Representative Town Meeting (RTM) - Minutes - 10/04/2021

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
PHONE: 860-442-0553
www.waterfordct.org
H
MINUTES
REPRESENTATIVE TOWN MEETING
Regular Meeting
Waterford Town Hall
October 4, 2021
HH ii RY 9- 150 120
RTM Moderator Thomas Dembek called the October 4, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Representative
Town Meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Greg Attanasio, Michael Bono, Jennifer Bracciale, April Cairns, Timothy Condon, Thomas J.
Dembek, Susan Driscoll, Steve Elci, Timothy Fioravanti, Miriam Furey-Wagner, Nick Gauthier, Paul
Goldstein, Kathleen Kohl, David Lersch, Valerie Metivier, Richard Morgan, Richard Muckle, Dan Radin,
Michael Rocchetti (7:20 P.M.), Danielle Steward-Gelinas, Robert Swansen, Baird Welch-Collins.
ABSENT: Liam O’Leary, Theodore Olynciw.
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: First Selectman Robert J Brule; Chair of the Board of Finance Ronald R.
Fedor.
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT: Selectwoman Jody Nazarchyk; Selectman Elizabeth Sabilia; Chair of the
Board of Education Craig Merriman.
ALSO PRESENT: Town Clerk David L. Campo; Town Attorney Robert Avena, Town Attorney Nicholas
Kepple.
AGENDA ITEM C — August 2, 2021 Regular Meeting & the August 19, 2021 Special Meeting Minutes
MOTION by Goldstein, seconded by Welch-Collins, to accept the minutes from the August 2, 2021
Regular Meeting and the August 19, 2021 Special Meeting.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous with one member abstaining. (Steward-Gelinas)
CORRESPONDENCE (See Attachment)
A letter from Chief of Police, Brett Mahoney, in reference to the Town’s Noise Ordinance. Moderator
Dembek stated it would be discussed under NEW BUSINESS.
An Ethics advisory opinion was received from the Ethics Commission.
A letter from Waterford Resident, Mary Childs, in regard to city water pipes in her neighborhood and
throughout Town. Moderator Dembek stated it would be discussed under NEW BUSINESS.
A letter from Town Clerk, David L. Campo, requesting a review of Chapter 2.38 — Information Technology
Committee. Moderator Dembek stated it would be discussed under NEW BUSINESS.
1 RTM MINUTES 10/04/2021

PUBLIC COMMENT:
The following residents spoke against the volume of the live music at Filomena’s on Boston Post Road
and the need to review the Town’s noise ordinance: William F. O’Donnell, 7 Reynolds Lane; Adel Terzik,
134 Fog Plain Road; Candace Barsch, 275 Boston Post Road; William Herzfeld, 6 Graham Street; Debbie
Griffith, 63 North Road.
MOTION by Welch-Collins, seconded by Gauthier, to move NEW BUSINESS up at this point.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
NEW BUSINESS
Lengthy discussion ensued in regard for the need to review the Town’s Noise Ordinance as referenced in
a letter from Chief of Police, Brett Mahoney, and noted by residents during PUBLIC COMMENT.
MOTION by Welch-Collins, seconded by Steward-Gelinas, to refer the review of the Noise Ordinance
(Chapter 9.06 — Noise Control) to the Public Health, Recreation & Environment Standing Committee of
the RTM.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
MOTION by Welch-Collins, seconded by Driscoll, to Review the information Technology Committee
Ordinance (Chapter 2.38), as referenced in a letter from Town Clerk, David L. Campo.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
A letter from Nicholas Kepple, Town Attorney in regard to a possible panhandling ordinance.
Discussion ensued. (See attachment)
MOTION by Condon, seconded by Welch-Collins, to have legal keep us apprised of any changes to this
issue, but to not refer to committee at this time.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
AGENDA ITEM F
Committee reports were received from David Lersch, Chair of the Finance, Wage and Personnel
Committee and from Danielle Steward-Gelinas, Chair of the Education Committee.
AGENDA ITEM G — None
CALL ITEM 1 — Rope Ferry Road & Jordan Village Sidewalks.
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Collins, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance to approve a transfer in the amount of $3,000 from account 33022-55887 Rope Ferry Road
Sidewalks to account 20511-57856 Jordan Village Sidewalks,
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
2 RTM MINUTES 10/04/2021

