No. Thank you. Amen. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Common Council for April 23rd, 2025. It's now 7-12. And we will begin as always with public participation to hear from any citizen who wants to speak on any issues about the city. And I have one name signed up, Joe Giganti. Joe. My name is Joel . I'm 67, Martin Luther King Drive. I'm here to go against the New Britain Housing Authority for taking our civil rights away from us. It's like everything is gone. You can't do nothing in our building. HUD gave us a coalition, which in 1990, Major wrote firewalls for the HUD. And HUD gives us a coercion. And the coercion is resident only. If housing shall come to a meeting, they can sit there. But if we have something important to talk, we have to tell them to leave. They didn't like that. They took us apart and everything like that. Now we have 280 people in our senior citizens building. They're trying to take us apart and put one by one building so we don't have the power that we had before. And as HUD says right here, on the internet, I got this one from Washington, DC, that they have no legal rights to do anything unless we have the right to organize to do that. Because when HUD comes in, they intimidate the people that live there. And people feel like they're going to get thrown out. That's why they started a coalition, where if you have a problem, you come to your coalition, And you speak without housing there. And then we go to the proper people and have them come down and take over for us. We don't make a judgment on the people. We have to do that without housing. Because they will throw us out no matter what. And this is, everything that's going on there is wrong. They're starting each one every housing. 100 gives us $15 a month per apartment for participation. They're going to take that away because we're not housing anymore. We're not all together. Mount President used to get it. Pentacle Heights used to get $25 a month. Each resident. That's gone. Where did the money go? Where's all this stuff going? Housing has too much power over this. And that's why we need the organization without housing. I don't care if you guys send an attorney down or anybody that knows what to do with this. I'm not that smart. Anybody that knows what to do with this, the seniors need help. That's what we need. We need help. We have a beautiful building. No drugs, no nothing. I've been there 19 years. And the person this night, HUD wants us to get together to be a family. And that's what we're doing. But right now, we're having housing against us. And we have a housing resident commissioner. I haven't seen him in 15 years. And he won't even answer the phone to do anything about it. And he's our commissioner. So this is what I want to bring up. And I hope HUD is out there listening or anybody. I'll go to court with it because HUD says it right here. Housing shall not interfere with the organization. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Does anybody else wish to speak to the council? Anybody else? Anybody else? Can I check online? No callers. Hearing done, this concludes public participation for April 23rd. It's now 7-16. The regular meeting will begin short. I cut you all off. Unintentionally. Any members wish to address what they've heard. Alderman Scott. Please don't leave. I'd like to respond to you. Yeah I just want to respond to your comments. I'm so sorry that you're that you're struggling and you're going through what you're going through. No you don't have to go there. You could just stay here. Yeah. No I'm just I'm so sorry for what you're going through and I'd like to speak with you afterwards. I'm the older woman in your ward. I mean I was. And she has. We're both your older woman. Yeah. So I just wanted to let you know I have tried to reach out to. to your apartment building to have a meeting and I was not able to connect so. Yeah so we can talk. Yeah we're not allowed. I just want you to be here so I can talk to you. Yeah. You need to address it without a dialogue. Yeah back and forth. So I'll talk to you afterwards. But if anybody has any concerns there is a fair rent commission as well and my phone number is 860-325-3119. If you should need anything. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other all the persons I would just suggest to Mr. Jante I believe public participation at every Housing Authority board meeting and I hope you can have taken your concerns to them as well. Keep attending Joe. Thank you. Public participation is over at 718. Regular meeting begins shortly. Can all the other women and all the men get to find their seats? Thank you. I call to order the October 23rd, 2025 regular meeting of the Common Council. The time is now 7.24 p.m. Mr. Kirk, will you please call the roll? Alderpersons McNamara. Here. Smedley. Still present. Sanchez. Here. Beloit-Savedra. Here. Simpson. Here. Russell. Here. Barbosa. Here. Hargraves. Here. McAdam. Here. Gibson. Here. Scott. Here. Connors. Here. Malinowski. Here. Pabon. Here. Santiago. Here. Thank you. Fifteen present. Thank you. Could we please rise for the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance? Let us pray. O God, our Heavenly Father, we give thanks for the spirit in our community, the harmony and civic pride everyone feels, and the volunteers and leaders that truly make New Britain the place to be. We ask this in thy name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Prove of the minutes. Mr. President. Alderman McNamara. Make a motion to accept the minutes of the special and regular meetings of March 26th. Second. Thank you. Second by Alderman Smedley. All in favor? Seeing none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? So motion carries. Amendments to the agenda. Mr. President. Alderman McNamara. We have no amendments. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, petitions. Any petitions? Yes, Mr. Pro Tem, we have one. Alderperson Scott, for the appropriate departments to install stop signs at the intersection at Pleasant Street and Stanley Street. Thank you. That would be referred to the Board of Police Commission. Thank you, and that's it. Thank you. Consent agenda. Mr. President. Alderman McNamara. Make a motion to accept the consent agenda of item A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N. Seconded by Alderman Bologna-Savedra. