We're going. All right. Today is Tuesday, February 24th, 2026. This is the regular meeting of the CBD steering committee. Announcement of open meeting recordings. Is anyone recording today's meeting aside from staff? I see none.
Moving on to the public hearing. uh review of applications for FY2026 CBG funds continue from January 20th. So we will be reviewing the applications reviewed in response to RP and develop plan for projects to include in the
city's FY26 CDG application. >> So director >> I'll kick off this discussion. Um so in between last month's meeting and this meeting because of some additional information we provided to the to Embach they
decided to withdraw their application. Um the project would have required the spacen labor compliance and the um payment of prevailing wage rates. So they wouldn't have been able to have the work for the door openers done inhouse of the plan. Um I think they were just
concerned about the extra cost and time associated with the project because of that requirement. So they withdrew. Um we also um conferred again with EOHLC
the the state to um determine whether the community St. Paul's community garden expansion project better fell into the public social service category or a public facility improvement category and we agreed on public facility.
So that would allow us to um so we we have a limit of five public social service activities we can include in our application each year. So that um frees up that um project. So, something to consider, um, I sent you
the memo with a little bit, uh, more information on the requirements that OHLC has in place. Something to consider when making a determination on what to include in the application is that we have
140,000 from fiscal year 25 that we need to reallocate. And that money has to stay within that three year. So we can't have a project that spans two grant years um unless it's a design project or design only project for an
infrastructure project can be stand alone and then we can do the implementation the next year. So, swinging around the numbers and if you don't mind, I will show you a proposal that I came up with that would allow us
to continue to fund existing public social service projects and to fund the city hall avenue project. So, it's going to open up another spreadsheet here because right now with it we're still
we're still short about 100,000 um And I'm sorry, but my mouse is not >> um working. >> Mr. Chairman, while she's doing that, um the ethics commission advised that I recuse myself from this vote as the chair of the school committee where the school department has an application in
here for the athletic fees and because the mayor appoints one of the members of the gardener CAC's board of directors. Um so I'll be recusing myself from this vote. Thank you. Thanks. >> All right. I'm almost there. Can't get it back.
I meant to bring my another mask. Um, so if we should probably because um these grants usually have an 18month
period of performance and can be extended beyond that, usually 6 to 12 months beyond that. Um, what one one thing you could consider would be, >> sorry, just
mouse here. This is really embarrassing. >> Did I get my mouse? >> Yeah, I'm not used to this laptop, so All right. So all of the public social service
projects that are shaded in yellow were recently funded with fiscal year 25 funds. Because of that 18month period of performance can be longer, can be um extended through EOHLC approval. We
could, the committee could um choose to fund the existing fiscal year 25 public social services out of the money that's being reallocated from the school street school design project and the gem
project. So that's an option. We could also break out the design and bidding services for City Hall Avenue and fund those out of 2025. And that would still give us um enough
money left over to fund the um laundry new public social service project because we only have four in our application for 25. We could do well with Jim dropping out. they could do that and that would allow us to
reallocate all of that money. If you look at the gardener athletic program, I divided that between what's left from 2022 23 and what's in 2024. Um, just to use up that $9,000 that we have sitting
there that needs to be expended by June 30th. So, let me pull. So if we did if if the committee chose to do that, bear with me here for 2026. Six.
The city hall Avenue project could be funded, the implementation of that. And then um we would have a little bit less um for program administration than what we originally proposed which I think was 131,000. So we'd have to trim that back
a little bit. So that's just one idea um that I wanted to throw out there because it's so complicated with the multiple grant years that we're trying to allocate funds for at one time.
