City Council - Regular Meeting

It is 6.31, we will call the public speaking to order.

Can you do the attendance, please? Thank you.

Go for it. Gailen Murray. Present. Nicole Nelson. Present. Denise Delamoye. Jorge Cruz. Dasha Spell. Rolanda Smith.

Hakeem Boyd.

Janet Herron. Loretta Duback. Michelle Lyons. Mary McBride Lee. Richard Ortiz. I saw him.

Frederick Hodges.

Aiden Nieves. Maria Valle. Kayla Medina. Maria Pereira. Elena Martinez. Ernest Newton.

Thank you, the first speaker will be John Marshall Lee.

You hear me? Okay. If there is not a quorum out here, there is not, right?

We don't need one.

Why don't we wait till they show up? Because several of your council members were here informally for meetings and now don't show up. Is that fair to the public?

There are council people walking in, and if we start late here, we'll have to start our meeting late.

May I defer my comments to the end? Will you allow me to do that?

Seguro.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Tamika Lemos. Just state your name and address please for the record.

Hi, my name is Tamika Lemus. My address used to be 8 M Court, Bridgeport, Connecticut, 06606. I was hoping that everyone was going to be here, but I will go ahead and speak because I don't want to hold anyone up. Good afternoon, council members and staff. My name is Tamika Lemus and I'm a Bridgeport resident, a business owner, a wife and a mother who is here today to speak about the growing issue of illegal apartments and unpermitted housing in our community. My family and I believe we had a safe place to live. We signed a lease, paid our rent, paid our security deposits, and did everything responsible tenants are supposed to do. We trusted that the apartment we rented was legal. In April, we learned that the unit was not legally permitted. The building department determined that the property was not illegal to family residents, and that only one household could legally occupy the home. As a result, my family and I were forced to leave, and now we're living in a hotel. The financial and emotional impact has been devastating. We lost our housing, our stability, and our sense of security. We are now trying to rebuild while paying for temporary housing, which succeeds what we pay in regular rent, and searching for answers. What concerns me the most is that this is not an isolated situation. Since arriving at the hotel that I'm currently living in, I have met six other families facing similar circumstances. These are hardworking families who believe they were renting illegal housing only to discover their permits were missing, units were not approved, and code violations existed. This is not just a housing issue, it's a public safety issue. When apartments are created while permits or inspections, tenants have no way of knowing whether electrical work, plumbing, fire safety systems, and occupancy requirements meet legal standards. Families are placed at risk, and when violations are discovered, it's often the tenants who suffer the consequences. As a result of this experience, my family and I have made a difficult decision to leave Bridgeport, Connecticut as a whole, and start somewhere else. We never imagined that after following the rules, paying our rent and contributing to our community, operating a registered business, we would end up displaced and unable to rebuild our lives here. I'm asking that council strengthen the enforcement of existing laws regarding illegal apartments and unpermitted residential constructions, improve accountability for landlords who violate these laws, and ensure that the tenants who unknowingly rent illegal units are not left without support when these situations arise. My family is leaving Connecticut within a month, but many other families remain here and need help. I respectfully ask you to make this issue a priority before more families find themselves in the same position. I have loved Bridgeport. I have grown. I will miss you all, and thank you kindly for listening.

Thank you very much. Clive Nicholson.

Good evening, everyone. 396 Madison Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut. I'm here tonight to speak on a touchy situation, I think. The Bassett High School situation. Selling that for $6 million is a shame. And that property is worth a lot more than that. And everyone knows it. If you're going to give it away, why not give it away to some of the citizens here that been here all these years. And that should be turned into affordable housing and low-income housing for the citizen of that area and that particular area. So right now, we don't have anywhere to live in Bridgeport, poor folks. We don't have anywhere to live. It's like a drive down Park Avenue and folks are sleeping on the streets and they're just throwing us out. Now, my question to this is that if the new BASC costs millions of dollars, and the old BASC is being ripped apart by thieves, who is watching it? Don't we have a police department security to watch that building to make sure nothing happens to it? And that Steel Point project, I got here like a two-room bedroom. It's $2,500 a month for that Steel Point. But they came up with something here. And I think what is happening, they came up with something new. So I'm from Alabama, I understand this. In the old days, they had a big sign up saying no blacks allowed. And I believe by putting a price up at that seal point is saying that I don't know any blacks in Bridgeport could afford that. Why are we locked out? Why are we being treated like outsiders? And I bought a little sign, a seal point, so people would understand where I'm really coming from. This is what's really happening here in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that we are getting treated like Donald Trump. You know how Donald Trump is doing it, and I think it's starting to move from Washington all the way down. I'm a Democrat, a lifelong Democrat, votes in all the election. It's a shame to see us being treated like second-class citizens, like we don't belong in the United States. They use us, what? Slavery is over? But this is a new plantation today. We're all on it, whether you believe it or not. Everybody's on this new plantation. And so if you think that you're not, the price of gas, the price of food, we can't afford to live. So what are we going to do? We can't live down there. They just put up the sign and say, no blacks allowed. Thank you. Thank you.

Maria Pereira.

Maria Pereira, A.D. Granfield Avenue. First, I'd like to talk about the Ethics Commission. First of all, I don't have a personal issue with any commissioner nominated. I would support every one of them on any other commission other than the Ethics Commission. I'm really concerned, as I expressed before, but if there's any commission that should not be politicized, it should be the Ethics Commission. They're going to have broad power to recommend censorship, fines, and so people have to feel that they are the highest moral and ethical standards and it's not politicized. I was shocked to see this being shared across social media sites. I've never seen this in 17 years for any board or commissioner. It's like a digital political ad. And then there's inaccuracies in here because it says that this commission can recommend termination. If you look at page 18 of the charter, which you have, they cannot recommend anybody for termination. There's no such allowance in the provisions. Then on the pink box at the bottom, it says the commission needs at least five members to properly function. Well, on page 20D, it clearly says a quorum is four members, and they have four members right now. Then it says right now it has three members and cannot meet to conduct. They met last week. They had a meeting last week with four of their commissioners. One didn't come to a meeting for four years and they've scrounged him up, but he's been coming to the meetings. So I don't like this. I've never seen this in 17 years of public service. I've talked to other people here. They've expressed that they've never seen any kind of digital ad or political ad for a volunteer commissioner. I do want to talk about Success Village because that's very near and dear to my heart. I know it's near to Kayla's heart. Stratford already provided the refund. Barry Knott told me he had the check in his hand today, which is a little shocking because we have been working on this for so long, whatever. And today, I'm hoping it would be unanimous here that they will get their interest penalty back. They have paid all the principal on their taxes, all of their WPC, which by WPCA was $965,000. $187,000 was an interest penalty. Barry Knott has agreed to take a credit. and they're going to give them a credit. Stratford issued theirs. I'm hoping that we will be unanimous today. Now that the bill's been signed, you have a copy of the bill. Governor Lamont signed it last week, and the language to allow us to refund the interest penalty, which is substantial. It's $437,000. I don't know anybody else in their district who has 25 FBI agents showing up with AR-15s. This is like a made-for-TV movie going on over there in success. Okay, so they've been through enough. They've been traumatized horribly and I don't think that they need to in any way be held accountable. They pay their common charges every month. Those common charges were supposed to be used to pay their taxes and their WPCA and the money disappeared. So we shouldn't be victimizing victims. So I hope that everybody will support this today on the agenda. Thank you.

