741 Colonel Ledyard Highway

Ledyard, Connecticut 06339-1551

(860) 464-3203

TOWN OF LEDYARD

Town Council

council@ledyardct.org

Meeting Minutes

Chairman Gary St. Vil

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, December 10, 2025

7:00 PM

Town Hall Council Chambers

In-Person: Council Chambers Town Hall Annex

Remote: Information noted below:

Join Zoom Meeting from your Computer, Smart Phone or Tablet:

https://ledyardct.zoom.us/j/83933545824?pwd=SZ30v19GxJB77IErR2A7FbLXby0Duu.1

Audio Only: Telephone: +1 646 558 8656; Meeting ID: 839 3354 5824; Passcode: 666602

CALL TO ORDER

IC.hairman St. Vil called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, Town

Hall Annex Building.

Chairman St. Vil welcomed all to the Hybrid Meeting. He stated for the members of the

Town Council and the Public who were participating via video conference that the

remote meeting information was available on the Agenda that was posted on the Town’s

Website - Granicus-Legistar Meeting Portal.

II.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

III.

Town Councilor William Barnes

Town Councilor April Brunelle

Town Councilor Jessica Buhle

Town Councilor Ty Lamb

Present:

Town Councilor Adrienne Parad

Town Councilor James Thompson

Chairman Gary St. Vil

Town Councilor Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

Town Councilor Tim Ryan

Excused:

IV.

PRESENTATIONS

Special Election for State Representative 139th Assembly District

Councilor Parad read information provided by the Registrars regarding the January 13, 2026

Special Election as follows:

Four Days of Early Voting:

Location: Register’s Office - 741 Colonel Ledyard Highway in the Registrar’s Office, lower

level.

1/8/2026 - Thursday 10am- 6pm

1/9//2026 - Friday 10am- 6pm

1/10/2026 Saturday 10am- 6pm

1/11/2026 Sunday 10am- 6pm

Election Day

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Time:

6am-8pm

Location:

District #3 - Voter Polling Location will be at the Juliet Long School Gymnasium, 1854 Route

12, Gales Ferry

Absentee Ballots:

Absentee Ballots available starting on Monday December 15, 2025.

Absentee Ballots would be handled by Town Clerk, 741 Colonel Ledyard Highway, Town Hall,

upper level.

RESIDENT & PROPERTY OWNERS (COMMENTS LIMITED TO THREE (3)

MINUTES

Mr. M. Dave Schroeder, Jr., 290 Whalehead Road, Gales Ferry, congratulated the members

of the Town Council that were reelection and members that were the newly elected.

Mr. Schroeder stated that he was present this evening to urge the Town Council to begin the

process to restore the Planning Commission and the Zoning Commission as two separate

bodies. He noted that historically these Commissions had distinct roles: the Planning

Commission created the town's long-term vision through the Plan of Conservation &

Development (POCD), and the Zoning Commission wrote and enforced the regulations

needed to implement that vision. He stated that division created a natural check and balance.

Mr. Schroeder went on to state as many on the Town Council know, the Plan of

Conservation and Development (POCD) was a state-mandated document that sets out the

long-term goals and most desirable land uses for a town. It was meant to guide decisions

about housing, infrastructure, conservation, economic development, and community

character. Under Connecticut law-specifically CGS 83(a)-all zoning regulation changes and

map amendments must be evaluated for consistency with the POCD; and the subdivision

rules must advance its objectives.

Mr. Schroeder continued by stating that this only worked as a safeguard if the body that

rewrites the POCD was not the same body that rewrites the Zoning Regulations. He stated

when the commissions were merged in 2012, that safeguard disappeared, noting that this

was not a theoretical concern. He stated that they saw the consequences in the very first

rewrite cycle after the two commissions were combined; starting around 2020, when the

combined Planning & Zoning Commission rewrote roughly 70% of the Zoning

Regulations and used changes they had just made to the POCD as the pretext to justify the

zoning changes.

Mr. Schroeder noted that one of the most troubling outcomes was the large expansion of

By-Right Development -because the new POCD now called for it. However, he stated the

problem was that the protections residents rely on such as: Standards for neighborhood

character, density, building design, traffic safety, environmental impacts, noise, odor, dust

were activated only when a project required a Special Permit. He stated in expanding

By-Right Development, that those safeguards were no longer triggered for many proposals

(e.g. high density multi-family housing, an extremely contentious issue). He stated that the

result was that many of the safeguards residents believed were protecting their neighborhoods

no longer applied; noting that this was only one of the many far-reaching changes that were

made in the last regulatory update.

Mr. Schroeder commented that the merger also allowed the commission to make decisions

based on subjective or speculative economic arguments under its "planning" role, rather

than applying the zoning regulations strictly and consistently. He stated that this broad

interpretive latitude undermined predictability for residents and applicants; and was a

formula for litigation. He noted as an example that they have already seen the current

litigated case regarding PZ#24-2RESUB 96, 97, and 100 Stoddards Wharf Road, noting

that the Planning & Zoning Commission took it upon themselves to approve a housing

development in a public watershed, and now Ledyard was being sued by the Town of

Groton.

Mr. Schroeder concluded his comments by stating that this situation should concern

everyone, noting that too much policy-making authority was now concentrated in one body

with no internal counterbalance, and their current regulations that were adopted under this

merged structure, no longer reflected the protective intent people assumed were in place.

Mr. Schroeder stated that these were only two of the many reasons to separate the two

commissions. He stated during the recent General Election Campaign that many candidates

expressed a willingness to revisit how and why the two commissions were merged; and how

other towns avoid these problems. He stated that he also heard members of the Town

Council say that Zoning Regulations were supposed to protect residents, noting that was true

in principal, but as illustrated since the 2022 Zoning Regulations rewrite took affect that was

no longer happening. He asked the Town Council to consider the points he presented this

evening and that they decide for themselves: (1) Whether the combined planning & zoning

commission holds too much policy making authority; and (2) Whether that authority

promotes the values and visions of the majority of Ledyard’s residents rightly expect. He

stated that he urged the Town Council take the steps needed to restore the checks and

balances that once existed to ensure that their Plan of Conservation (POCD) and their

Zoning Regulations promote and protect the future they all want for the good of their town.

Mr. Eric Treaster, 10 Huntington Way, Ledyard, stated that his comments would take about

7 minutes and he asked Chairman St. Vil to allow him the additional time this evening.

Chairman St. Vil responded stating that he would allow Mr. Treaster the requested 7 minutes

this evening.

Mr. Treaster stated that he was present this evening to suggest reasons why the Planning and

Zoning Commission should be restored as separate commissions. He stated that he served on

the Ledyard Zoning Commission from 1985 to the end of 2012, noting that he served as the

Zoning Commission Chairman from 2011-2012, when in 2012 the Town Council combined

the Zoning and Planning Commissions into a single commission.

Mr. Treaster provided some background noting that Ledyard adopted its first set of zoning

regulations in 1963. The Town Council served as a combined Planning and Zoning

Commission until about 1971, when it split the Commission into a separate Planning

Commission and Zoning Commission. At the end of 2012, to encourage commercial

development, the Town Council recombined the Commissions into the current Planning and

Zoning Commission.

Mr. Treaster stated that the 1963 Zoning Regulations originally consisted of 29 pages. He

noted between 1985 and 2011, while he was serving on the Commission, the Zoning

Regulations underwent a series of revisions, including adopting Regulations around 1998.

He stated as suggested by Mayor Susan Mendenhall, the Zoning Regulations were written to

provide for Age-Restricted Mobile Manufactured Home Land Lease Communities, noting

that he wrote those Zonign Regulations, which resulted in the Stonegate Village, which was

currently Ledyard’s seventeennth largest taxpayer.

Mr. Treaster went on to explain that the Zoning Rewrites also contained Regulations

suggested by former Town Planners Bill Haase and Brian Palaia, that designated areas of

Gales Ferry and Ledyard Center as "Village Districts" and "Design Districts" as allowed

under the land use statutes, noting that these statutes still exist; and that Gales Ferry and

Ledyard Center could be made “Village Districts” again, if they so choose to. He stated the

Village District Regulations included architectural standards, design requirements, and

formal reviews by an Architectural Review Board for commercial developments. He stated

by mid-2011, the Zoning Regulations had grown to 206 pages.

Mr. Treaster stated in 2012, the Zoning Commission condensed the Regulations to 139

pages, which included Regulations for the Village and Design Districts; and the Regulations

for Age Restricted Affordable Mobile-Manufactured Home Land-Lease Communities,

which, in the early 2000s, guided the development of Stonegate Village on Flintlock Road.

The Regulations continued to require special permits for most commercial developments,

which were necessary to ensure quality development and to avoid risking the preservation of

our Town's character. The last vote of the Zoning Commission, before it permanently

adjourned on October 11, 2012, was to approve the condensed set of Zoning Regulations.

Mr. Treaster went on to explained for about 14 years, had a history of success with the

Zoning Regulations that were in effect between about 1998 and the end of 2012. He stated

that they guided the development of the Stonecroft Country Inn on Pumpkin Hill Road, the

Pumpkin Hill Convenience Store near the Highlands, and the Two Trees Inn Hotel on

Lantern Hill just east of the reservation. Later versions resulted in the development of the

Village Market in Ledyard Center, Dime Bank, the Emergency Services Building, the

condominiums on Fairway Drive, CVS in Gales Ferry, and the brick building on the

Southwest corner of Route117 and Route 214, which at the time was owned by Southern

New England Telephone (SNET). He stated that each of these developments required a

special permit, noting that they were all quality developments that did not affect the

preservation of their Town's rural character or harm property values.

Mr. Treaster continued by stating that after the Planning Commission and Zoning

Commission were combined in late 2012, the combined Planning & Zoning Commission

relaxed the regulations to encourage more commercial development. It deleted many special

permit requirements, replaced the Village and Design Districts with Development Districts,

deleted the design guidelines, deleted the Architectural Review Board, increased the height

limits, and deleted regulations for affordable age-restricted land-lease communities. He

noted that later in about 2020, the Planning & Zoning Commission removed most of the

remaining special permit requirements, and to improve economies of scale and to make the

development of multifamily and mixed-use developments more profitable, they increased the

height limit to 65 feet for multifamily and mixed use developments in Gales Ferry and

Ledyard Center.

Mr. Treaster stated the Zoning Regulations now consist of 191 pages. They allow most

commercial uses As-of Right, including multi-hundred-unit multifamily and mixed-use

developments in the Gales Ferry Development District and the Ledyard Center Development

District, if the setback and height limits were satisfied; and the development conformed with

the building and health codes. He noted as an example, the current Regulations would allow,

As-of-Right, the 308-unit four- and five story Trident Square Apartment Complex, which

was located behind the Chinese Restaurant on Route 12 in Groton, to be built in Gales Ferry

and in Ledyard Center.

Mr. Treaster went on to note that there were fewer high-quality commercial developments

during the 14 years after 2012, when the commissions were combined, than during the 14

years before 2012, when the two commissions were separate. He stated the 32-unit Ledyard

Meadows Estates located at 807 Colonel Ledyard Highway, which was built in 2018, was

the only example of quality development between 2012 and today that he was aware of.

Mr. Treaster continued by stating without design guidelines, an architectural review board,

parking, a reasonable height limit, and special permit requirements, that it was his opinion

that the applications that were likely expected for Sweet Hill Farm, the Cartway property,

and properties in Ledyard Center would be for lower quality developments, because special

permits were no longer required, that this could place the preservation of the character of

their Town at risk. He noted that it was his opinion that the Regulations should not have

been relaxed after 2012 for the sake of development. He stated that quality developments

encourage the development of more quality projects, which improve their town, and that it

was His Opinion that conversely, low-quality developments encourage more low-quality

similar projects, ultimately diminishing the character and appeal of their Town.

