Board of Representatives Community Development, Housing, Education, Social Services and State & Commerce (chess) Committee - Regular Meeting

I will call to order. We have our CHESS meeting tonight, Wednesday, August 26 at 6pm. And who do I have on from our board office who will help? Christina. Hi, Christina.

Good.

How are you? Not too bad. Not too bad. Would you mind helping me with the roll call? No problem. Please. Thank you.

Okay. Representative Goldberg?

Good evening, I'm here.

Representative Gross?

Present.

Representative McKinley?

Present.

Co-Chair Pollack?

Present.

Representative Price?

Present.

Co-Chair Silvestri? I think I just seen her come in.

Perfect timing.

Yes. Co-Chair Silvestri? You want to just stay here? She is on. Present. Okay. Representative Walston?

Present.

Here we go. Representative Weers?

And Representative Yeager. Let's see, Matt just came on. Quinones is with us. Hello.

Hi, good evening.

Good evening. Perfect timing. We just did roll call. I heard that you will be presenting this evening. We have one item. So this special meeting is because we took no action last Tuesday, August 18th on item three, which is chest 32.023. And we just requested some more information that was due by August 25th and it was provided to us pretty much three days later. I received it on the 21st, but it came before that. So tonight we're only going to be talking on this item in front of us. I know we had other review items before, so we're going to keep it to this. With that being said, Quiñones, you will be presenting. But do I have a motion to take on item one, chest 32.023, which is an approval? of the reallocation of available prior year CDBG balances in the aggregate amount of $1 million to a new public improvement project. So moved. Any seconds? Second. Second. Okay. Thank you. Nunez, would you like to take the floor?

Sure. So, good evening, everyone. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to present. My apologies to the committee and to my colleagues for not being able to attend last week. I was away. So, I appreciate that opportunity to come before you in a special meeting to be able to keep this proposal on track with your August September schedule. So the item before you this evening is related to a building wide life safety code compliance project at the Latham wider community center. We are in preparation for submitting a RFP right now tentatively scheduled for September 10th. This would be an engineering design necessary for us to install the automatic fire sprinkler system. The building, this would support the entire building, approximately 72,000 square feet. So I would just point out that this project did go through a capital budget request for the prior fiscal year and was cut at the Board of Finance level. So this is not a new project. But when opportunity presented itself with this particular funding source, this was prioritized as something that did not make it through the prior year's capital submission. The other justification for kind of prioritizing this at this time is it is allowing us to support a code requirement for other improvements that we'll look to make at the Latham Wider Community Center to give just a bit of history of the community center over the last couple of years following the closure of that facility. We've been able to reopen it and have made some significant improvements to the facility. and have continued to kind of build on that progress with what I would describe as kind of a phase two of the renovation that was somewhat halted by perspective of having to comply with essentially a new With additional investment, it would trigger a new perspective on code compliance for the building, which is directly related to this fire suppression system. So in order to unlock, for lack of a better term, existing grant dollars, we will need to make this investment and complete this project. So it's just another kind of reason why this was prioritized at this particular time. And if you're just curious about the scope of work of the other grant, there is an old gymnasium that was used for recreational purposes that is not up to code that we have secured separate federal grant dollars to support the scope of work. And that funding source is kind of restricted for that purpose. So it doesn't allow for us to leverage that funding for the fire suppression system so we're excited to to be able to move this project forward and be able to expand the recreational space at that building and this is a separate funding source and separate scope of work but is also kind of bringing that to light so it's certainly an important investment in terms of the life and safety component to the fire suppression system, but it is also directly tied to some increased recreational offerings that we'll be able to provide at that facility. So I'm happy to kind of speak more to timeline of the project, scope of work, any degree of detail that the committee is interested, but I think it might be appropriate to just kind of pause there and just see what the committee is interested in hearing more about.

Sounds good. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? I see one. Representative McEwen, you have your hand raised. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Pollack. Hi, Director. How's it going?

Hi, Representative. Good evening.