CALL ITEM 2 ~ Cohanzie Fire Roof Replacement
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Collins, to pass over as it was supplied to the RTM for
“information purposes only”.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
CALL ITEM 3 — Merging of Two Lines for Hydraulic Equipment
MOTION by Driscoll, seconded by Welch-Collins, to approve a recommendation from the Board of
Finance the merging of two fines in our Capital Non-Recurring (CNR) designated, under Hydraulic
Equipment 20523-57826 and Line 20523-57837 into 20523-57826 by transferring $150,000 designated
funds from 20523-57837 to 20523-57826 designated, then close line 20523-57837.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous with one member abstaining. (Driscoll)
CALL ITEM 4 ~ Wastewater Agreement
PRESENTATION: Utility Commission Chairman Ken Kirkman, Town Attorney Nicholas Kepple, Utility
Commission Director Tali Soto, Utility Commission Assistant Director James Bartelli.
MOTION by Steward-Gelinas, seconded by Welch-Collins, to approve a recommendation from the Board
of Selectmen to approve an agreement entitled “New London/Waterford/East Lyme Wastewater
Collection, Conveyance, and Treatment Agreement” and authorize the First Selectman to sign said
agreement on behalf of the Town of Waterford, subject to the approval of the Town Attorney as to
form.
Discussion ensued
MOTION by Steward-Gelinas, seconded by Welch-Collins to move the question.
VOTING IN FAVOR TO MOVE: Unanimous
VOTING IN FAVOR OF WASTEWATER AGREEMENT: Unanimous
Moderator Dembek requested that the letter received from Mary Childs under correspondence be
discussed during the next Utility Commission Meeting.
MOTION by Condon, seconded by Welch-Collins, to adjourn at 8:39 P.M.
VOTING IN FAVOR: Unanimous
Respectfully Submitted,
David L. Campo, CCTC
Waterford Town Clerk
3 RTM MINUTES 10/04/2021

WATERFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT
41 AVERY LANE
WATERFORD, CT 06385-2819
Brett Mahoney -9451 TEL
Chief of Police bmahoney@waterfordct.org
David Campo
Town Clerk
Town of Waterford
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, Connecticut
06385
09/20/2021
Town Clerk Campo -
The Town of Waterford noise ordinance is presently unworkable for enforcement. The noise levels
currently set in the ordinance do not allow the various municipal departments to apply the ordinance as
they are now set at a normal conversational tone. For the police department, this has led to the local
Prosecutor's office unwilling to bring our noise complaints for prosecution.
| have spoken with the Town Attorney regarding this matter. As a result, | am requesting that the RTM
place this into new business for October, for subcommittee review and revision. The Town Attorney is
available and willing to work with the subcommittee, and has workable ordinances from other
municipalities for review.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and as always, should you have any questions, please
contact me.
L end
2 Sock
LUCY a
8
Brett Mahoney S « nm
Chief of Police : 2
Waterford Police Department =
2
oS
os]
www.waterfordpolice.org

