Harbor Management & Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

intermission there, or brief interruption there. It is Tuesday, August 18th, 2026. It's 6.32 in the PM. I am Dr. Damian Ortelli, presiding as chair over the Stanford Harbor Management and Shellfish Commission meeting. We have a full membership in attendance, excepting Commissioner Hollander, and I believe Commissioner Malerba. I have yet to see him. Otherwise, all are present. I do not see our harbor master or deputy harbor master. Hopefully one of them, one or both of them will be along. Jeff Steadman, our consultant, is here. And Maria Vasquez-Goncalves, of course, is here. Otherwise, we have various members of our shellfish subcommittee and Frank Fideli as our special assistant. So thank you all for your attendance tonight. Let's review and approve the previous meeting minutes.

Make a motion to accept the minutes as submitted.

Second. Thank you. Any discussion?

Mr. Chairman? Yeah. If I could propose a couple of edits. Okay. Under Harbormaster, Harbormaster Greenman was not in attendance. So if we could edit that to Harbormaster Greenman relayed safety issues. Okay.

Maria, are you copying this?

Yes, I am.

Okay. Second, under safety committee um two things please one is uh we attached the either the minutes or the report it was not an agenda so that would be um under safety committee okay and the shmsc voted unanimously unanimously to make a statement of commendation for firefighter and he's a a firefighter steve walsh he's not a dispatcher okay re copy

yes i'm just trying to locate it in the minutes but yes and you have carol gilbride who's joining us now great and that's it mr chairman okay thank you so we have uh emotions been seconded um and we have a few uh edits um any other discussion on approving the minutes from the july meeting hearing none we'll put it to vote all in favor raise your hand and say aye Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And I want to address you on item B, the Port Authority Grant, Port of Reps Update. And would like to acknowledge Representative Gilbride's presence and her significant amount of work that she has put in to helping us with our journey here on this Port Authority Grant. As you all, I'm sure, recall, we were awarded the Port Authority grant for phase two of the boat ramp study. And we got ourselves through the planning board, onto the board of reps fiscal, and then onto the full board of reps. And we did pretty well with it until we got to the full board of reps. at which point it failed pretty miserably in the full body. With Cara's help, we have changed some hearts and minds and gone back to the steering committee just recently, and we were approved after some amount of discussion. We were approved to go back through the cycle again. And again, crediting Representative Gilbride with a significant amount of work that she did to line all the things up and help to understand our position where we were and some of the things that went wrong. And so I'd like to acknowledge her. She's here tonight to get to know us a little bit better. sort of understand where we are. So I'd like to invite her to say hello, introduce herself, and then, you know, speak, ask any questions of us that she'd like to know.

Thank you, Damien. Can you hear me?

Yeah, we got you. Yes.

It's a miracle. At least technology works every once in a while. So hi, guys. I am Representative Gilbride. This is my second term. Board of Reps, I am in the 11th district. And I apparently am now becoming a little bit of an expert on the history of the waterways in Stanford, thanks to this. You caught me at a good time where I wasn't busy and was able to really deep dive into this with Damien's help, of course. Originally got involved because I felt it was unfair right away that you guys did not really have the understanding with the full board of what you guys do, what your mission is, and the fact that you're really trying to help the city. There's obviously some concerns that were not addressed sometimes with the board. Sadly, people don't become interested in a subject until it's already at the board and they don't get the full process. We've spoken, Damian and I, and Damian and I separately and together, to a lot of people so far, just about what you guys are trying to do, your overall goals, and then, of course, the goal with adding an additional boat ramp for the use of the city and the public. I have added a ton of materials to the legislative record. Damien can show that to you. If you have anything that is not in there that you think is important for me to share with my peers, please let me know. I've studied the history of brewers as much as I could. I met with Sue Alpern today. Oh, Harriet, I think I want some of that dinner over there. That's looking good. I met with Sue and she was fantastic. And she lives on Elmcroft and she really gave me some insight into the needs and the requests of the residents for K Park in general. So on a big picture, of course, you know, we want access to the waterways for all, for the public. We want people to be able to boat and walk and hike and, kayak. And we also want to make sure that the local residents are getting their questions answered and that it's not interrupting their life. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm just trying to learn as much as I can and make sure that I'm getting both angles. As I've said before, you know, I'm all about facts and solutions. As I said before, to other people around. So, you know, I'm trying to gather facts from you guys and then I'm trying to get any solutions to any concerns they have. The feasibility study will hopefully answer a lot of questions that are still outstanding and we'll be able to move forward. I think a lot of questions I've gotten is why that location. So I think that's something that I still need to, you know, we maybe need to tell the history. I said to Damien today, you guys have a really special job in the sense that you guys are preserving the waterways for, you know, generations to come. So I thank you guys for that. And I hope that that goal is something that we can achieve. just really be ambassadors you know i say we but you know we working together can be ambassadors for um the waterways for everybody because there's people that aren't even born that you know don't even realize that they want to get on a boat or a kayak and swim away so that being said um i have literally no other goal than to Learn about what you guys are doing and hopefully be a intermediator or intermediary between the two groups. So if there's anything you need from me or ask of me or anything you think I should know or anything, we can make sure that we tell the group. As Damien said, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had all this to say. On Monday is the fiscal committee meeting where you guys are, Damien will present and the fiscal committee will vote to pass it on or not to the September agenda, in which case the full board would vote again. So we've got about eight or nine people. Hi, Yale. Thank you for your letter. We've got eight or nine people on the fiscal committee that will be voting. And then we have to get a majority of the 40 people. I think it's present in voting out of 40 in the board of reps in order to pass this again. So that would be 21 if all 40 are attending. So once again, step one is to get through fiscal. And then the next step will be to get it to the board of reps on the floor and hopefully get a change of heart. So we don't need too much information in one spitter.

We're hoping that fiscal shouldn't be a problem because we passed through there before and they didn't have a problem. What we ran into at steering were the opposition felt like it shouldn't get a second bite at the apple. And that did not carry. So we won 10-4 there. Or they voted 10-4 in favor of us voting. coming back through again, based on new information. We should also acknowledge Yale, of course, as Representative Gilbride just did for his letter of support. We also should recognize Sergeant Fitzgibbons. Thank you very much for your letter of support. And then also Deputy Chief, what's his last name? Blank.

Oh my gosh, I am too now. It's not used, is it?

Public safety? Is Chief Hayes?

Yeah, Kevin was one.

Thank you, Deputy Chief Hayes, for his support and being able to bring all three prongs of the first responders on the water together in favor of the application, I think, as well as Representative Gilbride's wonderful steering at the helm of we were able to get the vote that we needed. Mike Pensiero, what's up?

Now, first of all, Representative Gilbride, thank you very much. I share in Chairman Ortelli's accolades that you are a tremendous asset for us up in front where we need it the most, it seems. My question, though, is a little bit more strategic in nature in the context of Do you feel that maybe the application that went before the Board of Reps was a little bit misunderstood, perhaps? What could we do to improve, I guess, is really what I would like to get to.

That's a good question. I think one of the biggest components is ensuring that the park is not going to be or benefits of the park is not going to be taken away. I think that's one important thing. I think that that is a park that has went from literally a landfill to a park beloved by many, many people. I think that with all the development down in Harbor Point right now, that is one of the few areas that you can go to walk a dog, to play baseball, to play at a playground, and most importantly, look at the water. You know, there's books all about just looking at the ocean just calms people right away. We did that walking path today and it's lovely and it needs so much attention and love. So I think that as long as you guys are adding to the park and helping support the park as a whole, I think we have a better chance of success because, you know, that's normal. Yeah.

think I think the opposition sort of uh maybe there was a couple of different buckets and and the first bucket was the you know perhaps the not in my backyard we don't need it we shouldn't be giving you know more money to to voters to rich voters um and and that was all just sort of misunderstood that we were taking away from the park to give to voters as opposed is restricted funds specifically for water-dependent use. There are some legitimate concerns about sort of traffic. I think we can probably mitigate that with you can sell a limited number of passes. There's also some concern about how do we actually pay for the uh, building of the ramp. Um, I think that's one that, you know, we're still sort of unsure about. And as we know, there's some technical stuff that we might be worried about, um, you know, including, uh, is the barrier there? Can we go through the barrier? And, and, and, you know, ultimately the answer to almost all of these questions is, well, that's why we're doing phase two, right. Is to get a really better understanding of, of, of, uh, the lay of the land. So to one of the questions that Representative Gilbride had, which is why did we choose this particular site, and explained to her that we had a tabletop study. And one of the questions was about why not the other side of the peninsula. And if memory serves me, we sort of nixed that very quickly. Jeff, would you chime in, and then Paul, we'll get you in just a second. Okay.

Maybe we should share the first phase of the study with the people, if that would be helpful, and the criteria that was used to exclude, if that's the right word, the other two sites that were looked at. But I think, Damian, you hit the nail on the head that the questions that are raised about the impact on the park, that's all part of the evaluation for this phase of the study. And one of the criteria is for establishing a boat ramp here would be a determination that it's not taking away, that that would be a basic criteria for the evaluation. And again, we haven't gone through that evaluation yet, and it may very well prove that this is not a feasible site. Of the sites that were looked at, I mean, we first, I think one of the considerations that we thought would be the most desirable site is over at Pukusi Park but that's already accounted for by Soundwaters. So this was really the only site that, after again looking at the photographs and going on, walking to these different areas that had the potential for additional evaluation. And that's what we would do now. But we can share the results of the previous, of the first phase. And in fact, that was the basic principle of the grant from the Port Authority. The first phase would be a tabletop exercise to see if there's anything that could be identified for more detailed evaluation. And that's where we are now.

And then the second piece, Paul, I'll get you just a second. The second piece is, you know, how does the city pay for it? And, you know, we can certainly look into and get creative. The, the BLT 850,000, I think it was for West program that was never delivered, you know, that might be able to pivot, you know, and certainly we, we have, you know, whatever the balance of the funds are, we can deploy. And, you know, and again, this is all stuff that's sort of thinking down the line, but these are the questions we're going to get at the board of reps is how to how to make this happen.

I'm sorry, one more time to interrupt, Damian, but as far as the construction funds, I use the example of Fairfield. And last year, Fairfield's state representatives went directly to the Bond Commission for allocation, I think it was a million dollars or so, if I remember correctly, to replace a public pier in Southport Harbor. So that was outside of the ship grant program. That was a i think it was an urban act fund i can't remember the name of it but but that was a uh you know a special purpose uh allocation by the bond commission if that's if that's what you call so there may be other sources of should be other sources of funds if this is a feasible location right right yeah i didn't i didn't realize that there was direct action like that um but yeah i mean that's that's how we answer the question right of course port authority

would kick in, but it seems like they're in a 50% match phase and we would need to source the remaining 50, whether we got a big borrow or steal, right? But this is, I tried to make this as clear as possible, in terms of the Harbor Commission's wishlist of all the last decade or so, this is number one on that list and has been for the duration since that list was generated. And let me give Paul some airspace here.

Go ahead, Paul. With all the discussion, so much of it was just now discussed about the recreational aspect of it. No one has brought up the safety aspect. It's so very, very important that we address the safety aspect and what it brings to the voting community where the only ramp now is in Westcott Cove and in any kind of emergency at all, it's prohibitively dangerous to be able to get a boat in distress, to go all the way around Stanford Harbor to get to Westcott Cove when there's no other place to get a boat out of the water that's in distress or to give aid WHERE SOMEONE NEEDS IT. SO I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD, I THINK IT JUST AS IMPORTANT IN SELLING THIS PROJECT IS TO INCLUDE THE SAFETY ASPECT OF IT, BESIDES THE RECREATIONAL THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

YEAH.

