect to hear at an alive at five.

It was just in Mill River instead of in uh in Columbus.

That's interesting.

Thank you for your detailed answer.

Uh, thank you, Representative uh Field.

Um, I recognize uh representative DiLet.

Thank you.

Um I think related to that, and you brought up a point.

Um what you know, things that are going in sanction where it's going through um, you know, okay.

The person comes through and is doing lab music in their car.

Are you able to get like, is that with that isn't sanctioned?

Are you able to go through and, you know, you can't really confiscate them because they're in the vehicle, you know, and some of them are bolted down, you know.

What can you guys do in terms of at least those noise complaints and those matters where it isn't sanctioned and how you know how can the board work on or you know, this committee or the board as a whole work on an ordinance that kind of can start to encompass that as these issues start popping up that's focusing and kind of more of a catch-all as opposed to each individual case, you know, because I think that's where the problem that we see is like, oh, okay, if it's something on a car, it's different than this, as opposed to having more of a broad noise ordinance in the city.

Well, we actually have uh uh broad-based uh not not only ordinances but statutes.

So uh for instance, if um let's say we didn't even have ordinances, there's a state statute for creating a public disturbance that can be cited uh with a fine that I think right now is 120, if I remember right.

Um, but if something gets to the point where it is so loud that it is um uh physically painful, you're into a criminal statute called uh breach of peace and a uh custodial arrest could be made for doing that.

So the the tool set is there uh across the board from the mail-in ticket at a low level to under the ordinance, ultimately potentially confiscation of the equipment and uh and a much higher fine to in an in an unusual uh uh particularly over the top type incident, um, uh a custodial arrest could be made, the equipment would be seized as evidence, and the case would end up in superior court.

We have the range.

Um, in answer to your question, though, specifically, the um the ordinance under the authorizing statute specifically addresses what's referred to as external speakers connected to a motor vehicle.

So that's when we're not talking about music that's coming out of the car stereo itself through the built-in speakers in the doors and the and the wells in the car.

We're talking about somebody who created an accessory system, and those really aren't bolted into place.

Um if you uh uh if you'd been here when I uh uh showed this stuff off, and I'll be happy to share it with you offline if you'd like.

Um, I have dozens of photographs of the way these things are rigged.

The speakers are often seat belted into the back seats, aiming out the open rear windows.

And when we say external speakers, uh, we covered this in the ordinance too.

That doesn't mean exterior speakers.

It doesn't mean that it has to be physically outside the car, it means it is external to the car's audio system.

And as soon as you have these external speakers that are wired in and being carried around in the car or put up on the roof or uh physically connected to the car by wires, but sitting next to the car.

Um, and there are some absolutely eye-popping photographs of what those systems look like.

All of those are subject to the ordinance, and all of those would be easy to confiscate in a situation that called for it.

Just kind of a follow-up on that.

If you're issuing a fine, right?

You go through, it's the first time, right?

Is part of that fine saying you have to stop, or can they go and you guys leave and start it up again?

You know, because someone's gonna say, eh, 150 bucks, whatever.

You know, and then by the time you guys get back there, they're already left.

You know, is that part of it that it has to be turned off?

You know, that's kind of trying to go and wiggle the line of enforcement here versus okay, 150 fine.

Yeah, okay, but I'm having a really good time.

Who cares about the 150 dollars?

You know, and kind of going through and seeing that.

Um, I don't know if that is included in that fine that hey, here's your ticket, it's gotta be off now.

You know, so I don't know about that.

That's absolutely what is done, and the way the laws are written, even the ones with the lower fines, like what you're talking about, uh, the law is written to say that every instance is a separate violation.

So when we show up and write a ticket, if we leave and that's turned back up, that's another violation.

Here's another ticket.

But also, the fine once you get into the external speaker uh environment is much, much higher.

The first instance is a thousand dollars, the second is fifteen hundred, third and subsequent is two thousand dollars a piece.

Um, so that's when we're we're dealing with somebody who wants to be cavalier about it, like you're describing.

And the the legislature gave us a tool to deal with that.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, representative.

Um I did see uh representative feel.

Uh, did you have a follow-up question?

Yeah, I had a follow-up question.

Thank you.

Uh I was just thinking back to the to the uh noise we were talking about in the park and in the this case, the mill river park.

You talked a little bit about whether the event is sanctioned by the collaborative or by the city.

Did I understand?

