All right, the time is 4:30. It is Tuesday, October 28th, and this is the regular meeting of the community block grants steering committee. Um, first up, announcement of open meeting
recordings. I see no one that is going to be recording uh today's meeting aside from uh staff here. So I will uh wave the reading of that announcement. Um moving
on to uh open the public hearing for item 1.1 FY223 community development block grant any entitlement grant activity budget changes.
Um, this is for the transfer of $102,447 in unused funds from the 205213 Main Street demolition project to the Greenwood Pool demolition project. I will open the floor to uh Amy to kind of
give an update there. >> Sure. So, the demolition is you probably all seen it um moving along well. It's probably almost down by now. I was out midm morning today and the only remaining piece of the entire facility
was the front portion about half of that was left at that point. Um so no issues um with the demolition so far. Um, what we would like to do is move, as Jason said, move the some of the remaining
funds out of the 205213 Main Street demolition project into this project to give us enough money to um fully complete this first phase of the project, which is the demolition. And then our next item on the agenda,
we'll talk about the next phase of the project, which is the pavilion. But um we'd like to get your approval to move these funds so we can get approval from the Executive Office of Housing and Liable Communities. Um get their blessing, move the funds, and get this
portion of the project done. Any questions for me? It looks like probably be done um our I don't have a a revised um a fully up-to-date schedule for the project, but it looks like this demolition piece which includes you know
getting all the debris out of there um loing and seating the yard putting everything back as much as they can. Um we were thinking mid to late November for completion of all of that. I get one more packet over
there real quick. >> Any questions about >> So just the um the 102,000 in unused funds from 205 to 213. Can you just talk about what unused means? >> Um so that project is fully complete. Um it's closed out on the state's end of
things, the city end of things. Um all the work that was supposed to be done was done. Um I think later in the agenda Jason will give an update on what the status of that project outside of the CDBG funded portion of it is. Um so or
you can do that now. >> Um given that we're kind of in the public we are in the public hearing I'll wait to kind talk about um item 2.2.1 which is the update for 25 to13.
>> Okay. So the so the unused funds um we're good with and when you have unused funds again just for information purposes it's >> it's was the the project cost just cost less than was expected. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And the 102,000
um is what's needed to finish the demolition because bud budget wise it looks like there's more than that. >> Yes. There'll be a little bit remaining and we're we'll talk about um potentially the process for reallocating those funds a little later in the agenda. >> Okay, just for the the record um it does
we do have um 196,616 available that was what was just mentioned. So, of the 102,447, [clears throat] it'll be about um 94,000 uh remaining out of specifically that item um
following this transfer. So, if um I think we'll entertain a motion unless there's any other questions regarding the transfer um for the 102,447 and unused funds from 205213 Main Street demolition project to the Greenwood Pool
demolition project. So, moved. >> Second. >> I hear a motion. I hear a second. All in favor to approve the transfer of funds say I. >> I. Do I have to do a roll call for this? Actually, should we do a roll call? I mean,
>> you can always do a roll call to be safe. >> Okay, I'll do a roll call then. Um, sorry. Um, bye. Um, >> no, I think you should be fine. >> The transfer, I think you don't need to do one. If you have a question, >> I just wanted to be sure before we we
moved on. Um because these are all different public hearings, I think we should be able to close this one cuz we do kind of intend on continuing the the next public hearing. So um following that, I'll entertain a motion
to close um item 1.1's public hearing um and open 1.2, 2, which is FY24 CPG mini entitlement grant activity budget changes for a transfer of $618,200 allocated to School Street School
Demolition Project to a new Greenwood Pool Pavilion project and the cancellation of the School Street School Demolition Project. >> So second [laughter] >> I hear a motion. I hear a second. All in favor say I. I.