CAN I RESPOND, DAMIAN? YEAH. I THINK THAT THROUGH conversations now with the board members that that has shined as the strongest light of this um project so um even though you're 100 correct paul i think that um most of the reps are are realizing that that is true um And Damian was able to get, and I, I guess, letters from FIRE, from Yale, of course, and then also from police. So we were able to get letters of support from all three, and we put that in the legislative record. So you've hit the nail on the head with that one. As a very, very important piece of rather connection to the Stanford Harbor. The one thing if I can steer you guys in another concern, which I know, Damian, you know this already, but there's that whole component of. having to um potentially test the dirt um potentially to what's the word sorry um the hold on i'm sorry it was that thing that you guys have to complete i can't remember the name of it sorry uh the closure plan um so the closure plan is going to be a hurdle you know once you get the money um hopefully that you know that closure plan and in deep and all the other connections you guys are going to have to jump through um that might be stuff that's going to be questioned as well as you know testing the dirt as i said before so i think Go ahead.

Jeff's done some work on that already, as has Race Coastal, who did phase one.

Oh, awesome. Okay.

What was the, you had found nothing conclusive in the state library, right?

Again, could you repeat the question, Damian? We have a letter from the engineering department giving permission to proceed with this more detailed study, that the closure plan would not preclude doing this. Additional research that we need to do. I didn't conduct any research on the history of this in the state library. You're talking about the landfill and what may... Yeah, that's part of the closure plan, right? Yeah. All we wanted from the engineering department was the okay to go ahead with the application for this grant that was awarded by the Port Authority. We have not done any additional. I believe that that's part of this feasibility study that we would be doing. If there's anything associated with the closure plan or the landfill that would preclude us doing this or add to the cost. But again, we don't know the answers to that.

Do you recall back after the initial study came in, right? And we were talking to the folks at RACE and we were asking them, You know, OK, before we go into phase two, can you give us like at least a peek into this? And they had looked at the state library for or somebody had looked at the state library for it and they were unable to find it. But then I thought you had had some some kind of information on it.

My research in the State Library had to do with the municipal boundary, a completely different topic with Greenwich. As you're talking, I'm going into my list of documents to try to find that first report and the summary of it. I think, again, talking too much, but the simplest, that there was no reason that we could not proceed with this detailed evaluation. And we needed that. Also, Deep had asked us for that, too. Our concern was that if this is just, there's no way to proceed right at the beginning, then we wouldn't have applied for the grant for the additional evaluation. But we had the the support from engineering that there was no reason we couldn't proceed. There was nothing that would preclude it right at the beginning based on the closure plan.

There's a, Damian, can I respond just for a second? There's a letter dated January 20th, 2026 that's in our legislative record as well. That is, it looks, I don't know who it's directed to, but it basically says that the city is going to have to do additional survey and investigative work required to determine overall facility viability in this area. So initial feedback from D. So it talks about the closure plan in this letter. So maybe, Damian, you can take, you know, offline a deeper dive and maybe have a conversation with the city as well, just to make sure that that's being checked off.

Yeah. And the letter from... from Mr. Castillo was January 27th, 26. Let's see. Again, giving giving permission. Oh, yeah, I know what it is. It's that it's the DEP office. It has the funny acronym weed w e d. And we were asking for some sort of upfront finding from them that this was OK, you know, to move ahead and it was determined that we could move ahead with this evaluation. Without without at this time. OK. Yeah, we can pull all those letters together if that would be helpful.

Yeah. Yeah. Anything. Exactly. Anything that provides more information, um, would be, yeah, it would be definitely helpful. Um, I did add, you know, on the original go around, there were 10, um, actually Damien it's F 32.107 and the board of reps legislative record under the fiscal committee. Um, if any of you guys want to look to it's board of reps.com, I think, um, There was originally two during the first go around, two documents in there. And then I think I added it up to like 10 or 11. So I put gathered a lot of information. And I mean, I think that was very helpful. So thank you guys to have the in-depth phase one and phase two in that legislative record. I just think if you guys can see what's there already, you'll know what's missing. So you'll be able to help out with that.

The subgrade investigations, the soil test borings, the test pits, those would be executed in consultation with the deep weed, W-E-E-D site as part of this.

Okay, fair.

Waste Engineering and Enforcement Division. The acronym is WEED. That's awesome.

and and race race consulted with them throughout well not throughout but but uh uh the work they did in the in phase one i just dropped the f32107 in the chat um so that's a direct link to the board of reps to our our repository of the information that kara has loaded up for us

And Mike did also just make a great suggestion to reach out to your local reps as well. You know, there's the six that are responsible for the waterfront areas, but, you know, I have nothing to do with the waterfront and, you know, I'm passionate about, you know, preserving the waterfront and making more access, but also, you know, letting you guys spend your money on something that you guys think is important as well. So, yeah, definitely reach out to your reps as well as, you know, the reps that are waterfront reps and, you know, just answer any questions they have, you know, so that we can come into this vote next time far more educated. Okay.

there were questions as to where did the money come from some people thought that blt was funding it um as you can imagine that was unpopular um you know this is in fact deed restricted funds from the uh fee in lieu at 860 canal um that we've been holding on to three years um and uh um you know so If we could use it to help with the park trails and the blacktop and everything else that needs to be done there, I'm sure we'd be happy to do that. But unfortunately, we cannot because it is specifically for water-dependent use. And I think the big thing is the safety is the most acute, but followed very quickly thereafter by accessibility, right? Is water-dependent use accessibility? those go hand in hand so um any other questions uh or comments on this and and yes to mike's point uh reach out to your rep whether they're your rep or they're a friend of yours or they're a friend of your friend um and you know start picking their brains um as to how they're feeling on this and and putting the right information out there so that uh

these uh misunderstood that led to it failing on the first time are no longer misunderstood jeff you had your hand up again sorry to interrupt but you know also the scope of work we talked about being crafted in a way that maybe maybe we get halfway through this uh project and there's something that's exclusionary and we know we can't go forward so we may be able to uh make a decision that it's infeasible prior to spending all all of the money um and i think we have to that we we talked about that and and um you know the the key thing is and i think race had talked about that there were sort of checkpoints along and and we may get to one checkpoint and we find well this is exclusionary we can't go forward anymore so uh i think we have to craft the scope of work in in that way yeah yeah

That was Steve Sternberg, right? Yes.

And also the Port Authority has asked us, you know, and I talked with them about having a decision on this in September because the grant availability won't be forever. We have to at some point say whether we can accept the grant or not. And I think the Port Authority asked if we can at least give them a timeframe, because there's going to be another round of grants that's open in September. And the purpose of that was to use the money that wasn't allocated in the first round. So as soon as we know whether we can accept this or can't, and we mentioned that we would make a decision in September. But again, the availability of the grant won't be forever. We have to make a decision.

Yeah, well, we should know our fate on the 8th of September, accepting the board punting for some reason. But I have a feeling that this thing will go for a vote September 8th. So we should be able to give Port Authority that feedback. And then, of course, we'll have to go through the RFP process and then all of that. But at least we'll be in the game. Sam, go ahead.

Yeah, I think you may have answered it. I was wondering what the timing will be when this goes before the board of reps. And you said September?

Yes. So next hop is the...

When in September?

September 8th. 8th.

That doesn't give us much time. Yeah.

If all goes well... Yeah, sorry. If all goes well through fiscal on Monday, then they have the right to pass it off on the... september 8th meeting so there is a chance that it couldn't make it through fiscal and there is a chance that they would hold it for another month um but the goal would be to get all the pertinent information in the hands so that there is no um open questions on on the eighth that all the questions have been answered yeah so so we gotta move quickly here yeah Yeah, make those phone calls and, you know, see what's out there and advocate letters to, you know, email to the board of reps that this is something you guys would like to see get to the next step, because that will show the written support as well.

Yeah, so as I've asked for in the past, and if you guys can actually lean into writing a letter of support, and submitting it to the board of reps. It can be added to this repository of F32-107. And the more data that is there, the less, again, misunderstood that there will be. I know Sue Halpern has her hand up. And typically, we don't take questions from the public. But I think this is such an important Hal Hallstein, conversation i'd like to hear her viewpoint, because we want to make sure you know we're we're not missing any angles, so with the boards. Hal Hallstein, pleasure i'd like to allow her to speak anybody have an issue with that. Hal Hallstein, Okay, so.

Sue Halpern, Oh, thank you, thank you so much, my name is Sue halpern and I live on elmcroft road i've been down here 40 years, but I grew up in Stanford. And, you know, I've seen all the development go on around me. And I know a lot of you guys have been here a long time and are quite familiar with this whole boatyard situation and, you know, the landfill and everything else. But I just have two questions, if you don't mind, since you guys have the knowledge of this. Back in 2013 under Pavia, there was one deal that was made, and I know it's been changed, I'm sure, several times, that BLT was supposed to put in a kayak launch and a fishing pier along with fixing the trail at Kosciuszko Park. Now, I don't know whatever happened with that deal. I don't know if you have, do you guys remember that and whatever happened to that idea? Yeah.

uh we we love the idea um i don't i don't recall that i wasn't i wasn't on the commission or maybe i was no i came in at the end of pavia um yeah i can't remember anything dealing with a kayak uh up here i love the idea but um And I think, ultimately, that would be a part of the concept of the of the boat ramp would be to have some accessibility there so people aren't stashing. You know the the their kayaks in the bushes and it all be you know, like let's say we we go through concept phase two. And then we start to design. That would all go out for public comment and go through the whole process. So we'd be getting feedback from the neighborhood and, of course, welcoming anybody to give testimony. I can reach out to Director Blessing and find out. You said that was 2013? Yeah.

Yeah, there was an article actually in the Stanford Advocate back in 2013. I think if you just try and do a Google search on that, you'll probably find the information. It had to do with the boatyard, of course, during that time with Brewers Yacht Haven and all that jazz. And that was a kayak ramp and a fishing pier. A fishing pier. And they were going to fix the trails at Kosciuszko Park. And they were also going to pay for the dog pound, the new dog pound. That was part of that deal, too. I said, I know it's probably been changed. I don't know how many times.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, they are adept negotiators, shall we say. And we'll leave it at that. What was your second question, Sue? I'll look into that.

Yeah, thank you. And then, you know, I just, you know, how about that clawback agreement? You know, I was thinking that a good place to put the boat launch would be that 48, you know, the 14 acre site. Because years ago, back in the 70s, they did have that emergency vehicle that Star of Life that was there. Well, one season and I was wondering if that if that clawback agreement. I don't know. I think it's probably come up to the expiration date. If there's some way that maybe the city can negotiate something for the 14 acre site to put the boat launch there. Because there's much more parking, and it's secure, and there's lights, and it seems like a better spot. But that's just what I'm thinking.