Mr. Treaster noted that it was His Opinion that by nature, volunteers on Planning

Commissions tend to favor economic growth and support recommendations from the

Economic Development Commission. They tend to be concerned with growth, water and

sewer, affordable housing, open space, subdivisions, and the avoidance of urban sprawl.

They were also more likely to support growth for the sake of growth to increase the tax base.

He went on to note that it was His Opinion that the volunteer members of Zoning

Commissions, on the other hand, were more responsive to concerns regarding the quality of

life, traffic, protecting the character of their Town, improving and protecting safety and

health, and protecting property values and natural resources. Members of Zoning

Commissions tend not to support growth for its own sake. Mr. Treaster noted the following

example, the Zoning Commission once spent hours deliberating on Regulations regarding

whether chickens and miniature horses should be allowed in residential districts. He stated

that he would suspect that most volunteers on a Planning Commission would prefer to work

on the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) and on long-term planning for their

Town's future.

Mr. Treaster went on to note that between 1971 and 2012, while the Commissions were

separate, the Zoning Commission met for about 3 hours twice a month. The Planning

Commission also met for about 2-3 hours, once a month. After they were combined, the

Commission continued to meet for only about 2 or 3 hours, usually once each month. He

rhetorically questioned “How can the combined Commission do a good job in about 3 hours

per month, when it previously required about 9 hours per month when they were separate?;

stating that “It cannot, unless it outsources some of its zoning or planning responsibilities”.

Mr. Treaster stated that this was demonstrated by the Commission's recent failure to address

the omissions and ambiguities in the current zoning regulations and the conflicting goals in

the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). He noted the following example: The

costly Gales Ferry Intermodal (GFI) Litigation was at least partially caused by a deficient

definition of excavation as a major land use, which Gales Ferry Intermodal (GFI) interpreted

as allowing the quarrying of Mount. Decatur. He stated because of the amount of work and

effort required to be knowledgeable in both Zoning and Planning that volunteer

commissioners on combined planning and zoning commissions, due to lack of knowledge

and time, often have no choice but to accept guidance from the town planner, who does not

live in their Town and may not care about its future. He stated that the Town Planner may

also be biased in-favor of or opposed to a development or policy, or may present conflicting

information without the Commission's knowledge. He stated that separate commissions

would also save money, noting if the two were separate, the Zoning Commission would have

more time to prepare and review its Zoning Regulations, and the Planning Commission

would have more time to update its Plan of Conservation and Development. He noted as an

example; that the Town Planner recently asked the Town Council for funds to hire a

consultant to help her update the Plan of Conservation & Development (POCD), even

though the commission has not yet had time to resolve the conflicts in the current Plan of

Conservation and Development, and the update was not due for another four years. He noted

that the town planner also asked for $2,500 to hire a consultant to prepare a Zoning

Regulation change to address the parking deficiencies in the current regulations for

multifamily and mixed-use developments. He stated that these types of expenses would be

reduced if the Town had separate Zoning Commission and Planning Commissions noting

that separate Commissions would help free-up time for the Town Planner to focus on

planning rather than administrative duties. He went on to comment that it was His Opinion

that separate commissions also help to create a check-and balance that would be good for the

Town. They would also result in better regulations and development, as was the case until

2012, when the commissions were combined.

Mr. Treaster concluded his comments by urging that the Planning and Zoning Commission

revert to separate commissions, as it did in 1971. He stated that it would be good for their

Town and it was worth considering.

Mr. Brandon Sabbag, 16 Nutmeg Drive, Gales Ferry, began his comments by stating that

they should listen to what Mr. Treaster was saying, noting that he has been doing this for 41

years. Mr. Sabbag continued by congratulating the members of the Town Council who were

reelected and newly elected for the first time. He addressed the upcoming Fiscal Year

2026/2027 Budget preparation. He stated after the voters turned down the Fiscal Year

2025/2026 Budget twice that the residents did not have a lot of confidence in their local

government. He stated this was a turning point for their town, noting that the Town Council

had the opportunity to fight for a 0% budget increase. He noted the new property

reevaluation assessments that residents received, and he thanked Councilor Buhle and

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry for responding to residents’ concerns on social media. He stated

the best way to restore residents’ confidence was to do their best not to have a huge increase

in taxes for the upcoming the Fiscal Year 2026/2027. Thank you.

Mr. Mike Cherry, 5 Whippoorwill Drive, Gales Ferry, attending remotely via Zoom, stated

he attended last night’s Special Finance Committee meeting and he congratulated the

Committee for putting together an excellent draft Budget Letter of Directive for the

upcoming Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget Preparation. He stated during the meeting a

comment was made that last year’s (fy 25/26) Budget Letter of Directive was not followed

because when the budget was presented to the Town Council there were a lot of reasons that

money needed to be spent. He asked for the upcoming year that they follow the Budget

Letter of Directive for Fiscal Year 2026/2027. He stated as Mr. Sabbag mentioned that the

Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget was not approved by Referendum, noting that the Town

Council had to approve a budget. He stated that he would like to see a Fiscal Year 2026/2027

Budget that was fair, funded the needs of the town, and would get approved in the first

Referendum, because everybody agreed that was what they needed to do. Thank you.

VI.

COMMITTEE COMMISSION AND BOARD REPORTS

None.

VII. COMMENTS OF TOWN COUNCILORS

Councilor Barnes stated tonight was his first Administration Committee meeting serving as a

member of the Committee. He stated based on their discussion that he was optimistic that

there was a path forward for the proposed “An Ordinance Establishing a Town of Ledyard

Code of Ethics and Ethics Commission”, that would have bipartisan support. He thanked

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry for facilitating the discussion and being open to his suggestions.

Councilor Brunelle cautioned everyone to look out for the deer. She encouraged residents to

read the Events Magazine Volume 6, 2025 that was recently delivered to every household.

She noted the many Parks & Recreation Programs available for both kids and adults to

participate in this winter.

Councilor Thompson thanked the residents for their comments this evening, noting that he

appreciated their interest in their town and the he would take their concerns to heart. He

stated he enjoyed seeing civic engagement and hoped to see more of the seats filled at future

Town Council meetings.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated after a decade Ledyard’s High School Football Team played

in their second playoff game on Monday, December 8, 2025. She stated their first playoff

game was against Jonathan Law High School noting it was an exciting game with a score of

Ledyard 32 and Jonathan Law 29. She stated unfortunately Ledyard’s second playoff game

was against the State Champion Killingly High School, noting that Killingly would be going

to the State Championship for the second consecutive year. She commended Ledyard High

School Football Coach Mr. Mike Serricchio and all of the coaches for their work with the

students, noting that they were amazing. She stated that her son has been playing football

since he was a High School Sophomore and that she has not seen him as happy as he has

been playing for Coach Serricchio.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry concluded her comments by wishing everyone a good Holiday and

a Happy New Year, noting that she looked forward to starting their work on the annual

budget and on new clean energy initiatives.

Councilor Lamb commented on the following: (1) December 7, 2025 Nathan Lester House -

Yuletide Event - Councilor Lamb recognized the Ledyard Garden Club, Ledyard Historic

District Commission, the Historical Society, and others that made the event a great success,

noting that the parking lot was overflowing; (2) High School Civic Group - Councilor Lamb

stated the Program was another avenue to get the Students involved in the Board of

Education, and to build-up their Student Government, and to have a voice; (3) Potential to

Build Bridges with the Board of Education and through the Community Relations

Committee for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - Councilor Lamb stated it would be great to

make a connection with the Board of Education, and he suggested the Committee include a

discussion regarding this initiative on their agenda; (4) Finance Committee - Councilor Lamb

stated as the former Board of Education Finance Committee Chairman that he hoped

Councilor Buhle would build a relationship with the Board of Education’s Finance

Committee and that they would schedule joint meetings and get the conversation going; (5)

Land Use/Planning/Public Works Committee December 8, 2025 meeting - (a) Historic

Designation of the Spicer Homestead Ruins - Councilor Lamb noted that the work to seek a

Historic Designation for the Spicer Homestead Ruins had stalled, but that he believed they

had a good path and general agreement to move the initiative forward; (b) Strategic Plan for

Town Property- Councilor Lamb stated the Board of Education had a very good prioritized

Capital Plan. He stated that the Town needed to work with Public Works Director/Town

Engineer Steve Masalin on a Capital Plan for the Town. He went on to state that they needed

to develop a strategy, and he questioned whether they were going to build new schools; or

refit existing schools, questioning what’s the strategy? He stated they needed to have a joint

team working with the Board of Education to come up with a strategy, noting that the Board

of Education’s Capital Plan may have a $600,000 Project; however, he stated they may have

a $45 Million problem the following year. Therefore, he stated they needed to have a

long-term plan. He stated if they had a vision that he could help the Town Council work

together with the Board of Education; (6) Town Committees - Liaison Assignments -

Councilor Lamb stated that he attended the Economic Development Commission’s

December 2, 2025 meeting, the Inland Wetland & Watercourses Commission’s December 2,

2025 meeting, the America 250 Planning Committee’s December 9, 2025 meeting, the

Special Finance Committee December 9, 2025 meeting, and the Conservation Commission’s

December 9, 2025 meeting. He stated all the volunteers who serve the town had great ideas,

and he encouraged them to attend the Town Council meetings to report on what they were

working on. He stated that he hoped that the Town Council Liaison’s would be involved

with their assignments.

Councilor Parad commented on the following: (1) Ledyard High School Civic Day -

Councilor Parad stated this year was the first time she had the opportunity to attend the High

School Civic Day that Councilor Lamb mentioned. She stated they spoke with six groups of

tenth graders about their Civic Engagement Projects; and the things that they were interested

in; and how they would like their future to look. She noted the students wanted to see safe

roads, more sidewalks, less dependence on fashion, more accessibility to clean air and

renewable energy, free lunch for all students and not just for those who qualify. She stated

that she asked the students what was getting in the way to make all those things happen,

noting that they had to look back to look forward; (2) Hanukkah - December 15, 2025 -

Councilor Parad noted that everyone knows when Christmas was, so she wanted to

acknowledge the Hanukkah Holidays that would take place over eight nights; (3) Ledyard

Education Advanced Foundation (LEAF) will debut a Mini-Documentary on December 18,

2025 - Councilor Parad noted a Ledyard High School Sophomore made a Documentary on

former Ledyard Teacher Lance Rockefeller. She stated the Documentary will be airing at the

High School during their Coffee House time; and she encourage folks to attend.

Councilor Buhle announced that the Ledyard High School Music Holiday Specular would be

held on December 12 & 13, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. She stated tickets were $5.00 and she noted

that this was one of her favorite events of the holiday season. She continued by stating that

she looked forward to everything that this Town Council would be able to accomplish

together this term. She stated this was a great group of people with a lot of ambition on how

to make and keep their community a better place to live.

Chairman St. Vil stated he wanted to echo the sentiment of his fellow Town Councilors,

noting that there was a sense of collaboration, brainstorming, and idea generation. He stated

that he would like to harness that; therefore, he would be including an item on the Agenda

for each member of the Town Council to have the opportunity to identify one priority for

them to accomplish during 2026. He stated it was important for each of them to understand

and appreciate the initiatives of their fellow Councilors, so they could focus their energies

and support to help improve their Ledyard community.

Chairman St. Vil stated that this was the last Town Council meeting for 2025, and he

thanked Administrative Assistant Roxanne Maher, his fellow Town Councilors and their

Residents. He stated that he hoped all would have a safe and enjoyable holiday season. He

encouraged folks to check on a neighbor or friend, noting that there were a lot of people who

could use a short visit this time year. He wished all a Safe and Happy Holiday!