Any questions about that? >> Can you go back to the plan that you had just put up the um with the all the yellow highlighting? >> Yes. So, this is what um this is a summary of
what was funded in 2025. This pulls right out of the grants management system. Um and then I added what's in yellow and what's in green. So yellow would be existing public social service projects that we would
extend the contract for and provide the additional money from in the case of the burner athletic program from 22 23 and 24 and then the others would or 25 excuse me and then the others would be funded for the amount they requested out
of 2025 funds >> and then for city hall avenue for the design of that that would be moved then to potentially 2026 application or sorry 2020 our next >> 2025 would be the design would be in
2025 through an amendment. >> Okay. >> Um reallocating this fund from school street school street school design and gem. >> Mhm. So what going back to the other what what we wouldn't have enough money to fund would be the community garden
expansion project and the Northstar family services um shelter operating project >> but similarly for a lot of the projects that we have either well upcoming I'd say um we're going to have contingency
funds. The projects could come in under budget. So even though we wouldn't be able to move forward with all of the projects, the likelihood that we would have funds at the end of those to be reallocated in similarly in similar aspect as we've been able to do with Embach and the CAC
would be a possibility. So it wouldn't be us saying no completely. you know, saying we're we're going to find the funds and then come back, but it just doesn't make
sense for right now is kind of well, not Yeah. >> It depends on how much where the money's from, right? So, if it's public social services versus >> uh facility, >> right? >> Yeah. Or another option would be to trim back
some of the requests and >> not fully fun their request is what I was going to ask that >> um because I think it makes sense like to fully fund them if we can. Um
because I don't know I I just I just I don't want to give you know like St. Paul's like for example I don't want to give you you want to be able to help them but also it's like what is what is half is it is it doing what they need to do and then they have to go find the money otherwise okay fine you know like I just don't
>> um for me um especially with what their ask is like hopefully if there's something left over we'll be able to give them something whereas these other bigger ones if there's something left over we might be able to give them a portion later on sort of down the road you know I just it it's hard to prioritize these
in that way because they to me they're all equally important. But I just um that's kind of my thinking about it is that it looks like if we can kind of fully fund these these other ones that you had mentioned then in the end like you said things come in on under. I mean
if things come in over then they just they get as much as they've asked for and that's it right like that's how that would have to go. So um I'm fine with that plan. What's the turnar around time on knowing
about other funds that become available in the this fiscal year or it' be the following of the projects being completed themselves. So once the final pay is is completed that's when the projects are closed out and additional funds could then be reallocated.
Um, I mean, the big one we'll have coming up will be the the Greenwood Pool Memorial Pavilion. Um, and we hope to get that completed over the course of the summer. So, um, there could be additional funds available from that
hopefully. for city hall. AB, if we split that between like the planning phase and the construction phase, do we happen to know like what that would is that currently implemented here or do we like have an
idea of if we split >> if we split that? >> Um, Tai Bon said the the design and bidding phase would be 70,500. >> Okay. So that's that is what's >> already >> in the other spreadsheet.
>> Yes. Okay. >> Yes. to pull anything back up or have any other questions. It it is complicated this year because we have that money to reallocate. And that's the 9,000 from 22 23 and the 140 from 25.
>> Yes. So, so where do we go from this point? I mean, unless somebody has some other thought about uh an alternative, >> I think it's really like what pro like what projects we want to move forward
with or what projects we want to partially fund because with the 31,000 from MVOC now being taken out of the equation, that brings down the 103,000 to
>> 70. 72 change. Um and so there are some there's concessions we'll we have to make. Um So I think >> this is the public hearing part of this,
right? Yes. So we just discussed >> um so we're trying to reallocate that somehow, right? The 72K. >> Yeah. And that's what it assistant directly houses. >> So 72,000 is what we we have that
deficit. So that's >> what has to be taken out from from these line items. So the option that she present >> excuse me um the option that she presented of moving St. Paul's Episcopal Church to
the future when we get um the extra the um additional funds um or the unexpended funds I should say um from our construction projects or infrastructure improvements. Then we
move to use those either contingency funds or funds that come in under budget to circle back. Mhm. >> And so would we um so that's 50,150, correct? >> Mhm. >> So then so would we get would they then
get trying to think? Never mind. They get nothing because then we still have 22 that we have to take out. Okay. I see. Because looking at your >> your plan now I'm trying to put all together. >> Yeah. I think the other
doing that honestly >> the other spreadsheet where we showcase the >> the option itself. Uh the one yeah >> and so that was where we then take
10,000 off of um admin. >> This is so this is 25. >> Oh this is 25. Okay. >> Yes. what what we were just looking at would be what what would be included in the 26 applications that would just be sorry those two admin and city hall avenue. >> Okay.