I mean, I love it. That would be awesome, too. But I don't think that anybody has the political will that has the political power to enforce that clawback agreement. And as I said just a minute ago, BL&T, they are excellent negotiators. So I don't, you know, if we could snap our fingers and get the boat, you know, the water dependent use level on the 14 acres back to where it was, We would do that in a heartbeat. We fought that thing tooth and nail. And there were times where we were the only people in the entire city and state that were saying, no, this isn't right. And unfortunately, zoning had the votes. After we found it inconsistent, zoning had the votes to overtop us, and they approved it. despite Mayor Martin running on no boat yards, you know, that was the, you know, that was what we like to refer to as the original sin. And we've, you know, since We've had trouble even in more recent applications where if we found that that application was inconsistent, can we ever find something consistent in that space? And that's something that we're going to have to grapple with at some point when they finally bring forth whatever the final piece is there. Not that they have a lot of development rights to play with down there, Jeffri Boisvert- What was the most recent count, I think, when we looked at they were moving commercial rights off of the 14 acre site and into the into the bath house right. Jeffri Boisvert- Right, they have what was there, there was something like 75,000.

Right yeah I think it was about 75 or 80,000 they were. Transferring over to that property.

Jeffri Boisvert- know.

Jeffri Boisvert- So.

Got Jeff's got a big smile on his face. That means he's got something to say.

Okay. Again, but these are all questions that we're actually conducting some investigations into now, because back in 2013 was the allocations, the significant allocations from the, the state bond commission through the, at the request of the department of economic and community development for funds for remediation for the purpose of relocating the Bridgewater hedge fund headquarters there, which did not happen. So Mr. Fideli has done a good job and we're pursuing through freedom of information requests what happened to that money and what was it allocated, what was it spent. They didn't call it the transfer of development rights. The initial approval, going back to the Antares project, involved not transfer of development rights, but a development bonus in exchange for retaining the boatyard services there. They were given a development bonus for building 700 housing units elsewhere in the Harbor Point project. as well as a substantial amount of commercial space. So then, you know, the question is, know are there development rights still associated with with that property it's a very complicated uh matters as you can imagine and and at some point in in maybe the near future the harbor commission will be charged with again evaluating a development proposal for that for that property and then then you have the issue of of uh providing appropriate water dependent uses um But anyway, it's all, and that money that was to be provided for the reconstruction of the West Beach ramp, that in effect was, I guess you could call it mitigation funds for the relocation of the boat storage facilities. because when the boatyard was removed unlawfully, eventually they got approval to make it lawful, but the idea was that boats would be taken out of the water on the west side. the harbor and then trailered over to the east side to that McGee Avenue place. But then it was quickly determined that that was not a safe way to move boats through the train station parking lot. And then the argument was that, well, people could then take the boats and take them over to the West Beach ramp, remove them on trailers, and then store them at the McGee Avenue site. And as a result of that idea, BLT was going to provide funds for the improvement of the boat launching ramp there. So it's just all complex. It is. And again, to Mr. Fideli's credit, we're trying to pursue how all these were resolved because the allocation of those monies from the bond commission, the contract required progress reports and a final report of how those monies were spent. So I'm sorry to go on, but there's just so much and it's going to come back when there's a development plan presented for that big site.

I know it was so complicated. I really appreciate you guys. I know many of you have been there for years and years and are quite involved. So I really appreciate all your efforts. Thank you.

Thank you. And Sue, you certainly are an advocate as well. We're volunteers, but we're appointed. And there are days where you feel like even with the powers that are vested in us as harbor commissioners, we can barely move the needle. um and you know for you to be uh you know just a private citizen out there advocating uh you know it's uh it's a wonderful thing so thank you for what you do for the city uh for those of you that don't know who is who is very vocal and um you know and as always has her eyes and ears out and um knows who to who to talk to and you know every once in a while who to who to you know flick in the back of their ear i guess right

Yeah, maybe. That doesn't work. Thank you.

Yeah, sure. Russ, go ahead.

Yeah, just to reassure Sue that I know she'd mentioned the 14-acre site for the boat ramp, that she may not have been party to some of the last four or five years of discussion in search of a site for the boat ramp. To let Sue know that we had drilled down on seven potential sites. The 14-acre site seemed just so out of reach because of the political atmosphere. And of those seven sites, of the last three years, we identified four. And we came up with a weighted tally of what would be the most viable site. And we wound up with K-Park. So I just want you to realize, understand that K-Park was something that received many years of hard work and consideration just to get through phase one and now to phase two. So I'm sure it's true. I know you sit in on our meetings from time to time. But the K-Park site was not an afterthought. It required actually probably now going on five years of deliberation to even get to this intersection. And part of it is because that is viable and it may actually even come to pass with some luck.

Okay. And to Russ's point, if there were a perfect low barrier to entry site in Stanford Harbor, it would have been built already, right? That the city had access to. So at this point, we have a city marina at Cove. We have a city ramp at Cove. We have a city marina at Cummings or will be when it gets rebuilt. We have a city ramp in that lagoon. And I would say less than a third of our fleet uh boats is is in those two combined um and then we have uh you know an enormous amount of of infrastructure in the in the harbor proper and we don't have vote right including a city the the you know largest operating city marina um or maybe it's not larger now than cope now that's rebuilt but You know, it's a, it is the crown jewel of the city and it deserves the right fitting for all of those reasons we mentioned before, the safety, accessibility, and, you know, if you guys go into that board of reps repository, um take a look at the letters of support that sarge and and deputy chief as well as harbor master freeman uh put on put in uh you know we're kind enough to submit uh you know and most of them uh you know in very short order um and and that's with the approval of their uplines um in the case of uh you know

believe in the case of Sarge as well as, and I know in the case of Deputy Chief Hayes.

So anyhow, any other topics of discussion on this? I can't stress, and of course we've taken up a good chunk of time, I can't stress enough how important this is. And this has been really the main thrust of what I've been working on the last, what, How long has it been, Kara? Six weeks now that we've been talking several times a week? Something like that. Yeah, you're muted.

Sorry. I think it was June 1st of the original vote before I felt the need to get involved. Yeah, June 1st. So... You know, we're very lucky it's come around again. You know, we're very lucky that the board is willing to do this. It's not something we've done it plenty of times before, but it's not something we take lightly. So I think that that speaks to the fact that people are curious and want to, you know, are willing to give it another look. So once again, you know, keep showing the support because just because you want it, you know, doesn't mean you're going to get it if you don't say anything.

Yeah, okay. Anybody else have a comment on item B? All right, we'll swing back to A, which is closely aligned with this, but the Shellfish Commission Charter Ordinance was approved Monday, August 3rd by the Board of Reps. It is now sitting in, so my agenda is a little bit off, but it is now sitting in Next Steps, which is the public hearing. on matter and then the final vote, which should happen, I think it's slated for that same September 8th meeting. And so I've changed everything over to Stanford Harbor Management and Shellfish Commission instead of Stanford Harbor Management and Shellfish Management Commission. And that matches state statute or state, not statute, but state terminology. So we're in compliance with the legalese. But I did end up at a board of reps meeting on this and did have some questions asked. And this one seems like it's a lot more likely to cruise on through in the ways that we are used to when things go in front of the board of reps. So it should be relatively drama-free. um and then item c on uh my report is on september 22nd at 5 00 p.m is a proposed meeting date time with major stakeholders at army at acoe for the um barricade the the closure um we have uh of course uh rubino and um and ong uh are aware and they have uh submitted impact letters, which I have run up the chain to the Army Corps of Engineer folks and the entirety of the city brass that are working on this. And we've reached out to, with a thanks to Bill Hennessy, giving us the contact of the folks at Sea Streak, reached out to them to try to rope them in. I haven't gotten any response from them yet, You know, they may be formulating a plan or maybe this didn't work out this year and they're not coming back. I don't know. But, you know, of course, they'll be affected.

And so, you know, there are other major stakeholders that we can think of.

I know there was a list that went around and there were some some outfits on there that I actually wasn't familiar with. And while I look for that list, Frank, why don't you you had a question, Frank?

Yeah, to add what you're saying, I contacted Lou Costolo and told him about our concerns about the closure, gave him a heads up as to when it would happen. And we talked about it for a little while. And then to kind of close the circle, he passed that on to the interim traffic director, Thomas Turk. And they're all, you know, they're all ready and set to go. And so he just passed on what I wrote to him to every city agency EPB that would be involved and perhaps we could get them at the table at this September 22nd meeting.

I just dropped into the chat the list that this is the list that Army Corps provided, and these are the folks that they will notify of closure. And I'm not, you know, some of these I'm not familiar with. Sims Metal Management, Buchanan Marine, obviously we know. Because they're the tow operators, Tiki Tours, Soundwaters, Village of Wheels, Starpoint Marina, Stanford Iron and Metal. Rubino Brothers, obviously, O&G. Then I added C Street to it. But Jeff, do you want to give us a rundown? I know you had some conversations today. with some folks at DEEP. Since we're here, let's do the update on the barrier closure.

Just a couple of things. In Southport today, one of the Corps of Engineers environmental officers who's involved with the hurricane barrier project, who I've known for a long time, was present. And we had a a chance to talk. And as we talked about last week or last month, DEEP has changed its approach to this. They are going to require a federal coastal consistency review and what's known as a water quality certification. So those require applications from the Corps of Engineers. And Mr. Randall, who I talked with today, said that they expect to submit those applications to DEEP at the beginning of September. And then there'll be a period of time for DEEP to review those, and then we'll put a public notice out looking for public comments. And so the schedule that they're looking at is that that public notice by DEEP requesting public comments will be published after they have this September 22nd meeting. so that they'll be able to tell the people attending that meeting what to expect in terms of making comments into the deep decision. But the bottom line is that the work is going to be done and there's going to be adverse impacts. And when we talked about whether there's a provision for the federal government to provide some sort of mitigation of those impacts, the answer that I received was no. So as we know, they've scheduled the closure during the time of the year when there's the statistical chance of closing the gate to respond to a big storm is less. The Corps is not going to prepare an environmental impact assessment of this. And they're going to prepare a what he called a cat X memo, a categorical exclusion memo of why they're not preparing the environmental assessment. And the reason is, is because they don't believe that there are going to be any significant environmental impacts. The only adverse impacts significant to expect are economic and socioeconomic impacts and if those are the only impacts there there's a way to exclude their having to do an environmental assessment which is which is sort of interesting but there will be a an opportunity for public comments uh on the the the applications to deep and i and i hope uh the the harbor yale is not upset with me because i volunteered the harbormaster boat if anyone from the corps of engineers would like to come down before the 22nd meeting and and and go out on the water to look at the hurricane barrier and mr randall said that they may take us up on that because there have been some people at the corps of engineers who have been now added to this hurricane barrier project team I also asked if he had any contact with Congressman Hines' office about this, and he said no, but they expected that they would because they were sure that the Congressman's office would be contacted with concerns about the impacts. So I don't know how to proceed other than that we're going to have to review this, but I don't know how to mitigate the impacts on the closures or the closure impacts. And we also talked about, as O and G is talking, if they're not able to use the east branch, they're going to most likely have to truck materials to and from their West Branch site. And then that has a substantial impact on the city streets. So it's a big project. They're not going to not do it. And how it gets planned to reduce and avoid these impacts, I still don't know.

Yeah, Rich is on the call. Rich, do you have, you guys have any additional questions concept of a plan for how you'll pivot operations? You guys have anything new?

No, nothing new to report. I think I've made you aware before, our concern, if we need to bring in as much material for both sides, East and West Harbor, that's going to mean extra long hours on the West Branch, that's going to mean more barge traffic on the West Branch, and that's going to be more truck traffic moving from davenport to canal street we can so we you know we can load up the site as much as possible before the closure but it's not going to be enough to to run a season or to run three months so yeah so we're still talking about heavy duty tractor trailer traffic you know through the center of town um and

So you guys have sort of ruled out spinning up the Norwalk property or anything like that?