Uh, I'll post say nay. I hear none. Sorry, I as well for for yay. Um, I forget that I'm now a member on on the other side. I'm actually a voting member now. Um so for this um like I said we have a
total of 6 well we actually have um for this a total budget of uh 791,34251. So this 618,200 would be for the uh full project cost I believe for the um or at least currently
estimated >> currently estimated >> project cost uh for the pavilion project but I'll pass it on to the assistant director to kind of give us more. >> So we are waiting on a new estimate. Um, one of the requirements that's fairly new for federal any federally funded
infrastructure project is that we comply with the Build America by America act and that kicks in for infrastructure projects over 250,000. So it would apply to this. So, Ty and Bond is um researching the impact that that may
have on their initial estimate which was for the 68,000 and change and um I hope to have a revised estimate today, but we we don't have it yet. Um but we that's why we'll um hopefully continue the public hearing on this one, get that
revised estimate. It may be that it increases the cost and we would need the entire um allocation from School Street to fund this portion of the the Greenwood Pool project. So, we're just waiting on that estimate to see if we need to adjust our figures before we
request the change through HLC. >> Any questions about that? >> Um, so just to clarify too, because it's estimates versus the final numbers, it's because we need the appropriation first in order to then go out to bid. per what the bonds require. >> Yes. Yes. So, we need to estimate first
and um one of the things I think they're going to the tying bond will include in their revised estimate is um if we want them to the cost of a rendering that we could use for public meetings and um you know public input purposes. So once we
get their revised estimate from them, we can decide on whether that's something we think is worthwhile to include. But then just like to request a budget change from HLC once for this if if at all possible. That's why I would like to wait. >> And also just to clarify too, so that
the Build America by America act that was enact so passed in 2022, enacted in 2023 after we got the estimates here made it so that the materials used in any projects that are over $250,000 have to be built in the United States for
those infrastructure projects. It's um there there are four categories of materials that would apply at this point because it's a phased implementation and I don't have that list with me tonight, but wood is definitely one of the items on the list. Um >> steel, >> steel and iron steel.
>> Steel and iron and then there's some >> plastics um or some related items um that that would kick in. So, Ty and Bon has that list from me and they're researching, you know, the [clears throat] >> received this before that act was voted on and now it's in this implementation
phase. >> Right. It's based on when we sign the contract. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the vote is on the transfer of the school street demolition funds to the Greenwood Pavilion project piece. >> This would probably be rather than voted on in this meeting, we would wait to
have the concrete estimate to continue this public hearing. This one will be continued because we don't [clears throat] have the estimate that we want to have the updated estimate for. Okay. So, make sure >> the 618200 is our most recent estimate which again is a few years out and
doesn't take into the VA requirements. >> Um so we would continue this with the hopes that in our November meeting we would have that updated estimate. Okay. >> Um with those provisions in mind >> and we wanted the updated estimate because the other one's out of date.
That was just the reason for it. Okay. >> Yeah. And and to be able to minimize the times we have to go um to see for approval. Thank you. >> It's always nice to see something be proactive. >> Well, then if any other questions
or we continue on this meeting, um I'll entertain a motion to continue item 1.2 to the November CDG steering committee meeting. So moved. Second. I hear a motion. I hear a second to continue item 1.2 into
the November CD steering committee meeting. All in favor say I. I. All post say nay. Motion carries. And the public hearing is continued. On to item 1.3. Um the process of um this is an open
meeting for the process of selecting new projects for the $158,2652 available in FY2223 funds and the $173,14251 available in FY24 funds if the above
transfers are approved. Um, if I hear a motion to open that public hearing. >> Second. >> I hear a motion to >> Do we have to approve motions to >> You can open the >> You can just open the hearing. Thank
you. Um, I will pass it on for assistant director uh to talk about some of the potential projects that this these funds can be moved towards. So, we've um continued to work on the
St. Paul's Community Gardener Extension um project justification and we're able to get some information from the gardener community action committee on the people they're serving with the food that's produced from the existing community garden at St. Paul's Episcopal
Church. And um you know, they're they're serving um a lot of people a lot of gardener residents. 91 a little over 91% of the people they served last year were gardener residents and I don't have the total on this page I
don't think um all 100% of the people they served were low and moderate income people and they served over a thousand um people in total so just for the record low and moderate income means that they're below 80% of the area median income for the um
guard the Fitsburg Lemonster MSA which gardener is a part So, we provided that new information, that added information to the Executive Office of Housing, Livable Communities, and they um provided some feedback. They wanted a little bit more information.