Is are you saying that if the city um authorizes the event, then there is no limit to the volume of the sound, or are you saying that in that particular case, which I believe was live at five is an example, they specifically requested that the sound not be regulated and it was not regulated.

I'm wondering if it's a blanket authorization, if it's approved by the city or not approved by the city, if that makes sense.

One of the things that's that makes addressing this difficult is the way that they bifurcated the the uh the rules between all of the other parks and Mill River.

Um it's it's above my pay grade, frankly.

How matters that are approved through the Mill River Collaborative are then approved by the city.

I'm sure there's a process for it.

I just don't know what it is.

But for all of the other parks, um once an event with amplified music is approved, there has not generally been a requirement for a ceiling to the music that would be enforced by the police.

It is an administrative matter that is dealt with between the entity that is uh uh producing the music and the city on the theory that if the city has engaged an entity to put on a concert, it shouldn't be necessary for the police to say turn the music down.

The city has people involved that can say turn the music down, and that's going to be done because it's a it's a essentially vendor-client relationship.

You get told to do it, you're gonna do it.

You're working for the city.

I would imagine the same thing applies to the collaborative, and then what the bridge is between the collaborative as a nonprofit and the um and the uh city administration is something that perhaps Kevin Murray could speak to.

I know he's here.

Um at least I think he's still here.

Um he was here for a previous matter.

Um, but either way, it it it it's not really at that point you you see what I'm getting at, it's not really a criminal uh uh law enforcement matter, it's more uh uh this is what we want you to do, and you and you're gonna do it.

We've never really had that turn into a police matter.

Yeah, it seems to me, I don't know.

Maybe this is something Tom for our committee to discuss at a later date in a little more detail to get clarity around that, because it almost seems to me it makes too much sense that we we should have any amplified concert anywhere should have some kind of decibel limit.

And if it's over that limit, it should be a police matter because even if you're a vendor, I appreciate you saying, Oh, well, they they have a relationship, of course they're gonna do it.

But I think we all know that a lot of times people don't always act in the best interest if they think it could hurt the experience that they're getting from the people paying to go there and all the other ancillary opportunities that go along with that opportunity.

So maybe maybe that's something we can take up as a board to think about.

Hey, yeah, we want to do all that, but we just want to be a little more respectful to the neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you for your answer.

And I yield.

No, thank you very much.

Uh good question and good follow-up.

Um, unless Lou, you want to have something to say on that.

But um, you know, I think that's an interesting you know description of the situation, and certainly something we can consider.

And I also, you know, not to speak out of school.

I think the fact that it was a Sunday night uh of Father's Day, and they had a permit that went until 10 o'clock.

Um, you know, that was that was an issue that that caused a number of a bit of concern in the community.

Um, but with that, I'd like to recognize um Representative Alstern again.

From from what I understand, what's what's so egregious is that I was told that it was a New York thing.

Most of those people had come to Stanford out of New York.

That's one.

And I was thinking, why would they come all the way up here and blast their music?

Why didn't they do it somewhere down there?

Are they limited somewhere?

Like in New Rochelle, I think they had come from.

That's one question I was asking myself.

And first time is a charm.

We already had gone through this, but now we as a board with all of the emails that we receive, we need to start implementing something on the permit to which should go across the board.

Like this is the amount of decibels that you could play.

If you uh I don't know how you can measure it, but you cannot go past this decibel.

And that's that should start being on all of the permits.

So none of our our neighbors are disturbed like that again on a Sunday night.

And I know uh Mill River, you know, they're different, but that was that was totally egregious.

What happened?

And I just remember one lady was talking about her baby.

I think she was talking about the dog.

We let's not go through this again.

I think we we need to start working on something to make it across the board, and no special privileges for for anyone.

We just need to have one uh number set for decibels.

And I yield, that's it.

All right.

Point taken.

Thank you, Representative Walsh.

Uh, recognize uh representative Adams.

Yeah, I mean, I guess I I'm agreeing with uh Mr.

Field in this thought that uh we should work with the city that they should hold uh the Mill River Collaborator to the same um decimal that they do any other business.

Um especially with the technology now, you can do the surround system, they can put speaker uh uh around uh the pole to have music almost everywhere, but lower um lower decibel.

So then maybe there's something we can work with the city and see if when you get we get one cohesive decimal that also the mill river have to apply to too because right now they sign their rights over the mill river, Mill River will get to set it up high and low, whatever they want to do.