So I just had a quick question about timing. So I know in the last meeting, I don't know if you've had an opportunity to watch the proceeding last time. One of the areas that I had questions about, and I think others did as well, was where is the threshold that gets us to compliance and whether or not that is at the stage where the funds get committed with a definitive agreement or whether or not they're ultimately spent, you know, and in the hands of a third-party contract, you know, once the actual expenditure has been completely processed. And I see in the breakdown of the timing that we're expecting kind of the bulk of the funds to be either spent or committed. I'm not sure I would actually be there as to between December and February. So I guess my question is two-phased. One, is it your understanding as well that in order to be compliant, the threshold is either at commitment, obligation or expenditure. And I'll pause there. That's the first of the two I've got.

Yeah. So I'm going to leave a ton of space for Anita to correct me, but I will swing at this in the sense that I think there's not a definitive date for complete expenditure necessarily, but that We're going to demonstrate progress at this point for this particular funding source and the timeline because this was a project that was conceived of during the prior capital budget season. We are and have been prepared to facilitate an RFP selection process, which is why September 10th is our date to be prepared to do so within a couple of weeks. So you can envision that that selection or the responses are back October 1st, and we can have a selection somewhere within October and the design beginning, that would be a couple of months. And then the selection of a contractor to perform the work would follow, which lends itself to that kind of December to February range that you cited. We would anticipate that the scope of work related to The actual execution of the project is one that the bulk of the funding would be aligned with the procurement. So you could anticipate that you're expending the funds almost immediately upon contracting with the whoever is low bid selection. So I think it's fairly confident that that December, February timeframe for the selection of that contractor is also aligned with the bulk of the expenditures itself. But I'll just pause and let Anita correct me if I kind of missed anything there.

No, I think that was right on. And just to maybe add to that, I think we want to remember that we've got two pieces here. We've got not only this legacy funding, and we're demonstrating to HUD that we're obligating this legacy funding certainly as quickly as possible with the intention of having it spent. We'll have it obligated certainly 100% of that legacy funding before the end of the year. and having the bulk of it spent by the end of the year, to Matt's point, through equipment purchases, I think that that will certainly demonstrate a significant portion of that spend, hopefully by the end of the year. But then we also have the PY50 and 51 that we're also going to spend down before the end of the year, hopefully here even in the next few weeks. that will also impact that timeliness issue. So those two pieces working in tandem are going to impact that timeliness rather quickly before the end of the year.

Got it. That's very helpful to hear. I think that's probably, I think you nailed actually both that and my next question. So I think I'm all set. I'll yield. Thank you both very much.

Thank you, Representative Kuhn.

I have up to an order. We have Representative Gross, then Clerk Johnson. Hello. Representative Gross, you have the floor.

Thank you. I had much of the same questions as Reverend Kuhn, but just to make abundantly clear so that there is no firm deadline set by HUD by which we need to allocate this funding? Is it more of an internal goal that we're hoping to allocate this all by the end of the year? Because it doesn't really seem like it's a, from what I've heard, it's not a firm HUD-imposed deadline.

It is not. Well, all right, sorry, if I may. There is no hard, firm deadline from HUD, but I think because HUD is making their decision before the end of the year, our objective is to demonstrate to them that we are in that timeliness and we're moving forward with that plan to have everything back on track as quickly as possible. So this will help us do that. and identifying that legacy funding and eliminating it from that historical problem is certainly that demonstration to say we've figured out this big problem that's been lingering for a long time and now we've eliminated it moving forward is a huge demonstration to them before the end of the year so that by the next timeliness cycle, then we've eliminated that problem because they do do this by May of next year as well, but they will be making a determination potentially here in September on PY52 funding, so.

I'll just add, sorry, Representative, I just wanted to add to Anita's point. With your support, we have publicly available information that's demonstrating the path towards expanding these funds. given the board's action than the actual publicly available RFP published and ultimately the award selection. So there'll be between now and December still a consistent demonstration of progress that the city is able to make. So I just wanted to add that as kind of further justification why we've recommended this particular project.

Thank you. That all makes sense. So to Anita's point, so we do know that they are going to essentially reevaluate us at the end of the year.