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the roll? Sure. Alderman McNamara. Aye. Smedley. Yes. Sanchez. Yes. Bologna-Savedra. Yes. Simpson. Yes. Russell. Yes. Barbosa. Yes. Hargraves, McAdam, Gibson, Scott, Connors, Malinowski, Pabon, Santiago. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Going down to resolutions returned from the committees. Item number one. Thank you, Your Honor. I make a motion to accept and adopt item number one. Second. Second. Alderman Smetley. Thank you. This resolution provides for a small change to the Fair Rent Commission ordinance. It was worked on by Alderman Hargraves and myself with assistance from Corp. Counsel and Justin Dorsey as well, several meetings going through the processes of the Fair Rent Commission. This small change brings into alignment our ordinance with the pre-existing regs just stating that folks who are facing eviction for non-payment of rent It must be current. They cannot have an eviction for nonpayment of rent to go to the Fair Rent Commission. Otherwise, they are able to avail themselves of it. It's a small change, a good change. It will allow more folks to use it. And I would just love to hear from my partner on this one, Alderman Hargraves, as well. But it's a good resolution. I urge adoption. Thank you. Any other comments? Alderman Hargraves. Yes, I was voluntold. Alderman Simpson just said. So yeah this this this amendment to this resolution it's a good change. I think we have a lot more restrictions in the state of Connecticut than other towns and folks that can file complaints with the Fair Run Commission. So this allows while still keeping some some some restrictions but allowing people that may have gotten a notice to quit who could not previously file a complaint with the Fair Commission, now they can, as long as they are up to date with their rent and they do not get an eviction notice or summary process, as the courts call it, for down payment of rent. This protects those who may have gotten a summary process for lapse of time. A lapse of time is a no-fault eviction, so this allows for more people to apply and get resolution through our fair rent commission. And throughout the years the fair rent commission has been very great to both the tenants and the landlords. It allowed them and it did save money for a lot of the tenants throughout the years and their monthly rent payments. To date there has been no as far as my knowledge there's been no appeals from the commission of their decisions so they have been making decisions And the way our commission is set up is that there's three landlords three tenants and three property owners so and make sure that there's an equal process to make sure that there's there's no bias. So this additional protection for the tenants make sure that they allow them to to file that complaint if they feel like their rent is unfairly raised. I do urge adoption. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you. Any other discussions. Oh I'm sorry. Oh the one in Scott. I just wanted to rise in support of this resolution. I'm super excited and I'm happy that we're improving the access and the overall fair rec commission in the city. It's going to help so many people out and I'm so excited I signed it. I made sure that I signed it today so I'm really happy. So thank you guys for doing the work. Thank you. Any other discussions. Seeing no other discussions. Only fairers say aye. All right. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number two, Alderman McNamara. Thank you, Mr. President. I make a motion to accept and adopt number two. Second. Seconded by Alderman Villalobos-Sereja. This is an amendment to the tax modification at 321 Ellis Street. Is it called Ellis Commons? Yeah. For the new housing. Mixed income housing going up there. This is an adjustment. It was necessary to adhere to the original agreement and reset the timetable for the project to proceed. I move adoption. Thank you. Alderman Salvatore. Thank you Mr. Chair. I rise in full support of this and I just want to comment because we often talk about housing and we had that. presentation last night about the availability of affordable housing here in New Britain. And Ellis Street Commons is a wonderful example of the expansion of affordable units here in New Britain with seniors and folks with disabilities being the primary tenants in this housing development. So I'm very excited for the project. We also have the solar panel farm that's going there. next to them. But anyways, I'm rising support at $600 per unit that we will get in taxes. And I just want to say that because sometimes people hear tax abatement and think that no taxes are being paid. Well, we are going to get $600 per unit for a total of $92,400, and that goes up 3% annually. So I just think it's important for people to understand that. And again, I want to commend the development office who works hard at bringing mixed-use housing to New Britain, but I want to really tout this particular development. I hope we see more of it for affordable units for seniors and disabled individuals. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other discussions? Only one, Ms. Scott. Thank you. I just wanted to say like on behalf of my constituents might be a little bit different from our other other woman what I'm going to say. I absolutely love the Ella Street apartments. I think they're absolutely beautiful. It's a great place for people to live. I'm a huge fan of them. And last night it was actually mentioned how they are a strength to New Britain community. They actually are a good thing for New Britain. However we We don't have as many we don't have a lot of units for a lot of people that are unhomed right now. So I'm speaking on behalf of my constituents that are actually unhomed right now in the in this moment while we're here. Those that are at risk of being unhomed and those who are just simply very concerned about the unhomed here in our communities. L Street is not. really offering that enough units to help out with that problem. They said they can't offer more. And the price to get into a one bedroom is $24,000 a year for a one bedroom. And the medium income, and this was shared last night to us, the medium income for the city and the access to being able to live in the city or in an apartment especially looking at the map that we looked at last night in Ward 3 where there's lower income, there's lower education and access to employment that would be able to withstand the amount that would be I think it was $31.80. So most people