Board of Representatives Fiscal Committee - Regular Meeting

This is the Fiscal Committee of 32nd Board of Representatives. Today is August 24th, 2026 at 7.02 p.m. Members of the committee present this evening, Representatives Bouchard, De La Cruz, Goldberg, Graham, Johnson, Lapine, and Co-Chairs Morrison and Zachary, other members of the board present, Representative Adams, Representative Gilbride, Representative McEwen, Representative Policia, Representative Walston, and Representative Weinberg. 12 items on the agenda tonight. We'll start with item one, F32.092, approval of an agreement with Rabbiton Consulting Services to provide support and optimization services for the city's Oracle Cloud Platforms Enterprise Resource Planning, ERP program. I have a motion to approve item one. Second. Seconded. Any discussion? Chris Della Silva? Prasad? Either of you gentlemen want to start off? Prasad, anything?

I'm sorry, was it a question?

Anything you want to address on this item, you were, Chris? No.

No, I think there has been a considerable amount of discussion on this front, and we've had the approval of the Board of Finance, as well as Chairperson Rinaldi. And this firm Graviton is going to be helping us maintain and conduct any ongoing activities for our Oracle ERP. So I'll be happy to take any questions if anyone has any.

OK. We have a hand from Representative Dela Cruz. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Prashant, I have read the material And I'm still not sure why is this needed, this service from this consulting group? Sure, I'll be happy to address.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Representative de la Cruz. There is a slight history behind this. Ever since we've signed the contract with Oracle back in 2021, there was, back into the contract, a support component. meaning that Oracle Consulting Services was on point to provide us any support, either from testing of any updates or upgrades to the application or any new implementation. And the issue with that is one of cost and quality of service. And put together, that paints a pretty dismal picture, meaning that Oracle Consulting Services was charging us in excess of half a million dollars over the five years. And the level of service that was provided was not commensurate with the bills that were being paid to them. So late last year, the former director of administration, Ben Barnes, made a decision to have an RFP to bring on alternative consulting services that would provide the same or actually better quality of service at a fraction of the cost. So Graviton Consulting Services was the clear standout from the RFP process and they have been on point to provide us not just any support, ongoing support, which would come out of the operating funds, but also any future implementation activities which would come out of the capital budget. So that's the rationale behind going for Graviton.

I see. So these consulting services are needed to make sure that the updates to the Oracle system are functional and they are implemented correctly and that our staff understands how to apply it or how to use them. Is that correct?

That is correct. That succinctly summarizes the nature of the services. Just to go into a little more detail as to the need for this, specifically Oracle sends us quarterly updates and these updates need to be tested and validated before we can make them or make it ready for our usage. So that is one of the aspects that Graviton will be doing. In addition to that, there are two modules, the cash management module and the lease accounting, which are both critical aspects of our ERP processes. And these are the two modules that Graviton will also be helping us with.

I see. One of the updates, as I understand it, is that if one wants to look at the cost of a service of a department, the Oracle software is supposed to aggregate the contribution of other departments to that service so that one gets the real consolidated cost of providing that service. I haven't been able to get an answer as to whether that capability which Director Pinones cautioned us to make sure we have aggregated costs has been implemented and it is active. Are you able or someone in your staff get back to us and let us know if that feature is now active and usable?

For answering that question, I'll defer to either Tony Romano, who I believe is on the call, I don't know if Cynthia Hernandez, who is our operational person for all things ERP, if Cynthia has been invited, but if neither of them are able to answer this question, I can certainly come back to this committee with that.

Yeah, I can try to answer that, Virgil. Every department has a cost center or multiple cost centers, and we do keep track of cost based on how we have the ERP system set up. I hope that answers your question.

Well, let's see. Suppose I wanted to know what is the cost of recycling. I'm just picking that as an example. And other departments participate in the recycling effort. How do I phrase the question to know that the answer that I get is the aggregated cost of all the departments that provide, that support recycling?

Okay, so we do, I understand what you're saying. We do have a recycling cost center. So we can get you those numbers, but if you're looking, to see what other departments are participating in the recycling. We do have a segment called activity that the city is not implemented at this time, where we can have a recycling activity that would keep track of those costs citywide.

So that feature of Oracle hasn't been implemented yet. is that uh is that correct is that my conclusion the activity for for uh the city side has not been implemented and we would have to have internal discussions on whether we will proceed with that i see because uh director quinones cautioned us to make sure that as we're looking at the cost of the service that we get that activity cost, the aggregated cost, but that is not yet implemented.

Correct, that's not implemented.

Any idea when, what is being done to implement it? What's the status?

Well, we don't have any plans this agenda tonight, we can definitely have those discussions internally and get back to you on an ETA on implementation, whether we move forward with that or not.

Representative De La Cruz, do you have any questions specific to Graviton?

Well, yes, I have one more question. From reading the contract, I come to the impression that it's like $69,000 per year. But I'm not sure whether that's fixed or that's an estimate.

I can answer that. Yeah, so that amount that you've just noted, Representative de la Cruz, is only for the annual support component. In addition to that, there is also an annual testing component. meaning that any updates that I was alluding to before, quarterly updates, are tested and validated in a timely manner. And on top of that, there's also an implementation cost for new functionality. As I mentioned before, there's a cash management module and a lease accounting module. And for those two future implementations, there will be a capital expenditure But as far as your question is concerned, that $69,280 figure is a fixed amount, correct?

I see. That's the only figure that I found in the contract documents. Did I miss this other cost somehow? Or what is then the total cost that we're looking at?

This is the total cost we're looking at. So what is being presented to this committee is that amount only, and any future expenditures will be presented on a case-by-case basis because it is any quarterly updates, like I said, that haven't come to pass yet.

So as they come in, we will be presenting that.

But as of now, for annual support for conducting our day-to-day operations for ERP, That amount that you saw, Representative De La Cruz, is the right amount.

I see. Okay. And other amounts will come to us for further discussion. Okay. Thank you. You also have questions. Thank you so very much. You're very welcome.

Thank you, Representative. Any other?

Representative Lupani, please. Thank you, Coach Morrison. Prasanth, just to that last point. So within this proposal, there's four different terminologies around the quotes. One is, or three different. Estimated cost, price, and cost, depending on service. Can you explain the difference between the three, why they use three different terms? And if it says estimated, what are we actually signing up for? And what are the guardrails on a quote that says estimated cost?

Yeah, no, when these figures were submitted to us, it's been a fair amount of time since this was submitted. The estimates could vary based on the scale of services provided, meaning that if the annual support covers a certain slab of services, and by and large, this figure should cover that. For the most part, I think the nature of the modules that we use within our current setup within ERP should fall well within this amount. But if there are any additional services, any additional modules that are added, like I said, in the cash management and lease accounting, those can certainly... impact our ability or the final invoice that we get from Traviton. But as of now, we are fairly confident that this amount that was provided to us is the one that we should be looking at when we finally get the invoice.

Okay. Again, I'm just confused by a contract that uses the word estimated when it's giving a rate, the hours, and the cost. I understand your comment. If I'm understanding correctly, it says we might opt for more hours to an estimate at this point. Aren't those the costs that we are approving for those services based on hours and roles?

It should be. And Chris, you can chime in here, but I was under the impression that these are, this is a legal term that gives them, grab it on, any potential leeway if possible. But Chris, I'll defer to you as to the usage of the word estimate.

uh hi uh good evening everyone this is chris salva unfortunately persona i did not work on this contract i believe you worked with attorney rosenberg on this contract so i guess my comment would be i would be worried about a contract that has no reference to what the terms or guardrails of an estimate are um

and how those hours are, I mean, that's different than what you explained, Prasant, that additional hours might be required to perform the task. This has an estimated cost against exact hours and rates. That I don't line up or understand, and so we're approving a contract that uses the term estimate with no qualifying notes in the document that explain what that is, and that would be a concern of mine with a contract that doesn't specify cost that we're supposed

No, I agree with that. I certainly see your point. So would it be acceptable to the committee for me to go back and identify the reason for the word, the use of the word estimate? And to your point, what guardrails or what controls we have around making sure that that amount doesn't spiral. But I can certainly get that response for you.

Great. And also just the governance language around the expected deliverability Because that worries me in contracts with consultants. You know, hours and deliverables are very different. I'd rather have it measured by deliverables. If they can't achieve what they're committing to within those hours, that's on them. If we don't change our scope and the hours, they came back with a proposal. They said this is what it's going to take as the experts. We're taking, validating, but taking their word for it and awarding it to them based on that. To me, that's not a... blank check to say, yeah, well, it's taking more hours. So to see a correspondence of deliverables along with the hours that they're saying required to deliver it, a commitment to that, that if it takes them double because all the assumptions were the same and they just didn't execute properly, that shouldn't be on us. And so the language and the guardrail or the lack of guardrails would worry me the way this is worded. If it exists somewhere else, I think I would like to see that.

Understood. Yeah, let me also confer with Attorney Rosenberg and see if there was any discussion around that point from the law department standpoint. And I can certainly get you the answers, hopefully not within this week.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Representative. You think you can have those this week, you said, President?

I certainly can.

Okay. Any other discussions? Prashant, let me ask you this. If pending this information, the committee were to hold the item a month, where would that put the project on the timeline?

That would be, I believe the invoices from Graviton are due, meaning that they will be starting to come in. The engagement has already been initiated. So if it is possible for the committee, if I may make a humble request to have this conditional approval upon submission of those additional clarifications, that would be the optimal course forward.

First off, is it possible for you, good evening everyone, it's Chris Talasello again, for you to share the agreement on your screen? Maybe if I can take a look at the compensation section, I might be able to answer some of these questions. I don't know if I will, but I'm certainly willing to try.

Let me make sure I have that. Give me one second, Chris. Of course.

Clerk Johnson first, go ahead, please.

Yeah, quick question. So just only just mentioned this on, it sounds like you guys have already executed an engagement letter. So just procedurally what happens in a scenario where this were ultimately denied by, by the board of reps.

We would have to take action to reverse any engagement that has happened at that point. I believe, again, this is on a day-to-day basis is handled by Cynthia Hernandez. So I would assume that the nature of the services has formally been initiated. but no boots on the ground has actually happened yet. Access has been granted so far, representative, but no physical work or any logistical, beyond the logistics has proceeded. We are, in fact, as a technology stakeholder, I was given the task of improving the access to some of these resources and I had a few questions about the access itself. So we are still in that stage. So if at this point the committee decides to not to move ahead with this, the access will simply be revoked and the contract will be annulled.

Thank you. Barbara, Prasad, is this what you were going to share with us?

Yes, it is. Thank you for bringing it over.

You scroll to what would probably be Section 4, maybe, for compensation, somewhere in that range. No. There we go. Can we make that a little bigger?