Yeah, Norwalk is not really an option for us. And I don't know, you know, we haven't looked, we don't always, I can't say that I have next year's work plan DOT wise, statewide, town wise, what needs to come from Fairfield County. um so it's either you know if we can if we can do things out of quite honestly um danbury new milford or bridgeport it's a possibility but then 95 is gonna be hurting from it or seven yeah right frank go ahead yeah that's why lou was contacted lou is in charge of the traffic department

The old traffic director, Frank Patice, took a job in Fairfield. Tom Turk is running that. But Lou, the truck traffic is something that Lou and Thomas Turk are going to have to deal with because of the report ONG gave us and how much heavy traffic, big trucks, are going to be dumped onto Canal Street. so i figured give them a year in advance they got they have to come up with street closures detours rerouting street use permits at least get them uh involved in the game as soon as possible and if i could suggest richard if you contact uh lucasolo uh he he's going to be a key player uh If and when the closure happens and he's he's the guy who's going to work that massive. Truck. Increase on our streets.

Yeah, thank you.

Just one more thing you talk talking to Mr Randall today. He said they're still discussing with deep how long it will take deep. to process their applications for the Federal Consistency Review and the Water Quality Certification. And their initial discussion with DEEP was that DEEP may take five months to process those, and then that throws off their whole schedule. So they're trying to, they being the core, work with DEEP to understand why that amount of time would be needed and how they can shorten that amount of time to still stick to their schedule for 2017. And then that also brings up, I asked if they were going to invite anyone from DEEP to attend the meeting on the 22nd. And the answer was, well, they've been talking with DEEP, but I didn't get a sense that anyone from, well, anyway, there's just so much to be involved with.

When I asked the project lead about that very thing, her response was, we're still working through the timeline for environmental coordination but our goal is to have that aligned with our current target of beginning construction in 2027. So, you know, it sounds like they're bullish on sticking to the timeline and not pushing it another year. So, okay, any other conversation about the Army Corps?

And I will say that one of the people from the Corps mentioned today, sort of with a smile on her face, that the mission of the Corps is to build infrastructure and not paperwork. So they're anxious to get started, I guess. But the Harbor Commission, they know that the Harbor Commission has an important review responsibility here. But how we can influence this in a way, not just for the commercial traffic, but the 500 or so recreational boats that will be not able to pass through the gate. Where might they go? So there's a lot to think about.

Yeah, I wonder if it's kind of like at the end of Scooby-Doo where they pulled the mask off the guy and he says, I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you kids. if that's how the Army Corps feels about the Harbor Commission poking the need for the environmental study and the deep processing.

Yeah. And do you think we should contact Congressman Hines' office to... bring them up to speed, that we did get an inquiry, not specific to this, but from a person in the Congressman's office who introduced herself as the person that would be involved in infrastructure projects. Perhaps it would be a value to reach out to her now.

I think they should be aware of the meeting on the 22nd, and if they want a seat in the room, whether it's the Congressman or a representative thereof, I think they should be there. I mean, these are his constituents that are being affected. And if this person, I forget what her name is, but if she is interested in infrastructure, man, this is ground zero, right?

Yep.

Okay. All right. So, yeah. So you'll reach out and let her know. And if she... needs to be in, send it to me and I'll connect with the working group, okay?

Thank you.

All right. Gosh, that's got to be probably one of the longest chairman. Yeah, sure. It's got to be one of the longest chairman reports ever. Let's move on to committee report. Sam, what do you got?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application review committee met on August 3rd. We had a relatively light agenda. You'll be happy to hear. After approving our minutes of the prior meeting, we dealt with CSPR 1238, which concerns property at 16 Fairview Avenue. The applicant is seeking to install a patio and a spa, and the property is located within the camp boundary. Two engineers and an engineer consultant were there to explain the uh proposed activity on the on the site and as a result of this discussion the committee is recommending to the full commission a finding of consistency with the harbor management plan with the understanding that the proposed project is expected to result in significant improvement to existing stormwater and water quality conditions on the property

Make a motion that we accept the applications committee recommendation that's consistent with our management plan.

Thank you. We have a second. Yeah, OK. Any discussion, Mike? I saw you had your hand up. Or was that a second? No, I was seconding, sorry. Alright, any discussion on a finding of consistency CSPR 1238? Hearing none, put it to a vote. Mr. Carr.

I'll hold off because I see Jeff has got his fingers waving.

Sorry to interrupt again, but is this the application where the engineer asked that we not act on it tonight?

No, not that I'm aware of. This is a fairly straightforward one. The project barely exceeds 400 square feet, and the patio, in fact, is with pavers, and so water would be able to seep down into the soil. I don't remember whether or not they also have some sort of a catchment.

uh basin base and associated yes they were they were putting a filtration system in too that's right yeah what what was the um there was an application that the the folks asked to pull back yeah let's just well that was that was a uh ralph blessing

That was application 22619. Nope, nope.

It's just something more recent and it came by way of Maria. Either today or yesterday requesting that we defer to the next month.

CSPR 1238. They asked for it to be given another month. copied Bonita and they are in the loop. So let's table this to next month.

Thank you. I'm sorry I missed that, but I'm on vacation here and I had trouble getting on my Outlook site until about an hour before the meeting.

All right, well. Quite all right, my friend. That's why we're a team.

The second item was CSPR 1237 and the property is at 2236 Chapin Avenue. The applicants are proposing a construction of a new addition on their garage and modifying the existing driveway. The property is located, not surprisingly, within the camp boundary. And a representative from McCord Engineering Associates was there to answer our questions and to explain the project. As a result, the committee's recommendation of the commission is again a finding of consistency. with the Harbor Management Plan, with the understanding that the project is expected to result in significant improvement to existing stormwater and water quality conditions on the property. And there are some filtration and catchment systems in this application.

To make a recommendation, we accept the application's committee recommendation, consistent with the Harbor Management Plan.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Thank you, Mike. All right. Any discussion on finding of consistency on CSPR 1237? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. Mr. Carr? Aye. Mr. Pinciaro? Aye. Mr. Abernathy?

Aye.

Mr. Adelberg?

Aye.

Dr. Graham? Aye. Mr. Malloy? Aye.

right the eyes have it thank you very much um the next item on our agenda was pulled prior to the meeting um it was application 22619 and director blessing asked to be withdrawn and he will present it along with some others uh relating to zoning text changes at our uh september meeting under old business um We talked briefly about the efforts to get some legislation approved that would clarify the authority of harbor management commissions along the coastline. And we were updated by Jeff. I don't know that there's any significant uh development there although jeff may want to weigh in after let me give all the old businesses because uh i think we've heard already about deep's intention to get involved in the hurricane barrier so i don't need to talk about that anymore we've also talked about the ship grant and uh i think that's that's it um um i that's my report mr chairman okay thank you much our next meeting our next meeting is on september 8th okay that's a busy day um all right uh thank you very much for your good work um shellfish frank

Shellfish, we had a meeting this evening. I'll just re give the Cliff Notes version of what we discussed. They were informed about the time schedule for the conjoining of the of shellfish and. Harbor Management Commission that you worked so hard on and the amendment we put to it. So Legislation and Rules Committee meets on 7 p.m. on August 25th, and that is their public hearing. That is one of the last steps before an ordinance is approved. If there are no changes, no further amendments, and it gets on a consent agenda, which would be great, it would be moved for passage on the September 8th meeting. That is the full board meeting. Everybody votes on it. And, you know, if we're lucky, because everybody did so much hard work on this, we'll have, I think, a little more protection and a little more independence. And it was good working with you on this.

Can I pause you just one second? Because Sergeant Fitzgibbons needs to run. But Kevin, do you want to give us the quick and dirty on what you just posted in the chat?

Yeah. Kevin, are you still here? Sarge? We can't hear you, bud. The microphone is muted. OK, well maybe we maybe we lost him.

If you can unmute yourself and talk if you if you still have a minute. I'm sorry Frank, keep going.

OK, and. Other part of the shellfish report for everyone for for all. Is that? We had taken a quick look. at the law department's review of the Copse Island shellfish lease contract. I believe you and I and Jeff agreed that some protective language to make sure that the vendor actually fulfills the contract this time were taken out. There's agreement that will put them in. Birds seem amenable to that. If that happens, we're on our way. And also, DE Aquaculture has informed us that instead of putting monitoring equipment on each oyster boat in Connecticut waters, they have an electronic surveillance system that can trace every oyster boat, its location, and what it's doing in Connecticut waters. And it goes into a DEEP database, which will be shared with aquaculture. So it would seem that we would have belt and suspenders in place on this contract to make sure everybody does what they're supposed to do. Also, because now we took over the old powers of the shellfish commission, shellfish commissioners and possibly HMC commissioners can be made harbor wardens. and uh that's voluntary they are appointed uh by the state agriculture and aquaculture just as harbor masters are and we're checking that out with um aquaculture because that that will be the people who appoint them so um we seem to be on our way great that's it

And yes, just to sort of back up what Frank was talking about, the Bloom Brothers agreement was appropriately amended using the correct verbiage that was on the offer letter, spelling out the necessity for quarterly reports, including a yearly in-person meeting to speak That was delivered to Mr. Bloom for signature this afternoon by attorney Rosenberg. And definitely appreciate Jeff and Frank's help making sure that, you know, everything was five by five before that got sent because that component was lost somewhere in translation between, you know, the original offer and the the interim offer and now the final offer. And so that, as soon as we get that back, I will send that agreement along when we have it in final copy or final signed copy. And yes, to Frank's other point, the ordinance that combines us, again, when it came through legal was missing, something and just allowing us a little more latitude. So we went and improved the verbiage with the help of the aquaculture department and gives us a little more latitude than what the original

commission was they just wanted to copy and paste it and we wanted to have the ability to do all things as you know per our remit under the aquaculture uh capacities with the state language so that is now in the in the ordinance for uh the being considered by the board of reps uh in september thank you for your leadership and help in this uh mr chairman pleasure working with you but uh You know, we're trusting and verifying.

That's it. And I think the other piece to it and Jeff just had to pop off because he's got to go to a new meet a new room in the library. But, you know, I think Frank and I were talking today about the next steps are we want to do enshrine the shellfish language and commitments in the harbor management plan. and have that go back through and be accepted, you know, both by DEEP and locally so that we have, you know, really fully encapsulated that and protected it in the way that our management plan is protected. So, you know, I think that further strengthens our position on both fronts. And, you know, that's going to take some work, but that's a problem for not today us. So, okay. Anything more on Shellfish?

No.

Okay. And you guys meet again same thing next month, half hour before? Yeah. And thank you, Trez, for figuring out the IT and getting those guys a cozy space on the internet to get together. And thank you all volunteers for your work in joining us. Congratulations. We're We're moving on up, Frank.

Yeah, just to be safe, I took some notes on what was discussed at the Shellfish meeting, and I'll type them up. Okay, super.

All right, Marina and Maureen.

Okay, guys. Good to see you all. Forgive me if I stumble a little bit. I'm still on London time. I woke up in London this morning and literally just got off a plane in time to catch you guys. So it is one in the morning, at least my body thinks. Not a lot going on in marinas and moorings. I mostly wanted to talk about the stakeholders at the hurricane barrier, but I think you guys have covered a lot of that on the first half of the meeting, but wanted to explore what was appropriate in terms of reaching out to the marinas. I didn't want a flood of activity or saying something that was inappropriate. So at what point do we think we can put together the stakeholders in one room and start notifying the marina managers along with the businesses along that along that stakeholders list? And I noticed that PONUS was included in the stakeholders list, but they're on the West Branch, not the East Branch. So I may have missed the first 15 minutes of the meeting. Where are we on a stakeholders meeting?