don't have jobs that can pay them that amount. The other issue is that seniors, vets, domestic violence victims, Um, and young people who are starting out building their families are just trying to get an apartment on their own. And people that are disabled, um, they just don't have enough money to even be able to qualify for the one bedroom at Ellis Street. So I think that, um, a simple solution to this, um, would be, although I love, I absolutely love Ellis Street and I'm not against this at all, um, that we do need to make sure that when developers are coming in to New Britain that we are making sure they're offering real affordable housing which would actually be less than 24,000 a year and that there's more units for families and lower income people that are on fixed incomes, seniors, domestic violence, vets, and young people and disabled people. So I just wanted to make sure I said that on behalf of my constituents who are actually concerned and have brought these concerns to me. So thank you so much. And I love Alice Street. Thank you. Any other discussions? I haven't spent it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to check first before. Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought you called on me. Give anyone else a chance before. Anyone else? Help me get my steps in there. So. practice for church. We will, we will always have a need for affordable housing and I just want to say that, and we talked about this last night too. The state has a law that requires every community, every city and town in the state of Connecticut to have 10% of their housing stock be affordable housing. By standards set by the state and by HUD. Not set by individual communities. HUD puts us in a geographical group and sets the standards. So, Although I sympathize that some people still don't like the standard. It is the standard of affordable housing set by HUD. And that is what the city is held to. The city, in our budget, does not have money to offset housing. What we do have, through Jack Benjamin's office, is money to incentivize when developers come in, depending on what type of a grant or a loan they get, to set aside a certain number of their new units as affordable housing units. And we have done that. That work is done. But you cannot tell a private developer who buys private property what to build, who to rent to in terms of how they price their units. That's private development funds that they put together, and they come to us. The only input we really have on that when it's a private developer on private land is on the tax abatement process. And as we saw, although some people in your caucus don't like the high railer, but... THAT WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY SECURED BY PRIVATE DEVELOPERS IN THE BRIT IN A VACANT BUILDING THAT WAS VACANT FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS. AND WHAT WE HAVE NOW EVEN WITH THE TAX ABATEMENT IS MORE TAX REVENUE THAN WE WOULD HAVE WITHOUT THE PROJECT. TO GO BACK TO SPECIFICALLY LOW AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WITH THIS MAYOR, AND THIS IS ONLY GOING BACK FIVE YEARS, BERKOWITZ, BERKOWITZ 2, COURTLAND ARMS, HEART STREET NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING AT HEART, CALCY STREET THE AQUINAS, LOW INCOME FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS, COLUMBUS, The second part of Columbus is out to bid as we speak. Mount Pleasant, the footprint with our help and with the help of the Office of Economic Development is expanding its footprint. So we're not only helping the Housing Authority rebuild and renovate, well it's actually a total new rebuild, Mount Pleasant, we're expanding the footprint of affordable housing in New Britain. So to say there's not a track record of moving forward with affordable housing units in New Britain would be a false narrative. What you could say is there's not as much units as you would like to see, and I think we could all agree to that. We would like to see more units. But we have not been stagnant. We've been very aggressive in the area of working with both private and public to expand housing for the citizens of New Britain. I do want to get back to, and then I'll sit down, Mr. Chair. I do want to get back to the 10% that the state requires. Only 29 cities and towns out of 169 in Connecticut. MEET OR SURPASS THAT 10%. NEW BRITAIN IS AT JUST ABOUT 19%. 29 OUT OF 169 TOWNS, DO YOU KNOW HOW THOSE OTHER TOWNS GET EXEMPT BY STATE LAW, BY PEOPLE THAT WE SEND TO HARTFORD? NO, I'M NOT SAYING OUR DELEGATION, BUT BY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN HARTFORD? IT'S BECAUSE THEY COULD CLAIM IT'S AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THEIR COMMUNITY TO OFFER AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT THEY'RE AFRAID OF PEOPLE. THAT IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR COMMUNITY TO OFFER AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT'S HOW ALL THOSE OTHER COMMUNITIES GET OUT OF OFFERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. NEW BRITAIN DOESN'T DO THAT. NEW BRITAIN IS ALMOST DOUBLE WHAT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES, AND WE CONTINUE TO STRIVE TO DO BETTER. THANK YOU, MR. BENJAMIN. THANK YOU. ALDERMAN HARDGRAVES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU, ALDERWOMAN. That's a state statute 830G which requires municipalities to have 10 percent affordable housing and I did recently read in the paper how developers under the 830G which allows developers to sue towns if they do deny them the ability to build affordable housing because it has to be a health or safety hazard in order to do that. But I just want to if Mr. Jack Benjamin has a minute if he doesn't mind. So as I understand it, this 321 Ellis Street, which I believe is just outside of my ward, last time I checked, the other side of the street. But in order to do these affordable housing projects, the rents are based on income, is that correct? Yeah, they're based on area median income. So I'd like to also point out that every single unit in this project is affordable. And that's a 30% to 80% area median income. There are one-bed bedrooms that are going for as low as $650 a month. So every unit? All 154 units are at max 80% area median income. There are 30%, 50%, 60%. The program being used is a federal program called LIHTC, Low Income Housing Tax Credits. And the project uses an income averaging basis to qualify for LIHTC. And they came in around 57%, I believe, of area median income total. for all of those units. And there are high demands for these units, correct? Oh, they had 900-something applications for 154 units. And can you also speak about, I believe this is kind of unique in the fact that CCRC is partnering with the developer for this? Yeah, so CCRC is going to be managing, I believe, 10-plus units, and those are all for folks with developmental disabilities. So they're going to be designed for independent living, but CCARC will be intimately involved. And are those units isolated so that the certain units are just together? No, they're spread throughout the building. So they're not just like singled out? Correct. Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have for you. Thank you. Any other discussion? I see no other discussion. I just wanted to say that I think with it's not that people don't like the brick or apartments like these we do like we do what we like building apartments and having homes and it's just that a lot of people can't in the city can't afford to live in them so I think that's the concern and I and I the problem that I was trying to bring up and I don't, I hope I didn't say it wrong, but it's the tax abatements. So bringing, so that we make sure that when we're giving them that we are getting what our residents here in New Britain need. So, all right, thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? Seeing no other discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Alderman, Alderman Simpson, item number three. Thank you, Your Honor. This one's pretty simple. This is a certificate of location. I need a motion first. Oh, sorry. I make a motion to accept and adopt item number three. Second. Seconded by Older Woman Sanchez. Thank you. Yeah, this is a certificate of location approval. It allows state DMV issuance for a motor vehicle repair license at 66 St. Clair Ave. Very straightforward. I urge adoption. Thank you. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing no discussions, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number four, Alderman Simpson. I should have stayed standing. I rise to make a motion to accept and adopt item number four. Seconded by Alderman Russell. Thank you. And this basically changes the hours of cannabis retailers. The hours of operations are currently 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. We're changing that to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. I urge adoption. Thank you. Thank you. All the women say, I mean, I'm sorry. All the women. Thank you. I was not on the city council when the ordinance was passed to allow cannabis to come into New Britain and we were able to get licenses from the state. So I came in, like many of you, and kind of inherited that already in motion. And although I voted to pass this with a neutral recommendation out of planning, zoning, and housing, I will say that the Latino ministry has approached me in the last, since we had this committee meeting to say that when they, and they oppose the ordinance, but to say when it was first adopted, and I don't know who, those of you who are on the council can correct me if I'm wrong, that there, there was kind of an agreement made about the signage. It's not about the time change. If the time change was standing on its own, I'd vote yes. But the signage was purposely written into the ordinance to be a little more obscure and not in your face because of the type of business that it was. And so now changing this would allow the signage to be like any other signage. And although I understand the philosophy from the Latino minister's point of view, this was not what was agreed upon and discussed with them when this was happening, what was that, two years ago now? Two, three years ago maybe when this was in? So for that reason, I'm going to vote no. I'm sure I'll be alone, but I'm going to vote no. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? Nope. OLDMAN PABON. YES. WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS THING ABOUT THE CANNABIS, THERE WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY SIGNS OUT IN FRONT BECAUSE IT KEEPS THE KIDS AWAY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO VOTING NO. THANK YOU. OLDMAN SMETLY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS, AND JACK MAY BE ABLE TO HELP A LITTLE BIT, IS THE LOCATIONS WHERE THE SIGN CHANGES SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO IS IN A BUSINESS PARK. and there's difficulty finding the location and navigating within the business park, and that's why the signage change is being addressed in this amendment. Yeah, so both of our cannabis retail locations are in really inconspicuous locations. They're tough to see from the street front. This seems to be more of a question of fairness than being able to... sort of be seen from the street by potential passing customers. What are the two locations? Hartford Road. I don't have the address on me right now, but it's the second to last parcel in New Britain as you're heading north. And then 1 Hartford Square. We were there today for ribbon cutting. It is well in the back of this warehouse. There's small signage up front. But other than that, it's indistinguishable from the rest of that. Thank you. So I think the distinction in the signage change is related to the Hartford Square property specifically here because they have established signage for their property with a template, and the sign would fit like our slides fit on the front of our desk to direct customers that the location is there and around the back. They're not going to put a blinking neon sign in front of their business. That's not allowed to begin with. Correct, and they'd have to follow all the other signage regulations that any other business would. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Alderman McNamara. I think I recall the debate in the prior council about allowing cannabis. I have no questions yet, but you can stay up there, Jack. And I believe there are restrictions in the ordinance with regard to school zones, churches, and so forth. and the locations we're talking about, and we're only out two in the city, is that correct? Yeah, correct. So as of right now, we have two retail cannabis licenses that we gave out via a request for qualifications process. In the ordinance, it's written that we can have one license per 25,000 residents. As of the last census, we were at 74,000 and change. So should we surpass 75,000 residents, which is likely, we could have another retail license to give out. We would probably do it again through a request for qualifications process. All right, thank you. I appreciate the concern, but I think the threat to exploiting youth or advertising that sees people is not a threat as the ordinance is written. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussions? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bridger, I'm sorry you just sat back down. No, please. So what's the difference between this and package source signage? Essentially nothing at the end of the day. So what these retail locations would be able to have on the side of their business and out front would be the same as what a package store would be allowed. And what's the difference between the access to the locations between alcohol and cannabis? So cannabis are highly secured operations. So there's a basically airlock entry that you have to go in, show an ID, and then you're let in through the door. So it's not like a retail package store where you can walk in off the street. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussions? Alderman Pavon. Through you, sir. Jack, Mr. Bedford, what happened to the one on Slater Road? Well, that's a grow operation, so they don't have any signage advertising. So they're still coming in? Yes. Okay, thank you. Any other discussions? I am I was at the committee and I did ask that same question because I did remember that the state statute actually requires the signs to be a certain way and I did have the concerns also about the signs because again I was one that opposed on Slater Street of that the scoring again I think I'm not against marijuana as I said then I will say it now because it has many features and things that can help and but the thing what is I am concerned about the kids I am concerned because that one especially was because it has three schools. Church we have you know it's residential and that was my genuine concern about that area. Hartford Square I didn't have an issue with because again it's a business. It's it's pretty much secured and it's out and it's not in the view of the residents because you would have to literally go and run around and which would be a private property. And so again you're violating so at that point you're breaking the law. On this one the time makes sense because again who wants to be up at 7. I mean if they're getting up at 7 to do it that's an issue in itself. They might need help for that. But at this case you know changing it to match up to like the same thing as the package stores kind of works out. The signage again being that it's a business I really didn't have an issue with it because it was already passed. So you know can't have a problem. So that being said any other discussions. I like to make people laugh so that woman up here might as well do it. Seeing no discussions all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. No. We have two no's correct for the record. We have a nay I mean a no from Alderman Pabon and also Alderwoman Valencia-Veitra. Any others? Motion carries. Item number five Alderman Hardway. Thank you Mr. Chair making motion to accept and adopt item number five. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to go with Smedley because he completed his sentence, so I'm sorry. Seconded by Alderman Smedley. This motion is to amend section of the zoning ordinance is to clarify that a single driveway is permitted in lower density residential districts and I urge adoption. And I would also like to have a friendly amendment. I make a motion to amend by removing T and T6 in section 240 dash 50 dash 40. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Seconded by Alderman Manolis Matt I'm gonna have to go with Matt I'm sorry chop up your name. Any discussions under the second. DIRECTOR HERSEY- And if I have a chance I'd like to call Mr. Benjamin just to explain this amendment. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Mr. Sure. We are recommending and endorsing removing T and T6 which are higher density residential districts. This is really focused on single family home neighborhoods. We've had a couple instances come before Zoning Board of Appeals looking for variances to add a second driveway to the property. There was some ambiguity in the text and this just clarifies that it's one driveway per parcel. Make a motion to amend by removing T6 in section 240-50-40. Any discussions as amended? On the amendment. Seeing no discussions, all in favor to say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Motion carried as amended. On the amendment. Thank you. Now, any discussions on as amended? Seeing no discussions. Any further. Okay. Any as amended. I'm sorry. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number six Alderman Mack. Sorry. Thank you Alderman Santiago. I make a motion to accept and adopt items number six. Second. Second. Alderman seconded by Alderman Gibson. And this is to amend sections of our zoning ordinances to require screening between properties that are used solely for business and that abut properties that are used solely for residential in the B 1 R and C B D R districts. And I believe if I remember the committee correctly this only reflects like six properties in the city of New Britain. So as of right now. So I urge adoption. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Any discussion. See no further discussions. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number seven, Alderman Smedley. Thank you. I make a motion to accept and adopt resolution number seven. Second. Seconded by Alderman Pabon. Thank you. As you know, this is a on-call public bid for electrical HVAC plumbing, building envelope, masonry, interior repairs, and supplies for city buildings bid process. This naturally allows our facilities department and eventually the school department, once I pass it through to the Board of Ed, to use a on-call list of contractors who submitted responsible bids for this work. And I do urge adoption. It will allow our facilities department to execute projects. I do want to state that I wish it remained at 50,000 or the original 100,000 because it would allow for local contractors who are listed many of them in New Britain, to handle some larger scale projects that they necessarily can't because of the bid process, which has a hefty administrative process and cost to it, which requires employees of