Thank you. Donnell Stevenson.

Good afternoon, good evening. Your Honor, claims of lack of informed consent do not sound in medical malpractice because they are concerned with the information provided to the patient and not the diagnosis or treatment. According to the case Dole v. North Surgeons of Central Connecticut, the Connecticut Supreme Court in the year 2010, claims of lack of informed consent do not fall within the scope of the Connecticut General Statute 52-190A because they do not allege medical malpractice. According to the court in Shortell v. Kavanaugh for the year 2011, the Connecticut Supreme Court disagrees with Bennett v. New Milford Hospital in the year 2011 because the plaintiff in the case of the cause of action for the lack of informed consent does not need to present testimony of an expert to establish medical standard of care. According to the Connecticut Supreme Court, an export therefore is not required in an informed consent case for the plaintiff to establish a case in order for that case to be submitted to a judge or jury. It is a clear distinction that leads the Connecticut Supreme Court in Shortell v. Kavanaugh to conclude that requiring a plaintiff to obtain an expert opinion and attach that to a complaint and a cause of action for lack of informed consent would lead to absurd results. Finally, Where a jurisdiction determination is dependent on the resolution of critical factual disputes, it cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss in the absence of a evidence hearing to establish jurisdiction of facts. In that situation, an evidence hearing is necessary because the Connecticut Supreme Court cannot make a critical factual jurisdictional finding based on documents submitted by each party. However, the Connecticut Appellate Court discussed the record on which a court may decide a motion to dismiss if the allegations in the complaint is supplemented by additional evidence. However, It continues to say that if a complaint is supplemented by undisputed facts established by affidavit submitted in support of a motion to dismiss other types of undisputed facts in public records in which a jurisdictional notice must be taken. The trial court in determining the jurisdictional issue may consider the undisputed facts and needed to conclude to presume the validity of the allegations within the complaint. However, where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of critical factual disputes, a evidence hearing must be established to establish jurisdiction. Thank you.

Thank you. Jess Resto.

Good evening, Jess Resto, 110 Jennings Ave. I'm here tonight in support of the three women who have stepped forward as the ethics commissioners because Bridgeport desperately needs stronger ethics and accountability. The reality is simple. Too many residents no longer trust their government. Trust has been eroded by years of controversy, political infighting, and decisions that leave people questioning whether their leaders are acting in their public's best interest. What is most concerning is that the efforts to strengthen ethics and accountability often seem to face resistance from the very elected officials who should be supporting them. When ethics reforms are delayed, vacancies remain unfilled, or accountability measures are opposed, it sends the wrong message to the public. This is why all seven seats on the ethics commission must be filled. Residents deserve an ethics commission that can consistently maintain a quorum, conduct its business, and vote on important matters without unnecessary delays. Accountability only works when the system designed to provide oversight are fully staffed and able to function as intended. Bridgeport's reputation has suffered for far too long. When people talk about our city, they talk about the corruption, scandal, and ethics concerns instead of our hardworking families and our potential. Ethics isn't about politics. It's about transparency, accountability, and earning the public's trust. The people of Bridgeport are paying attention, and we're tired of excuses and watching meaningful reforms stall while public confidence continues to be eroded. We love this city, and that's why we are demanding better. Bridgeport needs a fully functioning ethics commission, fully supported oversight, and leadership willing to restore public trust through action and not just words. Thank you.

Thank you.

Willie Medina.

I thought I was after her, so I started walking. Once again, these signs are very clear. SVA members are innocent, and we've been victims. Permitting this refund by Bridgeport and Stratford, which we already heard, has already made payment back to SVA's receiver. This refund interest penalty of the delinquent taxes created by the misappropriation by then Board President Ty Byrd. This relief refund would help protect the innocent residents. Once again, innocent. We've been before you before and you guys have supported this and we will continue to ask that every single one of you that represent Bridgeport, Connecticut support this because this is something that was done against our very own by just this one individual. This refund will support and continue to stabilize of our financial hardship caused by this misappropriation of funds. Not what the news is saying that it was mismanagement. It wasn't mismanagement, let's be clear. And I'm gonna be very, about this and I'm ready to flip tables in our city because this was not mismanagement but misappropriation of funds. After we already have approved, you guys helped stabilize us, we want you to continue to stabilize us by committing this which was already committed by you guys and I stand by you guys and we're listening to you guys on your votes. Please continue to move forward with this motion that is before you. We held it back because we wanted to do it the right way. State already signed it. This has already been passed by the governor, okay? They put it forward. We continue to fight for it. Governor already signed it. It's already law. And giving you guys the authority and the precision to do such thing because we qualify within every single position that this law was already passed into action, okay? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Kayla Medina. Good evening, everyone. My name is Kayla Medina, and I live at 64 Core A. I am here tonight as a resident neighbor and someone who has lived through the challenges our community has faced. For years, residents paid their common charges in good faith. We met our obligations and trusted that those funds were being handled appropriately. Unfortunately, many of those financial issues that followed were not created by residents. Yes, we have had... Yet we have been the ones living with the consequences. Tonight's vote is about fairness. The town of Stratford has already approved this portion of this refund and has issued the payment to receiver Barry Knott. I'm asking Bridgeport to do the same. The refund is not a gift and is not a special treatment. It's an opportunity to make things right for residents who acted responsibly and continued supporting the community through years of uncertainty. Success Village residents have endured rising costs, financial instability, and challenges that were beyond our control. Through it all, many families continued paying what was asked of them. Approving this refund recognizes that commitment and demonstrates that government is willing to correct an inequity when one has been identified. A yes vote sends an important message that fairness matters, accountability matters, and that residents who do the right thing deserve to be treated fairly. I respectfully ask you to approve this refund and stand with the people of Success Village. Thank you.

Thank you, Kayla. John Marshall Lee.