So there's a stakeholder meeting scheduled for September 22nd at 5 p.m. It seems like the mayor's office in concert with the Army Corps are compiling a list and I'm thinking that the invite will come from them. There's been some back and forth on nailing down a room size and how many people are coming from Army Corps, how many people will they need. So it may very well be in the sixth floor, possibly in the cafeteria if it's large enough. But I am trying to get them to own the address list. And I think we're going to continue to give input. So I agree with you. I don't want every, or I don't think every single boater from CSIC should go to this particular one. But perhaps marina managers, yes, and or maybe a representative from you know, each of them, if we can get a hold of that. Obviously, we'll want principals from ONG and Rubino and C-Streak if, you know, they decide that they want to be included, you know, some of the larger users. So there will be, I believe there will be a public-facing hearing at which time it would be, you know, appropriate for anybody who has interest. But I think this is more of the, you know, sort of the preliminary, you know, stakeholder meeting. Jeff, was that you coming back on?

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we got you. Okay. Um, Jeff, when you were off, I just, uh, quickly mentioned that we were gonna next steps on the harbor shellfish combination was to start looking at enshrining the, um, you know, the, the shellfish materials in the harbor management plan. So, uh, and, you know, get through the verification and approval process. Um, so, um, just so, you know, we, we did touch on that briefly.

Um, Can you hear me, Damien? Yes, I can. Oh, sorry. I had to vacate the room. The library closed. But this is sort of tied in. I don't know if Frank gave his report yet on our meeting in Hartford with the DEP attorney. And we thought that our next, after we get through this freedom of information phase that we're in now, research, that we would reach out to the same attorney, Deep, who's been very helpful, was very helpful to us and asked for a meeting to discuss the harbor management legislation.

And again, that's particularly relevant now because we're going to be in the process of updating the harbor management plan to incorporate the shellfish provisions.

So I think that tie in with our work to update the plan And then the next phase meeting with deep and to try to, you know, get, get some support for, for the legislative change that's needed. But that, that's all come about as a result of Frank's efforts to, to meet with the DEP people, deep people about the, you know, the questions we have on the 14 acre site. And we crafted a statement of, of shellfish management. I think we call them like a, principles or goals. And we haven't filled in the strategies yet that would follow that. And then we can also think of whether there are other parts of the harbor management plan that should be updated. Maybe we go quickly through an addendum for the shellfish management and get that in place, and then go back and think about some of the bigger pictures that we have to incorporate into an update.

If I'm in favor, if we're going to do it, let's put this testing language in to see if we can get deep to approve the language that we want. I'm thinking we need to we need to press, you know, press the ball on this.

Yeah, sure. Sure. Right.

Because if they're approving it on a. know on a commission by commission basis then why can't we get that through the state legislature if they if they've recently approved our plan or something else up the line if we can get them to keep you know to to approve one of those why can't we do it in major session in front of the state representatives i agree with you there's just so many you know really significant uh

topics or or initiatives that the commission is involved with now that's quite quite impressive how we how we can deal with all these the shellfish the the boat ramp the uh you know the issues on the future of the 14 acre site and the and the hurricane barrier all uh all significant matters that the harbor commission is taking a lead role in trying to in trying to address and i hope deep is I think they are. When we met with the acting director, who we were surprised participated in the meeting that Frank and I went to, as well as their attorney. So maybe, well, anyway, we'll pursue all of this.

As I said to you on the phone today, Jeff, how do you eat an elephant?

Yeah. One other matter, too, with regard to the Port Authority. they're going to announce at the end of September the availability of another grant program, not the SHIP grant program, but a program that's available, and they think it will be sort of first-come, first-served applications for projects that have to do with public outreach and education and, again, public information to increase access interest and awareness of the waterfront. And I talked with the Port Authority and I think this is a, seems to be a perfect opportunity to apply for the grant that we were talking about for the interpretive waterfront panels, you know, one or two, it's not a lot of money, having to do with the Stanford Lighthouse and for placement on, you know, I don't know if we talked about two panels about the history of the lighthouse and, and, Again, to try to increase public interest and awareness of the lighthouse reconstruction as a historic resource. So that's another opportunity for us at the end of September to submit a grant application. I don't know that there's going to be a local cost share for that. But again, another opportunity.

You're swerving all over the road here, buddy. That's on the agenda later, but we'll get to it. So we were just in the middle of Russ's safety report. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. It's all good information. It's all good. Russ, what else do you have for us on safety?

Okay, so not a lot more going on in marinas. Like I say, my body thinks it's 1 or 2 in the morning. But I'm going to hand it off to Joe Graham, and he's going to give you the safety side.

Okay, thank you.

You're muted, Joseph. You're muted. Unmute your mic. There you go.

Got that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to verify that Sergeant Fitzgibbons is not with this meeting anymore. I can't see him.

Yeah, he did jump off.

All right. So Marine Police. They have been doing targeted enforcement at the west boat ramp, mainly jet skis, and keeping them to a 15-minute limit tied up at the dock. There seems to be a new problem that they're leaving their jet skis there and going off and doing some activities. So he's on top of that. The police have written about eight citations since we last met. And the police, the fire department, reported they're training new boat operators. The training to be a boat operator for the fire department is about 100 hours for day operators and about 150 for night operators. So they're really making progress on that. The next one, I believe Yale is with us, correct?

It was.

Yeah. He's here. I'm here. Yeah. Would you please just speak briefly to the whole Soundwaters issue that you and I have been involved with? As far as the sailing thingies? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I was going to bring that up during my report. Yeah, we had the issue. I don't recall whether this happened before the last meeting. I don't think it did, so we didn't talk about it. But there was an issue. I mean, it's always been a problem with Soundwaters and Stanford Yacht Club with their little sailing dinghy programs, the 420s and the Optis, letting them sail on the channel. It's not as much of an issue out in the open harbor, in the outer harbor with Stanford Yacht Club. but there was an issue with sound, although Soundwaters denies it was their dinghies. I was there, and it was their sailing dinghies. It was a group of Optis sailing in the channel, uh right as you come around the bend and into the west branch right in front of their property right in front of west beach and uh there was a sprague oil barge coming in tug pushing a barge um and i was following the barge i didn't see the dinghies but i heard the uh I heard the tugboat lay on the horn for about 20 seconds. And then it turned out there was a group of sailing dinghies bobbing around in the channel when he came around the bend. I mean, luckily, no. I mean, obviously, if he had hit them, it would have been a disaster. But luckily, he didn't. But I spoke with Soundwaters. I spoke with Mike Bagley. about that again he denied it was their sailing dinghies but either way whether it was or it wasn't i'm we're just concerned with the future and i you know i said that they just have to avoid that at all costs and also for their staff for their instructors to carry vhf radios and listen for the security calls of tugboats coming in when they leave the mooring they give a security call informing everyone that they're coming into the harbor so i mean i think that's also an obvious thing that they have to do. So finally, he said, sailing season is over. They're putting the dinghies away this week. I said, well, you know, next year we'll have to deal with that. So that's what happened with that.

Thank you, Yale. The last thing I have is the letter from A commendation that went out for the firefighter, Steve Walsh. We got a nice, warm response from Chief Morris on that and thanking us for our interest in supporting our first responders. So appreciate everybody taking that vote. And that is it for me, Mr. Chairman, on safety.

Thank you. Any questions for either of these fine gentlemen on safety or Marina and Morris? Joseph, do you have further information on financial for us?

I do. So, yes, I met with a number of our financial people, which I really wasn't planning on doing that, but I just clicked onto a Zoom and there were a bunch of people here. The bottom line on our Fund 25 fund is that it's not enough money for them to really be concerned about investing. Now, I know we've been taking some ethics training, but I think if a bunch of us had some $350,000, we could go up to Foxwood and get a nice return on our investment. You're not recording this, are you, Damien?

Yes, I am.

So I really pressed the issues. I mean, $350,000 this year is going to be worth less next year. And I was able to get Teresa, our financial person, to commit to looking into it and getting back to us about investing it. But I was a little taken aback that it's not a big enough money number for them to be concerned about.

So I think one of the other concerns was just the ability to go liquid if we needed to spend on something like this boat ramp project that we're endeavoring upon, right?

That was a minor concern about liquidation. The big thing was, well, we don't want to, it's only $350,000. Now, the next item they put out, and this came from Tony Romano, is we have a line item for $150,000 for a boat. Now, Damian, you and I have talked about this. Can you just fill in what we're talking about?

So you all remember the cleaner boat? We see Trial 1 here. Somewhere along the line, apparently, there was a line item added to our boat. Bond capabilities to $150,000, I think it was, for the purposes of purchasing a working boat. This is item number two on the Stanford Harbor Management and Shellfish Commission's wish list would be the working boat and cleaner boat for the harbor. That was apparently, I think it's kind of like a line of credit, and we've never tapped it. um and that has to do with the fact that we have never been able to come up with who's going to ultimately own it because it is not this this group of volunteers job to own manage staff or regulate the uh you know the work boat on the on the harbor um so that that has kind of been a drift pun intended frank

Joseph, thank you so much for picking up the ball on that. I know that we conversed on it a couple of times in the past. Auditor Teresa is very good, so she'll probably get you some answers. But my understanding is that the money is basically just sitting there. two times well before you made your first inquiries to uh tony romano he told me the money was still there uh it's capital money and uh if we can um you know ask him one more time if it's ours to spend um why not but it would have to be for a capital purpose and harbor related But, you know, Joseph followed up on this and he deserves a pat on the back for that.

Thank you, Frank. But I think Mike was jumping in on. I didn't get the sense that it's just money just sitting there to grab. Mike, you knew something about that?

Generally, it goes through an approval process. And then once the project is fully vetted and identified and you actually have something to spend, then the funding goes out for bonding. Lots of times in something like this, it may be a short-term bond. but it doesn't really matter. They generally won't go ahead and bond it and have the money physically sitting, quote unquote, in the bank. So, yes, it probably is approved, though. Yeah, that's why.

Does that mean we're going to have to pay back, Mike?

No, it's not bonded. So it's not, the project hasn't moved forward, in essence.

It's a line of credit that we have that's open that we can use it if we go through the proper controls. But then once we've used it, we have to pay it back. Yes. Right. And so we don't have a mechanism for that. Um, nor is that really a financial priority right now, um, with the, you know, significant costs coming, you know, as we shoulder more of the boat ramp project and that's priority number one, right. We don't have the answers yet for. Who's going to run it? Where's it going to go? Where's it going to store it? Who's going to service it? Where do we even take the garbage that the thing strains out of the harbor? Where do we take it? We don't have a place to offload it. So there's a lot of logistics. And I don't think we're in a position right now to go buy a boat that we don't know how we're going to use it. So I'm glad that it hasn't been bonded out. And that means that nobody's paying any interest on it. again i don't i don't want to diminish its worth because it's a fantastic idea and you know if we had five years ago or eight years ago whenever that was if we had had uh you know we what we were trying to do is we were trying to light the spark that ignited the city taking some ownership you know whether it was um you know parks and rec or or operation um you know, to run with it, right? That's why we brought it here and seat trialed it, was to try to create some stir about it, but obviously nobody was willing to do anything about it, right? It's like, you know, half of Stanford that we can't use a street sweeper for. So, anyhow.