Great.

Is that large enough?

Yes.

Attorney, if you need me to go to other pages, just let me know that that doesn't I can't answer any of the questions from reading that. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I think the specific question earlier was around the word estimates. So if you can perhaps highlight that, Barbara. because I don't see that in this section, as I'm looking through this.

I don't either. It just references the fee proposal. It certainly wouldn't be wherever you are now.

Chair, may I help here a moment? One moment, please, Representative Dela Cruz.

Barbara, it wouldn't be down there.

No, you have to go to exhibit B. of the proposal.

I will pull up Exhibit B then, and I will show that in just a moment.

I have it up if you want me to pull it up, Barbara.

OK, if you have it up, feel free to. It's a little slow for me today.

Sure, no problem. Let me see if we can spot the Share button. I don't normally use Zoom. OK. I believe what I'm sharing on the screen is Exhibit B. Yes. Okay, let me scroll through. Chris, I'm going to scroll through this and see if we can.

Yeah, you can just go right to the fee part of it.

Let's go to page 152. Here we go.

Is this it? Yes.

Yeah, I cannot... Yeah, me neither. I'm not able to ascertain from the compensation section in the agreement that I just looked at how much you are going to pay Graviton.

And I think that's the question.

Are all of their services based on units? Like, you know, hourly rates?

They use different units and different...

Oh, I see. So, okay. So, you had different options here. So, what does the agreement compensation section say which option we picked? It references a part of the fee proposal. So, you had a fixed fee option or an hourly rate option. Is that it?

Yeah. I believe that was the case. Let me pull up the the the agreement and see what references.

Section four. OK, so no, sorry, I guess it was three. Section three is compensation. set forth in Section 4 of Exhibit B, entitled Fee Proposal Pricing, pages 152 and more particularly. OK, so.

Testing service 4.2 appears to have fixed dollar amounts per quarter. Yeah.

But I think the question was for support, correct? testing is fixed um yeah different language yes i don't know different different units of measure and then so obviously some choices were made about estimates pricing cost can i put you on the spot no no no this is this is good discussion for this You mean annually?

How many years is your contract?

For Graviton?

Yeah.

You can go back to the agreement and look at the term. So issued on July 25.

Keep going. Maybe Section 4. 2027. Okay. okay so this is for next year the next for 2020 so this is for one year correct but you have options to extend for three more years that's correct okay do you know what you're paying in 2027 i'm going to make a suggestion here i'm going to uh entertain a motion to

uh amend the motion to approve to conditionally approve pending satisfactory answer answering the question we can rephrase the motion that way if we get satisfactory answers before we have our board meeting we can act without delay if not we can fail to pass it at that point how do we decide if it's satisfactory enough go ahead I turn to Representative Lapine to offer some perspective.

Well, I think there's two underlying questions. One that was just posed. How much are we paying annually? And what are we receiving for that payment? Do we know we're getting taxed if we pay Y? That's what I'm looking to understand. And that that estimate is a commitment of services for cost.

Okay. Prasant, is that something we can do?

We absolutely can. And again, what time frame? I should have an answer for you by the end of this week.

End of the week. Okay. Representative Goldberg? I'll defer. Okay. Clark Johnson?

I wonder if it's worth maybe a second discussion with legal. The contract itself is quite, seems a bit sloppy. So I think the compensation part we're just looking at. more concrete examples fixed.

I think there's some legal work to be done here.

But not sure if that's worth making a condition or not.

Chris, your thoughts?

I didn't hear that. I apologize.

The question was, sorry, if I may, Representative Johns. So the contract has some inconsistencies in the references, et cetera. For example, there's a reference to a section, but that section refers to, has some other information altogether. So the question is, can we get some clarification on, or tightening up the language in the contract itself? Did I catch the question correctly?

Yeah, more or less. There's some kind of small, I guess, largely, Legal language question breaks. You said, I guess the engagement's already started, but the contract reported to be applicable to come to year 27. So there's some little inconsistencies like that.

I cannot hear that. there is legal language somewhere you want clarified? Is that what I heard?

Yeah, well, more than matching with the language to the intent, right? Because I guess it was said earlier that the engagement- Are we talking about that compensation section still?

No. Or something else?

No, just the term of the agreement. the engagement has already started. And so I guess it's more just making sure that the legal language is aligned with the intention, right? Because that is not aligned.

I can't understand that.

Chris, perhaps we can debrief offline. But I think the specific question that's being posed here is the proposal, which was initially submitted in September of 2025. Yeah. And the offer was the final offer for the proposal was given to us on February 2026. Notwithstanding, the term of this agreement is commencing on January of 2027. Whereas we are already in the process of ascertaining the access for some of these consultants.

So the question is not what you wanted per se.

Right, no, that's what we wanted. But I think the question, which in my mind is actually pretty valid, is why do we have the term of the agreement starting on January of 2027, which is a few months away? And is it just a typo? Or that part is something even I missed, I'll be honest. But that is what is being asked for here, I think. Again, Representative, if I misstated the question, please let me know.

No, you know it. Yeah, long story short, my point is there's a number of these kind of questions. I just wonder if it's worth us taking the time to make sure all the legal language aligns with the actual intent of what we want to do here.

Yeah. Is Attorney Rosenberg no longer available? Is that why he's not here?

I don't know.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

i'm happy to help in any way i can i'm muscling through this right now trying to figure out what happened and i'm failing and i apologize for that uh in the contract to clarify and we have we need definition of deliverables and at what price okay yes i mean i think in short person you want to put a contract in front of us that you have full certainty about what you're paying

what you're getting and all the terms line up with the expectations around dates, terminology, and deliverables. And this doesn't represent that at this time.

I understand.

Representative Goldberg. So the one question I had, I think I heard, am I correct that I heard that we already have an invoice for these people that we need to pay? And I was just going to ask, how can that be?

No, we don't have an invoice yet. I meant to say access. So we have the access being prepared for these consultants that are going to be working on it. As of now, we do not have any invoices now. Okay.

That can't happen. Okay. If there's no contract, there's no purchase order. If there's no purchase order, there's no money. No tiki, no laundry. It doesn't happen.

Agreed. As I said, I just wanted to clarify what I heard.

Got it.

with all these unknowns. I really think that we should just table this until it gets resolved. This is, to be just candid, this was brought to us sloppily. I'm not ready to do it.

Okay, I'm gonna go to our board of parliamentarian, Representative McEwen. Procedurally, if we want to not vote on this item tonight, anticipating the answers to our questions before our board meeting to then take action either way on the item.

What is your recommendation for the next step? To preserve your ability to pass this at that meeting? Yes. The committee could take no action and the report from leadership of the committee would be that there wasn't a recommendation in favor or against. you could present any developments that have happened between now and then, and the board always has the power to effectively usurp any item off of the committee's agenda that hasn't been reported out. And so at that time, you could move to pass it nonetheless, based on that updated information.

Okay. On Parliamentarian's recommendation, there's a motion on the floor to approve this item. If we're going to take no action, I'll call for anybody who wants to vote yes to approve it.

Wait, there's a motion. This is a point on that. Go ahead. Based on what you just heard, why don't we see if you want to, if those individuals, and I was the second, want to withdraw the motion so that you can take it on action.

The committee would have to vote on withdrawing the motion because the body already has the motion. So this would be a subsidiary motion. I think it is simpler to take no action on the motion on the floor. How do we do that? We simply don't act when I call for a vote. Nobody says anything. Right. Okay. All those in favor of approving item one?

Any opposed? Any abstentions? Can you hear me? Yes, sir. I have had my hand up to participate in the discussion.

We have a motion on the floor to approve this item, whether the recommendation to take no action pending further information on the item before our board meeting. Anything relevant to that, sir?

What is the impact of taking no action? What does that do to the item?

It preserves our ability to pass the item at our board meeting, assuming we have satisfactory answers to the questions that have been asked here.

And one of those questions that my colleague Lepine posed was clarifying the language as to whether these were estimates or a fixed price. Yes, more or less. That is part of the answer. Yes. Okay. Thank you much.

So nobody's voting yes, no, or abstaining. So the committee has chosen to take no action.

the effective date was changed to set 1.6. Does that then have to be re-approved by the Board of Finance before we can approve it?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that question.

that appropriations be referred to the finance committee, excuse me, the fiscal committee prior to approval. I don't believe it's charter-based. So to the extent that there is an amended, the board would still have the power to approve it. However, I think that it would also need to suspend its rules to sidestep the requirement that the fiscal committee approve it. That I think is the only step forward if there is an amended version.

Okay, we'll have clarification before the board meeting then, what we need to do. Okay, Director Romano? That's effectively what we're doing. To hold it for a month, you're suggesting? Entertaining motion to hold the item for a month, recommit to steering next month. So moved and seconded, any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay. Item one is recommitted unanimously. Thank you for the vigorous discussion. We will have answers come in. Thank you, Prasad and Chris, for your help on this one. Item number two, F32.093, approval of contract with Forum Consulting Services Incorporated, DBA Forum Group for staffing and information security analysts associated, bid waiver number 2026.0392 for this purchase.

Is this essentially staff augmentation?

It is not. When you say staff augmentation, in terms of the consulting component of it, yes. This is not a full-time employee. This individual that's coming from the forum consulting services is a cybersecurity analyst.

Right. So they're just, they're providing services that we can't provide for ourselves. So it's staff org. Is that the idea?

That is correct.

And they have a narrowly defined scope of what they're going to be doing.

They do. Happy to go through that. So go ahead.

Yeah.

No, I was going to say that the consultant is, um, going to be leading a key information services activities. that the technology department has been planning over the course of the last year or so. Since I personally came on board as the CIO of the city back in May of 2025, I found that the city, while its IT services and support services were up to scratch, the guardrails around these services that were being provided in terms of risks being assessed, identified, threats being identified, and the controls being put in place was sorely lacking.

So we made the decision to start up what is known as a governance risk and control program, for which we did not have the skills.

I personally do, but that is an activity that needs a small team to work on this on a dedicated manner. So we engage the services of this consultant who is essentially going to be or has been creating for us a robust risks and controls inventory that is actively helping us identify active threats, also known as zero-day threats, which originate both domestically and internationally, as well as any technical aspects of these, you know, rogue programs known as bots and Trojans. So those are something that needs active oversight. And this person has been helping us do that.

So what's the deliverable?

There are several deliverables. The one is, as I mentioned before, what is known as a risk and control inventory. So in plain English, what that means is creating the universe of all the risks that can manifest for our city's IT systems, as well as our non-IT assets, such as the waste treatment plants and other utilities. In parallel, this person has been putting together what is known as a control inventory, which is a custom list of controls that we are actively designing and implementing in partnership with our security operations center that neutralizes these risks and in many cases helps us avoid any activities that we might be planning to take on, but for which the risk is beyond our accepted risk appetite. Those are two deliverables that are already being delivered. These are living, breathing documents, representative, meaning that there is only a baseline draft that will continue to be updated every quarter and reviewed by a group of executive stakeholders, including myself.