Thank you. John Marshall Lee, 30 Beacon Street, Bridgeport. It's 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, and other current holidays like Memorial Day, upcoming Flag Day, Juneteenth, and Latin parades and celebrations abound at the moment. In each of these remembrances, do we reflect with the neighbors, our neighbors, as humans, about the principles, virtues, and values that have created the common good. Certainly, we also discuss sports, music, family issues, among other things, with interest and passion. But do we formally gather to include civics, the study of citizen rights and responsibilities in casual conversations? Last week, our mayor presented a state of the city address to a local association, many members of whom are not city residents, but support the business community. They have a right to listen to him, certainly, but this message appropriately is deserved by owner, resident, taxpayers, and renters to see their agreement with his assessment as to vision. Does the mayor's address represent of the people, by the people, and for the people? Governance, does it fulfill the charter duty of a mayor to deliver a message annually to the residents of the largest city in the state? Our forefathers of 250 years were white men of standing reputation and belief in virtue. The 56 colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence at various times before September of that year, but not on July 4th, the day we celebrate, put their lives at risk Eight of these founders who signed were immigrants. They were not born in the colonies. Did you know that? That's part of civics. They were from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Why do we have such trouble today in Congress providing immigration policy, rules, and practice settled around potential citizens? The Declaration also recorded that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were foundational. Where do we hear that pursuit of happiness for all people, humans as neighbors, is the purpose of good governance? Consent of the governed is another phrase, not well supported in a municipality where 10% or fewer of registered residents cast a 2025 ballot. Can we improve voting by the currently voiceless by stopping for one hour monthly to listen, hear, questions and respond truth to neighbors in each district. Relative to your vote for three ethics candidates tonight, all of them are citizens of stature and needed for that commission to address their tasks. What would our founders respectfully tell us if they could, were they to consider current public virtue? What does good governance demand? Time will tell.

Thank you that concludes public speaking. Council, please come to your seats. Council, please come to your seats. We're gonna start the council meeting. Council, please come to your seats. Once the council is seated, we'll do roll call. Sidebar conversations, please go out in the hallway. It is now 7.05, we'll call the council meeting to order.

Can we have roll call, please?

Kelly Murray. Present. Nicole Nelson. Present. Denise Delamoye. Present. Jorge Cruz.

Present.

Dasha Spell. Present. Rolanda Smith. Present. Akin Boyd. Janet Herron.

Present.

Loretta Duback. Here. Michelle Lyons. Present. Mary McBride Lee. Here. Richard Ortiz. Here. Alfredo Castillo. Present. Aida Nieves. Maria Valle. Present. Kayla Medina. Maria Pereira. Here. Ernest Newton. Present. We have a quorum.

Anita Martinez is out on medical. Fred Hodges is out on medical. Thanks. And Rolanda Smith.

Thank you.

We need to make a motion to approve the minutes from April 20th, 2026. I'm sorry. Everybody stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rich Ortiz, please do that.

Reverend Lee, can you do the prayer for us, please?

Because we rejoice in it.

Lord, we thank you for waking us up this morning. We were clothed and yet in our right mind. Thank you, O God, for taking us all day with our hurt home of Daniel. I ask you, O God, to look on us one by one and look on us collectively in the name of Jesus. I ask you, O God, to continue to bless this great city of Bridgeport. Bless every council member that's represented here tonight. Bring us together in unity in Jesus' name. Lord, we ask you to bless the mayor of this great city. Continue to give them a vision for your people. In Jesus' name, I pray. Amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

We did the roll call. Ernie Newton has a point of personal privilege.

It's on now. Thank you, Madam President, members of the city council. We lost an outstanding former principal here in the city of Bridgeport by the name of William D. McClain. And I met him when I was at McKinley School. And he was the father that I didn't have because my father died at 43 and he took me in. And had it not been for him, I don't know what might have happened with me. He was an individual that back in the day didn't have black principals. So he sued the city of Bridgeport Board of Ed, And they won. He won his case and opened the door for other Afro-American women to become principals of the city of Bridgeport. And so I would ask that we would just take a moment of silence for Mr. McLean. Thank you.

Thank you, Ernie. We have a roll call for the public hearing. Can we do the roll call? Please. Thank you, we don't have to do a roll call. We have a public hearing, item number 7125, public hearing re-proposed resolution approving programs for the State of Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program. Is there anybody speaking in favor? Donnell, you put your name on here. Okay. That was for the public hearing that we have, not the one you did before. This is for a specific item. Proposed Resolution Approving Program for the State of Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program. I need somebody to speak in favor at this moment. Anybody gonna speak in favor? Anybody gonna speak in favor? Are there any opposed? Proposed resolution approving program for the state of Connecticut, Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program. So if anybody would speak against it. No one's gonna speak against it. No one's gonna speak against it. We can't answer questions now. This is just a public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Approval of minutes for the April 20th. All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Public hearing to be ordered by full council, item number 7625, request from OPEC to order a public hearing for June 15th, 2026 at 7 p.m. Proposed resolution granting a permanent assessment for the United Illumination Company for the installation of maintenance of an underground electrical vault and related infrastructure located beneath Baldwin Plaza, aka 1130 Broad Street. All those in favor? Any questions?

Motion approved.

Communications to be referred to committee. Item number 76. Correct.

Illuminating company for the installation and maintenance of an underground electrical vault related infrastructure and that is being referred to the Economic and Community Development and Environment Committee.

So moved. Seconded.

Aye.

Matters to be acted upon consent calendar. Does anybody need to remove anything?

Go ahead. I'd like to remove 61-25. 71-25?

61-25. Oh, 61, okay. Oh, got it, okay. Any others to be removed? Not me. We're removing one, and we're making a motion to accept the others.

of a date on the others.

So you made a motion to consolidate number 71-25, 39-25, 40-25, 60-25, 62-25, and 59-25. There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? You have to read them? Okay. You want me to read them? Okay, good.

71-25, Economic and Community Development and Environmental Committee Report, Resolution Approving Programs for the State of Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program. 39-25, Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report, Resettlement of Pending Litigation in the Matter of Shannon Stacy Smith, versus City of Bridgeport, doc number FBPTCB246140747S. 4025, Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report, Settlement of Pending Litigation in the Matter of Chantel Fields versus City of Bridgeport, doc number 323CB016608KAT. 6025, Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report, Sermon of Pending Litigation in the Matter of Lisandra Pamillas v. City of Bridgeport, DOC FBT-CB246138417S. 62-25, Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report, Settlement of Pendant Litigation in the Matter of John Presuto v. City of Bridgeport, Doc Number 325-CV-02167-V-D-O. 59-25, Contracts Committee Report, Assignment of Tax Liens for Fiscal Year 2026-2027. All those in favor?

Any opposed? That motion carries.

You want to take the other number now?

25 off the agenda is because it's for a million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and I thought it would not be appropriate to approve such a massive settlement because our taxpayers pay for that and I just want to stress again since this is my seventh year on the council we are well over ten million dollars in some settlements related to the police department and there needs to be real accountability because our taxpayers are, for the most part, modest families, middle-class families. There are some more affluent, but a lot of them are on the spectrum of poverty. So when we have to pay out $1,750,000, this is, you know, it's... It hurts me because I think about the people that I serve. I'm sure all of you think about the people you serve. So I would just ask that our police department, our police commission really needs to work on holding rank and file officers accountable who create these situations where we have to make these massive payouts. Thank you.