VIII. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

MOTION to approve the following:

Special Town Council Minutes of October 29, 2025

Public Hearing Minutes of November 10, 2025

Public Hearing Minutes of November 12, 2025

Regular Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2025

Organizational Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2025

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Brunelle

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

April Brunelle

SECONDER:

IX.

COMMUNICATIONS

Communications List - December 10, 2025

Chairman St. Vil stated a Communications List has been provided on the meeting portal for

tonight’s meeting, and he noted there were referrals were listed.

REFERALS

XI.

COUNCIL SUB COMMITTEE, LIAISON REPORTS

Administration Committee Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026

RESULT:

Community Relations Committee for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion – Report- Fiscal Year

2025/2026

Councilor Brunelle stated the Committee would be meeting on December 17, 2025, noting

that they would have both their Organizational Meeting and Regular Meeting at that time.

RESULT:

Finance Committee Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026

Councilor Buhle stated the Finance Committee met on December 3, 2025 and also held a

Special Meeting on December 9, 2025 to draft the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget Letter of

Directive. She noted the Finance Committee had ten items on tonight’s agenda that she

would address later this evening.

Councilor Buhle went on to state that the recent Property Revaluation Notices have been

mailed to residents; and she noted a lot of people were upset. She stated a new budget season

was coming and she reminded residents that with the new Property Revaluations that the Mil

Rate would not stay at 37 mils.

Chairman St. Vil that Mayor Allyn, III, was aware of some of the residents questions and that

he has asked the Tax Assessor to develop a Question and Answer Fact Sheet. Mayor Allyn,

III stated that Chairman St. Vil was correct; and that he would report on the Property

Revaluations later this evening.

LUPPW Committee Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026

Liaison Reports

Library Commission Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated she attended the Library Commission’s December 17, 2025

meeting noting that she met the new Library Director Jessica Franco, who was a Ledyard

Resident.

RESULT:

Board of Education Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated the Board of Education met on November 18, 2025 and

addressed the following: (1) Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (MPTN) attended the meeting.

The Group discussed changes to policies, however, the polices were not approved. Also the

MPTN requested they have a Representative attend the Board’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Committee meetings; (2) Ledyard Middle School False Fire Alarm this fall was due to a faulty

smoke detector; (3) 99% of the Impact Aide Forms have been returned to the Central Office; (4)

Gallup Hill School Bathroom Fire preliminary Cost Estimate for damages was about $300,000

which included smoke damage throughout the building. The Insurance deductible would be paid

from the Board of Education’s Operating Budget; (5) Ledyard High School Juniors Field Trip;

(6) Impact Aide - The additional $157,133 received for Fiscal Year 2024/2025 would be used as

follows, with the Town Council’s approval: (a) $40,000 High School Replacement of Fire

Doors; (b) $90,000 Middle School to install system for Hearing Impaired students; (c) $27,000

High School Music Room Renovations; (7) High School Capital Needs. The school was

constructed in the 1960’s and most of the classrooms were outdated and do not have air

conditioning, the boilers needed to be replaced, etc. The Board of Education discussed

commissioning a Study which was estimated to cost $75,000 to determine how to implement the

capital needs; or whether they should consider a Renovate as New Project, as was done for the

Gallup Hill School and the Middle School.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry went on to note the Board of Education held their Organizational

Meeting on December 1, 2025 at which time the Members took the Oath of Office.

Chairman St. Vil questioned the funding source for the $75,000 for the High School Study.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated the Board did not mention the funding source; and she noted

that the discussion regarding the Study was on-going.

Councilor Lamb stated that it was time for the Town Council to step-up to be part of the

equation regarding a long-term plan.

RESULT:

Economic Development Commission Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026

Councilor Buhle stated the EDC met on December 2, 2025 and she reported that they would be

working to create a Small Business Owners Mailing List to share information regarding events

and to promote businesses within the town. She stated the List would also be helpful to notify

Small Business Owners about upcoming grant opportunities available through organizations

such as Southeastern Connecticut Enterprise Region (seCTer); and Woman’s Business

Development Counsel, etc.

Councilor Lamb noted that the Economic Development Commission also published their Annual

Report for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.

Chairman St. Vil stated in reviewing the Economic Development Commission Rotue 12

Corridor Study that was published on the town’s website that he had some questions. He asked

Councilor Buhle whether the EDC would be willing to attend a Town Council meeting to answer

questions; or whether Councilor Buhle could convey their questions to the EDC to help folks

understand the overarching plan in Gales Ferry; and how the EDC fits into it. Councilor Buhle

stated that she would be happy to pass questions along to the EDC.

RESULT:

XII. REPORT OF THE MAYOR

Mayor Report Fiscal Year 2025/2025

Mayor Allyn, III, reported on the following: (1) Connecticut Conference of Municipalities

(CCM) Annual Convention on December 2, 2025 - Mohegan Sun Casino - Mayor Allyn

stated he along with about 160 Municipal Leaders and Staff attended the event; (2)

December 2, 2025 Frozen Fog - Mayor Allyn stated due to frozen fog on the roads Public

Works Crews were called out at 3:00 a.m. to treat the roads. He stated due to the timing this

would be an overtime event. He stated although the High School trucks were ready that they

were inoperable, so Public Works handled the schools that morning as well; (3) Pension Plan

- Defined Benefit Plan was 90.7% funded - Mayor Allyn stated the Town had eight years

left on the ”tail”; explaining because the Defined Benefit Plan closed in 2012 they had an

eight year window to finish fulfilling the payments so that those who were in the Defined

Benefit Plan would have their pension benefits. He stated employees hired after 2012

participate in a Defined Contribution Plan. He thanked the Retirement Board for their work

and diligence; (4) Southeastern Connecticut Enterprise Region (seCTer) Annual Meeting -

Mayor Allyn stated he attended the Annual Meeting today at the Norwich Inn and Spa noting

that Electric Boat- General Dynamics provided a fascinating video on how they previously

constructed submarines and how they currently constructed submarines today. He stated

although he has attended the Commissioning of the Submarines that he had not seen how the

submarines were constructed; (5) Deer Strikes - Mayor Allyn stated Ledyard has had 65 deer

strikes this year; as Councilor Brunelle mentioned this evening. He also urged motorists to

be careful; (6) Special Election 139 District - January 13, 2026 - Mayor Allyn stated Election

Day Voting will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at the Juliet W. Long School from

6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Early Voting will be held at the Registrar’s Office located in the

Lower Level of the Town Hall as follows: January 8, 9, 10, 11, 2026 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00

p.m.; (7) Southeastern Connecticut Enterprise Region (seCTer) Rise Grants for Small

Businesses - Mayor Allyn the Rise Grants were small amounts of money for capital needs,

noting that the grant amounts ranged from $10,000 - $25,000 based on their revenues. He

stated the grant funding could not be used for staffing. He stated for a point of contact that

interested Small Businesses could contact his Office or the Economic Development

Commission; (7) Property Revaluations - Mayor Allyn stated as Chairman St. Vil mentioned

the Tax Assessor would be providing a one-two page summary tomorrow that would include

a data set, noting that the summary would include some high level assessor calculations. He

noted the following: (a) Single Family Homes average increase was 58%; (b) Condominium

average increase was 112%; (c) Mobile Home average increase was 86%. He stated that he

did not have the data for Commercial & Industrial Property, noting that it was his

understanding that the average revaluation was generally flat. He also noted that he did not

have the revaluation data for the Motor Vehicles List yet. He stated based on the Revaluation

that the Mil Rate would come down significantly, noting that the Mil Rate would be

something below 26 Mils or even lower based on how the Motor Vehicles List comes in. He

stated the adjusted Mil Rate starting point would be 25.9 Mils assuming all other things

being equal. He stated the Town Council should have the Tax Assessors Worksheet

tomorrow that they could share; (8) America 250 Planning Committee December 9, 2025

Meeting - Mayor Allyn stated they have had some activities and events, noting on December

17, 2025 they would be having Colonial Baking Contest through the Bill Library. He stated

contestants would be making recipes from a 1796 Cookbook, noting that there would be

Judges evaluating the entrees. He stated that America 250 Events were planned for February,

March, April, May, June, and July, with a culmination of a Big Event on July 4, 2026 (rain

date July 5, 2026) at the Historic Nathan Lester House. He stated the Committee would be

looking for donations, noting they have a shoestring budget; (9) Open Space - 51 Acres -

Mayor Allyn stated he would present a proposal at the Finance Committee’s January 7, 2026

meeting to secure an additional 51-acres of Open Space with their partnership with Avalonia

Land Conservancy. He stated that Avalonia Land Conservancy has identified and contracted

to obtain two more parcels in town to preserve as open space. He stated that he hoped the

Town could once again partner with Avalonia Land Conservancy and use some funding from

the Town’s Open Space Fund, which had a $476,702 Balance to proceed with the proposal.

He stated once the Finance Committee and the Town Council agreed with the proposal that

Avalonia Land Conservancy would move forward.

Questions to the Mayor

Councilor Barnes noted the Property Revaluations and residents comments on Social Media.

He stated although they do not know what the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget would be that it

would be helpful if they could provide an assumption so that residents could do a calculation

for themselves; particularly because they know that Single Family Homes average increase

was 58%; and Condominium average increase was 112%; Mobile Home average increase

was 86%. Mayor Allyn, III, stated that although the adjusted starting point of 25.9 mils was

not a fixed number; that this was the number residents could use, noting that there were still

some unknowns such as the Motor Vehicles. He stated those who were contesting their

revaluations were meeting with the Vision Appraisal now, stating that the 25.9 mils was not

set in stone, stating the mil rate would not be set until the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget was

approved in May, 2026.

Councilor Buhle addressed the Property Revaluations, noting in 2021 624 Shewville Road

claimed a farming exemption, but no longer does. She stated in one-year the property saw an

increase in their assessed value in the amount of $760,000. She stated the assessed value in

2023 was $19,000; and with the 2025 Assessment it was valued at $788,000 a 3,900%

increase, noting the use code on the Vision Appraisal Form was currently not listed as

farming related. Mayor Allyn stated 624 Shewville Road was recently purchased by the

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (MPTN) for $1.1 million. He stated the property was previously

an approved subdivision. Councilor Buhle stated that the Town would receive Payment In

Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) from the State for the property owned by the Mashantucket Pequot

Tribe (MPTN). Mayor Allyn stated if the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (MPTN) took the

property “In Trust” the town would lose the property as “Taxable Property” and hopefully

the Town could regain some of those tax dollars through the PILOT Program; understanding

that the State has not fully funded the town for PILOT Properties.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated in reading the Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Budget that it was

proposed that 889 Colonel Ledyard Highway be used for a 1.2 megawatt solar array project. She

noted at that time the passive electrical power initiative would be virtually net metered back

into the Town Hall, General Government Complex and the Schools. She stated because she

did not see anything regarding this green energy project in subsequent budgets she wanted to

know what happened. Mayor Allyn, III, noted that 889 Colonel Ledyard Highway was the

capped former landfill that was about 15-acres of south slopping land, which was ideal for a

solar project. He stated the Solar Company that they were engaged with at that time wanted

to sink steel monopoles into the ground. However, he stated that the Department of Energy

and Environment Protection (DEEP) was not inclined to do that because there was probably

about 20-feet of spongy garbage, and would not be a truly secure mount to the ground. He

stated based on the State’s concern the town proposed a project that would use balusters that

would sit on top of the ground. However, he stated the Solar Company at that time was not

confident that they could install a solar array that would stay put without penetrating the

ground. Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated in July, 2025 she read an article in the New London

Day Newspaper about Groton entering into a contract with Verogy Solar Development. She

stated that Verogy Solar Development was going to pay Groton about $230,000 a year to

operate and maintain a solar array on their closed landfill. Therefore, she questioned whether

Ledyard could reexplore using the capped landfill again for a solar array project to bring

money into the town. Mayor Allyn stated they could absolutely reexplore to see if there were

new options, noting that since 2017 there has been some new technology that may afford

them to put the solar array on top and not have to penetrate the ground to secure the arrays.