those businesses to spend hours submitting bid paperwork and attending walkthroughs, et cetera. However, I'm happy that we're able to come to this after a very long discussion at the committee level. I urge acceptance. Thank you. Any discussions? All the women. Scott. I just want to say that I'm happy with the amended that we're giving it at a lower amount because it gives more transparency with the jobs that are being done and after the long conversation that committee we made this decision to meet halfway with this amount so for this although I wish it was kind of a little bit less than this but we're making an adjustment and we're compromising with each other. Okay any other any others? Alderman Cimini. Through you Mr. Chairman respectfully Alderwoman Scott can you elaborate on what you mean by makes it more transparent at 37.5 the bid process was held at 100 at 50 and then again at 37.5 it's the same exact transparency. Sure so so it would make it so that If there's a big job, something that costs more than that amount, it would have to come to council first. So that way, we'd be able to make sure we can always give money for something, a big project. But there's no need, really, for a huge amount of money to be given up front for projects. Mr. Chair. Oh, the woman, Melissa Rachel. Just to correct the record. whether we have an on-call list of $100,000, $50,000, $37,500, or $10,000, the process is exactly the same. You go out to bid at a certain threshold, you develop a list, and every time a purchase is going to be made or a contract is going to be awarded, it comes to the council first. The only thing an on-call list does, regardless of how much money we set as the threshold, is to allow for a massive bid list And again, I'm using the word bid because a bid happens here. A bid list is produced, and then instead of bidding projects individually as they come up, you could go to the list that's been properly bid and pull from the list. The transparency, as Alderman Smedley says, is exactly the same. Even if we lowered it to $5,000, there's no difference in transparency or process from $100,000 to $5,000. Thank you. Any other discussions? Alderman McNamara. I support the notion of an on-call list. I think this represents a response to the needs by the administration as identified. And I think it strikes a balance between expediting deferred maintenance needs and getting the best qualified low bidder. when those amounts exceed the the limit in this ordinance. And it will be in effect through the end of the next fiscal year where it can be revisited. So I rise in support of Alderman Smedley's resolution. DIRECTOR HERSEY. Any other discussions? Alderman Russel. DIRECTOR RUSSEL. I also would like to make a comment to make a correction. I also would like to make a correction as well. She said that we agreed on a price that was halfway. This was less than halfway. Mr. Anyone else? Alderman Scott. Ms. So it was a compromise. Yes it was a compromise that we made and I'm in favor of the compromise. Thank you. Mr. Alderman Simpson. I'd like to move this question. On favor of question, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Alderman Matt. Alderman Matt. Seeing no other since this question. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay. Motion carries. Item number eight. Or the woman Barbosa. I make a motion to accept and adopt item number eight. Second by Alderman O'Neill O'Connor. I keep I mess up Neil O'Connor. I put an O on everything. Well if you drove you drove five hours to New Hampshire five hours to New Hampshire and come back you'll be fumbling up too. Aye. This is regarding resolution item number 36735 and the amendment to the rule of the Civil Service Commission. It pertains to the position of the public safety telecommunicator that any individual who upholds all the certifications required be automatically eligible for appointment whether or not there is an active appointment list at the time and I urge adoption. Thank you. Any other discussion? See no discussion. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carried. Item number nine Connors Alderman Connors. That's I begorrah to you. I make a motion to accept and adopt item number nine. Second by Alderman Pavone. This is near and dear. I got my start on the historic preservation commission. This simply updates the historic properties list. Historic properties are important to protect our our neighborhoods and our architecture and I urge adoption. Thank you. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Any discussion. See no discussions. All in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number 11. No I'm sorry item number 10 Alderman Sanchez. Thank you I made a motion to accept and adopt item number 10. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Seconded by Alderman Alderman Hargraves. This resolution is for a reference of public bid number 4196. It is for 2025 summer bus truck transportation for the Recreation and Community Services Department. And it looks like this, whereas public bid number 4196 was solicited and received in accordance with the purchasing ordinance of the City of New Bern for the 2025 summer bus transportation for the Recreation and Community Services Department. And whereas invitations to Bay were solicited and the Bay was duly advertised in the New Bern Herald newspaper, the City and the State of Connecticut's Department of Administration Services websites and email to attend and mail to two bus transportation companies. Whereas the Bay received were reviewed for conformance to a specification by the Recreation and Community Services Departments, Administration, and the Purchasing Agent. And we're at First Student Inc., a city-based bus company, submitted a bid that was within the 10% of the lowest bidder who is not a city-based bus company. For the bid documents on the city ordinance section 2-578, item 10, First Student Inc. has indicated that TO THE PURCHASING AGENT VIA AN EMAIL THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MATCH THE PRICE OF THE LOWEST BIDDER AUTUMN TRANSPORTATION IN FOR THE DAILY BUS RATE AND NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED THAT THE PURCHASING AGENT IS TO BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO FIRST STUDENT IN OF NEW BROOK CONNECTICUT FOR THE 2025 SUMMER BUS TRANSPORTATION FOR THE RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND I URGE ADOPTION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? Seeing