Thank you. Go ahead.

In addition to that, the mayor has personally asked me to create a robust cybersecurity training program. And this individual has been helping us put together a training program using existing and new resources. And when I say existing new resources, I'm referring to online computer-based training platforms for which we have licenses called Udemy and also new resources called NeoGov. which has a built-in training module component. And this person has been actively working with HR to roll out these trainings for all city employees to practice online etiquette and cybersecurity best practices.

So are we going to eventually insource these activities?

As it happens, Representative, this was proposed as conversion to a full-time employee, given that we've invested significant time, and I personally have spent quite a bit of time training of this individual. who now has significant institutional knowledge, which is a key prerequisite for this type of role, meaning that any person who is managing our governance, risk, and compliance program or controls program needs to have the lay of the land, as it were, and that's what has been happening. So a proposal was put forward to the Board of Finance last month for conversion of this individual from consultant to a full-time employee, but that was not approved. And the rationale for that that was given to us at that point was that the Board of Finance recommends that the city maintain its options for using a consultant workforce that we might be able to pivot at short notice. in the event that the needs evolve and change. That was given to us as an option to keep it to keep open as opposed to having this person in a full-time capacity.

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Representative. Representative de la Cruz, go ahead.

Thank you, Chairman Morrison. My colleague Goldberg brought up the deliverables. All I have seen is an email stating what this person will do at $167,000. Is it possible to make the deliverables part of this agreement? So that's question one.

So, Representative de la Cruz, I believe the question was, is it possible to show the deliverables? Was that the question?

Yes, would it be possible to make the deliverables, as my colleague brought up, this agreement?

This is Chris Della Salva, Assistant Court Counsel. Those deliverables are part of the agreement. What he gets paid for, I think if you're looking at that compensation section again, is he's compensated for the scope of services. The scope of services is defined in Section 2, which includes the consultant's proposal. And the consultant's proposal supports that bullet list of deliverables. That would be Exhibit A.

Yeah, thank you, Chris. All I saw was the email.

That's probably from me, Virgil, right? I'm sorry? Is that my email you're referring to?

There was an email that was circulated that is posted to the file summary page of the item, and that's where I went.

Okay. I typically send an email to the mayor with the contract documents attached that explains... the contract that, you know, at an executive level. And it's my hope that that gets forwarded to the boards that need to approve. So that's why I asked if it was mine.

I say thank you, Chris. I didn't find that information in the files on the way. Okay. And, you know, cyber attacks is an ongoing thing. And their nature and sophistication changes from month to month, week to week. This engagement is, I think, June of next year. What happens after that? What do we do then?

Well, if the question is how do we continue this program after June 2027, there is always an evolution or an improvement in our capabilities to handle these. This threats representative and my hope is that we will be able to either a do some staff augmentation by having this person submitted as a full time employee for next year, which will ensure that we continue to have these coverage that this person will provide. or we will put in another requisition for a consultant, either continuing this person or having another RFP sent out to engage these services. We do have a consultant fund in our operating budget, and we plan to leverage that for this purpose.

And perhaps one last question. Sure. What are we doing about paying ransom when files are hijacked? What precautions do we have?

Representative de la Cruz, I'm going to say that that's not necessarily germane to the contract with Forum, but more a piece of our regular policies.

Okay, thank you, Prashant. Perhaps you can offline conciliate me on that.

Thank you. Yeah, I'd be happy to give you an overview of our policy for in the unfortunate event that our assets do get compromised. What is our course of action in case of ransom?

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Representative.

Any further discussion on item two? Representative, thank you.

Just a quick, I think, quick question. So option to convert from consultant to hire that's in our package was rejected by the board of finance I see no reference in the agreement to hiring so does that take does that mean there is no option to hire this candidate not at this point from what I understand is since that motion or the the request was denied

at this point our request is still to have this person's um or this company's forum group services engaged for the rest of this fiscal year correct in in a consulting capacity okay just to add to

Within that one time we had a conversation with the chair and we wanted to give them the option to either continue They didn't want to have an addition on the TV. Oh, I understand that, but they took the option off the table. No, I don't think there was ever an option, but maybe Chris can clarify that.

This is Chris Ellis. Those trains run on separate tracks. We don't have a services contract with an option to hire someone full-time. That would never happen. We don't really have that authority to do that.

You want a second, please?

Sure.

That's very clearly an exhibit A. Go ahead. Speak a little louder if you could. Yeah, so first thanks for your insight, but I guess I'm curious, you said we wouldn't have an option to convert, but that's, it seems like an option to convert to a full-time hire is the bulk of exhibit A. Great.

Is that a question to me?

Yeah, yeah, I guess.

Well, you said we were speaking. I'm sorry.

So this is Representative Parker Johnson speaking.

Okay, I see you got it.

Yeah. Thank you.

I know I was having trouble hearing you before. I apologize.

No worries. Not a problem. So yeah, no, my question is, as the there's some question around whether we retain the option or not. And you said we should not have an option to convert to a higher. But the if I'm reading it, correctly, the bulk of Exhibit A is governance around the conversion.

The bulk of Exhibit A?

Yeah, so Exhibit A of the contract we're discussing, most of it is talking about the procedures to convert them to a loan employee.

Oh, I see. No, well, okay. I understand. That's... you're looking at there that conversion section that's like a uh you know a prohibition like you can't hire there this is an employee of forum forum is they're like you know an employment agency you can think of it that way and this employee is right now we we can't hire that person We're agreeing not to hire that person until they work at least 271 days. It doesn't say that they convert. It says we can't do that until they work at least that amount of time. Forum's got to make their money, in other words, before we're allowed to hire the employee.

Of course. So then just to make sure that we're all conceptually on the same page, we do retain the option to convert them to an internal employee just

Okay. You have the option to hire this person directly, I suppose, after 271 days, assuming that the position needs to be created, right?

Yeah.

A job description has to be created. A pay scale has to be created. Assuming all of that happens, as long as this person works for 271 days for the city, the city is free to hire them without having to pay

uh forum any additional money yeah so so i i think we're in in the intent i think we're alive but there we do retain the ability to to hire them if we so choose subject potentially to a fee uh this is the core of my question but i think we've gotten there okay

Okay, all those in favor of approval of item two, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? I'll abstain. Representative Johnson abstains. Okay, that passes 7-0-1. Okay, Prasad, Chris, thank you very much for your help tonight. My pleasure. If you wouldn't mind reaching out to me and co-chair Zachary by the end of the week, touch base on these items, please.

Certainly.

Very good. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Item 3, F32.098 for $7,462,500. Additional appropriation capital, project number 001361, West Broad Street Road Bridge, number 04065 for rehabilitation of the bridge. Over the river entertain a motion to approve item 3. So. Moved 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, city engineer, Luke. Good evening, sir.

Yes. Good evening. How are you all today? Tonight? I'm here before you to request an additional appropriation and the amount of. seven million four hundred sixty two thousand five hundred dollars as you mentioned uh that is uh broken out as a state grant at fifty percent uh state uh fifty percent local that translates to three million seven hundred and thirty one thousand two hundred fifty dollars I applied for a grant application that was submitted back in 2024, and the state did not have the funding to support it. So that never moved forward. That was also mentioned in the capital budget back at that time. I resubmitted the application this past October. May and prior to their deadline, and I received a conditional commitment to fund letter on July 29th of this year. I have a very brief presentation to show you, but I respect your time. I know there was some time spent on the first two items. If you would like to see the presentation, I can bring it up quickly and go through it. But it's your call.

Yes, please.

Okay. Can you see that?

We see your, there we go.

Go ahead. All right. So the presentation is about the West Broad Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project. The bridge is currently rated in poor condition. You're probably familiar with its location at West Broad and Washington Boulevard along the Ripon River. Back in April of this year, I received an advisory notification from Condot, who does the inspections, asking to implement a weight restriction signage on the bridge, which I posted back in May of 2026. And once funding authorization is in place, I'm seeking local approvals now. For this, Condot wants me to engage the services of a professional consultant to begin the design process, which I am doing. And that's what this funding request is geared to do, plus also cover the construction of the project. As I said earlier, in 2024, I put in a preliminary application that was not funded by Condot. I did that again this past year, and I did receive a conditional commitment to fund, and that's the breakout. Just some existing pictures of the bridge itself. You probably read about this in the newspaper after the Board of Finance presentation. There was a story in the Advocate sort of recapping my discussion with them. These are pictures of bridge bearings. There's deterioration under the railings, sidewalk deterioration, cracking deterioration. A couple years ago, there was some deck deterioration. Part of the deck had failed, so I did an interim deck repair. Not a through deck repair, but it's held up pretty well, but there's still some surface cracking two years later or four years later. In terms of the bridge itself, there's the structural aspect and the replacement, and then there is also the traffic management during construction to manage its replacement. In order to do that, the design will require a traffic operational analysis in the design, and that analysis will recommend various construction staging to allow two-way traffic flow while maintaining the project budget. I mention that project budget because the more stages we have, the more expensive it is. But, you know, something as simple as two-stage construction might not support the traffic that we have over here, so that requires some in-depth study during design. I also leave open the option to consider alternative routes to minimize traffic over the bridge during the construction staging. It may be possible to divert some traffic going southbound down And there are some opportunities to divert traffic going northbound up Stillwater. This is too early to determine whether and how we're going to do that. But those are some things that we're going to be working out in design. As far as the construction itself, I anticipate the work to take two construction seasons. Typically, these are seasons that start in April and in December, and there's a winter shutdown and then it begins again in April to December. So that's what I mean by two construction seasons. The bridge rehabilitation area is shown in red. And the next steps for this would be funding authorization, which I'm here tonight to seek your approval for. I'm in the process of writing an RFP for design. Once that process is at its conclusion and a design consultant is selected, we will begin the design, begin the permitting process, and go through all of that. At the end of design, we'll publicly bid the project, and then we'll get into construction. That concludes the presentation. So I'm just going to share there. By the way, the conditional commitment to fund letter does require that the mayor agree to the letter. And it says the next step in the grant process is the commitment to fund letter found acceptable to the town. She returned the letter within 30 days. So that date is coming up. At this point, I'll seek your approval for the authorization before you. Well, yes, especially I mean, this is this is a grant. So I'm speaking with Anita Carpenter, who's with us tonight. It's prudent for the part of the mayor signing the commitment to fund to know that the local boards are behind this. And that's really the intent of the letters. So when Mayor Simmons returns this letter to conduct, they know the city has committed to supporting the project.