He stated some solar companies have contracts through the state with State Bid Contacts and

also through Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG), noting the town

could seek proposals. Councilor Garcia-Irizarry questioned who would handle this type of

initiative Mayor Allyn stated in the past he had handled some of the solar initiatives,

however, he stated because this would be on the capped landfill that he would engage Public

Works Director /Town Engineer Steve Masalin to look into possible options.

RESULT:

XIII. OLD BUSINESS

None.

XIV. NEW BUSINESS

Finance Committee

MOTION to add Flock Group DBA Flock Safety to the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Standing Bid

Waiver List.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle deferred to Police Chief Rich to provide some background

regarding this request to include Flock Group on the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Standing Bid

Waiver List.

Police Chief John Rich attending remotely via Zoom, explained that funding was included in the

Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget to purchase and install four Automated License Plate Readers

Devices (ALPR) on the State roadways in Ledyard along Route 12 in Gales Ferry, Route 117 in

Ledyard Center, and Route 214. He stated the License Plate Readers were cameras that watch the

traffic and make images of the license plates. He provided the following examples of how the

License Plate Readers would be used:

· Track Stolen Vehicles - Chief Rich explained that law enforcement had the ability to match

the records with the Department of Motor Vehicles records and the on-line processing

system to track stolen cars. He stated when a vehicle has been reported stolen that the Police

Departments would receive an alert from the License Plate Readers if the vehicle has passed

by.

· Investigative Resource - Chief Rich stated the License Plate Readers were also helpful as an

investigative resource if a vehicle has been involved in a crime. He stated that Police

Officers could obtain a printout of the description of the vehicles that went by the License

Plate Reader to see if there were any vehicles that matched the description, included the

license plate.

· Locate Missing or Endangered People - Chief Rich stated that the License Plate Readers

were also helpful in Amber Alerts and Silver Alerts

Chief Rich went on to explain the License Plate Readers would not be used to:

· Measuer Speed

· Automatically send Tickets

· Do not have facial recognition software

Chief Rich noted that the License Plate Readers do not have some of the other misinformation

that has been circulating in cyberspace about these devices.

Chief Rich stated the Ledyard Police Depart and the Ledyard Emergency Communications

Dispatch Center reviewed Center Flock Safety and another provider, noting that Flock Safety

was the sole provider of this service in their region. He stated that surrounding agencies

including the Connecticut State Police, Groton Town, Groton City, Mashantucket Police,

Norwich Police, and Stonington Police were all Flock Safety clients. He stated to use the system

most effectively for crime prevention and investigation, that it was critical for Ledyard to be

able to share and receive ALPR data from their local and state law enforcement partners. He

stated because the cost was $12,000 for the current fiscal year, which was above the purchasing

threshold, he has requested Flock Safety be included on the Standing Bid Waiver List.

Councilor Barnes noted when venders were included on the Standing Bid Waiver List that he

has consistently asked that the expected annual dollar amount be identified, which Chief Rich

has done in the commentary and this evening. Therefore, he had no concerns with tonight’s

request. He noted the importance to know the amount that they were authorizing for each vendor

on the Standing Bid Waiver List to ensure they were not bypassing the bid process and the

town’s financial controls.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to grant a Bid Waiver to Ransome Attachments, 106 Ark Road, Lumberton, NJ

08048, in the amount of $19,500 for a used 2020 Cobra Model S3-90/XS25 screening bucket

attachment.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that Public Works Director/Town Engineer Steve Masalin

attended the December 3, 2025 Finance Committee meeting noting that the Public Works

Department has been researching various attachment options that would leverage the use of their

Volvo Excavator that was purchased in 2023 to screen materials such as rocks and roots and

would allow them to reuse soil or fill and/or to transport or dispose of the other materials. She

stated that Public Works found a used screening bucket that would meet their needs for $19,500.

She stated the 2020 Cobra Model S3-90/XS25 screening bucket was a lightly used unit

explaining that it has been sitting in the showroom and was only used once locally last month for

a demonstration. She stated for a price comparison that in researching options Mr. Masalin noted

that one quote for a comparable new screening bucket said the cost would be around $60K and a

refurbished used screening budget would cost around $46K. She stated that Mr. Maslin

explained that if they had a screening device it would result in significant cost savings in

materials and in transportation.

Mayor Allyn, III, explained that the piece of equipment the Public Works Department was

looking to purchase was a screening bucket that would be attached to the front of the Volvo

Excavator. He stated that Public Works gets a lot of materials from various sites and the

screening bucket would be used to separate the scrub from the good soil, and the stumps and

rocks could then be disposed. He stated that the Public Works Large Equipment Capital Account

had the funding for this purchase. He noted as Councilor Buhle mentioned, the screening bucket

unit was only used one time for a demo here in Ledyard and that it has been sitting in the

showroom, noting that it was like new. Councilor Buhle stated the Company shipped the

screening bucket from New Jersey to Connecticut to give a demonstration for someone else who

chose not to purchase the unit because it did not suit their needs. Therefore, she stated Ledyard

would not have to pay to have the unit transported from New Jersey.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to grant a Bid Waiver to Schneider Geospatial of Indianapolis, Indiana, in the amount

of up-to $15,000 to engage in the Simplistic City Fleet Portal - Vehicle Maintenance and

Management Program.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that Public Works Director/Town Engineer Steve Masalin

attended the December 3, 2025 Finance Committee meeting noting that Schneider Geospatial

was a unique integrated digital asset management software capable of managing fleet, streets

sewer, water and more. She stated that the Public Works Department would be transitioning to

the Fleet Management Module in Fiscal Year 2026/2027 for all town-owned and the town of

Preston’s fleet management needs. The reporting capabilities and integration that would occur at

the fuel pumps would increase efficiency and extend the longevity of the fleet. She stated the

annual hosting cost of $7,500 was nearly half the cost of the current fleet management program

contract that would be ending on July 1, 2026. The new Fleet Management Module would

provide a more robust fleet management system with additional integration capabilities and

reporting features. She stated that Mr. Masalin noted that this was a needed improvement in their

maintenance tracking process, because it included the automated insertion of the data collected

at the fuel station, and automatically generated and sent the work orders to the mechanics.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to approve appropriations from the receipt of sales of vehicles through GovDeals in

the total amount of $12,994.00 to the following capital accounts as follows:

$5,300 to Public Works Large Truck CNR Account #21040101-57312;

$4,194 to Public Works Light Equipment CNR Account #21040101-56314;

$3,500 to Polce Vehicle CNR Account # 21020101-57510

Moved by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry, seconded by Councilor Buhle

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that periodically the town sells surplus equipment that was at

the end of its useful life using the Gov Deals on-line auction site. She stated that $12,994.00 was

received from the October/November 2025 sale of surplus equipment as noted above. She stated

that it has been the Town’s practice to appropriate the revenues to the respective capital reserve

fund to supplement/offset direct budgetary appropriations in meeting the lifecycle replacement

costs and other needs.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

NAY:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to approve an additional appropriation of $11,285 from Undesignated Fund Balance to

Account 10114301-51800 (Part-time Wages/Fiscal Assistant II) to increase the hours of Land

Use Department Fiscal Assistant II from 20-hours to 35-hours per week to support a demanding

workload.

Moved by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry, seconded by Councilor Lamb

Discussion: Land Use Director/Town Planner Elizabeth Burdick provided some background

explaining in October, 2024 the full-time Land Use Fiscal Assistant, II took 12-weeks of

maternity leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She stated to provide coverage

during that time the Town temporarily hired Rosanne Kotowasky, who had recently retired from

Ledyard’s Land Use Department, for 20-hours per week. She stated subsequently, the full-time

Land Use Fiscal Assistant II decided not to return to work and resigned on February 6, 2025 to

stay home with her child. She stated in an effort to reduce costs, a permanent part-time 20-hour

per week Fiscal Assistant, II was hired to replace the full-time 35-hour per week position.

However, she explained that the Land Use Department has been overwhelmed with a backload

of work noting that during the months of August and September alone they received 237

permits. She noted although the new part-time Fiscal Assistant II has tried to continue to manage

to the best of her ability all of her responsibilities, which included all fiscal matters related to the

Department, telephone calls, purchase orders and payment of invoices, process permits and

collects permit fees, assist with managing the budget, as well as assisting the in-person public

requesting information about building, zoning, wetlands & blight matters. Therefore, she stated

that it was the professional opinion of the Building Official and herself that to ensure the job was

being done efficiently that the Fiscal Assistant II position needed to return to a full-time status.

She stated that the part-time 20-hour per week Fiscal Assistant II was already receiving benefits,

explaining that the transfer of the $11,284.20 would be to cover the salary for the remainder of

this fiscal year through June 30, 2026. She stated that she would be including the full-time Fiscal

Assistant II position in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget.

Ms. Burdick concluded by noting as of December 3, 2025 Building Department Account

Contributions that go into the General Fund were as follows:

·State Fee Account 21225A

·Town Retainage

·Building Permit Account 47040

$ 6,481.79

$ 266.37

$ 349,179.98

· TOTAL:

$ 355,928.14

Ms. Burdick also provided the following data regarding the Land Use Department’s activities.

2025 Totals as of 12/03/25 Number of Permits

Building 556

Electrical 202

Mechanical

100

Plumbing 1,119

TOTAL FEES $355,704.76

Ms. Burdick concluded by stating that both Land Use Fiscal Assistant II; and Land Use Clerical

Assistant were cross-trained; so they can cover for each other, noting that all of the Land Use

Staff was cross-trained. She also noted that Building Official Seamus Quinn would be taking

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for paternity leave, noting that he was expecting a child in

February, 2026. She stated during the time Mr. Quinn would be out of the Land Use Office they

would be hiring two Building Officials to provide coverage, noting that the Fiscal Assistant II

would be coordinating inspections and providing the perinate paperwork for the two of the

Building Officials during Mr. Quinn’s absence. She stated that historically the Fiscal Assistant II

has been a full-time position, and unfortunately their experiment to save money by reducing the

position to part-time did not work.

Councilor Parad stated the person currently working as the Fiscal Assistant II seemed to be

doing a good job and that she wanted to move to full-time to get the work done, noting that it

made sense. Ms. Burdick stated the young Land Use Department Staff that she has been training

all worked together well and she hoped that they would be with Ledyard for a long time.

Councilor Lamb recognized that the Land Use Department was overburdened and that increasing

the Fiscal Assistant II to a full-time 35-hour per week position was a need; not a want.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

Ty Lamb

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

NAY:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for the Water Pollution Control Authority

(WPCA) to engage Arcadis Engineering Consultants, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, to verify

Service Lines and prepare a cost estimate for Lead Survey.

Moved by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry, seconded by Councilor Buhle

Discussion: Mr. Ed Lynch, 11 Red Brook Lane, Ledyard, Water Pollution Control Authority

(WPCA) Chairman, noted the lead issue that occurred in Flint, Michigan several years ago; and

he explained that the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) was making all utilities

find out where they have lead piping. Therefore, he stated to comply with the Lead Survey

required by the Connecticut Department of Public Health (CT DPH) for all water systems in

Connecticut, that the Ledyard Water Pollution Control Authority solicited Requests for

Qualifications (RFQ #2026-02 Lead and Copper Rules Revisions Compliance).