Correct.

Okay. Is that like a biannual evaluation?

Well, annually they do do it. If we're in a timeliness issue, they will evaluate on an annual basis what that timeliness is. And that happens in May. but because we've had this long-term history of timeliness, they will, they've, you know, we've been put on notice. And so they have told us in September, they are going to evaluate where we're at in our progress and then make a determination on the PY52 funding. So our ability here to be able to show them here in the next week or so that we've made this significant obligation and commitment, I think will certainly, demonstrate that we've made some strong efforts to address the problem quickly.

Right. So the evaluation is happening in September?

Correct.

Okay. And they're not going to evaluate again in December or will they?

You know, I can't say. I think that we'll have to wait and see. If we demonstrate progress and they say, well, let's see what happens here in a couple more months, that could certainly be the case.

I see. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. I yield.

Thank you. I did have Clerk Johnson. However, we have a committee member representative. Okay, McEwen, you have the floor again.

Apologies, I didn't unmute. I'm also happy to yield to Clerk Johnson. My question is pretty minor and I've already spoken. Happy to go, but I'm happy to defer to the chair if you want to recognize Clerk Johnson first.

It's up to you too, but I was just going procedurally. Committee members first.

You're already started. You got it. I did struggle to unmute, so I appreciate that. I put a lot of work into it to speak. My other question was, have we gotten any further communications from HUD or any other meaningful developments that the committee should know about before casting a vote tonight?

No, not at this point.

Got it. Thank you very much, Nayil. Okay.

Clark Johnson, you have the floor.

Thanks so much.

Yes, you have the floor.

Question through you, presumably, to Director Quinones. On the cost overview that we had, there was a line that I think was $840,000 or $850,000, if I recall, and it was titled something like contract execution and design document phase or something. Is that Am I reading that right to assume that's kind of contracting and legal cost, or is that actually kind of the bulk of the work, materials and the work?

Yeah, the bulk of the work. Okay. And to be fair to the cost estimates, at this point, when we get through the design phase, that's typically when that is really more fine-tuned. So at this particular juncture, it is a cost estimate.

Perfect. Okay, thanks. I just wanted to clarify that.

Representative Clark Johnson, did you yield the floor? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Yeah, I apologize.

Okay. Representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

Thank you. I appreciate you recognizing me. You know, ordinarily, the committee has a little bit more input on how we allocate these funds, at least, you know, originally. Feels like this time you're kind of coming to us with a fait accompli. What I'd really like to understand is how you went through, I'd like to know the methodology you went through to pick this project as opposed to the other worthy projects that might have been in the queue.

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that, Representative. So I think you may have jumped on after the kind of brief introduction of the project, but I spoke a little bit to the fact that this project had previously been submitted in the capital budget and wasn't supported at the Board of Finance level. So one criteria was looking at what would be existing city capital obligation that we could cover with grant funding as opposed to city bonding. Certainly, the compliance with all of the grant criteria is a huge component to selecting this particular project. Then I think the third factor was that this project allows us to unlock additional grant funding for further investment in this particular facility. And while the CDBG process typically offers kind of more of an open solicitation, this is not that. This is kind of a one-off reallocation of funding, so it doesn't lend itself to the same open selection that the committee is typically accustomed to. So I would say this is a different scenario. And then given the priority that we have as an administration to be able to respond positively to HUD to demonstrate progress on a project, the fact that this was previously submitted in capital, we are prepared to move to RFP selection rather quickly. I cited earlier that our date for RFP is September 10th. So with your support this evening, we'll be able to demonstrate that meaningful progress. So those were the main drivers in recommending this particular project.

Representative Goldberg, you're muted.

Oh, thank you. My apologies. Yeah, I had caught that part. What I hadn't heard is what the alternatives were and why you didn't use them. Or was this the only project that checked all the boxes? Was this really the only choice you had? And if it wasn't, what were the other things that were considered and why were they not selected? That's what I'm really curious to hear.