They suggested that we would only be able to to fund 91% of the project with with our CDBG funds, and we'd have to find another source for the nine or so percent. Um, so before I contact the church about that, I wanted
to find out from HLC whether we could use soft costs as as a match. Um, some way to hear back from them on that. But once I hear back, we'll contact the church. We'll see, you know, they can tally up the an estimate of what they think their soft cost would be for
helping to install this. um and kind of go from there and see if they want to pursue it and if HLC blesses it, we'll bring it back to this committee for consideration. Um the estimate just for the record was a little over 50,000
and that was for fixing their existing retaining wall that's around the site where they want to expand the garden for installing um planting fruit trees for putting compost fertilizer. um repairing the existing beds and um
putting in new soil, new frames, new plants, and also installing the 20 dwarf fruit trees and $250 for orchard signage. So, um I think we're close to getting HLC's
okay on this um as long as we can come up with that additional funding or match um for the project. So again, we'll bring this back to you once we have more information. And the other project we talked about at our last meeting um was a project a potential multi-use multi-unit housing
rehabilitation project that a private developer approached our department about. Um during we haven't heard from that developer again, at least I have not. Um but um part of our discussion at the last meeting was you know what would we need to have in place? what would the
requirements be if we were to fund a a multi-unit investorowned housing rehabilitation project? So, I put together um some information for you all and I can walk through if you'd like. Um so, I I did it in kind of a question and
answer um format. So, can CDBG funds be used to demolish and re [clears throat] rehabilitate investor own properties? The answer is yes. Clearance, demolition, removal, reconstruction, and rehabilitation. Those are all eligible activities. I'm going to paraphrase here so I don't read this word for word. Um, but this will be included in the
minutes. U privately owned um or publicly owned properties are both eligible. If CDBG funds are used for housing rehabilitation on a multi-unit structure, how many of the units in the structure must be occupied by low and
moderate income households? So, we talked about this a little bit last time. At least 51% of the units would have to be occupied by low and moderate income households. In buildings with two units, at least one of the units must be occupied by an LMI household. Are there rent limits that must be
followed when CDBG funds are used for multi-use unit housing rehabilitation? The answer is yes. Um, EOHLC has rent unit rent limitations in place. Um they allow us to either use the section 8 house um housing program
fair market rents or we can use the home program rents um but we can't exceed the lesser of the two. So we have to look at those and compare them. What's a per unit subsidy limit for CDG funded housing projects? Um it's 175,000 per
unit. Does EOHLC have specific types of housing rehabilitation that they have determined to be eligible? They have guidance. It says um what would be eligible? And that guidance says code violations, incipient violations. So those are
violations that could turn into a code violation if not corrected, major systems in danger of failure. So things like heating systems um energy efficiency improvements and if you're doing those you have to use energy star project products and lead based paint
evaluation and reduction. So those are the types of of things we could fund. Um how long does the property need to be to remain affordable to low moderate income persons? So we have to put a deed restriction on
the property for a minimum of 15 years. Can CDBG funds be used to construct new housing units? Um, in general, no. But they can be used in support of new housing. So, we could do if we had a property um where we wanted to improve
the streets or the sidewalks around the property to um get it ready for the development, we could use it for that kind of thing, but we can't use it for the actual bricks and mortar of the the buildings. >> I just question on that. And so the development would have to be under type of housing that's
like described here like it would to me. Okay. Yeah. Yes. Yes, that's correct. Um yeah, and this the last paragraph there, the next to last paragraph just describes some other instances or examples of ways you could fund in
support of afford new affordable housing units. But you can't actually, as I said, do the bricks and mortar. And then additional requirements that need to be followed, Baba, which we talked about earlier, data spake and prevailing wages. Um, their environmental review
requirements we'd have to meet, which we do for all of our projects, lead based paint, cost, reasonleness requirements. Um, so if we were going to fund a project like this, there are some things that we um as a department, as a city would need to put in place as far as
policies and procedures around this type of project that we don't have in place right now. >> And does uh does like HUD HLC they they provide what they have that process right like what you need to do in order to establish
>> um well that this is a summary of what they have. So, we would need to um set our own program guidelines. >> So, we would have our own standard for what we do. >> Exactly. That would that would incorporate all these requirements. >> Okay. And do they need to approve it? I mean, I assume they do.
They actually probably don't, but I think we would ask them to review it >> and that way too make sure >> because I would just think like we were on in line where then if we had something that makes sense if we wanted to use funding for it, it already matched how >> Yeah, they would definitely need to approve our our project a project um if
we put that forward. But I think um if we were moving in that direction, we'd probably want them to take a look at our program design before before we got to that point. So, any more to come on on the St. Paul's Community Garden? Um, any questions about
>> I've got a couple. Um, so just to be sure, so it's they, you know, preliminarily suggesting 91% of this project because if you add the numbers up of people who they've served, 91% of that gardener since the money is earmarked for gardener, that's why they say 91% should cover the gardener portion, but the
>> fiveish grand would come from somewhere else. >> Yes. Now, knowing this project before, I know that the community gardens that they currently have in place were funded from a Bureing Foundation grant that they received separately of us that they also fund raise for separately themselves, too. So, that may be an option for them, too.