Mr. Lynch went on to explain that because the Ledyard Water Pollution Control Authority

(WPCA) had a legacy water (inherited) system, all service lines have not been documented in

terms of material of construction, and therefore, they were being required, in some cases, to

physically verify the material of construction by digging them up, noting that they were actually

calling this a "pot hole". Therefore, this was going to be a significant cost project, noting that

besides the physical verification of the service lines that were documented, that they needed to

be verified by an inspection at the curb stop, meter pit, and/or basement which involved

significant time, noting that they can only do about two or three a day.

Mr. Lynch continued by explaining that the Ledyard WPCA contracts with Groton Utilities, and

he noted during the past two-years that Groton Utilities has been working to find out where the

539 “unknowns” in Ledyard’s water system were located.

Mr. Lynch stated the DPH was providing grants to both economically stressed and non-stressed

communities. He stated that the WPCA has followed the Department of Public Health’s (DPH)

Guidelines, which were attached to the Agenda packet on the meeting portal (Ledyard Lead and

Copper Rules Revisions Compliance RFQ 2026-02); and they solicited and received three

proposals that provided capabilities - not costs. He stated the WPCA conducted a review and

have selected Arcadis Engineering Consultants, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, as the

Engineering Firm to manage and conduct the surveys. He stated the results of the WPCA’s work

to evaluate the proposals received were included in the spreadsheet titled “Clean Lead Survey

Spreadsheet Final Tally” and was attached to the Agenda on the meeting portal. He noted that

Arcadis Engineering Consultants was doing the work in New London stating that they had

resources in the local area and they had experience with the Connecticut Department of Public

Health (DPH), noting that the other two firms were out of state and they did not have experience

with Connecticut’s DPH.

Mr. Lynch explained that the Department of Public Health (DPH) process stated that once they

have identified the Engineering Firm, they would then need a quote from them in order to enter

into a contract for the Lead Survey work. Therefore, he stated that tonight’s request was for the

Mayor to sign a contract with Arcadis Engineering Consultants to provide a cost estimate; and

then the WPCA would negotiate the cost. He stated the cost to do the work could be as much as

$300,000 - $400,000 to physically verify the construction material of the water system and

document the locations. He stated the WPCA would qualify for a grant in the amount of 25% of

the cost and that they would also be eligible for a no-interest loan to cover the rest of the cost.

Mr. Lynch went on to note that today Waste Water Supervisor Steve Banks went into the

archives and found documentation regarding both the Highlands Water System and the Gales

Ferry Water Systems. He stated that the WPCA would still have to contract with Arcadis

Engineering Consultants because the documentation had to be reviewed and signed-off by an

independent agency. However, he stated with the documentation they found today, that they

may not have 539 “unknowns” as they had originally thought. He stated if they do not have to

dig up the roads and sidewalks to verify location and construction materials that there would be

some cost savings. He stated that he planned to provide the documentation regarding the

Highlands Water System and the Gales Ferry Water Systems to Groton Utilities to review,

noting that he did not know if they already had these documents.

Councilor Buhle explained that this was not an optional “yes”, noting that the State Department

of Public Health (DPH) was requiring them to conduct the Lead Survey, and this was the

process the DPH has laid out. She went on to explain that the funding for the Lead Survey work

would not come from the town’s taxpayers, noting that the Lead Survey would be paid from the

WPCA Water Operations Budget, which would affect the WPCA Ratepayers. Mr. Lynch stated

if the WPCA did not have the funding to conduct the required DPH Lead Survey that the cost

could impact the town’s taxpayers.

Councilor Buhle questioned whether Mr. Lynch knew how Southeastern Connecticut Water

Authority (SCWA) was meeting the DPH’s requirement to conduct the Lead Survey. Mr. Lynch

stated that he did not know what the Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority (SCWA) was

doing relative to the DPH’s requirement to conduct the Lead Survey. He stated that SCWA may

have the documents regarding the construction of their water system; or they could declare

bankruptcy. He stated if that were to occur, the Ledyard WPCA would assume their water

system, per state statute. He stated that he would talk with Leydard’s SCWA Representative

Mike Cherry to ask how SCWA was proceeding with regard to DPH’s Lead Survey requirement.

Mr. Lynch concluded his comments by stating that if the Ledyard WPCA does not have the Lead

Survey completed by December, 2027 that the penalties could impact the town’s ability to

receive grant funding and many other things. He stated that they do not have a choice, noting that

they have to conduct the Lead Survey, as prescribed by the Department of Public Health.

Chairman St. Vil stated that based on what they know today which was 539 unknowns and

working at a rate of 2 - 3 potholes a day whether Ledyard wold be able to meet the December,

2027 timeline. Mr. Lynch stated that the work would take about 200 days; therefore, he if they

get started now they would make the deadline to have the Lead Survey completed by the end of

2027.

Chairman St. Vil stated to receive the State Grant Funding they were required to:

· Identify the Engineering Firm to conduct the Lead Survey

· The scope of the work had to be quasi-defined, which they have done.

Chairman St. Vil asked Mr. Lynch to expand on the Southeastern Connecticut Water Authority

(SCWA) system.

Mr. Lynch stated that Groton Utilities spent $120 million to rebuild their Water Plant, noting

that they have a very advanced plant and their water was absolutely clean, noting that they have

no Per-and-Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, (PFA) in their water because they use turbidity

treatment. He stated the Department of Public Health (DPH) told Groton Utilities that they

would give them a low interest loan if Groton Unities would do cross-connections in Ledyard.

Therefore, Mr. Lynch stated that Ledyard was tied into the SCWA System, explaining that they

have a valve and a meter. He explained when SCWA lost a pump they open the valve, and he

stated the water that went into the SCWA System was metered so the WPCA could charge

SCWA for the water they used. Therefore, he stated that the Ledyard WPCA could provide

water to the SCWA System, noting that no construction was required to do that. He stated if

SCWA was to go bankrupt that the Ledyard WPCA would have to run that water system.

Mr. Lynch stated that the WPCA would need to inform the DPH of their selection - and that

Arcadis Engineers could help them with notifying the State Department of Health (DEP).

Councilor Lamb questioned whether there was a contract with a dollar amount that the Mayor

would be signing. Mayor Allyn, III explained that there was not a contract with a dollar amount,

explaining that the State Department of Public Health (DPH) has dictated that they had to enter

into an Agreement with an Organization, and then they determine the value. He stated this was

not how the town normally operated. However, he stated as Chairman Lynch has explained, their

hands were tied with regard to the Department of Public Heath’s (DPH) requirements and the

process they have prescribed.

Councilor Lamb noted that he was looking for clarification regarding the wording of the Motion.

Councilor Buhle explained that the WPCA solicited and received three proposals for

Qualifications, noting that they have selected Arcadis Engineering Consultants, based on their

Qualifications, not price. Mr. Lynch stated that they were contracting with an Engineering Firm

to satisfy the Department of Public Health’s (DPH)requirements to identify the type of

construction materials that were used for their water system. He stated that he knew that there

was no lead in Ledyard’s water system, noting that the systems were built in the late 1970’s and

beyond, when nobody was installing lead or galvanized pipe at that time. Mayor Allyn stated

they first had to engage with Arcadis Engineering Consultants, at which time a number would be

presented, and he explained that they would then attempt to negotiate that Agreement. Councilor

Lamb stated that they would engage with a firm to define the scope of the work and cost and

then they would enter into a contract. He stated the Motion does not capture this understanding.

Councilor Buhle stated that they were agreeing that Arcadis Engineering Consultants was going

to be the company they were working with going forward, which was the reason the Motion was

worded to sign a contract. She explained that they could not start negotiating with Arcadis

Engineering Consultants and then go to another company. Councilor Lamb stated that he now

understood that they solicited Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) and down selected Arcadis

Engineering Consultants.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Tim Ryan

RESULT:

MOVER:

Jessica Buhle

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to approve a revised Appendix A- Qualifying Income Schedule in accordance with

Ordinance #200-005 (rev. 1) “An Ordinance to Provide Property Tax Relief for Certain

Homeowners Age Sixty-Five or Over or Permanently and Totally Disabled (rev.1)” for the filing

period of February 1, 2026 - May 15, 2026

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated that updating the Qualifying Income Scheule was a

housekeeping item that they do annually. She explained that each year the State of Connecticut

updates the Qualifying Income Levels and to comply with the state that the town was updating

their schedule as well.

Mayor Allyn, III explained that in addition to the State, the town provides tax relief to qualifying

homeowners thru the adoption of Ordinance #200-005 (rev. 1) “An Ordinance to Provide

Property Tax Relief for Certain Homeowners Age Sixty-Five or Over or Permanently and

Totally Disabled.

Provisions of the Ordinance required the town to annually update the “Qualifying Income

Schedule” to be consistent with the State’s Qualifying Income, which was based on the United

States Social Security Administration Program.

In accordance with Ordinance #200-005 (rev.1) Paragraph 3 “Qualifications”; paragraph (e)

"Persons qualified for tax credit or deferment benefits under this Ordinance are those whose

maximum income during the calendar year preceding the year in which application is made for

the tax credit does not exceed the Qualifying Income Schedule, as hereby incorporated in the

ordinance as though fully set forth herein. A copy of the approved Qualifying Income Schedule

shall be filed with the Town Clerk when established and when amended. The income guidelines

provided in the Qualifying Income Schedule (Appendix A) shall be adjusted to reflect a cost of

living increase issued by the United States Social Security Administration, pending the

approval of the Town Council prior to the first of January of the year of application.”

Because the “Qualifying Income Schedule” was an Appendix to the Ordinance, and because

they were not changing the Ordinance itself, a public hearing was not required.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to approve a Budget Letter of Directive to the Mayor and Board of Education for the

preparation of the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget, as presented in the draft dated November 24,

2025.

Moved by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry, seconded by Councilor Buhle

Discussion: Councilor Buhle noted the Finance Committee held a Special Meeting on December

9, 2025 to finish their work on the Budget Letter of Directive. Therefore, she suggested a

“Friendly Amendment” to change the draft to “December 9, 2025”. The Town Council agreed to

the “Friendly Amendment”

Councilor Buhle went on to explain that the Finance Committee made the following language

adjustments to the proposed Budget Letter of Directive for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 noting that

red font strike out - blue bold italic font add in:

· Second Paragraph:

It is the Town Council’s intention to limit the mil rate increase to _________ if possible. With

the implementation of the 2025 revaluation, it is the Town Council’s intention to reduce the

mill rate substantially, so residents experience the full benefit of updated assessments while

continuing to receive high-quality, efficient services.

· Fifth Paragraph:

In working to provide a responsible and reasonable budget the Town Council encourages you to

look for reductions where possible in areas such as contractual expenses through renegotiation,

and corresponding decreases in operating budgets where contractual increases exist. Also, the

Town Council asks that increases in specific line items and new expenditures be

explained/justified; and be offset with corresponding reductions in other line items. An increase

in revenue for any services provided should also be considered.

For this year’s budget submissions, the Town Council is requesting a clear presentation of

departmental needs and priorities. Each department should include a narrative ranking its

top ten budget priorities, with an explanation of the operational significance of each item.

Submissions should also describe the department’s “excellence gap,” identifying what level of

funding would allow the department to operate at an excellent standard, compared with the

amount actually being requested, and explaining the practical differences between the two.

Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases to below three

percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline; any request above this

threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling justification. Increases in line items

or new expenditures should be explained fully and, when possible, offset by reductions in

other areas. Funding opportunities through increased revenue for services should also be

considered. Budget submissions must identify the number of staff supported by each grouped

salary line; Board of Education budget must separate group salary lines by school and

delineate supplies, services, and utilities by school where possible.

Budget submissions must identify any services provided that could be shared between other

towns or shared between the Board of Education and the Town to reduce taxpayer expenses.