OWN CLES
The Town of Waterford Ethics Commission presents this Advisory Opinion, which applies to alf
public officials of the Town of Waterford (defined as members of Boards and Commissions and
Town Officials, whether elected or appointed, in concurrence with the Code of Ethics Sec.
2.50.020 H).
As in any small town, public officials may find themselves involved in votes on policies, budgets,
and other decisions that may directly affect themselves or their family members. Waterford
maintains a Code of Ethics that specifies when a board or commission member should not take
official action. Further, the Town of Waterford Ethics Commission previously published
advisories about when action by a Town official is ethically improper. Following inquiries and
complaints, and in response to a subsequently requested Advisory Opinion to address the
relationship conflict question, this Opinion is an effort to state situations in which public officials
should refrain from voting.
The Preamble to the Code of Ethics, in Sec. 2.50.010 B, states, “The proper operation of town
government requires that all public officials and town employees shall be impartial and
responsive to the public interest, that public office and employment should not be used for
personal gain or advantage, and that public officials and town employees should not place
themselves in positions where private interest conflicts with pubic duty.”
This Advisory Opinion specifically addresses the meaning and intent of the Code in its definition
of conflict of interest. It comes as a result of a series of concerns and complaints made by
community members over the years. It acknowledges that previous opinions have not explicitly
defined instances where a conflict may exist and reflects a desire to ensure confidence in
government. This Opinion recognizes that the Waterford Ethics Commission is adjusting its
posture on the question of family relative conflicts, and is taking a specific position on this
question —one that we have long debated.
Sec. 2.50.030 A of the Code defines the existence of a substantial conflict of interest as follows:
“Public officials and town employees have an interest that is in substantial conflict with the
proper discharge of duties or employment in the public interest and of responsibilities as
prescribed by the laws of this state if they have reason to believe or expect that they, their
immediate family, or a business with which they are associated will derive a direct monetary
gain or suffer a direct monetary loss, as the case may be, by reason of their official activity.” The
Code further states, in Sec, 2.50.030 C, that “A public official or town employee may not take
official action on any matter in which a substantial conflict (as defined in subsection A of this
section) exists. If the conflict is disclosed, a public official or town employee may participate in
discussions with or give opinions or recommendations to a town board, agency, commission,
committee, department, or another public official or town employee.”

These sections of the Code preclude public officials from taking actions where a conflict of
interest exists. Such conflict includes circumstances where a benefit - real or perceived - would
accrue to the official, their family, or their business relations as result of such action. Public
officials take official action when they vote “yes” or “no” where this type of question is before
them. This Advisory Opinion does not intend to restrict or limit any representative from full and
active discussion and examination of any and all issues that come before them, as is provided in
Sec. 2.50.030. It is, however, our opinion that public officials must abstain from voting in
situations in which circumstances exist that give rise to a conflict of interest or a public
perception of such a conflict. Examples include situations. when the Board or Commission
member is employed by the Town, has a family member employed by the Town, has a business
relationship with the Town, or is in a circumstance that gives rise to a perception of conflict of
interest.
tt should be noted that this opinion resolves the issue of whether a real or perceived conflict of
interest takes precedence over the exception allowed In Sec. 2.50.030 B: “Public officials or
town employees do not have an interest that is in substantial conflict...if any benefit or
detriment accrues to them, their immediate family, or a business with which they are associated
as a member of a profession, occupation, or group to no greater extent than any other member
of such profession, occupation, or group.” For example, a town official is not immune or exempt
from a real or perceived conflict of interest when voting on issues affecting a family member in
a collective bargaining unit. Actions taken by public officials that appear to the public as
improper will determine the existence of a conflict and, subsequently, determine the
appropriateness of the behavior.
This Advisory Opinion is broad and is intended to be applicable to all Town activities, including
the Board of Education; public safety and fire services; and the Town’s numerous permanent
and temporary Boards, Commissions, and committees. It supercedes previous Opinions on this
issue and presents a specific position for all future Town activities. !t is the result of
investigation into a specific complaint and the subsequent request for an Advisory Opinion that
followed that investigation. (In accordance with the code 2.50.060 C, it should be noted that
the results of our investigation into the complaint may be different if different facts are
presented to the Commission at a later date.) This Opinion applies to future situations only; it
clarifies the meaning and intent of the Code in its definition of conflict of interest and gives
guidance to Officials as they work on behalf of the Town. It is intended to secure and keep
public confidence in our volunteer and elected officials.