>> Um, but it's good to see that this is at least something that can move forward um with it with, you know, potentially finding a match of that last 9% from some other funding source, be it us with soft costs or something like that. >> Um, >> excuse me, Mr. Mayor. So the beering was
that for the 91% or was that for the whole >> No, that that was for a different project. So phase one of this project for them was there several green beds that they have on the corner of Chestnut and Cross. This would be for the new addition that they'd like to add on the corner of School Street and Cross. >> Okay. >> And this would be an alternate path. I
think the mayor suggesting for them to recoup that remaining 9% which in total is 400 or $4,514.50. So that but I'm asking that so like beer length stuff like private which you suggested. So they they could use that for the 9%. Is that what we're saying?
>> Yeah. Saying that there's other private options that I'm sure they could either fund raise for or look for other matches. Okay. >> If we can't find something here. >> Okay. >> Um and I will say on the housing side of things, um I'll be honest and say I'm not sold on
this being a um right now use of the funs. I know we've done it in the past uh with housing development in the city. Um I've signed the subordination agreements and the discharge agreements that we've had with things like that. Uh but with the limitations that you've outlined and I
think this is very helpful to see all the information out like this uh and seeing what options are there. I just question if it's a big enough bang for our buck that we're getting for this money to use to develop the city to fix three units of
housing rather than a public infrastructure good >> that can benefit a larger population as a whole in the city. So that's just my initial take on it. Um I'm glad to have the information to be able to make a more formulated opinion on that, but that's just my initial brush through the
information. >> I I would agree with that. I think the which is great on the housing piece of that. It's super organized and it's direct and what we need for sure. So, I really appreciate that too. I I agree with that. I'm not sure if it's a best need. I was thinking that along the way. And I did want to see if you could give
examples of the way we may have used it in this way before cuz I just >> I don't recall it off the top of my head. >> Um back in the early 2000s is mainly when we look at the records and see that the city utilized these funds. And what it was at the time was more for existing housing rehabilitation where someone was
an uh either themselves in an LMI category or in a LMI neighborhood of the city and wanted to fix up their housing to make it more energy efficient. Uh this is when the things like the you know double pane insulated windows were becoming more popular, more efficient heating systems and things of that
nature. We were providing grants to homeowners to make those upgrades at their housing themselves so that they would lower their utility costs in that way. Um so we've done that. We've done installation upgrades in some houses uh in the past, but this would be I don't know of any other location in which
we've done a full gut rehab of a residential building, but that's just because I'm not educated on that part. >> So, this would have been per owner per homeowner who met these the specific criteria, not necessarily some type of housing like development or housing authority, wherever it could have been.
Okay. Um and so that's that answers my question. Thank you. So, that is kind of where I'm at. I don't know if right now it's the best use of it. Obviously, you know, we we want to use it to the fullest extent we can, but I I'm I'm hesitant on that as well cuz I um I just
don't know if it fits the path that we're kind of moving right now. But it's good to know that it is an option and this information was really helpful in spelling that out. Um, the other thing I would add to is I know that this property is also in the zoning proposal that's pending before the planning board
and the city council for their um, hearing this coming Monday. And I would wonder if that zoning change were to go through if that opens any additional avenues that would actually cut costs for the developer of this location because now you're in a multi family by
you'd be in a multif family by right zone rather than having to go through all the red tape and bureaucracy of converting it back from a single family into a multif family at that point which would then I think save just as much money as they're looking for from this. >> Mhm.
>> That's a really good point. All right, I will uh given that this is going to be an ongoing discussion um this isn't the end all be all and the only project we have in front of us currently is for a total of $50,000
whereas we have quite a bit more to allocate. We'll keep this item open for um future meetings for us to discuss. Um I do have one question with that then. Is there a timeline in which we have to
allocate these funds to a project before we lose them? >> So for the 22 23 funds, they're set to expire in December, but we can request an extension through June 30th of 2026. So we plan to do that. Um the 2024
funds, we have another year, so June 30th, 2027. But right now in the way um HLC executes their agreements, they have usually a 15-month performance period. So that performance period per
performance period for the 2024 funds is set to expire in December also. But again, we're going to request an extension. >> And are these funds restricted like a regular year CDBG funds? You have three infrastructure projects and the rest can go towards services. Right. Still, so
this could go back to when we did 2022, 2023, however many infrastructure projects that we had, or is this a new look at >> it? It it goes back to what's already been approved. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Sure.