Councilor Buhle addressed the importance to include the following language:

(1).

“For each department should include a narrative ranking its top ten budget priorities,

with an explanation of the operational significance of each item.

(2) Submissions should also describe the department’s “excellence gap,” identifying what level

of funding would allow the department to operate at an excellent standard, compared

with the amount actually being requested, and explaining the practical differences

between the two.”

Councilor Buhle commented on the pressure to flat fund or cut the budget wherever they could,

noting that was prudent for their taxpayers. However, she stated that it was important for

residents to understand the difference between what it would look like for Departments to be

fully funded to meet all of their goals, noting as an example that the Police Department might

feel better with two more police officers; or the Library might need a second full-time

Children’s Librarian. She stated that she would like the residents to see different ideas that

would make town services and experiences for their residents as best as possible. She noted that

she was not saying that they would do those things, however, she stated that putting an idea and

a number of what that would look like for the future goals for their town would be helpful; and

would give them an idea of the Department’s future priorities.

Councilor Buhle went on to note during the December 9, 2025 Special Finance Committee

meeting that Councilor Garcia-Irizarry was passionate about including the following language

“Budget submissions must identify the number of staff supported by each grouped salary line;

Board of Education budget must separate group salary lines by school and delineate supplies,

services, and utilities by school where possible. Budget submissions must identify any services

provided that could be shared between other towns or shared between the Board of Education

and the Town to reduce taxpayer expenses.”

Councilor Buhle also noted that the Finance Committee included the following language:

“Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases to below three

percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline; any request above this

threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling justification”.

Councilor Buhle continued by noting that she would like to amend the draft Letter of Directive

for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027.

v MOTION to amend the to remove the following language from the fifth paragraph:

“…..to below three percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline; any

request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling justification.”

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Thompson

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated she spoke to a Department Head today, noting at this point

in the process that their proposed budget was flat-funded. She stated by removing the language

as noted above that it would take away the invitation for Department Heads to go up to 3%; and

it still expressed the expectation that budget increases were being limited to essential needs. She

went on to note that the paragraph already included the following language:

“Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested essential needs. Increases in

line items or new expenditures should be explained fully….”

Councilor Buhle stated that she thought this was fair and reasonable.

Chairman St. Vil stated he agreed with the proposed amendment to the Letter of Directive,

noting that Mayor Allyn, III; and School Superintendent Mr. Hartling were responsible for

developing their budgets and they understand what goes into the General Government and Board

of Education Budgets. He stated as responsible leaders of their organizations that they should

grant them the latitude to develop the budgets that they felt were appropriate. He stated that he

was aligned with the draft Letter of Directive and the proposed amendments, noting that the

Letter of Directive identified the data needed to provide the oversight the Town Council was

responsible to do; without the overreach of dictating what the budgetary number was going to

be.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry noted during the December 9, 2025 Special Finance Committee

meeting that she expressed concerns about including a budget increase of 4%; or in providing an

amount for a budget increase, because some Departments may be able to operate with a 2%

budget increase, while others may require less; or more of a budget increase. She stated in the

private industry that if they have money remaining in their budget at the end of the year that

supervisors encourage them to spend the money because if they do not use the money they would

lose that amount in the next year’s budget. Therefore, she stated that she wanted the town to

avoid that type of situation, because she wanted them to be cost conscience. She stated that she

thought that it was easier to cut the budget then to add to the budget.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry went on to address the Board of Education’s Budget, stating that it was

not clearcut. She stated with the Board of Education’s current budget layout that it was hard to

understand all of their expenses. She stated although they could all read the Munis Report

Printouts, that it takes a lot of time to read those Reports because they have to look at every

single code and which school they were associated with. She noted the Board of Education’s

Priority Tables noting that the Green Table was new expenses that they included in the budget,

the Yellow Table was expenses that they would like to include in the budget, but could wait;

and the Red Table was expenses that they would not be able to do. She noted the wrestling

matts were a good example of the types of items on the Red Table. She stated based on the

format that was being requested in the Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget

that they would receive a clearer picture of what was in the Board of Education’s budget noting

that it would be a benefit for the residents and for the Board of Education. She stated that the

format would be detailed and transparent and would be a win-win for everyone, because when

the Board of Education asked for something that everyone would be able to see that there was a

valid reason for the request.

Councilor Barnes stated he agreed with removing the 3% increase from the Letter of Directive

for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 because it set an artificial number that people would move to.

However, he stated that they have not provided sufficient guidance as to where they expect the

upcoming budget to come in. He noted “essential” was in the eye of the beholder, noting that the

Mayor and the School Superintendent would present compelling reasons whey they would need

something. He stated that he realized that requesting a flat budget was challenging particularly

when they had contractual requirements for salary increases. However, he stated the Town

Council could direct the General Government and the Board of Education to deliver a budget

that was zero percent increase with the exception of contractual increases, as a baseline; as well

as supplemental instruction (rank priority) or requests for additional funding above that, which

would allow the Town Council to make a determination of what they could afford; and what mil

rate they want to deliver to the townspeople. Councilor Barnes concluded his comments by

stating that he disagreed with Councilor Garcia-Irizzary’s comment that it was easier to cut than

to add back to the budget. He stated that it was easier to add back to the budget.

Councilor Buhle stated the word “essential” means different things to different people. She

stated the Annual Budget Process involved attending the Budget Work Sessions, attending the

Board of Education’s Work Sessions and Public Hearing, reading the Budget Narratives, noting

that the budget increases should be explained fully and when possible off-set by reductions in

other areas, and hearing the Department’s rationale for their budget requests. She stated there

was an opportunity to ask questions from every Department that was presenting their budget to

the Town Council’s Finance Committee.

Councilor Buhle addressed the request for the Ranking of Needs and Priorities; and allowing

Departments to go above and beyond by suggesting things that they would have funded. She

stated by using this format that Departments would be less likely to put “wants” into their

requested budget if they could still make themselves heard on a “want” by putting those items on

the “Excellence Gap List” . She stated the draft Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027

provided Department Heads the opportunity to say: ( 1) These were their essential needs and

why; and (2) These were the things they really want, and they understand that they cannot have

them this year.

Councilor Brunelle stated that she understood the need for a zero percent budget increase.

However, she provided the following example: Requiring a zero percent increase would be like

telling a mother of four children that they had a zero percent increase for their grocery list next

week. She stated that they all know that groceries have increased, noting that they could not

expect a mother to buy the same amount of groceries this year as they did last year with a zero

percent increase, noting that she would have to cut back, and the kids would not get the proper

nutrition. Therefore, she stated that it was unwise and unfair to ask for a zero percent budget

increase when the Department Heads were looking out for the best interest of the town and the

students. She stated the Town and the Board of Education should be afforded the ability to

present their budget and that hopefully they could work together to hopefully get it to a zero

percent increase.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry noted the many “unknowns” that could influence their upcoming

budget. She stated by asking that budgets be kept of a zero percent increase may set Departments

up for failure. She stated that she appreciated the Annual Budget Process because the Finance

Committee had the opportunity to meet with Departments and to tailor their budgets to their

needs. She stated by not asking that the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget be kept to a zero percent

increase does not mean that they would not achieve that.

Councilor Barnes stated that they would not achieve a zero percent budget increase; and that

they should not allude to the fact that they could achieve a zero percent budget increase if they

know that they cannot achieve that. Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated that she agreed it was nearly

impossible to keep their personal home budgets at a zero percent increase. She noted the many

additional meetings that take place during the months of March and April and Councilor Lamb’s

push for the Town Council and the Board of Education to have joint meetings, stating that they

would have the opportunity to communicate, work together and to educate each other on their

budgets.

Councilor Buhle stated that she knew that they cannot achieve zero percent budget increase for

Fiscal Year 2026/2027. She stated in an inflationary environment that flat funding was a cut,

noting that she was not going to flat-fund and cut programs. She stated unless Ledyard’s state

revenue massively increased there was not going to be situation where they could flat-fund the

taxpayers levy.

Councilor Lamb stated that he agreed with the proposed amendment to delete the following

sentence “…..to below three percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline;

any request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling justification”

because no one has done the analysis of the contractual obligations and the inflationary costs. He

stated factoring in these increases could result a 4% budget increase, noting that including an

arbitrary number could actually be a cut.

Chairman St. Vil stated in accordance with the Town Charter the intent of the Budget Letter of

Directive was to request the format of the budget data; not to dictate the content of the data. He

stated they could continue to debate whether the budget increase should be 0%; 3% or 4%.

However, he stated they had astute leaders on both sides of their town that would represent what

was required to execute the operations of their business. He stated the Town Council’s role was

to provide oversight and review the budget data presented and provide a thumbs up or thumbs

down. He stated both Mayor Allyn and School Superintendent Hartling have been working on

their budgets and they already have an idea of where their budgets were going to come in. He

stated that they could try to appease the Town Council; however, he questioned whether they

should do that at the disservice of running their portions of their local government, noting that he

would not expect them to do that.

Councilor Barnes provided clarification noting that he does not expect a zero percent budget

increase, noting that he trusted the Mayor, the School Superintendent, and their Staff producing

the budget, that if the Town Council gave them fair planning of the worst case scenarios; and the

ability to provide and prioritize their “adds” that it was a lot easier to give back, then to take

away. He stated based on the proposed Letter of Directive that it would force the Finance

Committee to do all of the hard analysis to decide where to cut and where not to cut. He stated

that he would rather afford the Mayor, the School Superintendent, and their Staff to produce

their budget starting point which would be zero plus contractual increases, and the additional

things in their priority order. He stated that they were mobilizing very smart teams of people to

do the work so that the Town Council could then best refine the product. He stated otherwise,

the Town Council would end up doing a lot of work that could have already been done by those

who would be working within their budgets. He stated when the Town Council does not give

them the guidance of where their budget should be and they use the word “essential” that they

have not said anything.

Chairman St. Vill called for a vote on the proposed amendment as follows:

v MOTION to amend the to remove the following language from the fifth paragraph:

“…..to below three percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline; any

request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling justification.”

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Thompson

VO- 1TEA:p7proved and so declared (Barnes not in favor)

RESULT:

MOVER:

APPROVED 7 - 1

Jessica Buhle, Town Councilor.

SECONDER: James Thompson, Town Councilor

AYES:

Buhle, Brunelle, Garcia-Irizarry, Lamb, Parad, St. Vil, Thompson

NAYES:

EXCUSED:

Barnes

Ryan

Chairman St. Vil asked for additional discussion regarding the Main Motion as amended this

evening.

Councilor Lamb stated that he thought that the following language in the Letter of Directive was

actually asking the Departments to provide their Strategic Plan:

“….requesting a clear presentation of departmental needs and priorities. ……ranking its top

ten budget priorities, with an explanation of the operational significance of each item.

Submissions should also describe the department’s “excellence gap,” identifying what level of

funding would allow the department to operate at an excellent standard”.

Councilor Buhle stated that Councilor Lamb’s understanding of the language was fair. She noted

that the Board of Education has done a good job explaining what they would pay for if they had

additional funding with their Green Table was new expenses that they included in the budget,

the Yellow Table was expenses that they would like to include in the budget, but could wait;

and the Red Table was expenses that they would not be able to do. She stated part of this

language was to see this type of planning from other Departments, noting that the Letter of

Directive also included language asking Departments to provide Priority Rankings as well. She

stated even with the Board of Educations colored tables that it was difficult to determine which

items within the tables were the most important when it comes time to cut things from the

budget.