All right, so then the amounts listed is more of an estimate then?

The amount is an estimate. That's part of the work that I have to do. When I submitted my preliminary application, I worked through an estimate of the design costs and the construction costs. It's worthy to note that although the amount asked for $7.5 million, I'll just round it up, The actual construction estimate was 5.7 million. I also want to mention that the state only has around 17 million available statewide for this program. And with this award, with this commitment to fund, that's over 22% of the state aid is going to Stanford. So that's a pretty good contribution to Stanford. I do regularly apply through this program and I have been successful in the past. So based on the condition of the project, I really appreciate your approval so I can continue the process.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Any other discussion? Representative Lapine. Just one quick question, Lou. What is the life cycle of this work once it's done?

Yeah, it's not a full replacement. So the life cycle is around 20 years. But, you know, done well. You know, we've gotten a lot longer from it. But that's, you know, for rehabilitation, that's what you normally would expect.

Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion? Representative Goldberg. Just curious, when was the last time this bridge was rehabilitated? Did we get 20 years out of it?

Yes, that's a good question. The bridge was constructed 72 years ago, and then there was some rehabilitation done in 1990. I don't have any records in my office as to what occurred back in 1990, but this project, the way this will work is the footings for the bridge will remain The abutments will remain. You saw pictures of the abutments. So those abutments do need some rehabilitation. So the concrete and spalling will all be chipped out. Rebar will be exposed, cleaned. New material will be applied. And then all the deck beams will be most likely removed, reconditioned. The bearings that the decks sit on will be replaced. They're pretty deteriorated. and the deck of the structure will be replaced. That's the primary issue right now is the deck deterioration.

you know the um you said construction cycles of april to december so i'm assuming that means it kicks back online in january of 2029 it doesn't mean eastbound one year westboundly next year for

Go ahead. Try again.

Okay. Yeah. As far as staging is concerned, it would be optimal to minimize the staging to a couple of stages. That way, you know, that kind of keeps the budget intact. If we start adding more stages, which might be necessary because of the amount of traffic, things could take longer. Things could cost more. But all of that will be flushed out during design. So right now, our preliminary application estimates two construction seasons in 29 and in 30. So those are the two periods we're talking about at this point.

All right. Thanks. Luke, would the bridge be out of commission during these cycles, or would you have eastbound traffic one year, westbound traffic the next year, for example?

Yeah, there's a lot of traffic over this bridge. This one, we wouldn't... we wouldn't want to close down for any extended period of time. So we're going to work towards a design that enables two-way traffic. There may be times when something has to be done which requires full closure, but it would only be for short periods of time. Like I said, there's a lot of traffic that goes through here, so the idea is to maintain traffic in two directions and possibly detour on traffic you know, streets like Mill River Street, try to, you know, remove some of the load off the bridge, depending on what stage we're at in construction. But all of the, they call it maintenance and protection of traffic, those plans are developed as part of the design, and that's built into the bidding of the project. So the contractor knows, you know, how he can work this rehabilitation.

Thank you, Chair. Quick question, Lou, and thank you so much. I'm appreciative that this bridge is being replaced. Will pedestrian traffic be maintained during the construction?

Yeah, that's part of the staging. The vehicles are one part, the pedestrians are the other. And also, I guess as a third component would be the, you know, accessibility and utilization of the park. For example, Mill River Park is an important asset to the city. So, you know, it's my goal to make sure that, you know, we at least keep one sidewalk open and

and um allow uh in a full use of the park with without any um major disturbances that's great to hear thank you and i yield thank you representative any additional questions or discussion on item three seeing none all those in favor of approval item three please say aye all right any opposed any abstentions okay item three passes unanimously Item four is the associated resolution F32.099, Amending the capital budget for fiscal year 2627 by adding appropriation. Of 7462,500 dollars. For the West broad street road bridge and authorizing the 3. 731,250 dollars general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation. I have a motion to approve item for so moved and seconded any discussion. I'm the director of administration, Tony Romano. First time I get to introduce you to that. Anything you want to add here? I do not, you said about me. Okay, very good. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of approving item four, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, item four passes unanimously. Thank you, Lou. I have you on for another item. Item five, F32.100 for $44 million. Additional appropriation capital, project CPB221, Roxbury School Replacement Project. Amend the fiscal year capital budget 2627 for construction of a new school at 751 West Hill Road. Do I have a motion to approve item five? Second. Moved and seconded. discussion. Director of School Construction, Catherine Lovaldo, you want to start us off?

Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. School starts tomorrow, in case anyone was curious. And we had a really nice test run up at West Hill and Roxbury this morning. But I'm here this evening to make the request to fulfill kind of the process that we've been down on this road for a number of years. In 2021, 2022, The boards authorized $86 million for the construction of a new Roxbury K-8. Subsequently, a grant was applied for in 2022 and authorized and committed to in 2023. We began our design. We recognized that we were going to need to revise that budget. The revised budget was $130 million. We went back to the state for a reauthorization. The state in 2025 reauthorized the project to receive a 60% reimbursement on $130 million, meaning that our local share is 40%. And this is a bit of your housekeeping, so to speak, that our local authorization needs to match that new authorization revised by the state. And in terms of where we are today with this project, we have completed our construction documents. We have completed our, what they call PCR review, so pre-conformance bid review. We have to do a three hour meeting with the state where they go over all our documents, all our process for bidding, We provide them with the construction documents. We also review it with the Board of Ed, the fire marshal, the building department. It makes makes full rounds internally. And we bid in early, I want to say it was possibly, maybe it was mid-March, what we called a site enabling phase to put up construction fencing and to take down portables that were there in the 1990s. I don't know if some of you had maybe had classes in those portables. I've met some people that have. because that work would have really interrupted academic learning. It was important for us to get that work done now in this summer. So we have and get everyone used to some revised circulation patterns. So we have our fencing established. We have a temporary parking lot for staff. And we have started installing our geothermal wells. This building will be supported by geothermal. The goal here is an energy use intensity of 20. That is, I will say, ambitious. It's been done around the state, so it's completely achievable. But it takes a lot of effort from the collective team. So they've now to date installed, I believe they're at 28 of the 100, or 99 geothermal wells that they plan to install. We just had a really good inspection on site actually last week. What else can I tell you about the project? But I'm here for effectively the $44 million to bring us to a match so that we are ready for the total project budget of $130 million. That is inclusive of design fees, FF&E, the obviously the construction and trades budget insurances and owner contingency, which is also incredibly important. Um, also construction contingency, uh, the contractors provided a contingency of 2%. Um, of the of the construction budget, they can't just use that willy nilly, they still have to come to the owner for us to agree to it and to release it. That's before anything comes to and there are certain items that they can use it on specifically. And I'm happy to answer any other questions or tell you anything else you'd like about the about the project. We're very excited to, to get going. We're going to go plan is to go out to bid at the end of August with your with your authorization.

Catherine, this additional appropriation is the same kind of additional appropriation we did for West Hill several months ago. Let's also bring that one up to the match.

It is.

Okay. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of approving item five, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Item five passes unanimously. and the corresponding resolution if item 6 f32.101 resolution amending the capital budget for fiscal year 2627 by adding an appropriation of 44 million dollars for the roxbury school replacement project and authorizing 20 million six hundred thousand dollars of general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation uh entertain a motion to approve item six so moved second moved and seconded any discussion Seeing none, all those in favor of approving item six, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Item six passes unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you.

Item seven, F32.102 for $60,641.25, additional appropriation capital, product CP9238, Yearwood Center Renovations, installation of a 15 inch reinforced concrete pipe backflow preventer as FEMA approved hazard mitigation measure. And if you had a motion to approve item seven. So moved and seconded. Discussion? Lou, Anita.

Good evening again, Lou Casolo. This amount requested is in the amount of $60,641. It's 100% funded through FEMA. As the chair explained, this is a backflow backflow preventer. Basically, the storm, the storm drains that are leaving the building are backing up and they have under larger storm conditions where there's backflow into the building. So to prevent that we're going to be putting in a installing in a 15 inch backflow preventer to mitigate that from occurring. It's a pretty straightforward process to do it, but it isn't a small effort either. But that's what the money is going to be applied for. The FEMA commitment came in back at the end of June, and I'm here tonight to seek your approval for this amount.

Thank you, Lou. to install this and when do you expect to start to work?

As soon as the authorization is approved by the boards, the requisition can then move forward to a purchase order. We've already put out the bid. We have a potential low bidder. We've been told that the preventer itself, the backflow preventer, has some lead time, probably two months. And then once that's in, the work will proceed within a few weeks. That's what we've been advised.

Representative Dela Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Norton. Lou, a question. Will the backflow preventer be buried, or will there be access to repeat attention in the future?

Yeah, it's in a manhole, so it is accessible.

I see. Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

I yield. Thank you, Representative. Any other discussion? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of approving item seven, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, item seven passes unanimously. Thanks, Lou.

Thank you very much.

Okay, item eight, F32.103 for $39,477 additional appropriation grant Funds for overtime and fringe benefits for Stanford Police Department targeting speed and aggressive driving throughout Stanford. I entertain a motion to approve by debate. Second. Seconded. Discussion? Anita Carpenter, our grants officer.

Good evening. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

This is your annual speed and aggressive driving overtime for police department. Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Okay. Representative Dela Cruz, is your hand up from before?

No, it's for Ms. Carpenter. You have the floor, sir. Thank you, Chair Morrison. Hello, Anita. Thank you. Anita, $39,000 doesn't buy much. Yeah. And certainly speeding and aggressive driving is needed, needs attention. Why only 39,000 have expected and much bigger amount for that effort?

Well, it is the only appropriation that the state is authorizing from the Connecticut DOT. It is about the average that we receive for overtime. It certainly doesn't stop what the Stanford Police Department does for speed and aggressive driving. It is just the you know, the supplemental overtime support that they give to support that effort for overtime.

I said, thank you. That's all we can get. That's all we can get.

That is right.

Thank you, Anita.

Thank you, sir. Any other discussion on item eight? Okay. Seeing none, all those in favor of approving item eight, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Item 8 passes unanimously. Item 9, F32.104, $59,484.88. Additional appropriation grant funds to be used for costs related to conducting early voting for the 2026 election, including police and ballot expenses for the registrar of voters. And I've hit a motion to approve by

We support the registrar during the election time period. It certainly isn't going to cover all the costs that are out there, but it's just additional funding to help during election.

This is a state grant?

Yes.

Okay. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none. All those in favor of approving item nine, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

Representative Graham abstaining from item nine.

Thank you, Representative Graham. Okay. And the corresponding resolution, item 10, F32.105, resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreement with the Connecticut Secretary of the State for the early voting grant of $59,484.88. Motion to approve, please. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions on item 10?