And uh if you're gonna operate within the city, then you need to operate within in the city, um city uh um decenni.

So um hope we put that up for review and see what we can come up with or work with um the administration and see what they would be applicable to that.

Thank you.

My yield.

It Tom, if I could just comment on that, just I know it's a hot topic going into uh this week and throughout the week, a lot of complaints from Sunday night.

I just want to um, you know, let everyone know that the city has been working.

Uh operations, public safety, mayor's office have been working um with the Mill River Collaborative.

It has been um a bone of contention in past years, and it's something that is is somewhat frustrating.

That we really should have any events happening throughout the city and city parks following the city permitting process.

So those um, you know, the there's no simple clear explanation and how we're gonna make that happen based on prior agreements, but it is something that we are continuously working on, and it's something that we really have to strive to try and achieve so that we have those that consistency through any event that's happening in the city, and that when an event is occurring, um, we we have that same process in making sure that public safety is in place, the health department is involved where needed, the fire marshal is involved where needed, our operation resources department resources are engaged appropriately, and we could allocate the necessary personnel on the city side.

So um it is uh a hot topic.

It is something that we've been working on for some time now, and we're gonna continue to work towards it, and hopefully we can have some discussion on this board in the future in regards to that topic.

All right, thank you.

Uh thank you, Lua.

I look forward to working with you on that and um, you know, trying to make some progress and figure it out because you know it isn't it is a tremendous embarrassment for the city, and certainly, you know, for the board.

If this continues and we have another incident, um it's not gonna be pretty, unfortunately.

Uh, with that, I'd like to recognize uh Representative Graham.

Thank you, Chair.

I I agree with everything that's been said.

The only thing I have an issue with is that uh the Mill River Collaborative has have not, they just started having concerts in the park um when uh the live at five events ended, but throughout the city, not just downtown, but uh on Harbor Point, we deal with this every summer.

Rooftop parties, bars playing loud music.

You can hear the music from uh Chapan over the water to K Park and our backyards.

You can hear the music from the waterside.

Uh, they close down uh the crab uh shell.

You can hear that music constantly.

We hear that from Friday from Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and the babies are being disturbed.

People have to work are being disturbed.

I just don't think that my constituents know that they can complain.

So you probably haven't heard that many complaints, but we deal with this all the time, and uh it comes from South Pacific Street from Tease Pizza.

It comes from downtown.

All the bars in Befford Street.

There are people that live in residential units all over the city that live next to the bars.

So uh if you're going to enforce it, we need to force it across the board.

It's not just Mill River and that one incident that gives people anxiety and you hear noise and you hear complaints.

They may not communicate that via email, but we certainly hear it, and I know I hear it all the time.

Um, so we just have to be consistent as to what we do.

And just I know that event probably was one of the first where you had a lot of um people who showed up.

Thank goodness there were no um emergency events, no one was hurt.

It was uh more of a mature crowd, I could say, um, and they were dressed uh for a certain type of event.

But again, the music was too loud and should have been um modified, it should have been um regulated, and a lot of times uh the health department has to regulate the decibels, and so it's hard to know who's in charge in a situation like that.

You know what I mean?

But I do think that the city should participate in the permitting process and at least be advised as to what's going on and um who's making the decisions, but again, I just want to make sure that we're consistent across the board, and I yield.

All right, thank you, Representative Graham.

Um, so I don't see any more questions.

Um, so I'll uh you know appreciate everybody dialing in.

I think we've had a pretty fulsome discussion uh on a number of topics related to um the quality of life issues here in Stanford, and and there's a few points that I've written down for things to for us to work on going forward.

Um, and again, I really appreciate everybody's participation uh and especially our invited guests.

And so with that, I'd uh entertain a motion to conclude uh and adjourn the meeting.

Motion to adjourn, seconded.

Great, thank you all uh very much.

Um, one quick thing.

I I did confirm three appeal uh hearing officers were approved last night in appointments.

Yes.

Oh, uh just I just I confirmed that with Bridget, so okay.

So we're making progress on that.

And if I could just add one thing if anybody would ever like to reach out to me offline with questions that weren't covered tonight, I'm always happy to entertain them.

Thank you very much, Officer Gould.

Thank you, appreciate that.

All right, thank you all.

Uh, look forward to seeing you guys after the July 4th.

Have a great July 4th holiday.

Um, all the best, everyone.

Take care.

Good night.

Good night, everyone.