Councilor Lamb noted in their Annual Budget submission that the Board of Education included

a list of items that they would cut should the State Revenues not come in as expected, noting that

he thought this was required by the Town Charter. He noted every year that list says that they

were going to cut teachers. However, he stated that this was not true when the Town Council

reduced the Board of Education’s Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget, noting they did not cut

teachers. He stated the Board of Education reviewed their budget and then decided what they

would change in the budget. Therefore, he suggested during their Joint Finance Committee

Meetings between the Town Council and the Board of Education that they ask for a realistic list

of items the Board of Education would actually cut, noting that it would be nice to be transparent

for the town to know what they would really cut from their budget if they cannot come through

with the requested budget amount, for the townspeople to be better informed.

It was noted that paragraph 7 in the draft Budget Letter of Directive stated:

“As identified in Section 5 of the Town Charter, your budget submission must

include plans for dealing with any reductions in State funding that might occur after

the General Government and Board of Education budget are approved at

referendum. Plans will include reduction in services, use of Town surplus or an

increase in the tax levy. Such contingency plans shall be available at the time of the

referendum. The charter requires the Board of Education to include any steps taken

to address changing enrollment as part of the budget submission. The Board of

Education is required to continue to provide its own Capital Improvement Plan

showing the proposed source of revenue for each expenditure.”

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated that she agreed with Councilor Lamb, noting that although the

Board of Education did include a list of items they would cut in their Budget submission that

when the budget failed twice at Referendum that the Board of Education did not cut the items

that were listed in their letter, such as Teachers, as they initially presented. Therefore, she stated

with the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget preparation and submission that the Town Council

should push for the Board of Education to provide a realistic list of the things they would cut

should the budget fail; or should the state revenues not come in as projected.

Chairman St. Vil stated the Letter of Directive goes to the Board of Education and he noted that

it was a fair expectation for them to be held to the format prescribed in the letter. He stated

subsequent to the Town Council issuing the Letter of Directive to the Board of Education that he

could follow up with an email to the Board of Education Chairman Jennifer Reguin asking

whether they had an issues with meeting the expectations.

Councilor Lamb stated that his suggestion for the Board of Education to provide a realistic list of

the items they would cut from their budget could be addressed during the Joint Finance

Committees between the Town Council and Board of Education, noting that it did not need to be

included in a letter. He stated that it was important for the taxpayers to know that if they vote a

budget down how it would impact the schools.

Councilor Buhle commented on the importance to know the Board of Education’s Ranking

Priorities, noting that if they needed to cut $47,000 from the Board of Education Budget and

Item #10 on their Priority List cost $47,000 that a rationale person would think that Item #10

would be cut from the budget, however, she stated that the Board of Education could decide to

cut the Special Education Para-Professionals. She stated that the Town Council did not have the

authority to dictate what the Board of Education does with their approved budget, but that it

would be nice to know, which was the reason for requesting their “Ranking Priorities”. She

went on to explain that the Town Council only had the authority to change the Board of

Education’s budget bottom line.

Councilor Lamb stated that it would have been nice if the Town Council had been having

conversations with the community; and for them to have an understanding of their revenue flow

for the current year so that they would have an idea of what the Town could and/or could not

afford. He stated by doing this type of homework that it would have supported Councilor

Barnes’ suggestion to set an expectation. Chairman St. Vil asked what expectation Councilor

Lamb would propose. Councilor Lamb stated because he has done the analysis that he could not

propose an expectation this evening.

Councilor Barnes stated that he trusted the Mayor, School Superintendent and their Staff to

make good decisions. He stated that they could make better decisions than the Finance

Committee or the Town Council could make after the fact. He stated if the Town Council set the

expectation to start with a zero percent increase, plus contractual obligations, that the budget

would increase from the current year. He stated the Finance Committee and the Town Council

could then review those budget proposals and be in a position to fund their priorities to the level

that they believe the taxpayers could afford, noting that he did not know what that line was.

However, he stated the Budget Building Block would be to use the opportunity and the insight of

the Mayor, School Superintendent, and their Staff to say what they would do in the worst case

budget.

Chairman St. Vil stated that he viewed “essential” to mean contractual plus zero. Therefore, he

questioned what it meant to Councilor Barnes. Councilor Barnes stated that maybe they needed

to define the word “essential”, noting that maybe “essential” was contractually obligated as the

starting point. Councilor Lamb noted as the former Chairman of the Board of Education’s

Finance Committee that he could tell them that the Board of Education provided that type of

information in their budget proposal. He stated the Board of Education told them that 1.6% of

their proposed budget was essential expenses, and then they went on to delineate the over and

above of what their essential expenses were. Councilor Barnes noted that he disagreed with

Councilor Lamb’s statement, noting that there were a number of expenses in the Board of

Education’s Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget that were beyond the essential costs even before they

got to the items in the Green Table, noting that the Finance Committee then had to fight to

figure it out. Therefore, he stated that he was asking that the Town Council give them guidance

so that the General Government and the Board of Education do not bring something forward that

was not a starting point, noting that inflation was not a contractual obligation. He stated labor

contracts were the only things that were contractually obligated, noting that they needed to force

the people who best know their expenses to do their homework to deliver the absolute minimum

budget, explaining that this would afford the best dialogue in the event the budget was not

approved at the Referendum. He stated that they would have the basic costs that they could not

go any lower, in the event they needed to go back and make adjustments. Chairman St. Vil

asked Councilor Barnes for a proposed amendment.

MOTION to amend the Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget to provide the

following language to paragraph 5:

“……Departments are strongly encouraged to deliver a budget at zero percent increase over

the current year’s budget with the addition of contractual obligations. limit overall requested

increases to essential needs.”

Moved by Councilor Barnes, seconded by Councilor Lamb

Discussion: Councilor Buhle suggested the following “Friendly Amendment” Departments are

strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases deliver a budget at zero percent

increase over the current year’s budget with the addition of to contractual obligations”.

Councilor Barnes stated that he would agree to the “Friendly Amendment”.

Councilor Lamb requested clarification regarding “contractual obligations” questioning whether

it would include labor contracts, utilities, etc. Councilor Barnes stated that “contractual

obligations” meant labor contracts and not other contracts such as utilities. Councilor Buhle

stated if they have a contract regardless of whether it was labor or utilities that they were bound

to the contract, noting that they could not just not pay the contract. Councilor Barnes stated if it

was a signed agreement that it was a “contract”.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated that the Board of Education knows better than any of them what

the kids need, and what to do should specific a situation arise. Therefore, she stated that she was

not questioning the Board of Education, explaining that she wanted to see in writing everything

the Board of Education was thinking about, so that they would know what the Board of

Education would do in specific situations, and what they could cut, or what they could add to the

budget, so they do not find themselves in the same situation as last year, when the Board of

Education was brainstorming about what they were going to change in their budget after the

townspeople voted the Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Budget down; noting that they did not follow the

initial list of cuts that were presented with their budget.

Chairman St. Vil asked for the proposed amendment to be read including the “Friendly

Amendment”, so they were all clear on what they were voting on.

Councilor Buhle read the following:

MOTION to amend the Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget to provide the

following language to paragraph 5:

“………Departments are strongly encouraged to limit overall requested increases to

contractual obligations…….”.

Councilor Barnes asked that the amendment to paragraph 5 be as follows:

MOTION to amend the Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget to provide the

following language to paragraph 5:

“………Departments are required to limit overall requested increases to contractual

obligations. Any request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling

justification in priority order…….”.

Chairman St. Vil called for a vote on the amendment as follows:

v MOTION to amend the Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget to revise

the following language in paragraph 5:

“………Departments are required to limit overall requested increases to contractual

obligations. Any request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling

justification in priority order…….”.

Moved by Councilor Barnes, seconded by Councilor Lamb

Discussion: Councilor Brunelle stated the proposed amendment would increase untrust; and it

was not logical in today’s fiscal environment.

Councilor Buhle stated that flat-funding in an inflationary environment was a cut. She stated that

this amendment was aimed at the Board of Education, as the largest portion of Ledyard’s overall

budget. She stated as a champion for their students noting that Ledyard’s Per Pupil Expenditures

were still the lowest funded School District in the region. She stated that she was open to seeing

what the Board of Education would put forward with the amended language in the Letter of

Directive they approved earlier this evening.

Councilor Lamb stated this proposed amendment would not hamper the Board of Education

from providing over and above what Councilor Barnes’ has suggested noting that they would

just have to prioritize and justify their budget requests.

Chairman St. Vil stated the Budget Letter of Directive was the Town Council’s official

instruction document that defines how the Mayor and the Board of Education must prepare their

Annual Budget so that the Town Council could perform its legal responsibilities to review,

adjust, and adopt a fiscally responsible spending plan. He stated the specificity added by the

proposed amendment goes above and beyond. He stated the intent of the proposed amendment

has already been met in the baseline Letter of Directive, noting that they have had signification

discussion regarding the proposal. He proceeded to call a vote on the proposed amendment.

Administrative Assistant Roxanne Maher read the proposed amendment as follows:

MOTION to amend the Letter of Directive for the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget to revise the

following language in paragraph 5:

“………Departments are required to limit overall requested increases to contractual

obligations. Any request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling

justification in priority order…….”.

VO-4TMEo:4tion Failed ( Buhle, Brunelle, St. Vil, Thompson not in-favor)

RESULT:

MOVER:

MOTION FAILED 4 - 4

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry, Town Councilor.

SECONDER: Jessica Buhle, Town Councilor

AYES:

NAYES:

EXCUSED:

Barnes, Garcia-Irizarry, Lamb, Parad

Buhle, Brunelle, St. Vil, Thompson

Ryan

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

SECONDER:

Chairman St. Vil stated they were setting expectations and he noted that based on Councilor

Lamb’s comments this evening that they would be meeting with their counterparts and would be

setting those expectations. He stated when the Annual Budget was presented to the Town

Council for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026/2027 that they would all know that there would be a

different set of expectations.

Councilor Lamb noted Councilor Garcia-Irzarry’s comments regarding the need for more detail

from the Board of Education to allow the town to have more insight on what the Board of

Education was proposing for each of the schools, etc. However, he questioned whether the Town

Council would really care about having all that detail after the Finance Committees of the Town

Council and Board of Education had their joint meetings to negotiate things and they were all

communicating. He stated once the Town Council conducted an analysis to determine what the

town could afford, based on their revenue stream; that they may make budget adjustments to

either reduce budgets or increase budgets.

Councilor Garcia-Irizarry stated the reason she was in-favor of providing the budget detail was

for the benefit of their residents. She stated because the residents do not have all the budget

information the Town Council and Board of Education had access to, that providing the budget

detail for the residents was about transparency. She noted that during the Fiscal Year 2025/2026

Budget that she continued to hear comments that the residents do not understand where all of

their tax dollars were going to. Councilor Lamb stated that he now understood Councilor

Garcia-Irizarry’s reason to provide the budget detail; and therefore, he would not object to

providing more budget detail.

Chairman St. Vil called for a vote on the Main Motion as amended.

Administrative Assistant Roxanne Maher read the language that the Town Council approved

earlier this evening to remove the following language from the fifth paragraph of the Letter of

Directive as follows:

“…..to below three percent unless essential needs cannot be met within this guideline; any

request above this threshold must be accompanied by a clear and compelling justification.”

v MOTION to approve a Budget Letter of Directive to the Mayor and Board of Education for

the preparation of the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget as presented in the draft dated November

24, 2025 December 9 10, 2025 (as amended at tonight’s meeting 12/10/2025).

Moved by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry, seconded by Councilor Buhle

VOTE: 7 - 1 Approved and so declared (Barnes not in-favor)

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

Jessica Buhle

MOVER:

SECONDER:

MOTION to approve the Town Council Department Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget in the

amount of $289,255.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated as part of the Fiscal Year Budget Preparation process the

Town Council was required to approve a Town Council Department Budget to be included in the

Mayor’s proposed budget. She explained that the Town Council’s Department Budget would

come back to the Finance Committee/Town Council as part of the Annual budget deliberation

and preparation process.