Representative Graham abstaining from item number 10, please.

Thank you, Representative. Okay. These last two motions each pass 7-0-1. Okay, item 11, F32.106, $87,944. Additional appropriation, grant, funds to cover the salary for approximately four public safety dispatchers. No indirect or administrative cost included with this funding. This supports salary only for dispatchers. Entertain a motion to approve. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Anita?

If I may, so annually we receive 9-1-1 telecommunications funding. And what this is, is we put this in the budget every year, and this is reconciling with actuals. So we are simply just adding to the amount that was in the budget to reconcile with what the amount should be. We receive around $375,000 annually, and this is just putting it to what actuals are. Okay. Okay.

any questions any discussion okay seeing none all those in favor of approving item 11 please say aye aye any opposed any abstentions passes unanimously thank you thank you anita Our final item of the evening, item 12, F32.107, $125,000, additional appropriation capital, project 001461, Stanford Harbor boat launch feasibility study phase, to complete site evaluations and preliminary boat launch design for a potential public boat launching facility on the Stanford Harbor shoreline. Originally, item F32.082. I entertain a motion to approve. So moved. No motion? Second. And a second. Very good. Mr. Ortelli, would you like to start us off this evening? Or should I go to Representative Adams? You're muted, Damian.

No, go ahead to Ortelli.

Okay, I'll come to you first, Terry. Jamie, go ahead. Yes, I'm here. Thank you. I appreciate you guys taking this up. The ask is the same as it was in May, a $62,500 match from the Harbor Commission. from our dedicated deed restricted fund to match the $62,500 for a phase two, shall we call it a reality study of putting in a boat launch ramp in Stanford Harbor. You know, many of the sort of details we discussed in May, nothing has changed. with the exception of some additional information that we have collected from some of our partners on the water. The harbor master, a state-appointed harbor master, our Marine Police Department sergeant, and our deputy captain, of the fire department have all submitted statements of support for this project. And so we are back to you guys looking for the approval for us to again, use these dedicated funds for this purpose.

Okay. Representative Adams, you have the floor. I guess my question is to Damia. So you guys put up to $62,500 out of your funds. So how do you guys get funded?

Um, on this particular, uh, uh, fund that we're going to draw from, um, this was a fee in lieu of restoring a water dependent use that we allowed a developer at eight 60 canal, uh, to, uh, essentially pay to not have to rebuild a demised gas stock. Um, and the Harbor commission studied it and we had some advice on it and ultimately determined that, uh, um, that, that the, the site had been down for so long that, that there really wasn't a need for additional gas services there. Um, and so the, the, uh, applicant, uh, uh, the applicant agreed to pay $350,000, uh, to a dedicated account. Um, and, uh, ultimately the, um, The funds were a part of the final development plan, or the fee in lieu was part of the final development plan, which they paid, and that money has been sitting in their account for quite some time, and now it's in our accounts for the last year or two. And this particular project has been priority number one of the Harbor Commission. uh, for several years. And, uh, we, we moved through phase one, which was a tabletop study, um, port authority grant paid for all of that. Um, the port authority has sort of changed the mechanism, uh, and how they're dispersing funds. And, uh, now they're looking for, uh, matches. And we felt since this is priority number one for the safety concerns and, and, uh, increasing water dependent accessibility, which are sort of the two remits of the Harbor Commission, that this would be a good time to break into that particular restricted fund for the, as I said, the sort of use case study. The tabletop study phase one was determining which of the sites that were available or semi-available to us what would be the best. And then this is to prove that we can actually do it based on some of the concerns on the property, not the least of which is the membrane that Kosciuszko Park is built on top of and can we is it there and would we be able to perform the necessary modifications to that area and so in this RFP that we're going to put out we are going to you know sort of segment it so that if we can't answer that question number one we won't go any further So I guess I should say we're asking for a budget of $62,500, but we may end up using very little of that if we send it to RFP and they come back to us and say, well, you know, the membrane is there and you can't get through it. This would squash that very quickly.

Okay. My next question is... I'm looking at what engineer did you use to come to this conclusion? I'm looking at Race Coastal?

Race Coastal, yes. They answered the first RFP and became our phase one engineer and presumed that they would throw their hat in the ring for phase two, but we would go through the full RFP process as is mandated by the city.

I guess my next question is, so this is not, as the conversation first started off, as an emergency board ramp. What is it looking to propose in a board ramp facility, including parking lot, additional vehicles, trailer, asset weight, and maneuvering and tie down. So this is pretty much creating like, I guess once we got in Caesar almost, I'm sorry, can you say that again, that last part? This is almost creating like what you got in Season Marina over on Harbor Avenue, Harbor Drive.

Um, CSIC doesn't have a boat ramp. We're talking about what, like what you have at, at, um, at West beach and at Cove, right? So we have three city marinas. Um, we have our Cove Marina and there's a boat launch ramp right there in, at Cove Marina. Um, we have Cummings Marina that was destroyed by Sandy and, and, you know, is in the process of being rebuilt, uh, and, and West beach, um, ramp serves that, uh, that particular cove called Westcott Cove, right? So Cove Marina serves Cove. Westcott Marina is served by West Beach Ramp. And then the majority of our waterway and the majority of our fleet is in Stanford Harbor, both East and West Branch. And we don't have any facilities in there. And so the purpose of the safety concern is that when weather kicks up, you have to take your boat out and come around the Japan point to get to either one of those two public ramps. Um, and that can become very dangerous very quickly versus having to evacuate boats, um, you know, within the safety of, of the water, um, is a, uh, you know, is, is a priority and our, um, Our harbor master came to us and, you know, he said, I'm warning you guys. And, you know, the first person that dies as a function of this is on you. And so we are acting on that because I don't want to have anybody drowned on my, you know, on my hands. So it is incumbent upon us to try to solve this problem so that we don't have, you know, any unneeded fatalities.

So my last question, if this comes for tuition where, like West Beach Ramp, where the boats and different vehicles goes in the water, it would be supervised with the police? I mean, expecting the... The boats, if they qualify to go in the water, the ski rides, whatever. I mean, the last time we had an officer from the waterway, it was like 50% of the boat and the ski ramps that goes on there doesn't even qualify, doesn't make it to the water. So where we have that same kind of manpower to respect whatever boats or whatever is going on the water, if this comes... for tuition, I mean, that it come through. We would have that same kind of manpower to regulate what goes in the water and not, and if it's qualified or not.

I mean, listen, if you guys want to, in your infinite wisdom, find space in the budget to have an officer at the ramp inspecting every boat that goes in, I am, you know, I'll get some pom poms and start cheerleading that, you know, they're there. There is, you know, enforcement is difficult. There's only so many units on the water. And, you know, I would say that this ramp would be treated no differently than West Beach or Cove in its monitoring. You know, I can't speak to the rotation that the police and fire You know, that's them and how they choose to man the harbor. The Harbor Commission has paid overtime. As a matter of fact, every year we pay, you know, for some of the overtime of some of these officers just to make sure we have more enforcement on the water. And, you know, ultimately we create a safety brochure every year and we hand that out and the officers hand that to boats that they've pulled over. And the idea is that, you know, hopefully an ounce of education is, is better than a pound of cure. And yeah, I mean, you know, there, I think one of the things that could be great about having a ramp at Cape Park is there currently are a number, you know, any given number of, we call it the Cape Park Navy of boats that are sort of stashed in the, you know, in the water or in the, in the bushes and, And, you know, people grab them and they go out and fish. You know, this might become an area where, you know, people could like store like a rack for kayaks like we have at West Beach, you know, a little more centralized. We've worked on trying to get You know, not registration of those types of vessels because they don't need to be registered, but they must have name and contact information on them. You know, in case somebody falls in, we're wondering whose boat that is or. uh you know we can contact the person and say that it's there illegally but yes you know enforcement is tough um you know just like on the roadways right uh you know i read a story the other day about a woman that that was in a fatal accident and and um she didn't have a license and had never had one um and she was 35 and and killed a police officer and his girlfriend on a motorcycle it's like people driving around with no license and no No insurance. It's horrible. So, yeah, in a perfect world, every boat going in would be, you know, well inspected. Sergeant Fitzgibbons, I know, does do random inspections where he'll pull people over and make sure that their flares are up to date and they have the requisite number of life jackets. And they can and have turned people around at the ramp and say, you're not going in like that. you know, for the safety of yourselves and all involved in the harbor. And fortunately, you know, Connecticut does have a safe boater course that you have to take to be able to operate in there, you know, with a Connecticut driver's license doesn't do it for you. But unfortunately, we're so close to New York and New York does not have uh, a comparable, um, need or comparable certificate, um, that is mandatory. So you can just go rent a boat with a New York state driver's license and, you know, and all of a sudden you're captain of your ship. Uh, the trouble with that is, is, you know, you get to a fender bender and, and you get out and you talk to the person, you get into a fender bender and a boat and it sinks. Um, so, uh, You know, education and preparedness is huge on the water. And, you know, a responsible boat owner is not going out in their boat unless they have everything nailed down. And someone who's irresponsible, ultimately, you know, things kick up out there. They're going to be tested.

Yeah. Well, I guess my last comment and I'll let it go. Well, I guess the model.

I feel like the motion on the table. I'm not here. I don't believe that's what we're talking about. We're talking about exercising funds against the study.

Yep. I'm going to stay in order. Let's let's try to keep the discussion. Let's keep the discussion to the merits of the appropriation for the feasibility study.

We can. OK. OK. But my understanding with the feasibility. Fusibility study was for emergency boat ramp. But if you look at the document, it's not a feasible study for emergency boat ramp. It is for a ramp that included a boat facility, included parking, additional vehicles, trailer assets. So it's beyond what the title of the grant was. So when you read it, it goes way beyond just a feasible study. But I guess somebody has a chance to come back, but if you go, if you go to the boat lawn feedable study next step, You would see that in it. It goes way beyond just emergency.

Well, so that, that would be, that would be the, you know, the, the requisite supporting structures that go with a boat ramp. Right. So it's not just a ramp going into the water. You need, you need a spot to turn around so that the trailers can back in and you need a a dock to tie your boat up to as you're, you know, pulling the trailer out. And, you know, if the kayak racks and, you know, just depending on the space. And that's what this is all about is, you know, question one is, can we get through the barrier? Is it actually doable there? And what would it look like? And then we have to go to, you know, deep permitting as well as city permitting, and the build and all of that. And then, you know, so these are just steps down the line. So this is really more about doing our homework now that we've zeroed in in phase one on a site that we're interested in. This is about, is that interest, you know, it's going on a first date with it to figure out if its profile is true or not. Terry, anything else?

