Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Legislative & Rules Committee Meeting – October 27, 2026: Window Safety Resolution and Grocery Store Development Ordinance Both Recommitted

Board of Representatives — Tuesday, October 27, 2026

BodyStamford, Connecticut

SessionBoard of Representatives

DateTuesday, October 27, 2026

StatusNEW · FILED

Video Record

0:00 / 3:00:05

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

0:00

Alrighty, thank you everybody for being here.

0:01

I'm going to call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee uh October 27th at 7.01 p.m.

0:10

I see an attendance committee members.

0:12

Uh blank, Boudreau, Camrelli, Pyatt, Le Pine, myself, Stone, Weinberg.

0:21

I think that's it.

0:22

And then I also see ex officio members in attendance.

0:28

Johnson Pollack.

0:31

I think that's it.

0:32

So if anybody I missed high is here.

0:35

I've read our own.

0:37

Sorry.

0:38

No worries.

0:39

Alrighty.

0:40

So with that, we have two items on our agenda this evening.

0:43

So moving to item number one, I'd like uh I you know appreciate a motion to approve LR32.0121.

0:52

Thank you.

0:54

Thank you very much.

0:54

So I hear a motion and a second with respect to item LR32.021, a resolution urging the Connecticut General Assembly to enact statewide window safety legislation for the protection of children.

1:05

And I understand uh the the author of this resolution has a motion that you'd like us to consider.

1:10

So Representative

Speaker 2

1:11

Stone.

1:12

Uh thank you, Mr.

1:13

K.

1:13

We've not yet discussed this in committee.

1:16

I wanted to uh go with a slightly different version than the one that was originally released that incorporates uh input from various conversations of health people.

1:27

It allows us to just have one conversation that's cleaner without having to go through the original text and then the amendments because it reflects all the changes that uh I want to incorporate based on those decisions.

1:39

So um if it's okay with uh with the committee, I'd like to go forward with that amended version that was sent out to uh the committee earlier.

1:47

Perfect.

Speaker 1

1:47

Alrighty, are you sorry?

1:48

You're making the motion to substitute that.

1:50

I'm making a motion to substitute perfect.

1:52

And the second thank you very much.

1:55

Any discussion on the motion to substitute?

1:58

Yes, Representative.

Speaker 3

1:59

Yeah, I am curious about the motivation on the substitutions.

2:04

The thing that stands out to me, assuming I'm looking at the correct versions, is that in the original resolution we called for statewide legislation on um the window safety protection.

2:17

And in the substituted version that you're proposing, it is narrowed down to a municipal opt-in framework.

Speaker 2

2:25

Yes.

Speaker 3

2:26

I struggle to see the virtue of that.

2:28

If there is a safety benefit to be gained, is there a reason why it shouldn't be statewide?

2:33

I guess the one the thing I usually think of is the case where we would use a municipal opt-in, is if we can't pass the stronger legislation at the state level, uh, then maybe you can pass a municipal opt-in version.

2:45

Uh so just curious what you're talking about

Unassigned speaker

2:47

there.

Unassigned speaker

2:48

Uh Chair, through you to respond to the question.

Speaker 2

2:51

Yes, I'm so

Speaker 1

2:51

sorry.

2:52

Before you reply, though, I just want to introduce our invitees that I forgot to introduce, so apologies.

2:56

Um I also see an attendance on this item.

2:59

Uh John Harness, attorney John Harness from Corporation Council, Director Luda Rubis, uh, director of public safety of the city of Stanford, and also Chief Rex Morris uh of the Stanford Fire Department.

3:11

And back to you representative styles, apologies.

Speaker 2

3:15

So I've had various conversations with uh people to try to understand what makes the most sense.

3:22

And given that there is a lot of variance in buildings, in the housing stock in different towns, it doesn't necessarily make I think as much sense to do a blanket call for advocacy.

3:37

And again, remember this is just a call for advocacy.

3:40

It's not necessarily stating what the regulations should be at any given time.

3:45

It's saying what we think the state should consider building.

3:48

But I think that having it be as a municipal opt-in allows for the most flexibility for cities and towns to decide what makes the most sense for them, but most importantly, incorporate in the realities of their housing stock, the challenges and such that go with it, as well as the expertise that the local public safety officials have based on their experience with the towns and the buildings themselves to figure out what does or does not work best for them.

4:16

So that was a rationale for making that.

Speaker 3

4:20

Okay.

4:21

Um I'm still partial to the idea of having a well-written set of statewide rules rather than uh kind of a municipality, but

Speaker 2

4:33

ultimately it's gonna be up to the state to determine what those rules are gonna be.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Procedural█████████████████████21%

Public Safety█████████████████████21%

Fire Safety███████████████████19%

Food Access████████████12%

Retail Development█████████9%

Economic Development█████5%

Legislative Process████4%

Affordable Housing███3%

Urban Redevelopment██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Legislative & Rules Committee Meeting – October 27, 2026

The Legislative & Rules Committee of the Stamford Board of Representatives met on Tuesday, October 27, 2026 at 7:01 p.m. to consider two items: a resolution urging statewide window safety legislation for children, and an ordinance to create an urban grocery store development district. After extensive discussion and testimony from public safety officials and city attorneys, both items were recommitted for further study and revision. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.