Ernie.

Thank you, Madam President. But we also gotta take into consideration that if we take this to court, 99.99% we would lose. And they would get a lot more than one point something million dollars had we not tried to settle. So it's not that we're not trying to protect the money of our taxpayers, but that's why we have attorneys to tell us We don't think we can win this in court. And what they're asking for was a lot more than one point something million dollars that we would have had to pay out. So that's why it happened like that. I don't disagree. With Councilwoman on our police department being a little more, you know, trying to not get us in these lawsuits. But this is one that I would ask the council to approve because if we don't, we stand the chances of paying a lot more than $1.7 million. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Absolutely. I would just like to say that if we added up all the money that we have allotted people, that's not protecting the city of Bridgeport, it probably will come up to more than a million dollars or how much ever. Dollars adds up when we add it up. Now, I don't know, I'm gonna have to look up and see why we are paying this person that kind of money. But we have paid people money for personal gain. We didn't have nothing to do with what they were doing. So at least when it comes down to the police department, whether they were right, wrong, indifferent, I'm not saying that because I'm not a lawyer or a judge either. It has something to do with their job. So, you know, so I think that we have to be very careful on who is committing whatever or or who is not, so that's what I'm saying. Just add up the money that we have given people for their personal gain that we didn't have anything to do with at all. It's just that they got pleasure out of it, we didn't. So that's all I have to say about that.

Thank you. So is there a motion?

61-25.

There's a motion and a second by George Cruz. All those in favor? I'll do that, it's not a problem. You want to do it, Ernie? Well, go ahead and read it. You're not amending it, you're just reading the motion.

Okay. Miscellaneous report settlement pending litigation in the matters of Barber and Wisk, administrative acts of estate of Jonathan Mark Lewis Bell versus Matthew Hoffman, docket number 325, CV 00217, VAB, and docket number FBT-CB25-6142609.

Thank you, so there's a motion and a second. All those in favor? Second.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries, thank you everybody. We will go to the Missoula's Committee Report. Who wants to bring the motion? I know, I know. So Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report. Reappointment of, appointment of Rosella Criss. Is there a motion on the floor? There's a motion by Eide Nieves.

That we understand they have to receive 14 votes of the total membership to be appointed this evening. It's two thirds. regardless of who's present and voting. Number two, I do want to say again, I am concerned about the unaffiliated thing. I think I explained to several of you. We have a minority party statue, and if you're unaffiliated, you have determined you're not part of any party. So there was some litigation I read about it. There was a bill that came out of the legislature in 2023 to fix that unaffiliated could be considered part of the minority party statute. And it came out of committee and they never voted it out of the assembly. So I did ask for a legal opinion. If you're not affiliated with any party, then how can you be appointed to a board or commission under the minority party statutory requirement? So again, I'm supportive of all these people as individuals. I don't support any of the nominees for the ethics tonight. Thank you. Thank you. So we have a motion on the floor.

We need a second.

Okay, now there's a second. Thank you. Who did the motion?

Heidi Nieves did the motion. Alfredo Castillo did the second.

Go ahead, Ernie.

Thank you. It'll be a roll call vote. Ernie's speaking, he wants to say something.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As a person who voted for this charter revision, I'm a little disappointed. And I'll tell you why I'm disappointed. Because this is supposed to be an independent body outside of politics from day one. And when politicians stick their nose in stuff, it becomes political. Now you can't ask for an independent body when politicians are controlling the strings. Now think about that. We want this to be an independent, away from political parties, interference. And that's not what we have today. It's not taking anything away from the candidates. But we as the voters of the city of Bridgeport wanted a charter revision separated from politics. And what we did, we made it interpolitical. And that's not why I went to the voters box and many other people went to the voters box. To set up a charter review, to set up an ethics outside of politics. And I'm seeing where people are going to the city attorney's office, getting things drafted up that they should have no business doing that. The commission should have been set up and they should have taken the charge to do what other folks started doing. When you start lobbying people and doing those kind of things, it takes it out of the independence. And that's a shame because that's not what the voters voted for. And we need to think about those things next time. It's wrong that we had folks sticking their nose in stuff that they shouldn't have. And if I did it, I'm a city councilman. I shouldn't be doing that because it's going against what the voters asked us to do is to keep it out of the political realm so that they can be independent to do the job that they wanna do. So I will be a no today.

And then Denise would like to.

And I will release it, so George.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I just can't believe where we have come to with this. After all that work and all that effort, it seems like the waters has been muddled. Very unfortunate. And I have to agree with my council colleague across the aisle, Council Member Maria Pereira, who I shouldn't have said that about the unaffiliated. I would like to ask, request that the city attorney Explain a little bit, educators, inform us about the unaffiliated being able to participate, as the Councilwoman stated. I would like a statement or an opinion from the... In regards to the unaffiliated, is it a party? Is it able to participate as a commissioner, as Councilwoman stated? You're not understanding? Councilwoman Pereira made a point of an affiliated candidate in order to participate in being a commissioner. It's not in the party.

for a legal opinion and we have not yet provided it. But we said that we would providing a legal opinion. But I don't think that matters for the purpose of this discussion, right? Because the question that's before me now at least that was asked recently is whether or not it's two-thirds of the people present in voting or two-thirds of the entire council, which is what we were researching now.

Okay. Thank you. And if I may follow up, Madam Chair, The commissioners that were so-called elected to be on the chart of revision, are they considered elected officials? City Attorney.

So you're referring to the Ethics Commission, so Chapter 3 of the Charter, Section 3, correct? Under membership, where it says no member of this commission shall be an officer or employee of the city, hold or campaign for any public office, or have been a candidate for public office for a period of three years prior to appointment. That's the section. Holdoff is in any political party or political committee. So I will admit that this could have been drafted better. Let's start there. There should be some commas in here to determine how this language is being used, but essentially what it's saying is that no member of the commission shall have been an officer or employee of the city, hold or campaign for any public office or have been a candidate for public office. None of those things apply. I mean, is that, that's the question. We're speaking about a particular commissioner who was on the Charter Revision Commission. Yeah, so then those, wouldn't apply to her.

Would not apply.