David Campo
From: Mary Childs <childsmm@outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 6:54 AM
To: David Campo
Subject: water leaks resulting in road repair
I _ CAUTION: This email originated from outside. of the ‘organization. : I
j Do. not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the I
content is safe.
Dear Mr. Campo, | would like the following message to be shared with all RTM members. | have sent an individual
message to each email listed on our town site. The email address posted for Mr. Dembek was undeliverable. Thank you,
Mary Childs
Dear RTM member,
lam writing to ask that the current practice and response to leaking fresh water in our town roads be reviewed. For at
least the past 7 years, my neighborhood has experienced places where the main freshwater pipe leaks or at times
gushes. The Veolia crew comes to cut open the road, repair the area and then patch the road. Typically, this same place
will leak within one to two months later. | have seen this happen specifically on Beacon Hill Road and Roger’s Hill Road.
This summer, the trash/recycling truck tires went through the road in a trough like series of holes.
When | inquired with our Waterford Utility Commission, | was given the explanation that when the system was new,
Waterford utilized “new” and “cost effective” technology that was a better price than copper. It was further explained
to me that this product which is plastic is now failing and needs to be frequently replaced. | was told that my
neighborhood is not the only area in town facing this issue.
As an RTM member, { ask that with the signing off on both the fresh waster coming into our homes and the wastewater
being processed going out of our homes, that you advocate for a fix to this failing technology that will replace the
couplings with possibly a more expensive and more long lasting technology. Possibly we should look into the long term
costs of replacing each coupling as it fails and factor that in to the current practice. In the months of August and
September, Beacon Hill Drive has been in repair no less than 7 times. As | stated this type of work has been going on in
my neighborhood for at least 7 years.
| appreciate your time, and hope that you will ask questions of our professionals who are in charge of contracts and
maintaining our vital water systems. Please do not just rubber stamp another 20 or 30 year contract with out some
explanation and plan to address this issue.
Respectfully,
Mary Childs
22 Beacon Hill Drive, Waterford
childsmm@yahoo.com
Sent from Mail for Windows

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD PHONE: 860-442-0553
WATERFORD, CT 06385-2886
www.waterfordct.org
October 2, 2021
Thomas Dembek, Moderator
Representative Town Meeting
15 Rope Ferry Road
Waterford, CT 06385
Dear Mr. Dembek,
The Town has recently established its own Information Technology Department, rather than in
cooperation with the Board of Education. During internal conversations between multiple Department
Heads the need for the Information Technology Committee may be no more.
Please consider referring this subject to the proper committee to ri
need for Chapter 2.38 — Information Technology in the Waterford Code of Ordinances. With the
upcoming departure of the Chair of the Committee, Brett Mahoney, it may be an ideal time to consider
this. He would still be available for a short time to answer any questions that the RTM may have.
eview as to whether there still exists a
Sincerely,
David L. Campo, CCTC
Waterford Town Clerk
© Hd A 190 1202
g0

FIFTEEN ROPE FERRY ROAD
PHONE: 860-442-0553
WATERFORD, CT’ 06385-2886
www.waterfordct.org
Finance, Wage, and Personnel RTM Standing Committee
Year End Report 10/04/2021
Members: Susan Driscoll, Paul Goldstein, Kathy Kohl, Liam O’Leary, David Lersch, Chairman
The RTM voted to give two tasks to this Standing Committee. The first task was to consider
vendor preferences for Town of Waterford businesses seeking work for the Town. The
Standing Committee recommended an amendment to the Town Ordnance 3.08 — Purchasing.
The RTM approved the Amendment. The Finance Department will modify its internal policy
documents ta reflect the Amendment, based on their legal authority, as recommended by the
Town’s Attorney, and provide feedback to the RTM.
The second Task was to review and act on Salaries of Elected Officials that would be effective as
of July 1, 2022. (Note: The RTM approved 2 prior salary increases for one-year increments for
the period of July 1 2020 to June 30, 2022). The prior Standing Committee based their salary
recommendations on the October CPI-U of the previous year. Although this Standing
Committee met once to discuss the task, it did not act on the task or make a recommendation
to the RTM.
It is the opinion of the Standing Committee Chairman that the RTM delegate this task to the
newly elected members to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee may wish to
review resources and deliberations on file, and consider the October CPI-U, as decisions are
reached in the next Fiscal-Year Town budget cycle.
As Chairman of the Finance, Wage, and Personnel Standing Committee, | wish to offer my
sincere gratitude and thanks to every Committee member for their devoted service and
steadfast commitment to excellence.
mt
2
=
Respectfully Submitted, pa]
David. Lersch, ChaiFfnan
-
-0
=x
m
ov