>> And this would be a request for an amendment um to reallocate the funds we have available to existing public social service projects the um laundry love and design only of city hall avenue.
>> That would take the that will make up the extra 22 if we is that am I understanding that correctly the other 22,000 from the 72. So state hall of fiscal if we if we put that on hold for now that gets us to 22
and what you just said with city hall avenue does that >> so all of um yeah so we break we're we're so if you look at the bottom of this spreadsheet u we would be reallocating all of the 20 22 23 and 24
funds that we have available through this and then um we would be requesting the7 the 875,000 from for city hall avenue and program administration from 26.
>> Okay. >> So for public social services it's limited to five but there's no minimum. >> Uh correct. We don't Yes. Good question. Yeah. >> And so if we take out
MVOC and St. Paul's from the total of of the deficit of 103, then that's when we're left with I think the number that we're coming to, which is the 22. And so we're just left with how do we make up that remaining deficit?
Okay. Actually that would be the remaining amount for the deficit, wouldn't it? >> Yeah. Yeah. The 22,000 change would be the remaining deficit. So >> So what would we program administration to? >> So program administration would be
reduced to 121,236. >> Okay. to okay there and then >> phase six that goes to the 753 764 is that >> right because that's taking out the um design >> Y
sorry I didn't I didn't understand >> no no no 10,000 off the per administration would actually bring that 72 down to 62 would >> well if we take out the the 50 from St.
Paul's, 31 from Envok, that brings the 103 down to 22. Take out the 103 or um >> 10 >> the 10 from that down there, that brings us to 12. And then we're taking the 75,000 off of the infrastructure
improvements, uh taking out city hall A, and then moving that then to uh 25. Mhm. >> So that column C up there is what city hall comes to and what program administration comes to after the money is subtracted.
>> Right. >> That's the totals for these two. Yes. And then we're taking out MVOC and we're taking out St. Paul's Episcopal for now. >> So that that gets you to 103. >> Yeah. And the Nurse Nurst Star family. Yes. >> So those are the that's the way to get
rid of the difference. >> Okay. Thank you. I mean, I'm I'm fine with that. I think it makes sense to be able to do it as you presented it. And I also think that uh like you said, if we wait and we see what happens and we can reallocate some
funds later on, then we have the projects we know that they need to go to and we talk about it then. So, I'm comfortable with that. We'll have them in progress. We already have plans ready for them and we've already allocated the money. So, it's just a matter of getting the projects done, >> seeing what we have left over. We'll
have likely have the contingency budgets from them regardless because we've >> and we do that once they're closed out. Like once they're completed and closed out, then you see what you have left. It can't be based off of any type of >> bid or you know, whatever type of money you think you're going to spend or
whatever the time it has to be done. So they closed out like we kind of just previously did, but you see what's done. You have the money left and we go back to this list just to be clear. Okay. >> It's like what we did with 205 213. We had to fully close out the project with the OHLC before those funds became
un >> free free to for us to to put in a new amendment and then have them reallocated to um >> other sources. Yep. >> Um Okay. So I have no I have no issues with
>> I don't either >> with this. Well, do we um just on on those those particular projects like because like like um I keep going say the chief because a lot of
>> um because like you know Neil had said the um like looking at the different projects like I just the timeline wise like I just want to make sure you know but as much as we can but the timeline of the projects closed or is this social service still going to need the money?
You know what I mean? Like is it is there something that's timesensitive for them, which I assume it wouldn't be because they're asking for the whole fiscal year. So, it's probably something they can get done at any point or they you know, take the funds, but because they requested it for this particular thing and when the money is free, it has to go towards that thing, you know,
that's or it has to go towards whatever they requested it for. So, I want to make sure that they still needed it at the time for that as much as we possibly could. Um, that's I'm just trying to figure that out. that's all too. But it seems like you've been thoughtful in your plan on
this. So, cuz I don't know any more about any of the other projects, you know, to um meaning like how to um make them more of a prior like to prioritize differently. It seems like you you've done that with what you've
suggested. So, I'm I'm okay with that. But that would have been my only question is by the time the money's free, are they going to are they going to be able to use it by the time? >> But yeah, I mean Gem's a good example of of a situation where by the time you
know we received approval of our grant, they had, you know, cease to exist. So, >> right. >> Yeah. >> But I mean, I think it's good that we have some potentially some potential good projects in the pipeline. um always so
when we do have this money to reallocate that we don't have to scramble to find something here a motion to accept the amendment the proposed amendments to the applications for received FY26
funds second >> all in favor say I I >> I all post say nay. So moved. Motion passes. >> Moving on to the regular meeting. Vote to approve
the minutes from the January 20th meeting. >> Motion to approve the minutes as presented. >> Second. I hear a motion to approve the minutes as presented. All All in favor say I. I. >> I. All post saying nay. So moved.