Would not.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I just want to say, Almost every commissioner that is appointed in the city of Bridgeport is politically appointed because they are appointed by the city council. So if they're not politically appointed and they are usually referred by an elected official or someone in the mayor's office, so it is always a political appointment whether you like it or not. It is political because we appoint them. And the fact that we're sitting here on a charter that the people did vote for the people, as Councilman Newton stated, did vote for this, and in order to establish it, there has to be people who apply, and as we all know, and you have spoken vehemently about this, Councilman Newton, that we need to get people interested in serving on commissions. Now, it is hard to get people interested in serving on commissions when they go through a process and then they come here before us, and then they are again being turned away by the same body which is supposed to enact this, and this is supposed to be an independent body away from the mayor's appointment. These are not mayoral appointees, so most likely they would be council people who would be referring, number of people from the community who would suggest names to put in their applications. So it is political. And to lobby for a person is not illegal. Because I have seen council people lobby, have called me for support for WPCA commissioners, for parks commissioners, for all different kind of commissioners, police commissioners. and individuals to sit on commissions to support their candidates. Now, I am only saying this because we are behind the charter schedule. The council in its body, each individual council member in our powers, we have the ability to draft resolutions, to draft ordinances, and we have the ability to meet with the city attorney, with any department who's willing to meet with us so we can bring something forth to the body. It does not say that the whole body has to meet to get a resolution done, to get an ordinance done, or to get anything done. It is submitted by committee and we vote on it by committee. I mean, that is the practice and that's in our city council. So it doesn't say that because someone went to the city attorney's office or OPED for a project in your district. So should we all go meet with public facilities as a team of 20 in caucus so we could get a street sign put up? That makes no sense. So when you go to an office and you meet with someone, You're meeting because you're doing city business. Now, we have the ability, as when we did the charter, to all go in as a group or write resolutions together or independently. So when we say that when someone does that, I think that's unfair because that is doing their legislative responsibility. I will be supporting these commissioners because I supported the charter, and I believe that in order for us to begin a new wave and bridge for transparency and ethical proneness that so many people voted for that we need to ensure that we vote for this. Now it would be a shame if we ourselves as the legislative body who voted for this charter, I know there were few that are on this council that did not vote the first round for the charter and they voted the second round, but there was lobbying not to support the charter. So was that political? Yes. Thank you.

That's all I have to say.

Good evening, everyone. I just want to say in general that we all have our opinions in regards to how this should be working. The real way that this should be working is that we should not be coming to the door with problems right now. This should be something that should have been where we all could reach agreement. But this has not happened because everybody is all over the place. Everybody's saying anything and everything or how or whatever their feelings are or what is right or what is wrong. This is a body of 20 people. And if you didn't have different opinions, you wouldn't have had 20 people here. This is not about the people that are coming on the commission. This is not about them. This is not about the charter. The charter is there. And what is there is what we should actually be looking at. But what we should not be looking at, we should not be looking at people insulting people, people saying different things to try to get this vote, to try to get this piece across. I will tell you, if I'm coming into the gate with the ethics committee and things are being done unethically, I'm not gonna vote for it. Let's get it right. from the start, and if we don't get it right from the start, there's definitely a no vote for me. That's all I need to say.

Thank you. Akeem Boyd.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the Bridgeport City Council. Everything we do is political. It's true. When I talk to a constituent about a stop sign, that's political. So when we say someone is making phone calls playing politics, that is our job. Before I was sent to Siberia, I was co-chair of ordinance and I presided over all the charter vision meetings. None of this came up, this pushback. If you are a member of the Bridgeport City Council and you don't want to vote for ethics, just say that.

Thank you. Kayla Medina. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had to write my notes because I wanted to make sure to say what I wanted to say. But I want to be clear that my vote is not a reflection of the qualifications, character, or willingness of any of the nominees to serve. I appreciate their commitment to the city of Bridgeport and their willingness to volunteer their time and service to the public. I think they're great. I think they're excellent. But the Ethics Commission was one of the most significant reforms approved by the voters through the charter revision process. Residents voted for greater accountability, transparency, and public trust in government. Because of the importance of this reform, I believe it is critical that we take the time to ensure the Commission is established in a manner that reflects both the letter of the spirit of what voters approved, I recognize that delaying the process may not be the easiest path forward. However, when it comes to ethnic reform, I believe it's more important to get it right than to get it done quickly. The delay falls on us as a city council because we should have done it and prepared for this right after the election, knowing that we all voted for it. My concern is not about any individual nominee. I value them and I believe they bring a lot to the table. But my concern is whether we are implementing the Ethics Commission in a manner that fully reflects the intent of the voters and establishes a strong foundation for its future work. I also believe the Ethics Commission should be independent. The role of the city council is to review and approve appointments as required by the charter. But once established, the commission should be able to operate independently and earn the trust of the public. If taking additional time allows us to build a stronger, more independent, and more trusted ethics commission, then I believe that's time well spent. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, I'm back. Thank you. I just thank you very much, Council President. I don't think it's about attacking anyone, and there was an opportunity for all of us to be on the same page. It was during the miscellaneous meetings matter, meeting two Thursdays ago. Everyone could have shown up. This was a big ticket item, plus a $1.7 million lawsuit was on there, plus another... half a million dollars in lawsuits that were on there that everybody just voted for. And some people didn't even know what they were voting for. So when I hear, and I'm not saying this to admonish anybody, but it is all of our responsibility. And if you can't make it to the meeting, then you call the co-chairs. And I don't think the co-chairs, and I have heard, I haven't heard from anyone call me about the commissioners. I don't know if Councilwoman Pereira, I know was making phone calls about it, but not myself. I'm going to say this. When we had an issue with the PNZ to my veteran council members, that the chair of the PNZ was not going to be renewed. There was a vehement, a vehement role by the city council members to make sure that we reinstated that member. And that was very political because PNZ is one of our most powerful commissions in the city. So when I hear what Councilwoman Medina has said, I agree with her and what she's saying. But again, most of the time when someone is referred and I referred and my council partner referred Michael Martinez three years ago to the police commission and we had the lobby for a very long time to make sure he got appointed. Am I right, Maria? So we did. And when he came to be appointed, a few other council members said, we are supporting Michael. And that was political. So to say that we're not involved in how individuals are appointed is a farce. We are. We recommend people who we believe from our districts are gonna represent very well. We recommend people who we believe can handle the roles and responsibilities that is to partake in what they're doing in commissioners. But I just wanna say that we did have a long time and no one has stepped up. And I wanna remind my veteran council members that when it was time to choose commissioners, For the charter revision, it was at the 23rd hour. We were still looking for commissioners. 23rd hour at like four o'clock, we were still calling individuals if they were interested because I didn't get enough commissioners from this body who was supposed to suggest it to me, from council members. So I feel bad that these individuals who wanna do this have to go through this because it's not fair because they wanna go through this. I would step away and be like, hey, let somebody else deal with this mess. But if they're still in the process and they're in this room and they still want to be voted for, then we should be able to respect that. And to say that you didn't know, we all know. We get the agendas, we got the items referred to us, and we all have the ability to attend meetings. And if we didn't, then I understand. Because we also can attend via Teams if you couldn't make it in person. So there was no excuse to say there was no place for us as a legislative body to have talked and discussed about this or found out what was going on because there were two ways. Either you were here in person, which there wasn't everybody, there were not a lot of people here, or you could have been online. And there were a few council members who were at meetings and at other things and were online. So I want to thank those that did show up online. They couldn't be an executive session, but they were there. So I understand people have concerns about the candidates. Everybody does. You're not going to like everybody who sits on commissions, but there are people who are interested, who want to give their time to be part of the process in this city.