Education Standing Committee of the RTM
End of Term Committee Report
October 4, 2021
mm=
Members: Q
foo
“4
Danielle Steward-Gelinas, Chair *
Michael Rocchetti ee
Valerie Metivier on
Greg Attanasio =
Sally Ritchie ns
Two issues were sent to this committee during the 2019-2021 term of the RTM. The
Restoration/Use of Nevin’s Cottage was placed into committee prior to the beginning of this
term and was reported out on December 1, 2020, Social Justice was placed into committee on
October 5, 2020 and reported out of committee on March 15, 2021.
Restoration/Use of Nevin’s Cottage:
This item has been in this particular committee for over 2 years. Money was appropriated to
obtain the full estimate to secure the envelope. The estimation includes only the exterior and
structure of the cottage and does not address the interior of the structure. There has been
discussion about fundraising or creating an endowment fund to support the restoration. There
has also been discussion of conducting a survey to gauge interest in this project. There was a
motion and unanimous vote to move this issue out of committee with no action taken.
Social Justice:
The issues of diversity, equity and inclusion are important to the town of Waterford. Many
different groups are engaged in the conversation and Elizabeth McGee is working to create a
DEI workgroup that will more specifically address the issues described in the letter from
residents. A motion by Greg Attanasio, seconded by Michael Rocchetti, to recommend
reporting the issue of “Social Justice” out of committee at the next meeting of the RTM and
allow LEAP Consulting Owner, Elizabeth McGee, to pursue the formation of a Town DEI Work
Group, that would be representative of the town, and that the RTM makes a formal request to
have representation on the work group. The motion passed unanimously.
All meetings are recorded for public viewing.
There are currently no active issues in the Education Standing Committee of the RTM.
Respectfully submitted,
Danielle Steward-Gelinas
Chairperson

MEMORANDUM
TO: RTM MODERATOR, THOMAS DEMBECK AND ALL RTM MEMBERS
FROM: NICHOLAS KEPPLE, TOWN arronney BE
RE: REFERRAL TO RTM COMMITTEE OF POSSIBLE PANHANDLING ORDINANCE
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2021
The United States Supreme Court in the 2016 case of Reed v Town of Gilbert created what
amounts to a sea change in municipalities’ ability to regulate panhandling by ordinance. The Court ruled
the overwhelming majority of such ordinances, like the City of Middletown’s 2004 ordinance attached
hereto, are unconstitutional (based on First Amendment/free speech grounds). Panhandling has a long
history of jurisprudence with different Federal Circuit Courts adopting varying positions on the legality of
municipal efforts to regulate panhandling. The Reed case established a definitive view that panhandling
is considered protected speech under the first amendment and any efforts to regulate this activity are
subject to what is known as “strict scrutiny.”
Municipalities all over the country have been struggling with the fallout from the Reed decision,
especially since the COVID pandemic has precipitated a notable increase in panhandling in numerous
communities. Many Connecticut communities are endeavoring to adopt multi-faceted approaches,
which attempt to address some of the underlying causes of panhandling in the hopes of meeting some
of the core needs of individuals engaged in these activities.
We would recommend that Representative Olynciw’s request for a referral on this topic be
acted upon in order to afford us an opportunity to work with the relevant RTM Subcommittee. Our
suggested approach would be to examine how other Connecticut communities have tried to respond to
the legal challenges posed by the Reed case as well as learn lessons from the collaborative efforts of
different Town departments and social service agencies working on this issue. Enforcement is also a
difficult issue that confronts Towns with prohibitions on panhandling.
We would also recommend considerable caution be exercised while exploring the regulation of
this protected activity lest the Town find itself in Court defending a new ordinance while the law post-
Reed is still in such a state of flux.
HWY 9- 190 1202
Sl