I yield the floor. I think me and him are on the same page, but somebody else is out. I mean, don't think that's relevant to the subject, but it is. But thank you. I yield the floor.

Thank you, Terry. Representative Hughes, you have the floor. Ryan?

Can you hear me? Oh, thank you, Chair. To Terry's point, I guess I'm trying to understand the footprint of what the study will be looking at. I guess, is it looking at just the ramp itself on the harbor's edge, the water's edge, or is it more looking, like Terry said, at the feasibility of a new parking lot, a new structure for a boathouse? You know, how many acres is this potentially gonna take up from the park?

Is this relevant for this feasibility study?

Or are we going down the same road that we went with Terry Adams with Representative Adams? Representative Hughes, is your question about the overall scope of what might end up being built if the feasibility study is in place?

Yes. For example, is it feasible in this location because of the size? Is that feasible?

That's why we're doing the feasibility study, to answer those questions. To develop that plan, you know, if we find out we can't get through the barrier.

So then are you looking at the feasibility of just a boat ramp or additional structure next to it?

So again, it's supporting structures, right? I can't just put a boat ramp there and no way to get to it. So we are looking at a feasibility study of the boat ramp and supporting structures. And question one is, can we get through the barrier? Question two is, what does the footprint look like? Question three is, is there enough room there for the support structures to be able to provide the access that is necessary, right? There's sort of a best practices when it comes to building a boat ramp. You know, can that site support that? And if the answer to any of those questions is no, then we drop this site and we go back to the drawing board.

Okay, thank you for that answer. And I'll just ask one more. So would this study look at how much parking would be required of the boat ramp?

Yes, I think this would all be a part of the, you know, answering questions so that when we went for design and permitting, we would have all of that stuff nailed down. You know, at which point we have, you know, zoning board approvals and we have public hearings and all kinds of stuff that go into that. But that's that's several steps down the road. What we're looking for right now is just to be able to use our funds that are dedicated and set aside for water-dependent use to study this property further to see if this would be a good fit there.

Thank you. And is there any element of a traffic study with this feasibility study?

I think that would be a part of it is understanding the – understanding what this would do traffic-wise. That can be self-limiting as well. We can certainly sell permits at a lower rate. There's ways around that. And keeping in mind that not everybody is going to come to that ramp on any given Sunday, right? There are two other ramps in town that can ease some of that flow. It could get very busy should a storm be coming and people start pulling their boats out. But that would be, you know, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

Thank you. I yield, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Representative Graham, you have the floor.

Hi, thank you, Chair. I just want to piggyback off of what Representative Ryan Hughes said. It should be mandated to do a traffic study to go along with the feasibility study. Because as it stands right now, the only way to get into the park is through Dyke Lane or Elmcroft Road. And there is a very... A serious problem, whereas one vehicle can't even get down the road without having to stop and let another vehicle pass, not along a boat. So if you're talking about safety and you're talking about someone, you know, not having the right driver's license, killing a police officer on a bike, imagine. People, especially on Harbor Point, because right now they don't yield to traffic. So I can't imagine they would yield to a boat that's being pulled down Dyke Lane or a boat that's being pulled down Elmcroft. We have to think about the overall safety of the community, not just the water edge or traffic. how to park the vehicle in order to put the boat in the water. You have to think, how is the boat even going to get into the community? Right now, both streets are very narrow, and there's a lot of traffic. And to add that there's going to be at least 250 apartments being added to that community right on the corner, that makes it worse. that you're going to have to yield to traffic to get the boats in. Now, right now, if I want to park in front of my home and take groceries out the car, I can't double park. Nobody can get through the street without having to move over for traffic. So imagine a vessel trying to come down either part of the street. That should be mandated. that there is a traffic study to be done. And whether anybody questions or not, whether this is germane or it's definitely germane, because if you can't get the boat to the community, how are you going to get the boat to the water? And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Graham. Any other discussion on the item? Representative McEwen.

Thank you, Chair Morrison. Hi there, Chair Ortelli. Thank you so much for your attendance tonight. I appreciate your continued advocacy of yours and also the commission. I know a lot of time and effort has gone into this idea and this initiative. The couple of questions I had, or at least the preliminary question I had, is about the for water dependent use and that term largely comes from state statute come correct. So if you kind of speak to what that means in layman's terms, that'd be helpful.

Yeah, it's anything that helps the boating community and or the general public to utilize the waterfront and or waterways.

Got it. And I think I saw, and I forget the exact name, I think it was the coastal plan or vision goals or something to that effect that some of those uses could include maintaining and renovating and improving public beaches, waterfront parks, conserving and restoring natural coastal resources, tidal wetlands, shellfish resources, excuse me, resources, and maintaining shore protective services. Is that right?

Short protected structures. Yes.

Got it. Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. And some of the other projects, capital projects that might fall within that scope also include the renovations of the Cummings Marina. And I think recently there was a capital request for a boat purchase from the Harbor Commission. All of that would be examples of water dependent use?

Yes. Yeah.

Okay, that's that's helpful. So, I mean, I can imagine those are pretty wide reaching impact. So, um, on this project, can you kind of walk us through how the commission's determined that this is a high priority, for example, and in terms of timing, they wanted to pursue this project as opposed to some other capital projects that might be eligible for the funding.

Yeah, you know, I would say the cleaner boat that you spoke of just now was sort of item number two on our wish list. And it is a... We had one come and demoed it several years ago, and we felt like the health and safety component of this particular project was more important to focus on than any of the other downline items. There's also a question of the cleaner boat as to who would maintain it, who would run it. And we haven't been able to really nail that down. We're a group of volunteers and none of us really want to have to sign up for a shift to go out and skim the harbor from detritus, right? And, you know, as fun as that sounds, right? So there were impediments to that. And this one really, again, it all kind of goes back to that being on record that it is a significant problem. point of concern from our harbor master that, you know, we don't have that type of a service, that type of access. And then we have echoed that from, you know, I don't know if you've had a chance to read the deputy chief statement in the record, but he does a very good job of sort of drilling down on the safety concerns.

yes i did have a moment thank you for that background that i totally appreciate a group of volunteers it is is not an exciting idea to have to scrub down the boat so that that's totally understandable uh i know in the last time that this item came before this committee and the board um one of the rationales that supported the the feasibility study and the ultimate project was a desire to increase recreational access to the waterways the demand that the commission has found, is that based on any sort of community engagement or public hearing?

You know, I think as so. So each one of the harbor commissioners represent the major boating houses, Stanford Yacht Club, Ponus Yacht Club, Halloween Yacht Club, City Marinas. And then we have an environmental seat. And then we also have a member at large. And so I would say, you know, we are kind of the local experts that we distill down what's out there and, you know, use that to judge, you know, what's going on in the local environment. And then we reflect upon our harbor management plan, which is an amalgam of city, state, and federal plans. law and and guidance that have come together into that plan um and we use that as our as our filter to to uh um to meter out those goals got it and i hear you so my understanding is that and based on what you said a number of the commissioners

come directly from the boating community at various yacht clubs. There's some conservation position and one or two at-large seats. And so it sounds like the boating community is well represented within the commission. Has there been any outreach potentially to the Parks and Rec Commission for the impact on the park or the neighborhoods that are affected outside of the boating community's voice that's largely represented on the commission?

No, but Kevin Murray was on the call in May, and he's the head of Parks and Rec, right? So he was here to help to shepherd this through your board, your committee, and I would suggest that that probably means that he would be for it.

That is helpful to know, and I hadn't realized that, so that's great. I'm very glad to hear that. It sounds like we haven't necessarily done the community aspect of it. It sounds like we do have support from the voting community. Obviously, of course, they benefit from it, so it's understandable that they would support it. I'm glad that Chair Murray is supportive, and I'm happy to hear that. And I would like to see some sort of you know, action to have determined whether or not this is supported by the community at large. And also considering the fact that there are a number of other projects that the commission has considered for which this is prioritized over that might impact those communities, I think it's important to get those opinions. I know that Representative Gilbride recently added to the legislative record, or at least emailed the committee, some information about the permit about 165 or so, do you anticipate a similar type of volume or do you anticipate an increase in the number of permits as a result of the launch?

That's a good question. I don't know as if we really have a good feel for that. I think there's probably only so many boaters in town and that number may not go up specifically because there is a launch down there. I think you may see a dispersal of people who Maybe you're on the west side that it's easier to put your boat in there as opposed to driving over to Japan or to Cummings. And I don't think... that we i don't think that we really know but you know i think as as the the good point well made that um representative and i'm i'm sorry i'm forgetting her last name but sheila made about the traffic study um you know i think that's something that we're looking to to to try to figure out right this is this is the the whole purpose of uh i'm sorry uh uh graham um representative graham um and, and Anyhow, that's what we're trying to figure out is what is the impact of this? What is the footprint? Can we build it? How does it affect the community? And keeping in mind, right, this is just a, you know, a design permitting and exploration. Should we go to, you know, full permit and look to build, we would be in front of public hearings and, you know, there would be open session. I also... Always, every month, allow for public input in my meeting. We do have, just as you guys do, we do have a time set aside that any member of the public can come and address our board and ask questions and have them answered. So we are... not looking to shove this down anybody's throat. We are trying to do this in as smart and thoughtful a way as possible. And, you know, we certainly will be tapping land use. Aaron McKenna is very good and is in favor of this project and helped us to write the grant for this. And, you know, and we'll be following those best practices and the, you know, the legal and righteous way to, make this a reality should we not trip over any of the many hurdles along that road.

Sure. And I'm glad to hear that public hearings are anticipated and that, of course, there's an opportunity in every meeting for the public to come and discuss. And I know that the commission has put a lot of thought behind this, and I appreciate it's certainly not being shoved down anybody's throat. I think that it is good practice and prudent to kind of engage the public prior to a feasibility study for the concept generally to see whether or not that support exists The difficulty I have, frankly, is largely centered around impact and priority for this particular project. As we discussed, there are a number of other projects that would fit within the qualifications of water dependent use for these funds. increase the number of voters in Stanford largely would see usage by about a little more than a tenth of 1% of Stanford's population, while acknowledging also the importance of the safety efforts. So that's largely where the difficulty I have in supporting the feasibility study for a project ultimately that I have difficulty with. I have additional questions, but for now,

Any other speakers? Representative Gilbride, go ahead.