Me? How's going for you?

You're free.

Yeah, I know. She's going back and forth. I'm just trying to give her a chance to get everything. Are we good? Can I go? First of all, if you look at page 19 of the city charter, section B, it clearly says no member of this commission shall be an employee. Hold or have been a candidate for public office, not elected office, public office. Every person before us today is a candidate to hold a public office. Now, the word elected could have been inserted in there. It was not. Now, if you go down to point section two, it says the city council may, by ordinance, impose additional qualifications or limitations. So if you go to the ethics ordinance, it is clearly more defined whether you hold or have held public office. You cannot serve on this commission until a term of expiration. So anybody who served on the city charter held a public office. within the last three years. In the ordinance, it's two years. In addition, it defines public official in the ordinance. And what it says, every single person who serves on a board or a commission, and we already know this, is a public official. You are serving the public, you are making decisions on behalf of the city in an official capacity. So anybody who has served on a board or commission in the last two years in ordinance, three years in the charter, cannot serve on the ethics commission. Again, I'm not voting for anybody who's unaffiliated ever again until I get some evidence that an unaffiliated voter who's said, I don't want to be part of any party, qualifies under the minority party statute. I could find nothing and I spent countless hours. I looked for court rulings. I looked for legislation. I could not find anything. I sent a number of links to the city attorney on a Saturday saying, hey, I found a bill in 2023 that came out of the government committee to fix it. It never got passed out of the legislature. So I am questioning this because somebody was litigating it. And I said, my God, that makes sense. If you're unaffiliated, you said, I don't want to be part of a party. So I'm not doing that. Number two is I didn't support the city charter. I think everybody knows it. And I think that the people who vehemently supported, who served on the charter commission, should want to comply with the very charter provisions you spearheaded and fought for. Third, I don't have... Please don't be disruptive. Number three is every one of these commissioners, except the unaffiliated, until I get further information, I wish support on any other board or commission. I will not support them for this one. For all the reasons I've outlined, connecting the dots, I'm just not doing it. Thank you. Roll call vote whenever you're ready. Oh, it has to be roll call. Yeah.

Cruz, I need my mic.

Thank you, Madam Chair. After listening a little further from other colleagues, I remember about the hassle in the last minute when I came in through the back and there was a meeting that was electing commissioners. They had names. The person that I submitted was rejected. There was a big argument back there that the person that I submitted weeks or months ago, they did not want to put them in there for whatever personal reason. It was the only reason that Mr. John Lee was able to get on the commission, but there was a compromise with another gentleman that our colleague that is not here today submitted. So I remember all that. There was a lot of backdoor dealing back then. Can't deny that. I was back door dealing, I was very upset that my person that I submitted months ago was not allowed. They wanted to keep him out. Some of these council members. Deliberately wanted to keep him out. The gentleman right there. I had to fight like hell, raise hell in order to get that man up there because I believe in him. He's a man of integrity and extreme credibility. Mr. John Marshall Lee. And now, like I said about muddling the waters, and I believe that these commissioners are great, the ones that have been submitted, but the thing is, it's all muddled up. You can't tell me, nobody here could convince me that you were not behind the scenes trying to twist some arms or try to convince people, knowing you shouldn't be doing that. Yes, people could call, council members could call, but for me to take the lead, I'm trying to convince others of my resolution. It's just not right. So with all due respect, I'm voting no. I would like to see more people step up to the plate, like when they apply for jobs out there, multiple people get interviewed for jobs. And I believe that this is being rushed, it's being dictated, and it's unfair. by other people who are not on the council being dictated, try to control the process to instill our intelligence, our ability to have a fair process here. So I would like to say, put the word out there. Anybody want to be a commissioner for the ethics? Put it out there. Sign up. Put the application in. Let's interview other folks too. Give them an opportunity. That's what it's all about. I'm voting no, that's it.

Hi, this is my second year as a councilwoman and I have sat in this corner multiple meetings and listened to my colleagues go back and forth about what we should and shouldn't do, who we shouldn't vote for, who we should vote for, what policies we should keep, what policies we shouldn't keep. And the thing that's really interesting is that this is actually talking about a commission that's going to keep us straight and narrow in a sense. I sat at some of those meetings and I listened to the actual commissioners. I actually had conversations with some of the people that were on the commission that talked about, this is the reason why I think we should do this. A lot of times when you're sitting on this side of the table or the fence, I should say, things do become a lot muddy because you do have to negotiate with your peers. You do have to work with them. You do have to figure out a way to come to some kind of common goal. When you're on that side of the fence, you don't really know what goes on until you get to sit on this side of the fence. And it becomes very, very, very hard for some people. There are people in this room that can be honest to the day they die, but if something comes up where they have to negotiate, they have to second guess their morals. And so I'm saying this because we've been sitting here having debates for the past several minutes. At the end of the day, you have people that stepped up to be commissioners to hold us accountable. Now, their ethics is gonna be on that board as well, because they have to be able to hold themselves accountable for every action that they do. In life, you gotta give somebody a chance. This is the first time this has happened in Bridgeport, and I don't think it has nothing to do with them, but more about us and the comfortability of knowing that we're gonna have somebody, aka Big Brother, being watching us and then holding us accountable. At the end of the day, I hear everybody, I understand. I'm going to support this because the thing about it is, is that you know what? I have heard plenty of people, especially our senior councils talk about this is why people don't want to be on commissions. This is why people don't step up for the boards. This is why. Give it a chance. That's what we have policies for, that's why we have meetings, that's why we do procedures. If it doesn't work, we can go back to the table and figure it out. That's my comment.

Yes, I do believe we need an ethics commission, but all the years I've been on this city council, I've never seen this happen before. And it's the process, it's not about the individuals from what I hear, and I've listened to this, I've looked into this, but it's unfortunately about the process that happened. And that's what this is all about. The other four commissioners that are on the Ethics Commission right now, they are going to be coming in front of us for a renewal within the next couple of weeks. And they have proved themselves and they never went through this situation and this process. It's an unfortunate situation that this is happening, but like I said, I do believe the ethics, we do have four commissioners already, they will be coming in front of us and we'll have to make the same choice with them, but they have proven themselves, but they never went through anything like this. with all this confusion, with all this debate, with all these disagreements. This should not have been, this should not have happened. It's unfortunately that these three people are in the midst of this. So this is a tough decision, this is not an easy decision, but if I don't find something to be done correctly and right, I wouldn't be here for as long as I've been on the City Council, so. It's an unfortunate situation, but like I said, in the next couple weeks, we're gonna be going, we'll be doing the next four people that we had before, but all my colleagues, and we all have our difference of opinions, that's why we sit in these seats, and we're gonna have to make a decision according to what we feel is correct, thank you.