HISTORY: Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Middletown 4-6-1987, as amended through Ord, No. 08-04,
opted 5-3-2004. Subsequent amendments noted where applicable. ]
§ 192-1 Definitions.
\s used in this chapter, the following terms shail have the meanings indicated:
-OITER
To sit, stand, lie, pace or otherwise remain in essentially the same place, and shall include the colloquial
expression “hanging around.”
>UBLIC PLACE
Any area that is used or held out for use by the public, whether owned or operated by public or private interests.
§ 192-2 Prohibited conduct.
lo person shall loiter in any public place and:
\. Create, or cause to be created, a breach of the peace, as that term is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes;
3. Create, or cause to be created, a public disturbance, as that term is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes;
2. Commit disorderly conduct, as that term is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes.
>. Obstruct free passage, as that offense is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes.
Engage in activities which would warrant a reasonable officer to believe that the purpose of the behavior is to
engage in a violation of the Connecticut General Statutes regulating dependency-producing drugs.
a
Engage in activities which would warrant a reasonable officer to believe that such person is engaging in
prostitution, patronizing a prostitute, promoting prostitution, or enticing a minor, as those terms are defined in
the Connecticut General Statutes.
§ 192-3 Law enforcement action; penalties for offenses.
Whenever any police officer in the exercise of reasonable judgment decides that the presence of any person in any
slace is causing, or is likely to cause, any of the prohibited acts enumerated in § 192-2, he or she may, if deemed
yecessary for the preservation of the public peace and safety, order that person(s) to leave that place. Officers shall
nform such persons that they will be issued an infraction if they fail to obey the order promptly or engage in further
oitering. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of this
chapter and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $90.
§ 192-4 Panhandling control.
\. Generally. The purpose of this section is to regulate behavior to preserve the public order, to protect the citizens
of Middletown and to ensure the safe and uninterrupted passage of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic, without
unconstitutionally impinging upon protected speech, expression or conduct.
3. Definitions. For the purpose of this section, the following terms shail have the meanings indicated:
AGGRESSIVE MANNER
(1) Approaching, speaking to, or following a person in a manner as would cause a reasonable person to fear
bodily harm or the commission of a criminal act upon the person, or upon property in the person’s
immediate possession; or
(2) Touching another person without that person’s consent in the course of asking for alms; or

E.
(3)
C))
()
(6)
Continuing to ask, beg, or solicit alms from a person after the person has made a negative response; or
Following the person solicited before, after or while asking, begging or soliciting alms; or
Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of a person or vehicle by any means,
including unreasonably causing a person or driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid physical
contact; or
Directing abusive or profane language toward the person solicited, either while asking, begging or
soliciting alms, or following a refusal by the person solicited.
ASK, BEG or SOLICIT ALMS
Includes the spoken, written, or printed word or such other act conducted for the purpose of obtaining an
immediate donation or money or thing of value.
FALSE OR MISLEADING MANNER
Includes, but is not limited to, the asking, begging, or soliciting of alms, including money and other things of
value, through utilization of any of the following representations:
(1) Stating or expressing that the donation is needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor already
has sufficient funds to meet that need and does not disclose that fact; or
(2) Stating that the solicitor is from out of town and stranded, when that is not true; or
(3) Wearing or displaying an indication of physical disability, when the solicitor does not suffer the
disability indicated; or
(4) Use of any makeup or device to simulate deformity.
SOLICITOR
Anyone who asks, begs, or solicits alms, including money and other things of value.
Unlawful acts.
(1) No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms, including money and other things of value, in an aggressive manner
in any place open to the general public, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, streets, alleys, driveways,
parking lots, parks, plazas, buildings, doorways and entrances to buildings, and gasoline service stations and
the grounds enclosing buildings.
(2) No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms, including money and other things of value, in a false or misleading
manner.
(3) No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms in any public transportation vehicle; or within 25 feet of any bus or
train station or stop.
(4) No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms within 25 feet of any automatic teller machine (ATM).
(5) No person may ask, beg, or solicit alms from any operator or occupant of a motor vehicle that is in traffic on
a public street.
Interpretation. No provisions of this section shall be interpreted or construed to prohibit speech, expression or
conduct protected by the laws or Constitution of the United States or the laws or Constitution of the State of
Connecticut.
Penalties, Any person convicted of violating any provision of Subsection C shall be fined $90.