>> So then we want to be sure that we prioritize this moving forward because we need to put these funds somewhere. >> Yes. These funds specifically. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's not on an agenda, but we um we just received notification from HLC on what the fiscal year 2026 application
process looks like and when um things are due there in our November meeting, we'll be talking more about that process. So, this will all kind of tie together as part of that. >> Okay. So again, I'll reiterate that this is an ongoing conversation for us to allocate
prioritize the 2223 CDG uh unexpended funds. So, we I'll entertain a motion to um continue this item uh this public hearing into our next meeting um with an
intention of closing once um all funds that are unexpended out of both 22 23 and 24 following um are allocated to um relevant projects for us to to go
forward with the transfer. So moved. >> Second. >> I hear a motion. I hear a second to continue this on to the next meeting. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. All post say nay. I hear none. Motion
carries and move to the next meeting. On to our regular meeting. First up to approve minutes for regular meeting of September 23rd, 2025. Um, I'll make a motion to wave the reading of amendments and accept them as presented.
>> Second. I got a motion to wave the reading of amendments and accept as presented. Your second. All in favor say I. >> I. All post say nay. Motion carries. Moving on to item 2.1 FY25 CDG min
entitlement application status. This is threat to you. Hus. [snorts] >> So, um, I thought you were good. I was >> Oh, sorry. [laughter] I can though. Um, so I I think the the mayor and Jason received notification
from HLC that our our funding has been approved. Um, it was just the initial award letter. Um, it didn't have specifics in it. Correct. So, we'll get more information as they announce those awards, but that's good news. And that's for the
925,000. Do we know when to expect the final information here? >> Usually usually they they um do a training and then we have to complete the environmental review process and after that I think they'll execute the
agreement with us. There might be some special conditions we have to satisfy too. Sometimes there are things in our application that need to be fine-tuned. So we'll hear more from them on that. Um, but uh I have the I've drafted the initial environmental review records for our projects that were in our
application. So hopefully we can move pretty quickly um to get their approval on that once we hear more from them. >> The governor's office is also still working on her public announcement of the award statewide. Um so we normally have to wait for that and that's normally mid November. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Are those embargoed? Okay. Just want to make sure >> um >> more [laughter] >> for Okay, so that's for 2.1. Uh moving on to
FY223 project updates, demolition of 205213 Main Street. We kept this on the agenda with the intention of discussing once the property sale is uh completed. Um,
the GR has approved me to be the drafting authority for both the purchase and sale agreement and the land disclosure um, agreement for this. Um, so I'm in the process of drafting both
of those. Those are both like the legal disposition documents. um putting forward all the proponents for that sale. So um both the fact that has to be uh completed and approved
between myself and um either the legal counsel for the um buyer um or the buyer themselves. Um that will take some time as well as this being another property um similar to uh
what councelor Kazinskus has already been made aware of with the Garbo sale. It's another property within the urban renewal zone which needs to have um EOHLC urban uh the executive office of housing and livable communities. um they
need to be the approving authority for the land disclosure agreement for the sale to be either for a uh fair market value or for a proposed public veteran/g good. Um so we're in the process of also
preparing the um land disclosure agreement uh for that purpose. So um could take some time might be I we we should have better updates um in
regards to that draft and discussion with the buyer and the OHLC um for next meeting. But I I will leave it at that and we can continue with this on the agenda. >> And so that's just kind of the process,
right? Like that's just a >> takes. It's just you have a buyer and now there's a process and people need to meet and everything needs to be >> the legal disclos the legal dispositions need to be drafted. The purchase and sale agreement needs to be drafted. We
the the GR has to be in agreement with the buyer um in terms of the status of the draft that we have together for both agreements. Um, so that's also reliant
on the GR meeting and approving uh before any signatures could be put on our side. Um, but really the the first step is a um EOHLC's approval because we
we already have what the purchase price is going to be. Uh we already have what the intended use is going to be. Those are under executive sessions with the GR else I would talk about them here. Um but those will be obviously released once the per the sale enters the closing
period. But the first step would be for EOC's approval um of the land disclosure agreement which we'll need to get a land appraisal done which most land appraisal appraisers are booked about 2 months
out. So that's also something that we have to wait on. So that's why I say we'll [clears throat] probably have updates on the purchase and sale agreement and land disclosure agreement in terms of the agreement approval from the two parties of of the
GR and the buyer rather than before we'll have the approval from EOHLC. So that's kind of they they they'll provide edits for what they need to see in the land disclosure agreement first. um or not first, but they will eventually
provide those edits once we have an agreed upon um land disclosure agreement. And once their edits are added, then we can move on to signatures. But as long as it's in a place to where both sides are in agreement for the language that's put
into both those documents, then it positions us into that. As soon as we get you wait till he's approval, we go straight into signing and entering the closing because we've already gotten everything else into a place to where we're both in agreement.