Thank you. I want to say you've heard repeatedly here tonight that this is not about the commissioners, that this is somehow about the process. This is 100% about the commissioners who have stood up to volunteer their time, and it's very, very notable. I'd like the public who is listening to to note that none of my colleagues have tried to actually address the qualifications of these commissioners. It's just not part of the discussion. Because what always happens here is excuses, is pointing the finger, trying to make blame for people who want to move this city forward, who want to do the work. And they will say, oh, yeah, let's restart the process and make sure it's fair. We've known about this since we were sworn in. The city attorney in a meeting that everyone was invited to and most of us was there on January 10th said that the council needed to engage in this process. And the council didn't do anything. We didn't lead. And what happened here is that three commissioners stepped up. They went through the actual process. They submitted applications on their own to the mayor's office. They went through the Miscellaneous Matters Committee, which my colleague has pointed out, pretty much everybody did not go to. And they have not looked at the resumes of these commissioners and looked at the merits of their applications. So let's set the stage here for who these people are. Rosella Chris has over 25 years of corporate ethics expertise. She's worked for Pitney Bowes investigating ethics violations and conducting ethics education. She is a trustee for the last seven years for the School for Ethical Education. And she also recently, after going into retirement, was recruited by the American Cancer Society. The idea that somebody reaching out to her to alert her to this position is tainting it, it's just a fallacy. Let's look at Kristin Minello. She has worked with Barry Knott on Success Village. We just had people thanking us for Success Village. Well, that's Barry Knott and his team. And she's worked in Stratford. to address violations of developers that have come in front of planning and zoning and want to develop the type of developments that we all are fighting to make sure doesn't happen in our city. And let's talk about Faith Sweeney, who is the chair of our charter revision commission that spent countless hours dedicating her time to moving this city forward and has been a public school teacher for 30 years. We can open this process up, but honestly, deep down in your heart, do you think we're going to get better candidates? And do you think just because we deliberated as a group that it's going to somehow make them more independent? You all are standing up here questioning the independence of these three women, and I think that's outrageous. I'm gonna vote yes, and I appeal to your conscience to do what's right and to stop these games.

Aidee Nieves, Aidee. Thank you very much. I couldn't have said it better myself, Kayla, and it's true. To hear that the process was done incorrectly is incorrect because it did go through the mayor's office. They did have background checks. They did check their taxes. It's all in their application packets. So the process wasn't done any differently than we do for any other commissioner. And again, council members who are not at the meeting still have the ability to get access to the information if they wanted to know who these commissioners were. If they wanted to know exactly what Galen said about Rosella Chris, Faith Sweeney, and Christian Manello. The problem here is that a lot of people didn't. And we need to face that fact. And that's the truth. And I don't mean to call anybody out on it, but we're calling each other out. And I just want to clear the record on what Councilman Kuh said. He did fight for John Marshall Lee, but to the point that we needed another unaffiliated, or a different party to be able to add another Democrat. That's the missing part that you didn't mention. Because it took Councilman Hodges at the last minute before we left, came out and we caucused, because we had to caucus. I called the caucus so we can talk about how many commissioners and what was going on and why we were short. And thankfully, yes, Councilman Hodges came to save the day and we had Commissioner Died show up at the last minute as an independent. So we did. And it is about compromise. Councilwoman, Dr. Spell is absolutely right. It is about compromise. But right now we are compromising the integrity of what our constituents voted for when they went to the voting box, when they went to vote. We are compromising that integrity when we're saying we didn't know. Hmm. or more information should have been out there. Well, the applications have been out there. Everybody knew we did the charter. If people wanted to serve on the commission, ethics commission, we would have had more than three applicants. Andy Toledo's office would have had at least 10,000 applications. But that's not the case. That is not the case in all of our other commissions where we have expired commissioners and that has been part of the charter language. Where people don't want to serve or we continually let people continually serve and serve for a long period of time. How many times do we complain about commissioners on the PD commission being there for 20 years? But they still get reelected by us, by this body. And that's not political. So, you know, we have to move forward. I didn't go to the January meeting. I was not there. I was out of town. But it was stated that that was something by the city attorney's office that needed to be done. And now we're trying to do it. And I'm not even part of this. So I just want to clear the air. I'm not politically engaged in this because I don't know these women except Faith Sweeney. But... I'm supporting it because we have to get it done and we have to get the work done and it's our responsibility and we have more work to get done on the city charter that we haven't enacted yet. Thank you.

Thank you Madam President. The voters may have voted for charter revision but they didn't vote for none of the people that we're looking at today. The process is what's messed up. and I don't care what nobody says about politics, this and that, if we're gonna have an ethics commission, then we've gotta take it to another step higher. And I don't feel that it's at that level. We have a right to vote on what we think is right. And I can tell you, I feel that it got muddied down the road because I can't understand, I don't understand that you're gonna pick an ethics commission that's outside of the realm of individuals having say so on them. Sure it's political, everything we do is political but I cannot believe that you can sit here and honestly tell me that there weren't people in the background doing things that maybe they shouldn't have been doing. Maybe they shouldn't have been doing. Okay? All right? So I disagree that yes, we do need an ethics commission. But an ethics commission is supposed to be because they're making decisions on people's lives who break the rules. Now I don't mind an ethics commission because if you ain't doing nothing wrong, you ain't got nothing to worry about. But don't sit here and tell me that this process sucks. because we stick our fingers in stuff that we shouldn't. And the Ethics Commission is the one that we shouldn't do it because you can't tell me there's an independence when people are doing other things. You can't tell me that. So the process stinks and I would ask that we move the question and the vote I move the question so we can vote. Well, we got three more other people, so they'll get their shot.

All right, my light's on. All right, and again, I apologize to the public. Sometimes you have to debate things, and it takes a while, but again, The Charter says that this commission is to be established March 1st, 2026. So you all are bringing this up now. We're on June 1st, and you're saying you want to restart this? Where were you on this issue? Come on. This is such a bait and switch that's going on here, and the public shouldn't let it happen. The idea... What the charter allowed us to do, it allowed the city council to nominate these positions. So what they're saying is actually muddying the water is less than what we're legally allowed to do now. It is literally going out to constituents and saying, hey, this is something I think you're qualified for. Do you want to apply? The public can decide for themselves. If you think that's muddying the waters, We're not going to get anything of consequence done in this city, ever. And that's what this is really about right now.

Thank you, Madam President. I, again, November, we had an election. Over 2,000 individuals voted on this Ethic Commission. And today, we're putting all this, I wanna say, nonsense before us. And it is unfair that these individuals that attended the meetings, they listened. But again, I don't want to, I feel that there are other things behind the scenes and about making deals. I've never made a deal with anybody, but anyway, I would like to make a motion to table these three items. I'm making a motion to table 52-25, 53-25, and 54-25. I still have my light on.

You did the second?

Clerk, please call the roll. A yes would mean to table. A no would mean not to table. Nicole Nelson.

Denise Taylor-Moy.