Discussion Items

1. LR32.021 – Resolution Urging Statewide Window Safety Legislation

Sponsor: Representative Stone introduced a substituted version of the resolution, shifting from a call for statewide mandates to a municipal opt‑in framework. The new version specifies temporary or removable window stops limiting openings to four inches, rather than bars or guards.
Testimony:
- Chief Rex Morris (Stamford Fire Department) expressed concern that any window obstruction could impede firefighter egress and rescue, especially in high‑rise buildings. He noted that window stops are less restrictive than bars but still require caution.
- Director Lou DeRubeis (Public Safety) echoed the chief’s concerns about unintended consequences and emphasized the importance of education and local control.
- Attorney John Harness (Corporation Counsel) provided legal background.
Committee Debate:
- Representative Stone argued that window stops are removable and would not hinder firefighters, and that the resolution merely asks the state to consider enabling local action.
- Several members (Reps. Boudreau, Weinberg, Johnson, LePine) stated they were uncomfortable with the resolution without stronger support from public safety experts. Others (Reps. Hughes, Blank) supported the resolution as a first step.
- Representative Weinberg moved to recommit the item to allow more time for revisions and expert consultation.
Vote on Motion to Substitute: Passed 8‑0‑1 (Rep. Boudreau abstained).
Vote on Motion to Recommit: Passed 9‑0 (unanimous).

2. LR32.023 – Ordinance Establishing an Urban Grocery Store Development District

Sponsors: Representatives Adams, Boudreau, Didelot, Gardner, Graham, Gross, Hughes, Johnson, Pelliccia, Shaw, Sylvestre, and Weathers.
Two Drafts: The original (August 3, 2026) created a development district targeting downtown, east side, and south end neighborhoods. An alternative draft (October 9, 2026) proposed a citywide tax abatement.
Testimony:
- Director Leah Kagan (Economic Development) noted that the city’s draft incorporated feedback from the tax assessor and legal department but still required further due diligence, including discussions with grocery retailers and property owners.
- Attorney Cynthia Anger (Corporation Counsel) explained that the citywide approach was recommended because she could not identify a legally defensible rational basis to create specific districts under existing state tax statutes.
Committee Debate:
- Representative Hughes argued that a citywide incentive would not change grocery retailer behavior and would not address the lack of stores in underserved neighborhoods. He cited national inequities in grocery access.
- Several members questioned the legal basis for targeted districts. Representative Pelliccia suggested using census tract data (e.g., USDA low‑access thresholds) to define eligible areas.
- Representative Boudreau pressed for a clear definition of “equitable access” and the actual barriers facing grocers.
- Representative Adams supported the original district approach, citing successful tax abatements in the South End.
- Representative LePine cautioned against assuming proximity is the main barrier, noting that a large grocery store on the West Side recently failed.
- Representative Camporeale noted that the mixed‑use abatement primarily benefits developers, not grocers directly.
Motion to Recommit: Made by Representative Blank, seconded, and passed by voice vote.

Key Outcomes

LR32.021 (Window Safety): The resolution was recommitted (9‑0) after adopting a substituted version (8‑0‑1). The committee will solicit further input from public safety officials and proposed amendments within the next month.
LR32.023 (Grocery Store District): The ordinance was recommitted by voice vote. The sponsors will gather additional data on food access barriers and work with city departments and grocery industry representatives to refine the proposal.
Next Steps: The chair will email committee members asking for written suggestions and amendments for the window safety resolution by November 3, 2026. The grocery store ordinance will be revisited after further research and consultation.

Meeting Transcript

Alrighty, thank you everybody for being here. I'm going to call to order this meeting of the legislative and rules committee uh October 27th at 7.01 p.m. I see an attendance committee members. Uh blank, Boudreau, Camrelli, Pyatt, Le Pine, myself, Stone, Weinberg. I think that's it. And then I also see ex officio members in attendance. Johnson Pollack. I think that's it. So if anybody I missed high is here. I've read our own. Sorry. No worries. Alrighty. So with that, we have two items on our agenda this evening. So moving to item number one, I'd like uh I you know appreciate a motion to approve LR32.0121. Thank you. Thank you very much. So I hear a motion and a second with respect to item LR32.021, a resolution urging the Connecticut General Assembly to enact statewide window safety legislation for the protection of children. And I understand uh the the author of this resolution has a motion that you'd like us to consider. So Representative Stone. Uh thank you, Mr. K. We've not yet discussed this in committee. I wanted to uh go with a slightly different version than the one that was originally released that incorporates uh input from various conversations of health people. It allows us to just have one conversation that's cleaner without having to go through the original text and then the amendments because it reflects all the changes that uh I want to incorporate based on those decisions. So um if it's okay with uh with the committee, I'd like to go forward with that amended version that was sent out to uh the committee earlier. Perfect. Alrighty, are you sorry? You're making the motion to substitute that. I'm making a motion to substitute perfect. And the second thank you very much. Any discussion on the motion to substitute? Yes, Representative. Yeah, I am curious about the motivation on the substitutions. The thing that stands out to me, assuming I'm looking at the correct versions, is that in the original resolution we called for statewide legislation on um the window safety protection. And in the substituted version that you're proposing, it is narrowed down to a municipal opt-in framework. Yes. I struggle to see the virtue of that. If there is a safety benefit to be gained, is there a reason why it shouldn't be statewide? I guess the one the thing I usually think of is the case where we would use a municipal opt-in, is if we can't pass the stronger legislation at the state level, uh, then maybe you can pass a municipal opt-in version. Uh so just curious what you're talking about there. Uh Chair, through you to respond to the question. Yes, I'm so sorry. Before you reply, though, I just want to introduce our invitees that I forgot to introduce, so apologies. Um I also see an attendance on this item. Uh John Harness, attorney John Harness from Corporation Council, Director Luda Rubis, uh, director of public safety of the city of Stanford, and also Chief Rex Morris uh of the Stanford Fire Department. And back to you representative styles, apologies.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com