Now I just for point of mentioning too so someone goes to buy a house it's normal 30 60 days for your closing but because of this process and everything that we normally have to go through because of the way the process is set by the state normally in these types of projects from
>> offer being accepted >> going then through the purchase and sale agreement LDA process up until the closing we're looking more like 180 to 200 day turnaround rather than the normal 30 to 60 that someone would normally have if they're closing on a house. Yes, if it wasn't in an urban
renewal zone and we didn't have EOCC's approval, it would just be a simple draft of the both both legal documents, approval, you know, edits, um discussions between the two parties and then signatures and approvals. Given this extra step, that's where we have to
get into land like current land appraisal appraisals given that the last appraisal that was done both was quite a long time ago as well as um there was a property there there was a building there um until the demolition had occurred. So there's been significant
changes to the out of the property um since the last appraisal was done. Um so those would obviously be taken into account as well. So, those are all the documents that are um weighed in with EOHLC and and what provides most of the
delay between when the offer is accepted and when the closing period begins. Okay. Well, I think it's worth mentioning too because, you know, this is one of those things where there is a process. We have to follow the process and that's what we're doing step by step and we just record what we do when we do
it. And that, you know, it's it's I think it's one of the things you can see where the property was. you see all this and then it's like it's just sitting there. What are they doing? What are they doing? You know, it's this is what we have to follow. And as long as you keep good records of that, you stay on pace with it, that's the most that we can do in the most efficient way. And
that's not something that, like you said, it's because it falls under. It's urban renewal. Like there's certain things and we we're held to that. We don't have a choice. It's just the way that it works. But it also allows us to demo the property, to sell the property, to have the advantages you do through GR and things like that. And so that's
something that I think it's just good for any public watching to know that that falls in this category and that's how it works. But it also is um it's a great opportunity for the city. So >> it's a matter of whether or not this property would have remained outside of
our property tax collecting like for the next five more years, a decade. Like we have plenty of properties like that that are they're not collecting taxes on them because they they you know the city either owns them or you know they're
currently um is a you know a vacant owner or someone who's not paying their property taxes. Um, you know, so it positions us in a way that, you know, if we were able to move this and enter the closing period in 6 months, you know, sometime next year, and that this entire
process took a period of a year or 18 months, that's a lot better than waiting 5 years for the right buyer to come along, purchase the property, um, and, you know, get some economic movement happening within it. So, it's a longer process than we would like and we under
we understand the red tape better than better than everyone because we have to navigate it as well. Um, but these this is the hand that we're dealt with this and you know we we are looking forward to seeing this property um you know be redeveloped following all the work that
we've already put into the demolition of it um this past year. So, that's my update for for 205 213 uh Main Street. Moving on to the Greenwood Pool demolition and construction of outdoor pavilion. I'll just start with the the
demolition and then I'll I'll pass it on to assistant director to talk about the construction of the outdoor pavilion. We've kind of touched base on this pretty much already. Um that the demolition is ongoing. We expect the above ground uh demolition to be completed by at most the end of this
week. Uh potentially sooner at the rate that ABW seems to be trucking along associated building records. Uh for anyone watching, that's the contractor for the demolition. Um and following that would be the below ground uh building demolition. Um which
is I believe for a period of 8 or 11 days somewhere around there. 8 or 11 business days. um followed by I believe it's eight and then 11 business days of um backfill um of the site once the demolition is completed. Do I have my
timeline right? Yeah. >> Oh, nice. Um and then and then we finish off with loming and seating um the site. We're going to have a talk of whether or not loading and seating is going to be even needed given the fact that we're
this far into the year. I don't know whether or not lion seeding would even take um or whether or not the seeds would just either lay dormant or at worst die. We've already this grass planting season. >> We've missed >> I think we're gone. >> This is what's getting dug up next year
just to build. >> Exactly. So this is what we had put originally into the project. We just I'm mentioning this cuz this is the conversation we have to have with the contractor to say we're scaling back the scope of work. We're no longer loading and seating because the intention
originally for this project for those watching was for us to have there be a period of time happening between the demolition of the pool and the construction of the pavilion. We weren't expecting it to move forward immediately from the demolition to pavilion
construction. So that puts us in a pretty I mean good position to not spend the unnecessary funds to moment. We don't want to be wasting our CDBG money um or spending unnecessarily on loading and seating when we can just say scale
back the scope of work and then we can potentially reallocate that um as well down the line in uh in our public hearing discussion of of potential other projects to spend those funds >> and that maintenance can be taken out of there because this new funding now it would be available to do the billion
right away. Like when this was first done, we didn't it was like phase one and then the next or whatever. But now because it's become available, that's what changes things. That's what makes it go quicker. >> We weren't expecting school street to go the way that it's gone. Uh we weren't expecting some of these projects to come
in under budget. So it puts us in a place to where we can move forward that we weren't expecting to um really even at the beginning of the the calendar year. So >> what year does the demolition money come from? Demolition is 2022 23.