Moving on to old business review of the FY2325 community development strategy. >> So um we we discussed this la at the last meeting. Um this is our current community development strategy that we have in place that we submit as part of
the application process to EOHLC every year. Um they these strategies are from 3 to 5 years and they're a summary of plans that communities have in place
um that determine how CDBG funds will be used. So at the end of this document there are some broad strategies um or categories of projects that um that the city said you know we wanted to
undertake and um as Jason and I said last at the last meeting when the master plan is in place which is Jason's working on you know working with the consultants to wrap that up and get it approved then we and
have that to help guide this document next year. Um, but we just tweaked it this year to to make some minor changes. Um, for instance, we had said that we would only fund infrastructure projects within the the um two redevelopment
areas and we changed that to prioritize because there may be something else that comes up that's really important for the city to undertake. So, um, we did that. We added the planning documents that this um reference you know we reference the planning documents to help um us
determine the strategy and as I said we'll make bigger changes next year when the master plan's in place. So the I'll throw out that I um I like that that was changed particularly with the prioritizing the urban renewal districts rather than only in the urban
renewal districts. I always found that to be very restrictive for the projects that we have especially with the various needs that we see. Um so for instance if we wanted to do work on the south gardener project that we're doing right now with CDBG funds we wouldn't be able to do that because of the way that this was worded right now. So I really like how that was done. Um, and I do also
want to say that we are looking at uh some of the things that are highlighted this pan in this uh document on the city side of things in terms of updating a complete streets uh plan uh priority plan updating our ADA transition plan and that is things that we've gone out for different grant funings to see if we
can try to um update those because they're either expired or very close to expiring and need renewing at some point. And something to note about the ADA transition plan. If we wanted to if this if we wanted to fund UCDG funds for a
barrier barrier removal project, that project would need to be identified in the city's transition plan. So, I'm I'm glad glad to hear that's being updated because for instance at Bford Park, the the um parking lot is listed in the
current transition plan, but the paths aren't and the paths have changed since the plan was originally adopted. So, um it's good to revisit those things. >> We did apply for a grant last year and weren't awarded the grant. So, we're working with we we did get our feedback meeting. So, now we're working with our
consultants on seeing, you know, how we can approve the application for this year. Any further comments on the community development strategy? >> Do you need a motion on this? >> No.
>> Moving on to the status of FY25 CDP mini grant. >> So, as we reported at the last meeting, we have our contract in place for our fiscal year 25 funds. uh we submitted a response to the special conditions that
EOHLC imposed on the grant. They reviewed those and we about a week ago received um a partial release uh of the grant funds. So the reason we didn't receive a full release is because of the reallocation of those funds from the
school street school design project and GEM. and they also had some questions about the Waterford Street Community Center project um and wanted more information than what we had in our original application. Um so we responded
to that and um after this process is completed we can submit information on the reallocation of the funds and then um we should receive full clearance. All right, moving on to everything in the comments. Uh, demolition of 205213
Main Street. Uh, we are still in the process of >> Oh, I think we skipped. Sorry. >> Oh, we did. Oh, schedule for FY26 main entitlement application. Sorry, >> that's on the >> So, you have in your packet um
a big table with important dates listed for the application process. We're about halfway through. Um, our next step in the process will be to go before the echo committee tomorrow
morning and another meeting with them on March 11th and then tentatively scheduled to um present it to the council on their meet their April 6th meeting. the deadline has push been
pushed back a little to April 21st. So we have a little more breathing room than we initially did. But the ne the what I need to do after this meeting today is to submit a list of our proposed projects to EO EHLC. They ask
that within a week of the application being available that each community that plans to apply submit a list of their proposed projects so they can do an initial review. Um, we've already been in conversations with them about the city hall avenue project and um, so I
don't really anticipate any issues there. But as part of what I submit today, I will also tell them our plans for reallocating the funds that we just discussed so they know what our plans are and if if there are any issues or if they have additional questions, that