Councilor Buhle went on to note that the proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Town Council

Department Budget was presented in the amount of $289,255; a $40,000 or 31.95% increase

over the current year’s budget.

Increases include the following:

· $30,000 Increase for Legal Fees regarding Tribal and Indian Law Issues; and Tax

Recovery;

· $10,000 Increase for Audit Fees - The Town will solicit bids for the Annual Audit

Services. Per Finance Director a 5% increase has been included. This budget line can be

adjusted based on the bids received.

· $30,000 - NEW ACCOUNT - Grant Writer (Consultant) to assist Departments seek,

apply for, and manage Grant Funding. Councilor Buhle stated the Finance Committee

added this New Account line to the Town Council Department Budget at their December

3, 2025 meeting. She stated that she pictured this as a PILOT Program, noting that the

Grant Writer would report to the Town Council and would work with Department Heads

to identify projects on their Capital List; or other opportunities where Grants may be

applicable. She stated because many of the Department Heads may be over burdened,

that the Grant Writer would be able to take on opportunities that the Department Heads

may not be able to take on. She stated that they would evaluate the Grant Writer PILOT

Program, noting that she hoped they would bring in more grant funding than the $30,000

designated for this PILOT Program.

Councilor Parad questioned whether the Grant Writer would be a 20-hour per week position.

Councilor Buhle stated that the Grant Writer would be a part-time per diem/consultant role,

explaining that it would be more of an “as needed” contractor for when Grant opportunities

become available. She stated that she envisioned the Grant Writer initially meeting with all

Department Heads to discuss their future projects and potential grant funding opportunities. She

stated as grant funding becomes available that the Grant Writer would contact the Department

Head to discus submitting the Grant Application, noting that many grants require local matching

funds. Councilor Parad asked if they had a pro-active Grant Writer how they would determine

how many hours they would work, versus the town telling them which grants that would like to

apply for. Councilor Buhle stated that Finance Director Matthew Bonin and Mayor Allyn, III

were at the December 3, 2025 Finance Committee meeting and they all felt that a $30,000

budget for a per diem Grant Writer Consultant was a reasonable amount to include for a PILOT

Grant Writer Program. She stated if they find in January 2027 they have spent the $30,000 for

the Grant Writer and the town received $2.4 million in grant funding; or they have not received

any grant funding, then they could decide whether or not they wanted to continue funding a

Grant Writer. She stated starting with a PILOT Grant Writer Program would provide the town an

opportunity to assess the results and determine how they wanted to proceed.

Councilor Buhle went on to note that there were no major changes to the expenses, explaining

that this year the Town would be soliciting Requests for Proposals for Auditing Services for

fiscal years ending June 30, 2026 and June 30, 2027; noting the RFP typically included two

one-year extensions options.

The Salary Lines were listed at the current year's salary because the Mayor’s Office would

update them in accordance with the “Resolution Establishing Administrator/ Department Head

Benefits” “Employees shall be paid at the rate as designated by the Mayor or contractually

negotiated. Increases in wages shall be effective on the first day of July; and continuing until

June 30, 2025, wage increases may not be less than the percentage of the highest union

contracted increase for that fiscal year.”

Chairman St. Vil stated that tonight’s action was to approve the Town Council’s Department

proposed Budget to be included in the Mayor’s Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget. He explained

when the Mayor submits his proposed Budget on March 2, 2026 that the Town Council would

have an opportunity to revisit their Department Budget.

Councilor Barnes stated the proposed Town Council Department Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Budget

was a zero % increase budget; minus three priority adjustments; those being a New Account for

a Grant Writer $30,000; Auditor Fee $10,000 increase; and Legal Fees $30,000 increase. He

stated that by holding themselves to this, does not prevent them from asking for a zero% budget

increase, plus three priority additions from other Departments.

Councilor Lamb questioned the reason for the $10,000 increase for the Auditor. Mayor Allyn, III

explained the Auditor Contract, which had included a renewal contract period, had a stated

percentage increase for each year of the contract renewal. He stated this contract would end with

this year’s Audit Report (June, 2025). Therefore, he stated that it was time to once again solicit

bids for Auditing Services, noting that based on the previous contract they were assuming an

increase for the coming year, noting that there were very few Municipal Auditing Firms.

Councilor Lamb questioned the need for the additional $30,000 or 20% for the Legal Fees.

Mayor Allyn, III, explained that currently they were in Federal Court with the Mashantucket

Pequot Tribal Nation (MPTN) because they were looking to Annex up-to 5,000-acres in the

Town of Ledyard. He stated they were in mediation, noting that they do not know how long this

case would go on or how much it was going to cost. He stated there was no burn rate at this time

because they were in a holding pattern.

Councilor Lamb addressed the $1,500 for CCM Trainings noting that he self-funded his needs to

volunteer for the town. Councilor Brunelle noted by attending Connecticut Council of

Municipalities (CCM) Trainings that members of the Town Council have learned about

opportunities and programs such as the Compost Recycling Program. Councilor Buhle stated the

budget line was flat funded, noting that town volunteers spend countless hours to help their

community. She stated that it did not seem right to ask volunteers, who were already going

above and beyond, to pay for training programs to learn how they could better their town.

Councilor Lamb stated when he was serving on the Board of Education that he saved the town

$20,000 explaining that they were paying for a Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE)

Membership, however, they were able to get all of the information CABE was providing for free.

Therefore, he stated by discontinuing their CABE Membership they saved $20,000.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to approve the Town Council Department Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Capital

Improvement Budget in the total amount of $1,500.

10.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Garcia-Irizarry

Discussion: Councilor Buhle stated as part of the Fiscal Year Budget preparation process the

Town Council was required to approve a Capital Plan for Town Council Department. She noted

that the proposed Capital Plan was in the amount of $1,500 in the Town Council’s New

Equipment/ Laptop Computer Replacement CNR Sinking Fund as they have in previous years.

She stated the funding was used to provide members of the Town Council and the

Administrative Assistant a laptop to conduct town business and purchase equipment to

support/access the cloud-based meeting portal.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

APPROVED AND SO DECLARED

Jessica Buhle

RESULT:

MOVER:

Carmen Garcia-Irizarry

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

Garcia-Irizarry

AYE:

Ryan

EXCUSED:

General Business

Chairman St. Vil stated the next Item was regarding the Teachers Contract. He stated that he

wanted to explain this process before they make the Motion, because it can be confusing. He

noted in accordance with CGS 10--153d(b), the Municipal Legislative Body, which was the

Town Council, only had the Authority to Reject the Ledyard Education Association (LEA)

Contract. Therefore, he explained if they want to Approve the contract they have to Vote “No”

Not to Reject. He stated if they Vote “Yes” then they would be rejecting the Contract.

MOTION to reject the Agreement between the Ledyard Board of Education and the Ledyard

Education Association, Ledyard, Connecticut for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30,

2029.

11.

Moved by Councilor Lamb, seconded by Councilor Buhle

Discussion: Chairman St. Vil noted Under CGS 10--153d(b), the Municipal Legislative Body

(Town Council) had the Authority to:

Reject the Agreement by a majority vote within the 30-day period (that

would be a YES Vote), or

Vote NOT to Reject the Agreement by a majority vote within the 30-day

Period; essentially accepting the Agreement; (that would be a NO Vote)

Take no action, in which case the Agreement is deemed approved by operation of

law at the conclusion of the 30 days.

Chairman St. Vil went on to explain should the Legislative Body (Town Council) vote to Reject

the Agreement, the matter proceeds directly to binding arbitration under CGS 10-153f.

Chairman St. Vil noted the Terms of the Contract as follows:

Salary

A total Salary increase of 13.19%, inclusive of steps/increments and including any Stipend

increases was negotiated. Assuming all staffing remains the same, the breakout by contract year

is as follows:

Year 1- GWI + Step (total negotiated increase 4.447%) = $898,066

Year 2- GWI + Step (total negotiated increase 4.439%) = $936,220

Year 3- GWI + Step (total negotiated increase 4.308%) = $949,034

Insurance

Year 1- 25% increase Employee share would be 24.50%

Year 2- .25% increase Employee share would be 24.75%

Year 3- 25% increase Employee share would be 25.00%

Chairman St. Vil noted the following Procedural Timeline:

· November 18, 2025: The Ledyard Education Association (LEA), ratified a new three year

Contract Agreement effective July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029.

In addition, at their November 18, 2025 meeting the Ledyard Board of Education also voted

to approve the LEA Agreement.

· December 4, 2025: Agreement submitted to the Town Clerk and transmitted to the Town

Council.

· Statutory deadline: The Town Council has 30 days from filing to act.

· If no vote occurs: The contract becomes effective automatically at the close of the 30-day

period.

· If the Council votes to reject: The agreement moves to binding arbitration as required by

state law.

Chairman St. Vil stated it would be good to know how much of the 4.47% Increase was for

Gross Wages and how much was for the Step Increase.

Councilor Buhle stated she served as the Town Council’s Liaison for the Ledyard Education

Association Contract (LEA) Negotiations, noting that it was contentious. She stated that

although Ledyard’s total 13.19% increase over the three-year term seemed to be high, that other

Teacher Contracts in Connecticut that were coming in with a 15% increase over the three year

term. She stated rejecting the contract would not get them a better offer. She also noted that the

Ledyard Education Association Contract Healthcare Insurance co-pay was the highest in the

town.

Councilor Barnes noted that the Teachers Healthcare Insurance co-pay would be the new

baseline. Mayor Allyn, III noted Councilor Barnes’ baseline comment and he stated the same

would apply for the wage increase.

Councilor Lamb stated as a Board of Education Member that he served on the Ledyard

Education Association Contract Negotiations; and he also voted to approve the Contract.

Therefore, he questioned whether Chairman St. Vil thought it would be Conflict of Interest for

him to vote on the Ledyard Education Association Contract as a member of the Town Council

this evening. Chairman St. Vil stated that he did not believe it would be a Conflict of Interest for

Councilor Lamb to vote on the Ledyard Education Association Contract this evening, in his

capacity on the Town Council.

Councilor Lamb stated that he agreed with Councilor Buhle’s comments that they were not

going to get a better offer if they rejected the Ledyard Education Association Contract this

evening. He noted that Arbitration would be costly.

Councilor Barnes requested clarification regarding the wording of the Motion. Councilor Buhle

stated that the Town Council could not approve the Ledyard Education Association Contract,

explaining that they could only reject the Contract.

VOTE: 0 - 8 Motion Failed

MOTION FAILED

Ty Lamb

RESULT:

MOVER:

Jessica Buhle

SECONDER:

Barnes, Brunelle, Buhle, Lamb, Parad, Thompson, St. Vil, and

NAY:

Garcia-Irizarry

Ryan

EXCUSED:

MOTION to cancel the Town Council Regular Meeting of December 24, 2025 for the Holidays.

12.

Moved by Councilor Buhle, seconded by Councilor Brunelle

Discussion: None.

VOTE: 8 - 0 Approved and so declared

XV. ADJOURNMENT

Councilor Barnes moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Buhle.

VOTE:

8 - 0 Approved and so declared. The meeting adjourned at 9:59 p.m.

_____________________________________

Transcribed by Roxanne M. Maher

Administrative Assistant to the Town Council

I, Gary St. Vil , Chairman of the Ledyard Town Council,

hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and

correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Town Council

Meeting held on December 10, 2025.

____________________________________

Gary St. Vil, Chairman

DISCLAIMER:

Although we try to be timely and accurate these are not official records of the Town.

The Town Council's Official Agenda and final Minutes will be on file in the Town Clerk's

Office.