Okay, perfect. Good evening, Chair, members of the fiscal committee. Clearly, I'm here to ask the committee to send the Cousinsville vote, park vote round feasibility study back to the full board of representatives so the entire board can vote on it again. We already reviewed and approved it once, failed, and since then, a significant amount of relevant information. Luckily, having Damien here to answer many questions has given us more wind. Thank you, Dr. Talley, for coming and giving us more information and for those that had a ton of questions. We reviewed the public safety aspect of this. I don't want to go over stuff that's already been reviewed, but clearly that's a ton of new information and I think it's important. I want to be clear about what's actually being asked for. It's for a feasibility study to complete site evaluation and preliminary design. A lot of the questions that are being asked and stuff that my fellow representative just said, will answer the questions for the public. So you can't really put the cart before the horse in a sense of let the public know. I love to let them know actual facts. I toured, as I said before, the park myself. I am 100 in agreement that the park needs funds. I've spoken to myself many hours with Director DeRubis, with Kevin Murray, and I'm committed to working with the city and with Representative Graham and Adams to obtain funds for this park. I will only support the program myself if it adds to the park and not takes away from the park. So I think that's a super important thing. that I've definitely learned from going through this process. Overall infrastructure improvements and expanding amenities for our future residents is essentially our responsibility and I really want everybody to think of that as a big picture thing. We're stewards of the harbor and the coastline and we have an obligation, and I said this before, under the public trust doctrine to protect the public's rights to access the lawns for recreation and safety. We spent a lot of time being concerned about large boats. As I've mentioned before, that can be limited by day passes, by monthly passes, by amount of people. We can also limit the size of the boats. That is not an issue. Right now, there's currently, on this yacht club, there's a ramp, and there are boats currently going down by plane. Um, so if they are complaints for that, and I think that's something that definitely needs, you know, the current boats that are going there, that definitely needs to go to Dr. Rotelli. Um, if, if a traffic study is, um, in fact needed, I think that's fantastic. I think that'll be super helpful. Um, Ellen Cross is definitely a narrow street, so I don't disagree with that. I could have done that myself. Um, typically when a light is shined on a project, the project gets more attention. That's what I'm aiming for here. I'm hoping, and this isn't, I can't say it's fact, but I'm hoping that when they do their study and they realize that there's potholes in the park, that some of their funds will help support the potholes in the park. Also, there hasn't been a lot of lights shined on the small craft. And I want to just repeat what Dr. Artelli said about kayak racks. The city does actually charge for kayak racks at West Beach. So it's not just large boats. It is smaller boats. It is kayaks. And that also hits all people of Stanford and people that can't afford the large boats or able to access the water that way as well. So I think that is everything. I think I didn't say this. I just, did I say that just to remind people or remind you guys tonight that we're just asking for the approval of grant funds for the feasibility study and harbor funds. It's for complete site evaluation and design. It's not to get the city build the ramp and it's not to um get approved for the city and pay for the program um you know there's still uh funding that i think dr artelli hasn't talked about that he's trying still grant funding that he's starting to um rotate for this project come after so even though it might be a little carp for the horse as well um i don't want anybody to assume that this is going to cost the city millions of dollars because i've actually heard that in some If it does, then we don't do it. But please don't think five steps ahead and say no tonight because of something that's gonna happen later. Just in mind, is the study still worth it again? And I think that'll stop.

Thank you. Thank you, Representative. Discussion? Representative Goldberg, go ahead. So I just have a quick question about the source of funds. So I think before we walked in the room and we had some of the questions, I was in the impression that these funds were restricted to this kind of activity.

It sounds like that the funds

they could come to us and ask to spit it out. Is that correct? I guess I'm asking you, Mr. Chair, but you can pick someone else to answer.

I'll start and then I'll go to, either Reverend McEwen or Reverend Gilroy, Connecticut General Statute 22A-93-16 defines water-dependent uses, and these monies are restricted to water-dependent uses. It says it means those uses in facilities which require direct access to or location in marine or tidal waters and which therefore cannot be located inland including but not limited to marinas, recreational and commercial fishing and boating facilities, fin fish, shellfish processing plants, waterfront dock and port facilities, shipyard, boat building, water-based recreational uses, navigation aids, bases, channels, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So it's restricted to water-dependent uses, and the study of a boat ramp falls under those auspices.

And am I correct that if once we spent it on a boat ramp study, and let's say that study came back and said, not such a great idea for this location. We don't have that $125,000 for some, I don't know, some oyster farm or something. I mean, it's, so it is the, so a lot of times, tell me if my thinking is right on this a lot of times we get grants and we get told you can only use this grant for that so you can either accept the money and go do what we want you to do or you can decline the money and you won't do that this is a little different because now we're like well we could spend 125 here or we could spend it on some other things so i think that's kind of a point of order the question would be are you So that's what I'm not clear on. What I was trying to figure out is where are we in the decision-making chain? Because I'm a little lost.

All right. These monies are in the account of the Harvard Commission. Right. Some of it is grant money. Some of it was money donated to it. Our vote tonight would only appropriate the money on the books so it could be spent on the expenses of the feasibility study. Now, the Harbor Commission can spend its money on this money on anything that falls under the definition of water-dependent uses.

So I'm still confused why we're even in the decision chain. We simply approve the movement of the money so that they can spend their money.

I'm gonna go to Director Romano for a moment to extend.

This is a capital budget request, which requires plan board, board of finance, and board of reps approval. That's why it's in front of you.

And is it typically, Mr. Chairman, the habit of this board to concur with what The harbor commission wants to do in this case. I mean, it's, it sounds like it's their money. We're here as a. As a review function, but we shouldn't be second guessing them is that I wouldn't say it's a habit, but.

It's a reasonable opinion to say that as, as, as we are in this process. As we sit along the process of approval, approval, approval, we do have some evaluative role here. But it's a matter of any one individual representative can say, do I know more than the Harvard Commission? Have I spent as much time making part of the decision-making process that led us to this point or not? So that's each individual representative's perspective, and that's why we're having a discussion. I see Representative Weinberg, you had your hand up earlier and dropped it. Do you want to be recognized, sir?

Yes, thank you.

I'll go to you and I'll go back to Representative Adams.

Yeah, through you, a question for Dr. Ortelli, if I may. is so that the $125,000 basically has two sources. Half of it, 62,500, is from the harbor management's restricted account, which was largely funded by $350,000 fee in lieu of payment that you alluded to before.

correct is that correct correct yeah right we we have additional accounts that are our you know sort of our general operating accounts um but but for this specific key restricted fund it comes out of that specific account right so so if the um so if the if the committee and then and and ultimately the board of reps

approves this appropriation, there's still most of the $350,000 from that fee and lieu payment remains for other water-dependent uses. It's not exhausting, that entire fee-on-loot payment.

It would be $290,000-some-odd-thousand.

Most of it still remains for other water-dependent uses. My second question is, the portion that's being matched, the $6,500 that would be the match, that's coming from DEEP, is that correct? It comes from the Connecticut Port Authority. From the Port Authority. And is it specifically a match for this feasibility study or for other purposes? Or could it be used for other purposes?

No, we had to fill out a grant application for this specific purpose. And if we don't get clearance to be able to do this specific project by mid-September, that money flushes back into the account, into their accounts.

Right.

And they will... there's another round of Port Authority grants and that money will be dispersed to other communities that have applied for it. Okay.

I have a point of order. Representative De La Cruz. Thank you, Chair Morrison. I would like some judgment on the parliamentarian because we are now drifting into areas of how the Harvard Commission spends its money and what judgment it utilizes in doing that and choosing what to do. We never stray to those type of investigations. So I'm wondering if this line of discussion is appropriate Or should we just be focusing on whether we should do a feasibility study or not?

Thank you. If I may, Chair.

I have to rule on the point of order first.

Could I comment on it first or not?

I'm going to sustain the point of order.

Yes, on the point of order. Yes. May I comment on it? Go right ahead. Yeah. So the reason for my questions is really to follow up on the line of questioning that, you know, from Representative Goldberg, I wanted to clarify that the, you know, the idea of alternate uses, whatever they might be, and I'm not suggesting what they might be, but the idea that there's even an opportunity for alternate uses of these funds, only would apply to $62,500, not to, as I think was sounding like from Representative Goldberg's comments, the full $125,000. And in any case, there's still most of the $350,000 would remain. That's why I thought that this line of questioning was germane to the issue of the approval of the feasibility study.

Yes, it's a 50% match. And for whatever it's worth, the Board of Finance approved this prior to the May round of Board of Finance activity.

Nevertheless, I think the line of inquiry is out of order and perhaps the parliamentarian can rule on that.

I've sustained your point of order, Representative. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Anything else, Representative Weinberg?

Yes.

Go right ahead.

So I, of course, am only an ex officio member of this committee and don't have a vote at this level. But if I did, I would be voting in favor of this appropriation. And I'll tell you, the way I think of it is I think that if we approve this appropriation, we are spending $62,500 of the money in the Harbor Management Fund for water-dependent for water-dependent uses, we would be in essence spending $62,500 on an option to build a boat ramp at this location. Maybe we would be, and $62,500 would be the maximum price of this, cost of this option It could very well prove to be less if the preliminary questions that are investigated turn out to tell us that this location is unfeasible. As I understand it, the way the feasibility study will unfold is that initially it will examine, it will try to answer the question of whether the, you know, building a boat ramp here would create environmental, unacceptable environmental risks due to permeating the barrier, the landfill barrier. If that's the case, then the study is over. The feasibility study is over. The conclusion is that it can't, that this won't work, and far less than $62,500 of the Harbor Management Commission's fund has been spent. We'll then move to another question. What might be the next question? a suitable place to tie up boats would be built? Again, the answer is no, then game, set, match is over. And then to the space for maneuvering the vehicles and so forth and so on. So to me, spending 62, spending a maximum of 62,500 to determine whether this is even feasible in this location is money well spent. And that's why if I had a vote at this level, I would be voting in favor. Thank you, I yield.

Thank you. I'm going to go to Representative Adams, then Representative Walston for the first time, and then back to Representative McEwen. Terry?

Yes. I guess I want to piggyback on something that McEwen said. I just hope that going forward that anybody putting a boat ramp in any district in the city of Stanford, that they be working with the representative in that district. appropriately so they can let the community know that just coming about and and i want to remind you guys we had something like this came from the state up in high ridge there was a bike trail to connect all the community up past arianne when when that community heard about that It didn't even accept their appropriation because they didn't want to do that neighborhood. So I'm thinking that every neighborhood should have that same ability to react in the way they want to. I mean, we're in a neighborhood that we got 12,000 to 15,000 new residents in the South End. So when somebody come to our neighborhood, I would prefer that they try to work with it. I mean, you can be the Shell Commission, the Boat Commission. I think it would be appropriate to reach out and work with the community. I mean, if I look at the document, it was a toss between Sesame Arena and the South End. If it was going in Japan, I would look for them to work with Japan and see what their appetite to receive more traffic, more boats in their neighborhood and see how they affect. Because I remember when Martin got elected, that was the big conversation with BLT when they wanted to put a boat slide over there. They didn't take that that good. So... The 62,000 aside, work with the community that you're going to be putting the structure in before it comes to hand. And I yield. But just remember the bike trail that was in the wool by the merit. That community did not want it, did not accept the grant, not one dime of it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Thank you, Terry. Representative Walston.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

I just have one question tonight and I want to say good evening to my fellow reps and visitors. And my question is, did the harbor management consult or work with Parks and Rec regarding this study or this initiative or anything?