It comes up as unfinished business on the next council meeting.

Right.

The second council meeting of the month. June 15th.

June 15th.

What did she say? I said no.

She said no?

No.

George Cruz?

Yes.

Good.

Dasha Spell? Yes. Rolanda, oh. Akeem Boy? Yes. Jeanette Heron?

She went to the ladies' room, she'll be back.

Loretta Dubat? Yes. Michelle Lyons? Yes. Mary McBride Lee? No. No?

Jeanette.

Richard Ortiz? Alfredo Castillo?

Frederick? Okay. Aidee Nieves? Yes.

Maria Valle? Yes. Kayla Medina?

No.

Maria Pereira? No. Ernest Newton?

No.

Motion to table fails.

I'm back.

Jeanette? So yeah. Did you pass? Yeah, so motion to table fail. No, pass, pass, sorry, pass.

No sense.

It's never going to get done.

It's never going to get done if we table them all. It's the same purpose.

Okay, we've got a chair here and we've got the clerks here. Let them tell them the numbers here, please. Francis, can you repeat the vote, please?

So Gaylen Murray was a yes, right?

He had passed originally.

What's your vote, Gaylen?

How did you vote? He voted yes.

He voted yes, okay. So then you got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Eight yes.

All right, we're gonna redo this vote because it, see, we'll redo the vote. We'll redo the vote because, you know,

I'm gonna go over.

Galen Murray, what was your vote? We have to keep control in the audience, please, because we're doing a vote.

Okay.

Galen Murray, what was your vote? We have to go through it again because they have to check the list.

He said yes. Galen? Galen is a yes. Nicole Nelson.

Yes.

Denise Delamoye.

No. Jorge Cruz. Dasha Spell. Rolanda Swiss not here. Akeem Boyd. Janet Herron.

No.

Loretta Dubac. Michelle Lyons. Mary McBride Lee. No. Richard Ortiz. No. Alfredo Castillo. No. Aydani Evers. Maria Valle? Yes. Kayla Medina? No. Maria Pereira?

No.

Ernest Newton?

No.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, no.

It's reversed now.

It's reversed now. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Yes. Nine yes and eight no.

So there is a motion to table, it's been accepted.

There's a motion to table.

The motion passed to table the item, which is more of a delay. Ernie, did you take my glasses?

We have one more item on the agenda, item number 4625, Miscellaneous Matters Committee Report, Resolution Regarding Success Village Apartments Property Tax Interest Penalty Refund.

This has been tabled repeatedly because even though the language passed in SB1, it's a 712-page bill to allow Bridgeport and Stratford and the WPCA to issue refunds strictly on the interest penalty. Governor Lamont did not sign the bill until last week and you have a copy. Guys, guys, I'm sorry. You have a copy of the bill on your desks and that the governor signed it. It's there attached for you to see. Stratford already issued the full refund and Barry Knott told me he received the check today for their entire portion. Barry Knott has agreed to a credit. with the WPCA. All indications are there that they're going to issue a credit for $187,000, and that only leaves 6S Bridgeport left. They paid all their taxes. They paid 100% of the sewer. What's left is, believe it or not, they owe the gas company $2 million. When they used the entire $6 million loan, the gas company took $400,000 in interest, and Chris Rosario has promised me to work to get that back. So now, even now, there's a million dollars in unpaid gas bills, and they are continuing to charge an interest penalty on that gas bill. So they need every dollar they can to get that gas bill paid down. In addition, the fire that affected two people died in eight units, As of July 14, 2026, those people will have been displaced for three full years because about three, 350,000 of the insurance proceeds was used to clean out the units, take them down to the studs. A million four has disappeared and there is no money to rehab those units to put the unit owners back in them. And then you should know the infrastructure continues to be a huge problem just this year so far. SVA has spent $750,000 repairing the underground steam links because the infrastructure is about 100 years old and is badly deteriorating. So they need this cash to get it to the gas bill because the SCG company so disgracefully is still charging interest every single month on that unpaid million. Now, I do want you to know, in total, just the interest payments that these poor people were assessed with because their common charges weren't used the way they were supposed to be to pay the Bridgeport taxes, the Stratford, you know what their total interest has been? $1.1 million. Now they're innocent. They paid their common charges. Those common charges in their signed leasehold are supposed to be used to pay the taxes, the sewer, the gas. The money's gone. So then they got a $6 million loan to pay those bills. So now they paid it once in their common charges. Now they got to pay a $6 million loan. They got to pay Bridgeport back 500 grand. And their common charges were increased 20%. on these people who are mostly on fixed incomes. They had a $300 special assessment, they have to pay another $100 assessment for 35 months. They are at their breaking point. So in the spirit of just not re-victimizing victims, I urge everybody here to do what Stratford did and pass this unanimously. They paid the principal. Nobody's cutting them the break on what they owe. This is strictly the interest penalty, which was statutorily required to be assessed, and we had to pass a special law that would even allow the WPCA Bridgeport and Stratford to just give them back the interest penalty. And that's all I would have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I would also encourage our council people to do this. As a former senator and a former rep that represented success, I'm glad you're trying to get the house in order. And I think that this is just another way so that it would help them pay down on those debts that they are looking at paying down on. But I want to thank this council for doing what we did on the half a million dollars to make sure that we looked out for the residents of this city in any kind of small way we can help out, especially with this here where they'll get over 400 and something. Thank you, Maria, for being exact on the numbers, but they will put that towards paying down on. The only thing I would say to success, please pick a strong board. Please pick a strong board that this will never happen again. And pick a president that has the heart of the people and not the heart of themselves. Thank you, Madam President.

Okay, there's a roll call vote. You want to make a- Roll call. You made the motion?

Who made the motion? Oh, I made, I'm sorry. Did I not? I apologize. No. I made a motion to approve.

You did. You did that. I made the motion.

I did.

Palm Passage of HB5500, which was cut and pasted into SB1 and signed into law by Governor Lamont, the City Council authorizes a property tax refund of $437,277.30 to the Success Village Apartments, Inc. Second.

Okay, there's a motion to second. Maria, the clerk needs that wording, please. I read it from the therefore clause. Okay, all right, there's a motion and a second. All in favor? No, no, no, roll call. I want a roll call.

Can I have a roll call, please? It's a very important vote.

Go ahead. Gail Murray.

Of course, yes.

Nicole Nelson. Absolutely. Denise Delamoye. Yes. Jorge Cruz. I'll just go with it. Dasha Spell. Akin Boyd. Yes. Jeanette Herron.

Yes.

Loretta Dubat. Yes. Michelle Lyons. Yes. Mary McBride Lee. Yes. Richard Ortiz. Yes. Alfredo Castillo. Yes. Aiden Nieves. Yes. Maria Valle. Yes. Kayla Medina. Yes. Maria Pereira. Ernest Newton.

Motion carries. Congratulations. Adjourned. There's a motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Motion adjourned.