The question from Tony Romano was, do you want him to just take it off the books?

Is there any disadvantage to leaving it there? And if so, then yes, take it off the books. If not, then let it ride. It hasn't hurt anybody in the last several years it's been there as far as I know.

Yeah. Could we let it ride because we would pay it off over a 20-year period of time and there might be other sources of income. Just nice to have it there. And we might want it for maybe a pusher boat or something different. Just a thought.

Yeah. I mean, if we're not paying any fees on it.

No, no.

and let it ride.

Yeah. I'm with Frank on that, that if down the road we do revisit Harbor user fees and we have the income stream to repay a note like that, which is still probably years off, but let's say hypothetically, the user fees come to pass, then we can feel more confident about putting it out to bond. For right now, I wouldn't touch it. Of course, we don't want to go into debt. But, yeah, if it doesn't hurt us, let's leave it where it is.

Okay. Good point. Good point.

All right. And the last thing I have on finances, Mr. Chairman, on the proposed fiscal year 26-27 budget for the Harbor Commission, I was amazed that – that every item for the Harbor Commission has a line item narrative, a line item breakdown, and a line item justification, which makes some very, very interesting reading.

Yes, it does.

Is that something you can share with the rest of the commissioners? Mr. Chairman, I think I sent it to you. You did? Yeah. But yeah, I'm happy to. Is that okay, Mr. Chairman? Yeah, of course. I believe it's public information. Absolutely. It's not easily available public information. You've got to dig down into spreadsheets to find it.

You have done that. You can save us the trouble, right, Joseph?

Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely, Sam. You know, it's like, for example, you know, there's things here that are really. So we play overtime when Maria is taking our notes for us and it comes up is no cost to the taxpayer. So I'm not sure exactly, Damian, how you work that. But good job.

Yeah, I'm a magician like that.

Sam, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'll send this out to everybody. Please do. Anyhow, it's something that I think we should be on top of is what we're spending our money on and why. Obviously, we're looking at for 2728 to make tweaks to this. That's all I have.

The other thing I would suggest is Let's learn from the experience we just had with this whole board of reps asking to be able to use our own money. And I think for 2728, we should ask for a line item on here for $100,000 of our own money to be used for, let's just say... water dependent uses right um and we wouldn't necessarily have to tap into it you know for instance one of the things on here is uh 5204 funding for waterfront events and programs and annual harbor fest celebration right we haven't used that in several years for that purpose right but uh that money doesn't necessarily get used it's just a part of our budget we can use it at our discretion So I think we should be asking for a heck of a lot of money and then we end up not using it, that's fine. Frank?

Frank? There's one thing that would answer Joseph's question. Very late in the budget process, the end of March, okay, And this is what we were all concerned about, where, to put it bluntly, OPM was encroaching on our financial independence and they just inserted these line items into our budget without any explanation. So that meeting took place on or about march 28th it was murray and the two two main people were murray and um romano and possibly mr mcguire no mcguire okay there's If you want, you could look for it yourself or I'll find the paper trail. That is public money. That is public policy and public officials using that. That is about as clean as you can get for public information. And the fact that they did this covertly is kind of pissing me off. So that might be the key to this whole financial problem.

uh mr chairman and that's the piece of the puzzle that's missing in this process well and and i met with director quinones and a couple of others to try to insert us in the budgetary process um and the the most recent movement on that was uh director known as vetted with opm uh they're not comfortable removing a city employee aka uh kevin murray From the approval process, that being said, he was going to request to add me to the approval steps so you have more visibility along transactions that involve our fund. That was my last communication with him about that.

Yes.

Ideally, what we want to do is bring our budgetary controls in-house. and then add a treasurer to the e-board here for the commission. And Joseph is certainly digging a hole for himself on that. But as we further inboard our financial controls, we want to be able to, one, understand it, and two, be more a part of the process of spending our own money that the city doesn't give us.

Yes. So Mr. Chairman, I fully anticipated it going south like this. And I do not want this to be construed in any way that I'm looking to be the chairman of the finances here. So I'm sure there are many qualified people that can work these numbers. Down the pike, Damian. Never do a bad job of good, my man. You know what? Your words were in the back of my head. Yeah, Frank.

Mr. Chairman, permission to speak bluntly? Sure. Okay. Look, I don't give a hoot and holler what OPM says about we're not comfortable with We got to have our guy in there keeping an eye on your budget. That's nonsense. And it's against the law. So I think we all have lots of work to do. But if we could get together and formulate a letter to all the OPM people and the mayor, who they all answer to, saying, look, The state law says we and only we can create through resolutions harbor revenues and we collect them and only we can spend them. You can't take it. You can't tell us what to do with it. And it's a violation of the city ordinance, the state law, and the code of ethics. Okay. So I think we write them a nice civil letter telling them that, as my father used to say, you're on thin ice with hot feet. And I'm sorry, but they don't know what they're doing. I mean, they just can't do that. and you've been on the commission for a long time mr chairman how many other times have we had to blunt uh efforts by the city to take or spend our money or even to take it all away completely prior to my tenure i believe if if it was once or maybe even twice they fully removed the fund 25 balance

which was significantly less then, but we removed it and it got wiped back into the general fund. And my predecessor, Ray Redness, had to fight like hell to get the funds restored.

Yeah, we all did. And Martin backed down to raise credit. You know, it was a team effort. But I mean, that was because some middle manager thought, hey, here's $50,000 and I'll take it and I'll get in good with the boss. Well, you know, that doesn't always work.

But Frank, it's not it's not clear to me that with with that with and I agree with you, I don't want anybody touching our money. But I don't know, it's not clear to me whether they're actually touching our money or whether they're just in the pipeline of us submitting a budget to them and then needing to approve the expenditures that we expend because it's gotta go through the city infrastructure. I don't think it's so much about them telling us what to do, it's just them writing the check, cashing the check, you know sort of financial manager or middleman or whatever um i agree they should not have put us in the central services baloney and that's why i want more oversight on our budget um so that we know where every penny is going um but i think uh you know again the the process is murky at best um

what isn't murky is putting in two line items that takes money from our revenue accounts so if they want some kind of partnership or they want to look over or the solution is very simple okay and you know these financial wizards have never thought of it number one The Harbor Commission revenue fund is never audited by the city editor, by the city auditor. Okay. Number two, to increase, that's internal control. To increase external control, you have the hired outside auditor who can't get enough financial information to complete city audits on time and we play penalties for it, they do it and they audit us. We have nothing to hide. Here it is. Take a look at the books. You know, you got a good control mechanism, suggest it and we'll seriously consider it. Okay? So those are the methodologies they should be using. You know, I'm sorry, but I've seen this movie before. It's a power grab. And it threatens our independence.

And I think this deserves some conversation. And I don't think it necessarily has to be figured out tonight. And, you know, I think we're sort of locked in for this year's budget. But I think by the time next year's budget comes around, I want to have this nailed down. All right.

Anything more on financial? I will just send out the justification to everybody tonight. So you'll see what we're talking about. Thank you.

And there was one backtrack I wanted to make on safety. Sarge had put in the chat. Dr. Cram wanted to mention that the replacement Harbor One has not been ordered yet.

Yes. So thank you for bringing that back. I heard from both our first responder fire department and our police department that financial approval is slowing down the operation of both of them. And I'm not really clear what's happening. Again, not really a financial guy, but apparently money has been approved, but it's not being dispersed. Harbor One's a little bit of a different issue because Hinkley has taken responsibility for it, and they're deciding whether they're going to pay for it out of their own pocket or put it through their insurance. And Kevin said, well, can't you just order it? So, you know, because it's a minimum year, 18 months before we get a new boat, according to Kevin.

So we're still at square one.

We are still at square one, except that Hinckley took responsibility for it.

Okay, but the boat fell a year and a half ago, or a year ago, whatever it was, right? And we're still trying to figure out, okay, we're done pointing fingers, obviously. Why, like, let's order this thing. Why does Hinckley get to slow this crap down?

You know what, Mr. Chairman, somebody should, you know, is that somebody from the city that should be on top of that?

I mean, to me, that's a public safety issue. If I'm Lou DeRubis, I'm jumping up and down on that.

Would you rather you or me talk to Lou?

I'll send him an email.

Wouldn't you think that the sergeant or the police people would be on top of it?

I'm sorry, Paul?

Wouldn't you think that the sergeant and the harbor police folks would have been on top of that?

I think Sergeant Fitzgibbons is in a little bit of a more tenuous position than someone like Chairman Ortelli. you know, to go in and kind of tell his boss, get going on this project. You know, he doesn't have anything to lose.

Exactly. Like a pension or salary. So, yeah, I'm happy to. And listen, this isn't adversarial. I just, you know, want to know what can we do to help push so that this is not a continuing outstanding issue. all right there's really no reason they can't get the order in and figure out how we're paying for it as we go along right right thank you you're welcome all right thank you um and and uh dr graham thank you for your help connecting me with deputy chief hayes um i think his uh his letter was well really well crafted and i think was the you know the the final nudge that the powers that be at the board of reps needed to feel comfortable looking again at our project.

He did a powerful letter talking about how they need to launch their portable fireboat and he did a really nice job. I was impressed by his letter.

Yeah, all of those letters are in the board of reps repository that I linked to up above on the chat. So if you If you can go look at it, go. If not, go to the Board of Reps page, and it's F32107. All right, moving on. Yale Harbormaster, what do you got?

Well, a lot of what I was going to speak about was the safety issue and the dinghies in the harbor and the channel and sound waters, but we've already been through that. I have a question, Joseph. What do you mean that Hinkley just took responsibility for dropping the boat? How could they have just not been – they dropped the boat. How could they now just say they're responsible for that?

You know what, Yale? I cannot answer that question. Okay. Just curious. Okay. was really beside himself because he's, you know, riding around in a baby blue boat right now. I know.

Okay. Uh, okay. So we covered, we covered sound waters. And as we also spoke about at the safety meeting, deep is now finally involved with the, uh, chronic oil spills in the Harbor. And apparently they were investigating up on, uh, up on Fairfield Avenue. Because again, as Tyler Thader told me, that all those storm drains, we've talked about this before, all those storm drains just jump, dump into the harbor. And no one's done anything about it. But apparently, Deep is now involved, which is good. And I think they identified a few things. I'm just trying to get in the loop and find out who they are so I can stay in contact with them. Because obviously, I'm the point person on this. I'm the one who usually calls in the oil spill. So I'd like to know who to speak with. Maybe we can get Tyler Thader to one of the meetings.