Dr. Rotelli, let's do a quick answer on that because I don't want to stray too far from the scope of the study itself.

Sure. As I mentioned before, Kevin Murray was here in May helping to brief you guys on this particular application. And he is the head of Parks and Rec for the city. So yes.

Okay. Well, I'm an ex-officio member too, and I will be voting no for this initiative. I just wanted to get that on the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Representative McEwen. Thank you, Chairman Morrison.

So there have been some comments made as to the germaneness in considering the opportunity cost with respect to these funds and also the underlying project. And I would argue that both of them are germane here, largely because we don't decide, and this committee doesn't decide, to consider all stakeholders when we voice our decisions. And being part of the process, and by that I mean part of the approval process, our input in that is directly relevant. We know that there has been input from the voting community because it's represented in the commission. We know that there has been input from the Parks and Rec Commission because the chairman has voice that support. We don't know yet necessarily if the greater public is supportive of the initiative and I think that's a critical step in determining whether or not we spend 62.5 thousand of funds that could be used for other projects and I think that public input is in my opinion necessary and I don't think it is outside of the scope of what is germane to discuss that. I also would argue that there's important context when deciding feasibility studies. If, for example, we knew, which we do not, that this project was minimally going to cost $30 million, that would provide important context as to whether or not we support a feasibility study. If we knew definitively that project was less than $500,000, that would be important context as to whether or not we support a feasibility study, one of which is a lot easier. even deeper consideration. We don't know where we fall here. I would imagine we're far away from $30 million. Very far away. That being said, we still don't know. And that is why I think the underlying project and talking about it and talking about potential cost is relevant directly to whether or not we even engage in a feasibility study for a not insubstantial amount of money. $62,000 or $62,500 is small to some, but it is substantial to many. And so my question through to Chairman Ortelli, at the August meeting of the commission, I know there was a conversation about the fact that there hasn't been necessarily a firming of where the funds to support the ultimate project might come from. Do you know if that's still the case as of today? I don't know if there's any developments there, if you could speak to that or if that's still something the commission is actively pursuing.

Well, you know, again, cart before the horse. We don't have any really even rough estimate as to what work would be involved in making this. So we can't really put a number to start to determine where funds would come from. But you go back to the May meeting and the item on your agenda just before ours was an identical amount of money, $125,000. that was not a matched grant that the city was paying for not out of a dedicated fund, but just out of the general fund for dredge testing for the Cummings Basin. And that dredge testing is just to take some samples to determine what kind of feasibility it would be to dredge the Cummings Basin in preparation for the rebuild of Cummings Marina. There was not a single question from this board nor from the full board of reps. The city paid in full for it. And that project will line up to be somewhere in the order of five to $10 million to do that dredge. And nobody asked a question about it.

Sure. I don't disagree with you whatsoever. That being said, If we're making points of order on germaneness, I would say that whether or not the committee has approached a different project in a different way is specifically not germane. That being said, I think that the ultimate cost, like we said, will be firmed up by a study, sure, but not having any idea what it is now and today, and also not having any potential source of funding, I would suggest that there's a substantially high likelihood that that would impact taxpayers. That also being said, as the commission has already highlighted, one potential use of this fund is, for example, maintaining, renovating, and improving waterfront parks, which would include the park that is the subject of the study. So some of the really needed renovations that Representative Gill could be achieved through use of these restricted funds. 62.5 thousand of which probably could do substantial work in that park, or at the very least, a meaningful amount.

We have an estimate on some of that work and it's over $2 million.

That's helpful to know. 350,000 of which can certainly be towards that, which would have larger impact than a boat launch, which, as you said, may not increase the number of boaters in the city, which sits at a usage at around 10% of 1% of the Stanford population. And my final question is, I know that the grant of these funds to the Harbor Commission was predicated upon or conditioned upon the zoning board's factual determination that whatever proposed expenditure comes from the Harbor Commission does in fact qualify as water-dependent use. And that's written in the resolution that moved these funds to the Harbor Commission. Do you know if that approval has been granted today?

Are you asking specifically if the zoning board has approved the use of these funds for that project?

Specifically if they found that it is a water dependent use.

I would say that a boat ramp is a definitive water dependent use. And I don't think the zoning board or land use department would have any problem suggesting that that were true.

Fair enough, but I know that the condition of these grants specifically requires their factual determination in consultation with the Harvard Management Commission. So I'm sure that they would obviously take your opinion in consideration there. Though, Chair Morrison, I know that typically the practice of this committee has been to hold items where outside boards prior votes usually inform ours. For example, there were a number of items at the beginning of the agenda where the board of finance did not rule on an item. And as a result, last month they were kicked to this month's meeting in a hope to get that ruling. And so I would encourage this committee to consider that precedent and consider the fact that there is explicit language in the grant that states the zoning board made a factual determination to see whether or not this is a water-dependent use and bypass that would be an explicit disregard of that. Anyone with that?

Point of information.

Point of information, President Shaw.

Thank you, Chair Morrison. Through you to Representative McEwen, could he point where that requirement is? The reason I ask is since this is a capital item, it usually the planning board approves and I did see a letter from the planning board approving it. And I also saw another legislative item where the zoning board generally approved the $350,000 allocation. So I'm just wondering where specifically it says that there is another requirement to approve the money specifically for the water, the boat ramp.

Yes, please. Thank you, Chair Morrison.

President Shaw, that one is located in two places. One is in a file that was uploaded by Representative Gilbride titled, Release of Escrow to Harvard and American Documents. Excuse me. The very last page of which is a letter that states, this letter is to inform you that the zoning board at their regular meeting held on Monday, March 3rd, unanimously approved the motion to transfer the entire balance from the existing escrow account related to the escrow agreement dated September, excuse me, September 11th, 2019 and placed in the Harbor Management Fund as a restricted balance to only be used for water dependent uses as determined by the zoning board in consultation with the Harbor Management Commission. The minutes of that meeting have also been uploaded that largely state the same effect.

Okay, that's the document I was seeing. So, but my assumption was that that was them giving it the approval for it. Is that not right? Is there something else that they need to do further?

I would interpret that language to say that it is to be used for water-dependent uses as determined by the zoning board. It's not saying that the zoning board has determined that all such things are water-dependent uses. It says there's in plain language, in my opinion, that it will only be used for water-dependent uses as such as determined by the zoning board.

I'm going to yield. I think Chair Ortelli maybe want to speak on it. So I'm just, thank you for the clarification, though, Representative McEwen. But I did see the document, but thank you.

Okay, let's go to Dr. Ortelli. Dr. Ortelli, can you yield? I want to call on Representative Weinberg first, or do you have the immediate answer?

I can answer, but this is your meeting, so I'm happy to yield if that is what the Chair desires.

All right, Dr. Ortelli, why don't you give us your answer first, then I'll go to Representative Weinberg.

Sure. So the way we understand this is that it's a stepwise approach. We're looking for you guys basically to approve our credit limit increase on our credit cards so that we can go and use the money that we have in the bank. And before we go and spend that money, we will make sure. that the zoning board is comfortable with that and they have ultimate final control on it because ultimately they were the ones that signed the final permit for the fee in lieu and that's why they get secondary or they get final control. But that comes after us going through this process that allows us to then send out RFP, get responses to that proposal, have a budget, whether it's 62.5 of our money or 60,000 or 55,005. And then the Port Authority match would mirror that. And at which point we would bring that to the zoning board and say, okay, Here's what we're looking to disperse from this. And here is what it is. Can you agree that that's a water dependent use? Okay, great. We'd like to release those funds and that's how we proceed with the zoning board control.

And this has been your practice going back.

We've never done this before. Prior to this, the Port Authority grants were always 100%. And land use were the ones that applied for it. When it went to 50%, we stepped up and said the city has a need for this. And rather than let the land use office be the applicant on this, we said we'll do it because we've got some funds that we can use to take care of this step in the process.

President Shaw, does that partially, if not fully, address your question?

Yes, it did. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Representative Weinberg, you have the floor.

Thank you. So I spoke to David Stein, who's the chair of the Zoning Board, as we all know, to explain the resolution in the March 3rd, 2025 Zoning Board minutes that authorized a transfer of $350,000 into the Harbor Management Fund as a restricted fund balance, this is reading from the resolution, to only be utilized for water dependent uses as determined by the zoning board in consultation with the Harbor Management Commission. So here was his response, which he permitted me to read tonight to the fiscal committee. The appropriation for the feasibility study requires zoning board approval, which has not yet been given. Zoning board approval can occur after Board of Reps approval. Board of Reps approval should specify that it is subject to subsequent approval by the Zoning Board. And pursuant to the resolution in the minutes of the March 3rd, 2025 meeting of the Zoning Board, as Dr. Ortelli pointed out, no funds can be dispersed until Zoning Board approval has taken place. So it's clear, I think from David's, from what David allowed me to read, that this board does not need to wait for zoning board confirmation that this is a water-dependent use before this board makes a decision on whether or not to move forward with this feasibility study. With that, I yield.

Thank you, Representative.

and what's already happened. I'm sure we can sort out the details later. I think what we want to be careful of doing in this case is I don't like this language, but I can't think of another way to express this right now. We don't want to weaponize the process to stop something that it feels like there's a lot of room to apply. I just don't see that as being a good look in this data. It's 940, we've talked about this a lot. I would urge my colleagues to move to a vote sooner rather than later on. Thank you. Representative Gilbride.

I spoke to Benita as well today and she echoed what Dean Stein said.

Okay. Any additional discussion? Okay. Seeing none. All those in favor of approving item 12, let's try this by voice vote, please. I'm sorry. Let's try this by roll call vote, please. Representative Chair Morrison?

Yes.

I'm next, I'm yes. Representative Bouchard? Yes.

Representative De La Cruz? Yes. Representative Goldberg. Sure.

I'm taking that as a yes with such character. Representative Brown.

No. No. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, we hear you. Yes, we hear you. One voice, please.

Representative Johnson. Yes. Representative Lapine. Yes.

Okay. That vote passes 7-0-1. Okay, thank you to all of our guests. Thank you, Dr. Ortelli, for your time on this final item. Thank you to all of our representatives. Thank you, everybody. And with that, we are finished with our business this evening. The official is adjourned at 9.41 p.m. Thank you, everyone.

Good night, everyone.

Good night, Virgil.