no discussions, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carries. Item number 11, Alderman Scott. Thank you. I make a motion to accept and adopt item number 11. Second by Alderman Simpson. This one is for Clean Water Fund support and the city's utilities operations that manages approximately 330 miles. of sanitary and storm sewer pipes and nearly 8,500 catch bins and manholes. The EPA and the Connecticut Department of Energy are charged with complying with the general permit discharge of stormwater and small municipal separate storm sewer systems. The general permit requires each municipality to take several steps, actions every year to ensure that the stormwater entering the city is clean as it enters the bodies. So this is so important for us to have clean water. And the city hereby authorized the purchase order to hire engineering firm of Brown and Codwell to perform consulting work related to the ongoing support of clean water fund and related issues. So I urge adoption. Thank you. Any other discussions? Ms. Medley. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, through you, Mr. Moriarty. Come on down. Mr. Moriarty, how was this contract selected or awarded to Brown and Cladwell? They're a consultant on our engineering on-call list. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. What was that? They're a consultant on the engineering on-call list. The on-call list, okay. Thank you. Any other discussions? Seeing no discussions, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Motion carried. Item number 12, Alderman McNamara. Thank you, Your Honor. I'll call Your Honor this time. I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT NUMBER 12 AND REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING, ZONING, AND HOUSING. SECOND BY OLDER WOMAN SANCHEZ. THE ESSENCE OF THIS RESOLUTION IS A NEW SECTION FOR OUR CITY ORDINANCES, WHICH STATES THAT UNDER GENERAL STATUTES 14-307C, THE CITY AUTHORIZES THE USE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT LOCATIONS within schools, pedestrian safety zones, and other places within the boundaries of Britain. I think this is timely to adhere to the general statutes, and it's synced to the Vision Zero Task Force work, and so I urge it to be referred to committee for review in a public hearing, and then to move on to the council. Thank you. the women's survey chair thank you mr. chair as a member of the vision zero committee I raised to fully support this we have talked extensively we've reviewed data about crashes the causes of crashes we've looked at maps of the city to see where the high propensity is for crashes it's been very eye-opening to see and to learn about the different statistics. I want to thank my fellow council members who serve on the committee with me, Alderman Hargraves, Alderman Russell, Alderman Simpson, and Alderwoman Sanchez. I would say, truly, this has been a bipartisan effort. We have really great discussions at Vision Zero and I think collectively we come in support although I don't want to speak for all of you but I do believe we collectively support the notion of at least getting a public hearing and hearing from Mr. Moriarty who's the head of the Vision Zero committee but with all the petitions that have gone through this council over the last year and a half related to traffic issues throughout the city throughout the city that this is one very significant tool in the toolbox to really tackle the speeding issue. And if you looked at the ordinance by state statute, the person has to be going 10 miles over the speed limit before they would actually be clocked by this traffic enforcement camera. So there's a little bit of a grace. You have to be 10 miles over the speed limit. And for the first 30 days that these cameras are in operation, you'd get a warning, not a fine. So there is kind of a phase-in period through this ordinance to get people used to. THIS TYPE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE. IT ALSO DOES RED LIGHTS, IF YOU BLOW THROUGH A RED LIGHT AND IT DOESN'T CATCH YOU, BLOWING THROUGH A YELLOW LIGHT. THE RED LIGHT HAS TO BE UP AND STAGNANT AND THE PERSON GOING THROUGH IT FOR YOU TO BE FLAGGED FOR IT. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THERE ARE SAFETY MEASURES, THERE'S GRACE PERIODS, AND IT'S NOT TO GET YOU, IT IS TO REALLY START CONTROLLING AND MODIFYING TRAFFIC BEHAVIORS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND I URGE REFERRAL. THANK YOU. Any other discussion. Alderman Hargraves. Thank you Mr. Chair. I echo the words of Alderman Alderman I'm sorry Alderwoman Boulogne-Savager. We all drive these streets every day and we do see that over the past few years probably since COVID it's been getting a little worse and people are speeding people are blowing through stop signs people are blowing through red lights you know and it's scary we have pedestrians out there that are worried. We're seeing an increase in accidents in certain areas involving different cars, pedestrians, scooters, or whatever, bullpads, whatever it may be. So I think it's important that we start to rain down and make sure that we start controlling our roads and make sure that it's safer for everybody. And it's just one step to make sure that it's safer. So I definitely urge referral on this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, the one with Bobolsa. I mean, yeah, Bobolsa. No, no. Yeah. No, you got it. I did, right? One question myself. I just want to say that I'm glad this is going to be worked on but I also want to make note that pedestrians also need to take responsibility. This is not a tool to to avoid from pedestrians just illegally crossing streets whenever they feel like it. I will say twice this week people have crossed in the wrong sections of the street broad daylight and at night and I myself have almost struck them. So I'm saying this out publicly pedestrians You need to take accountability for the way you are walking these streets. You cannot take these tools that are going to be put into place to be lifesavers. You have to save your own life, and you have to be responsible. Old Woman Sanchez. Thank you. I just want to add to what Alderman Barbosa said. Just yesterday, before I got to the meeting, I had to put my car in the middle of the traffic light, so this lady that was working out of Martin Luther King apartment, she can go to the other side. So I left my car in the middle of the street because nobody wants to let her cross the street like that, even though she had the right to cross the street. And people need to know that it's not only them that they're walking on the street or driving around in the rain. That person that you hit and run is a family member, at least I live on top of the traffic light on North Street. Mr. Moriarty knows. I'm keeping track of the hidden run, because even my mom that is deaf, if she goes like, I know the one, I already know that something happened. 