If I may jump in on that. Yeah. One of the most impressive things, probably the most impressive thing that I've witnessed since I've been on this commission is Sergeant Fitzgibbons called his contact at DEEP. And got somebody. He got a reply. He spoke to a person. And Supervisor Ken LeClerc is on this case. And he reported that there have been no arrests, no summons, and no direct persons or businesses identified. No hazmat materials were found. only non-hazardous waste and they apparently they've been working with the city for five months on this so uh you know the most impressive thing i've ever seen is that kevin talked to somebody at deep good it would be nice if they gave me a call and and uh and get me in the loop on on all this because i have a lot of information there was there was oil in the harbor yesterday

was it big enough to call in because it would have been of an exercise in futility. They wouldn't have done anything about it, but it's a chronic problem. Probably not, probably not one offender. Again, there are dozens of storm drains up there who knows who's dumping into it. And, you know, then it gets washed down again. And I would like to speak with the city about this again, uh, I'm not sure why they don't just boom around the pipes when they're dumping into the harbor. At the very least, maybe identify what the substance is and best case scenario, contain it. But they haven't even done that. Again, the city has... I was originally dealing or speaking with Tyler Thader, and he just kind of fell off the radar. So it would be great if we can get him to a meeting and have him explain exactly what's going on and what the city's doing about it, because it's a chronic problem. It's been going on for years. What else? We spoke about Soundwaters. We're still identifying and starting to remove some of the derelict buildings. moorings in the harbor. So that's an ongoing thing. What else? I think that's about it. I don't have a whole lot. I do have a question. I may have asked this the last meeting. What's up with that bridge to nowhere on the Mill River that they built? It's supposed to be a walking bridge that goes next. It goes from a landscaping or construction site over to the back of an office building. I'm not sure what that's all about. And by the way, it's right next to a walking bridge. It's blocked off at both ends.

And still blocked off at both ends. I think Frank has probably a doctorate in this.

Frank? I'll get to that. I'll address that in my report. Okay. But I've done a little research on it and found You know, this is part of the whole DEEP document, documents that we've been getting answers on.

But whatever it is, I got to say, what a waste of money. I can't imagine what it costs to build that bridge and everything that was involved in getting it built. And, you know, that money could have been so much better used in the harbor than a bridge to nowhere on the Mill River that no one's going to walk on if they ever even open it up. So I'm just baffled how bureaucracy works on us. honestly um okay i think that's that's about it for me not a lot you know not things are pretty quiet that's about it okay harper boat is doing well any any issues there no it's going to need some maintenance um we need some electrical work we need a few things uh taken care of it i had the bottom clean because we did not haul it this year It's less expensive just to have a diver go down and clean it as opposed to having it hauled out of the water and painted. So I think we can get through another season with it. You know, the boat's going to need a few odds and ends, but so far so good. The new engine's running great and no issues.

I thought the job was to keelhaul the newest members of the Harbor Commission to get rid of the barnacles. No? No.

Let's do it. That sounds like a great way to clean the bottom.

I'd like to hear your definition of the newest members of the Harbor Commission before I opine on that.

The boat is always available for that. Okay, good. Also, what just... it's far off but they uh you know we're gonna have to find a place to put the harbor master boat next year when they close the uh when they close the barrier because that's trapped inside the barrier as well just just to look forward a little bit yeah it's a good point very good point okay um I mean, I keep it I have to or more than half the time I keep it on the other side of the harbor anyway over TGM because that's where my boat is and it's easier access for me. I can just jump on it because getting from, you know, the west side of the harbor over to Japan Avenue takes 20 minutes in traffic. So I keep it over. They're nice enough to let me keep it there, you know, when there's a slip available. So maybe we can maybe we can we can store it there next, you know, during the hurricane barrier closure.

Yeah, interesting. Okay, well, we'll have to be careful with that because we don't want it to look like we have any kind of sweetheart deal going on. But yes, that's an interesting point. And are you included in the emails? You should be in the room on the 22nd for that.

Yeah, I'm in the email chain. I'm going to be there.

hard work. Any questions for Yale and Harbormaster? Okay, financial Frank.

All right, good evening everybody. August report for July 1st through July 31st. Starting balance $243,634.18. West Marine Pro Bill for $133.28 for the Harbormaster boat. Michael Carusi's contract for May for 26 through 27600 and Soundwaters water testing from 428 and 624 for $1070 total. Expenses with 1803 28 application fees came in application 1235 3637 and 38 and application 226 dash 11 total $350. total balance at the end of the month was $242,180.90. Any questions on that?

Thank you. And your offset is still, you think it's $27,000?

Yes. That's about what it is. I look when I can for different things, but I haven't been able to see where anything else is.

Okay.

And we still believe that... Go ahead, Mike.

Sorry, what is the Michael Caruso expense?

For the website.

Oh, yes. Understood. Thank you.

That's for the website. That's the contract for the year.

Okay. Any other questions on finance?

And the last part, too, is if you need anything for... Well, we have to have it in by the beginning or to middle of January if you want anything increased on the budget. Kevin and I added a few different things this past year for the budget to get this one up for where we're short on payments for going through. So if you want to do something, just let me know in an email what exactly you want sometime in December, and I can let Kevin know. We'll go through and send that in for hopefully get the budget in there.

Yeah, I want $100,000 for harbor improvements from our – from our fund.

Just email to me. I'll take care of that with Kevin when we go and ask for it and see what happens from there. No guarantees.

One of the thoughts that I had through this process, and actually it was on the Paul's boat cruise last month or a couple of weeks ago, whenever that was. Yeah, last month. sea streak runs in and out and they don't pay harbor user fees um for transit fees they should be um and that's you know maybe indelicate given the the the infringement we're going to make upon their business for the hurricane barrier closure here not too distant future um but um i will send you the information um for the contact over there. And maybe we can start a dialogue with them. I want to say I think they had suggested that there was going to be something like 40 trips originally based on a home game schedule on the weekends and holidays. Right? What is it, 50 bucks one way or round trip?

Single vessel is 50 bucks. 50 each way.

50 each way.

So it should be 100 round trip.

right so so that's four thousand bucks of uh of transit pieces that they'll correct yeah correct if you just if i give any information i'll get something up for it and get in touch with whoever over there and start trying to figure something out and who is deborah ann's fishing charters do they come in and out of the harbor i imagine they do don't they they're inside the uh they're inside the barrier they're over by the wheel

Right across from CESAC. He doesn't go in and out much, but he's been there forever.

You know, not that I want to bust anybody, but, you know, looking at this list and I'm saying, well, you know, why is it fair that Rubino Brothers and ONG is having to pay? And we're not asking that of other commercial users. We should study that and, you know, determine... You know, whatever you decide, just let me know.

If you have information, if you want to go forward with it, I'll get in touch with whoever and go from there. Is C-Streak on that list?

Well, that is. No, they're not on this list, but I have submitted their name to Lauren. Okay. All right. Any other questions on financial? And you got anything on Marina?

No, just continuing to work at Sezic. Power's finally on down Cove Island. They got that on officially today. They just got to finish doing the pump out, getting that all dug out, get the lines run for that, the sewer line run for that, and get that all set. And hopefully it'll be done in the next couple of months.

Okay, excellent. Anything further on Cummings?

They're out there doing some boring holes today, but that's starting to move forward little by little.

Yeah, that's also on the board reps agenda is approval for. The final agreement to do that section of their plan, which is interesting that that got approved when we failed that got approved with no no fanfare whatsoever. Anyhow, that was their application before ours in June. Alright, any questions on Maria supervisor? All right, special assistant, Frank, what do you got?

Thank you. More from DEP. As you know, we had a very pleasant visit with them on July 28th. There were documents that were mentioned in passing. I said, well, you know, in the spirit of openness, send them to us. So the first document was 25 page report from DEP describing a environmental hazard on the 14 acre site. Now I believe I sent all of you a summary of that report and what I asked Mr. Wilcox, what DEP's answer was. The problem was they do water boring testing at 10 different sites on the 14 acre site. Four of those borings came up with cyanide concentrations 10 times the legal limit for aquatic life it's dangerous to fish so my questions were okay uh in the document dep sent to bl t and fussin o'neill who did the remediation who conduct those sites they said you may have to take okay what are your abatement What abatement actions are you going to take? And I asked Mr. Wilcox, well, tell me, tell me what they are. Are they mandatory? Are you going to do them right away? And he said, maybe, but we can. The one thing we have to do is continuing the water monitoring. Okay. I did a lot of research on how cyanide in in the ground is produced. Because as you know, the 14 acre site and and land immediately north to it. Mostly fill. And quite frankly, the fuss and O'Neill report doesn't make any sense. They go back to material. that is north of the 14 acre site and was the former Helco site, which was first coal fired and then gas fired. And according to the reports I read, neither produces cyanide. So. The one thing that then I asked follow up questions Okay, they went to Mr. Scioli, Jeff Scioli, the assistant director of DEEP, who is Mr. Wilcox's boss. And he was out of the building yesterday. He returns tomorrow. He says, I'm going to answer my questions. Now, my concern is this. Okay. And I'm trying to give everybody a big picture of this situation. Two of those water boring test sites are right behind. The new Marina and the West Branch. OK. Fus O'Neill says, well, you know, you've got iron sheathing bulkhead and you have tides and that's going to take care of some of the cyanide. DEP didn't buy it. They're going to continue water testing, but I am going to push very hard for a response that has to come. And by the way, DEEP will often blame the Fuss and O'Neill people. It's called the LEP, the Licensed Environmental Person. Okay. But they sent the warning to TL76, which is BLNT. So I've asked, how much time do they have to clean it up? How many water tanks? How many more water boring testings are you going to have to do? And I would like the Commission's permission to contact the Army Corps of Engineers. They are the supervising federal entity for the construction of that marina, okay, which becomes problematic because you have two boring sites right on top of their bulkhead and three uh on the other side on the eastern side uh where the bulkhead is towards cemetery cove so those three five sites are presently leaching cyanide uh into the water into our harbor okay i'm going to push as hard as i can for these answers mr wilcox who in the past has been Not fully cooperative. But since we had the meeting and we all agreed on a course of action, he's become semi-cooperative. And I hope I get him to improve. Or his boss can answer for him. Now, Yale had mentioned the bridge to nowhere. That was completed, and the only good news here is BL&T paid for it. There was no city cost there. But I cannot understand, like Yale, why it has not opened. It has been blocked off since it was opened in April. Okay. I don't want to call it a document dump, but in what DEP has sent me, and it has been useful, there is a passing reference to some polluted soil leaching into the river at the site of that bridge. And it came when they did the foundation work for the big charter corporate headquarters there. Okay. I read the remediation reports. They covered up a lot of the contaminated soil with cement, you know, cemented over the foundations to build the building, and a great big parking garage. But there was some leaching, and I have a request in for that report. Also, there is a road that leads from Pulaski Street to the bridge on the east side. That's closed, too.

Yeah, they just finished doing that. It's landscaped and it's closed. Yeah, they did finish that. There's just enough room for a, it's not even big enough for really a road, a wide walking path between the building and the river.

No, you're right. Two offensive guards walking shoulder to shoulder wouldn't fit on that roadway. Okay. And The exit and entrances don't make any sense. The exits had to be fixed because it was too close. It would have been a pedestrian hazard. In other words, a pedestrian would have walked across that bridge and stepped right in front of the railroad overpass and get hit by a car. I don't want to go on too long, but this was BL&T's compromise when the engineering department said, you know, when you build charter, you lengthened Pulaski Street from the intersection of Washington Boulevard to the bridge, and you go from three lanes to two. You got to add an additional You've got to widen the Pulaski Street Bridge by one lane.

But what does that have to do with a walk? There's a sidewalk on both sides of that bridge. If there's one lane for car traffic on there, it doesn't affect people walking.