will give be a good opportunity for them to ask those questions before we get further along in the process. So, any questions about the schedule? >> It's been great. It's nice to have the deadline changed when you're on when you're already. So,
>> it's good change. >> Yeah. >> All right. Demolition of 205 213 Main Street. Uh Jerry is still in the process of land disposition. Um we are currently
advertising the the property for um the open market for for sale to gauge interest uh in the site. So that will be for a period of 90 days. So, it is active right now. Um, has been for a a little less than a month. and then we'll
look forward to continuing to advertise and see if there's any interest um as it just bolsters our eventual um application to EOHLC as the approving
body uh for the land sales to prove that we did our due diligence to to gauge the public for interest in the property rather than just move forward with one one buyer. Um, so, >> uh, I'm glad that that ended up being
the route that was taken. I think it's important to have that property to engage the public for that property. So, I'm glad that that was the decision that was made. >> Moving on to Greenwood Pool demolition. >> Yeah. So, no news, no new news there.
Um, once the weather gets better, then we'll have more to share, but they'll be wrapping up this spring. Good. >> Building still down. >> Building still down. buildings. >> It just has a lot of snow on top of it now. >> This is like a big snow pile. >> Yeah.
>> Um social services FY223. >> So the only two open social services we have are the the those that were recently funded for MBOG and the gardener CAC. Um, we've already received
um quite a few invoices from Embach for goods that they've purchased for their the veterans that they serve. Um, I checked in with Julie at the Gardener CAC yesterday. I haven't heard back from her yet just to see how they're progressing, but I'm sure they're on top
of it. So, um, they know that they have to spend these funds before June 30th. So, we'll just continue to work with them um to make that happen. >> Moving on to FY24 social services. >> So, the only open social service project
from fiscal year 24 is the gardener athletic program and I've been working with Dan to get additional information we need. I just sent him an email before this meeting. So, I'll follow up and tell him I reported on the status and um you know work with him to get what we
need to do to get that project closed out. >> And finally, the amendment request cancellation of school street school demolition and addition of new Greenwood Pavilion Park. >> So, our amendment request is in the process of being approved. There were
some issues with the national objective and whether we could use old census data or not and they determined we could um thanks to the mayor's intervention I think somewhat but um so that's been resolved it's
working its way through their system they it has to go through their grants management system for approval and there are multiple people that are involved in that process there and it's just taking a while for that to um to get it fully approved but they've said it it is
approved um you know off outside of the system and um looking forward to to it officially being approved so we can move forward with tying bond to um give them you know get a scope of services from them and give them a notice to proceed
for the um design work on that and with the hope of getting it out to bid. They said, um, I think we our our current schedule is getting it out to bid in early April um for construction over the
summer. >> So, do they and do they take that into consideration? Like they know our schedule. >> Yes. Make this move. Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Any questions about that? on the um old census data. That's
because prior to the 2020 census, gardening was considered a 51% low moderate income community. So the entire city could be considered low moderate income where after the 2020 census, we dropped below that 51% and the median
income in the city increased which made it so that it's neighborhood by neighborhood based rather than citywide where you can consider those funds to be helping an LMI community. >> Correct. >> Okay. because >> they determined that this project would serve the whole community and not just a, you know, it wouldn't just be a
neighborhood park or neighborhood residential street that we were that we were improving. >> They took into consideration as well that this project was originally submitted back when we had this previous LMI census data as well as it being
combined with the demolition of of the pool itself. So when it's it's an extenduating circumstance because then we split it into two projects and then moved this into into a future fiscal year. So there were a lot of considerations that that the state state made for this. But I'm glad they
eventually approved that for us to move forward with this um cuz I know the community wants to see this move forward from the current state it's in into a finalized uh project. So looking forward to the summer.
All right. No other items on the agenda. Um I'll entertain a motion to uh ajourn. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Post say nay. Salute.