3 in the morning, 4 in the morning, 5 in the morning. They don't even wait for the police no more. This is crazy. People need to respect other people's lives. Be responsible, like you said. Come on, let's work together. I just want to add that to the resolution. And now your adoption. Oh, referral. The referral. Thank you. Any other discussions. Alderman Scott and then Alderman Russell. Yeah I'm just I really hope that we can look at what the other towns are doing with this as well the towns that have this already like New Haven and I think that'll be good for us to look at with when we're sending this to committee and we'll have more conversations about that. I think this is. actually good because I saw you know a child get hit and run and that it would hopefully at least be able to help track that person down that hit them. And I myself have had many close encounters I mean on the way here like nearly getting my car hit by someone who is just not paying attention to the road or speeding and and I have almost come close to hitting someone too so I definitely am connected with what you said as well for Alderman Barbosa that people do need to be careful. Everyone needs to slow down when they're driving and also when they're walking just to be really careful as you're walking. All right. So I'm looking forward to the more of the conversation around this. I think it might actually be good for safety issues too because I'm a huge fan of true crime. It may help with tracking down a car or something in that in that situation. So I think there's a lot for us to talk about with this. So thank you. DIRECTOR DEWOLF. Thank you. Alderman Russell. DIRECTOR RUSSELL. I also would like to stand in support of the referral as well. You know being part of Vision Zero and not missing a meeting. I'm very glad that we're at this point and I think this is something that will be great for the city. I agree with everything that's been said. It's I mean the pedestrian as well have to be careful as well as the drivers. But I think this is something that's definitely going to help us with bringing the fatalities down to a lower level. So hopefully it does get referred and hopefully it comes right back to us. Thank you. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you. Any other discussions. Other ones but I'm sorry Chair. DIRECTOR MACKENZIE- Just rise to clarify something because we talked about it in committee. The. The speed camera and the red light camera will not be used for any other purpose other than to catch someone speeding or going through a red light. It involves people's civil rights. And there are a lot of people who are actually not going to be in favor of this. And all the camera is doing is taking a picture of your license plate and whatever the violation is. Whoever's driving the car, their picture is not being taken by the camera. And the owner of the car is held responsible for the violation. that is happening with their vehicle, whether they're driving it, their cousin's driving it, their child's driving it. The only thing that happens, and I just want to put that on the record because there are people who will come out against this, is the cameras take a picture of your license plate only, not who's in the car. So there's not going to be any pictures of people. It's going to be license plate and clock the violation. So I just want to make sure everybody understands that. Thank you for that clarification. Any other discussion? I'm also, I'll rise, I mean, I'm rising now for the support of it, because, again, in my district, if you notice, there's so many memorials. Because there have been a lot of accidents in Corbin, Slate, from the youth to adults, it's been very, it's nerve-wracking to see that when you go by and you see another memorial because somebody either got hit by a car or they lost control of a car for reckless driving or just not paying attention. So I do urge this referral as well. Any other discussions? Seeing no more discussions, all in favor of referral to planning, zoning, and housing, all say aye. Aye. All say nay. Motion carries. Item number three. 13. I mean 13. We're going back. We're going back. Way back. Old woman Sanchez. I make a motion to accept. Item number 13, I refer to the committee on planning zoning and housing. Alderwoman Cervetia, okay. Second by Alderwoman Cervetia. Any discussion? Alderwoman Cervetia. Could we just have Mr. Benjamin come up and briefly talk about the significance of this? Item 13, Jack. Thank you. Sure, absolutely. So this resolution is for us to opt into an entirely elective body, a quasi-public agency called the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority. Its main purpose is building density housing and mixed use projects around transit stations in Connecticut. So it's a statewide effort. For us, that means our downtown fast track station, our East Main Street fast track station, and our East Street fast track station. Our zoning has basically been, you know, vetted and nominally approved. So many other municipalities where they would have to go back and redo all their zoning to qualify for membership in this organization. We're where we need to be at this point. What this is going to do is it's going to unlock funding. A lot of that funding is going to be made available for gap financing for development projects within essentially walking distance of transit stations. Any other discussions or questions? Seeing none. Oh, can I finish it? See no further discussions on favor of moving item number 13 to planning, zoning, and housing for conversation. Say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. Motion carried. Okay, there you go. It's not me. Motion adjourned, made by Alderman Barbosa, seconded by Jarrell Hargraves. All those opposed, say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carried. The time is now 18 p.m. Motion adjourned. Meeting's adjourned. Holy crap, we still made it under the... Thank you.