Yeah, I think this was one that fit every single one of those boxes, and I think the – I won't call it kind of shovel-ready because we're not immediately moving to construction, but the ability to facilitate an RFP within 30 days is really the – a huge driver and being able to kind of demonstrate that type of progress to HUD in response to their inquiry. There's no shortage of need out there or requests, so to I won't represent that this is the only project that could ever fit within compliance. There's, to get even deeper, there's environmental reviews associated with complying with this HUD-supported grant, and the scope of work related to this project is broad and frankly, large enough that it justifies also the investment in environmental review. So just to give you a perspective, if we were to come before you with spreading the wealth, so to speak, and here's $10,000, $100,000 projects, it wouldn't make a lot of sense because those would each eat up, most of those budgets would be eaten up by that environmental review requirement. So by being able to tap into a larger project, the proportion of the budget that is needed to support the environmental review, we're still producing something very meaningful with this grant money. And I won't reiterate the other factors, but it was pretty clear that this is the

ideal project at this particular time with the current environment we're in okay I appreciate the insights I yield all right um Clark Johnson you have your hand up again yeah one more quick question um so I guess part of the reason if I understood the the last chess meeting or the review meeting I guess one of the key drivers, the reason we're in this sort of situation in the first place is a lack of legal capacity to kind of execute contracts. I guess curious if you guys have tested with the legal department that this one will be able to get done kind of on the timeline that is outlined for the rest of the year so it can actually be obligated and everything appropriately.

If I may, I think we've kind of over, we've You know, we've kind of come over that hurdle, and I think that we'll be able to accomplish this pretty quickly. So we've been able to really work with legal closely, especially with outside counsel. And so we have the models, the agreements that we need, and I think that we're going to be able to move pretty quickly through all of the existing PY50 and 51, and then this current one as well.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, Representative Goldberg, is your hand up or from before or do you want the floor again?

I believe that might have been a technical error.

That's okay. I do not see any other hands raised. And at this time, I just want to take a moment and thank everyone for coming back this evening. We got more clarity. via email, thank you to Bridget Fox. Anita Carpenter, always thank you. And Matt, thank you for coming on with so much detail. We really appreciate it. And since I do not see any other hands raised, I will move this to a vote. And let's see, Christina, would you mind helping me do a roll call vote? Sure. Thank you. All right. so this vote is for chess 32.023 and it's for the approval of the reallocation of available prior year cdbg balances in the aggregate amount of one million dollars to a new public improvement project i don't know if we have to specify which one in this vote does um let's see do we have to specify um or are we okay with just moving forward i don't know christina For the record, yes, probably. I am thinking that. Do we need to make an amendment to this item's name to include the Latham-Wilder fire code compliance? Now that I'm not sure. Parliamentarian, can you please help guide me? And if so, can you make a motion to make the amendment?

Tor, give me two seconds to get some language. Thank you.

I do have from the email the Latham wider CC fire code compliance.

Yep, I see it. Perfect. Okay. So at this time, I'd like to make a motion to amend the main motion by striking the words, public improvement projects, and replacing them with Latham wider community center fire and sprinkler code compliance project.

Okay, all in favor?

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, that passes unanimously. And now, would you mind, since it's passed, we're going to move to a voice vote. Would you mind reading that again? Sure.

Sure. So yeah, the question before the committee is an approval of a reallocation of available prior year CDBG balances in the aggregate of $1 million to the Latham Wider Community Center Fire and Sprinkler Code Compliance Project.

Okay. And we will take it to a roll call vote now.

Okay. Representative Goldberg?

Yes.

Representative Gross?

Yes.

Representative McEwen?

Yes.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Walston? Yes. And I still do not see Representative Weers or Representative Yeager on, so I'm going to...

Representative Wiers is excused. I'm sorry I missed that before. Okay, no problem. Co-chair Pollack? Yes. And co-chair Silvestri? Yes. Okay, unanimous. Thank you all for coming this evening. We have unanimous all yes votes, no, no votes, no abstentions. And I will be concluding this meeting at 6.59 p.m. Thank you all.

Thank you. Good night.