No, it does not. But they were able to convince land use and only land use... that this pedestrian walkway perpendicular to the bridge as you mentioned and the bridge itself could be a a substitute for that extra lane okay and you wouldn't yell that that outside lane would be it would be moved out and so would the pedestrian walkway on that side you know you're very familiar with the site yeah okay but so they would have had to have removed one of the sidewalks on on one side of the bridge the pedestrian walk on the existing bridge yeah another lane of traffic and then put back the sidewalk at a cost of 6.4 million dollars so i don't know the bridge didn't cost them anything it was their labor so uh I'm working on the soil remediation reports for the charter building, and there was some pollution there, and it seems like some of it leached into the river where the bridge is. Okay. I'll keep you informed as I get answers from DEEP. And more documents, I'll copy everybody on them. We're making some progress here. Good work. Well, good work for Jeff Stedman and Chairman Artelli, who have been very supportive and very helpful in this. It's a team effort, guys. Frank, it's Jeff.

Hi, Jeff. Yes, I can.

I might just make a comment about this whole, again, it's so complicated, all of these issues with the remediation and the funding, just as we talked about at the beginning of the meeting, with the history of the boatyard and so forth. But the work that Frank started, and I might say deep recognizes the interest and respects the interest and the role of the Harbor Management Commission in asking these questions. And that was pretty clear from the people who attended the meeting that Frank and I went to. The assistant director is now the acting director and the deep attorney. And so they understand that the commission's interest in this, and in part because we're going to be reviewing, we expect to get a development plan for review, a redevelopment plan for this area. And also because of the substantial amount of public money that was allocated for the remediation for the purpose of the Bridgewater hedge fund headquarters. So we started with Frank started with deep with the request for the progress reports and the final reports that we understood would be required for the remediation, the environmental remediation. And what we've learned is that those reports were required for remediation plan that was later changed. And when the plan was changed, there was no requirement for the progress reports or the final report. And that's why no one ever provided the reports to us. And what we also learned from DEEP is DEEP now does not approve the final remediation project. There's no final report. The responsibility, as Frank said, is with the owner's licensed environmental professional. which is the engineering firm that did all this work. So when they finish, they submit what's called a verification report, but it's not approved by DEAP. It's just a report that they attest that they finished the work. But what they have to do is, as Frank said, is the groundwater monitoring. And this is all their responsibility to determine if the remediation worked. And now what Frank's found out is at least in one of the more than one of the test wells that they found contamination. So the question then is, well, what are they supposed to do now? And that's still an answer that's pending. And then once everything is shown, again, as determined by the licensed environmental professional, then they have to file on the city land records an environmental land use restriction. which specifies what can and what can't be built on the site. So they said that the completion of these groundwater monitoring may be another whole year to go.

Eight months, yeah.

Eight months to a year. But in the meantime, they agreed to provide all of the email communications between DEEP and the owners themselves licensed environmental professional, all the communications that have to do with the remediation. So we may learn more there. But again, we learn quite a bit. But now what's outstanding is when the money was allocated in accordance with a contract between the owner and the DECD, Department of Economic and Community Development, that the money allocated pursuant to that contract That contract specifies progress reports and a final report as to how the money was used. And so that's still a pending request to get those reports. And the DEP attorney actually went out of her way to contact the DECD lawyer to tell him that we're expecting or we will be contacting him for those reports. So it's just very complex, but deep understands the significance of all this. in terms of future development and also how the public money that was allocated was actually spent because it wasn't, the money was allocated for the Bridgewater hedge fund that didn't take place. So, so, so anyway, this is all ongoing. And again, it deep is, I think appreciates the interest of the Harbor management commission in, in doing the due diligence as to how all this stuff is, it has been conducted and, before everybody forgets about it. Sorry to interrupt, Frank.

No, no, no, no. Last page, Mr. Chairman. The money he mentioned, the original Bridgewater relocation bonus, so to speak, grants, tax write-offs, and so forth, was $115 million. Okay. For the longest time, we had no idea of where that money went. Well, you know, Bridgewater didn't come. They pulled out. What happened to it? And there were some vague press reports about what happened to the money and who did what, and I didn't want to bother with that at all. So I went into the OPM documents and found out State officials said, look, Bridgewater didn't come to Stanford. We did not disperse the money. So that $115 million was not wasted. What they did is they allowed Bridgewater $60 million in tax credits and write-offs to for their Wilton and Westport facilities, nothing to do with Stanford, if they hired so many people, did not leave Connecticut, and set up alternate energy sources in these two buildings, weren't successful. So of that amount, And there was no cash. Bridgewater repaid $38 million of the $62 million. The rest were like tax revenue and write-offs and things like that. The remediation costs were originally $25 million for Bridgewater now. Remember, the size of that building was immense, 750,000 square feet. It was $25 million to TL76, which is BL&T, and a mandatory contribution of $10 million for from BL&T as their share of the remediation costs. I've traced back the money. The remediation costs came to $16 million, but OPM and DECD say, well, it was a loss of $16 million of the $25 million, $35 million, I'm sorry. So we can't recover. That's not true because that money was spent by Fuss and O'Neill on the remediation they completed about a year ago. So I'm going through those documents to see who did what and when they did it. That's the end of my report.

Frank, as a higher-level question, I am familiar with corporate welfare programs to incentivize businesses from outside of the state to come into the state. Yes. UBS is headquarters being positioned in Stanford just long enough for the tax and incentives to run out and then they got the hell out of here. Is there precedence to incentivizing somebody to move from Westport to Stanford or, you know, town A to town B in the state?

Within the state, no. That's why it was so controversial. And I had a couple of frank conversations with Governor Malloy about that. And what happened was, towards the end of his tenure, the state agencies, mostly the OPM and the auditors, tightened tightened up the way money was given. And so you didn't see so much of it to, hey, I'm going to move from New London to Stanford. That went away. What they did continue to do is we'll give you some incentives if you do A, B, and C to stay in Connecticut. It evolved. And the guy who did that was Governor Lamont.

So this was before this was just a sweetheart deal for somebody who wanted to move from Westport to Stanford.

Oh, how cynical. Yes, it was. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, come on. You know, it was all out there. And because of the public opposition, that's why Bridgewater pulled out. They didn't want to be bothered. Didn't want the hassle.

You know, I moved my office from one side of Bedford Street to the other side of Bedford Street. I should apply for $118 million.

Well, you probably would have got a couple of mil out of it.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. For those who didn't see it, I had a chance to do a quick Google or DuckDuckGo search and found the 2013 article that Sue had mentioned earlier in that conversation. And I dropped that in the chat. So that's there for your reading enjoyment. Any additional questions for Frank on his special assistance duties?

No, we're doing well. And thank you for your help and support. But we're just getting warmed up.

Thank you, Frank and Jeff, for your hard work on this. Thank you, Frank B., for your hard work in the rigmarole that is the Stanford budgetary process and keeping us running.

All right.

Moving on to old business. Harper user fees. Somebody who had something to say. Harbor user fees, we need to think about modifying for 26, I don't know why that says 24, 26, 27. Due to barrier closure, we can have that conversation at another meeting that isn't so long in the tooth. CHMA bill status, I think we sort of covered that. Cummings Marina rebuild, we covered that, wasn't much. Townline covered that. Lighthouse Restoration Initiative, relatively unchanged. I did send a, there's a grant that I sent over for the interpretive panels that I sent to Gary on, and perhaps that would be something that between them and us, we can make it happen. Hurricane barrier closure we talked about, Cape Park we talked about, and Fund 25 we talked about. Look at that, look how quickly old business goes through. Any other old business? New business. Okay, I have two items. The first of which is it has come to my attention that some of the new harbor commissioners, those who are on the keel hauling list, have not had a chance to get their polo shirts. And so if you don't have a Black Harbor Commission polo shirt, raise your hand and we'll add you to the keel hauling list. Okay, that's Sam, Joseph, John, and I know Jim Malerba doesn't have one either.

I want mine blue. You can't have yours blue. As an aquamarine. My God, we're a harbor commission.

You can take your black one when you get it, and you can bleach it and tie-dye it and do whatever you want. But they come in black with the city crest, and it says Harbor Management Commission on it. Excellent. I'm going to order you a small, Sam, just for that comment about the blue shirt. You'll be very blue when you're done wearing it.

Wow.

Yeah. So, Maria, can we get, yeah, well, it's after my bedtime and I ran 19 miles yesterday.

Just send me an email with the shirt sizes, please.

Right, right. Rich is saying, is there a t-shirt for Harbor Commission boosters? Yeah, we should get you a t-shirt that says, I can't believe I sit through all these meetings. Yeah, send Maria an email with your size, and we'll get the Harbor Commission polos ordered. Mine looks fine in my drawer. Okay, and then the second item that also came to my attention is that back in the day, the Harbor Commissioners got sort of... complimentary memberships at the local yacht clubs um and i don't believe that included stanford yacht club uh because uh uh i think uh i don't know just don't ever remember that happening but i'm pretty sure i definitely know it was halloween and i'm pretty sure ponus offered offered us a uh you know complimentary spot too um who's our ponus rep is that uh john okay john Okay, yeah. Can you look into that for us? I vaguely remember being told that we were welcome in those parts. And then just let me know if that's still a part of our perks of the job as they are. Any other new business? Okay. Okay. Hearing none, I want you guys to all keep your fingers and toes crossed until after September 8th that we can get this Port Authority grant appropriated and move on with this. This was not on my dance card. And we've learned a lesson from this that you can't ever take anything for granted. And seriously, Representative Gilbride has been a fantastic advocate. So anyhow.

Anyone from the public?

Yes, thank you. Public participation. Rich?

Sure, I sat through the meeting. I'll say something. I just want to make sure you guys read these. It was a Stanford Advocate article, wasn't it? About the working group for freight transport through the state, which is going to be chaired by the Port Authority chair, Michael Connor. Am I saying his name right? Are you aware of that?

Yeah, I don't know that I saw that. No, we could look that up. That's a good one.

I can I can look for there was I think it was a recent, you know, maybe it wasn't Stanford Advocate. Maybe it was Connecticut Post. If I find the article link, I will send it to chair or telly. Just making you aware of it so that, you know, if somebody wants, there's at least going to be some public meetings, but maybe somebody wants to sit in if there's a call for members for the working group.

Yeah, thank you.

Sure.

I think, Rich, the Port Authority also has a description of that on its website. I'm not sure, but I think what I saw was like a news release from the Port Authority itself about this. So, yeah, it's something that we should be aware of, especially since Stanford has such a high volume relative to any other port in the state for commercial traffic.

Yeah, I really, just sort of pinging off of something that's been percolating, I really like the idea of getting Representative Himes on board with this. And I almost wonder if there isn't something from, maybe not from the feds, but on a state level, that would be some sort of economic impact mitigator. It sort of feels like if we can get Bridgewater to pick up and move from A to B, a whole bunch of money. Why can't we help support a business that is literally building our roads in Connecticut? Why can't we find some kind of FEMA funds or something somewhere? Clearly, the feds are not interested. They don't have budget for it or the stomach for it or whatever, but I think we need to press more into the right side of things.

Because in the deep permits for even When the state of Connecticut is proposing something, if there are unavoidable adverse impacts having to do with a necessary project, there's always, it seems, some sort of mitigation that's required. And I don't know why the same principle wouldn't apply here. But that's something to pursue, and we will do so.

Yeah. We're doing everything we can for you guys, Rich. And the other users, but yeah. All right. Any other comments? Okay. Hearing none. Tuesday, September 15th, our move forward with the Port Authority will be written and the ink will be dry at that point. So again, keep your fingers crossed. September 15th, 2026 at 6.30 in the p.m. right back here. Same bad time, same bad channel. Motion.

Go ahead. I'm sorry.

I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Paul. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Good night, gentlemen. Thank you.

Good night.