>> All right. So that's money that we'd have to have. >> Yes. >> By the end of December, >> hopefully June 30th. [clears throat] >> Yeah. But I'm saying like >> hopefully obligated by for usage by >> endurance. >> So in total I didn't actually say the I
think the assistant director had mentioned the total [clears throat] um timeline completion for this project but that was intended for I think you had mentioned mid to late November. Um just to reiterate >> for a demolition demo. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. and I will pass on for construction. Um, you know, this is we're even talking about the transfer of funds um and estimated um cost in our previous uh public
hearing at 1.2. So, I would say that any estimation of construction is purely hypothetical at this point. um we don't have necessarily a timeline of um estimated construction because we don't
have we're getting a reestimate. This will be something that we put out to bid once we have the reestimate and the funds are allocated. Um but you know we want this completed um obviously next year as as part of um the spend for uh
the 22 23 grant fund and 20 or 24 grant funds. Yes. >> Yeah. The school street school demolition. So, >> and the pavilion. So, the Greenwood Pavilion would be we have any idea about construction or anything on that? Is there anything worth putting out there right now that we would like it would
start in the spring or like you know how would we >> I think that's our hope that we can get it um in the winter and start in the spring. >> Yeah. But we have to like I was saying we have to get the reestimate for you know given FABA hold until we have the
reestimate for what the estimated cost is and once we have the our next meeting where we'll have continue the public hearing of the uh transfer of funds for this project. then we can move forward with um next steps of of uh bid
services, putting it out to bid um getting a contractor and then getting a a more clear timeline as as the project takes takes shape. But this is a very early step to give um timelines currently um given how many variables
can kind of come in between now and when next construction season starts next year. The only new information really is that the pavilion is can come now because we have the funding. That's kind of what that was always before there was no when we [clears throat] could figure out the funding then we'll do a pavilion. So pavilions in the plan but
now it's pavilions coming because we have funding >> and so we just have to wait figure it out. >> Sorry I said you were going to do the outdoor pavilion. I went ahead and did the outdoor pavilion. >> Um >> but that that that's our full update
unless there are any other questions for that. None. So, moving on to 2.2.3 FY223 project updates for social services. This has been fully expended. Um, we've
allocated all of our money for 2223 to our social service uh providers. So, >> yeah, >> there's no updates here and that could come off the agenda. Um um and then we can move on to
2.3.1 FY24 project updates for social services assistant director. >> So um just just wanted to highlight briefly um the accomplishments of some of the programs um that they've had so far. Um so the gardener um emergency
housing mission has fully expended their funds for 2024. They provided um homeless prevention assistance to 24 people um to keep them in their housing and um keep them from becoming homeless. So, that's really
wonderful. And I know they have other sources of funding that they're using to continue to do that um while they wait for their hopefully 2025 funds. Voices of Truth. Um they've served over a hundred people um with um domestic
violence prevention programming um conducting weekly workshops um partnering with the high schools to conduct workshops there partnering with the Gardener Chamber of Commerce to um conduct information sessions with them. Um so they're just um you know out there
in the community doing a lot of work on um domestic violence prevention education and training. And the Gardener Community Action Committee um their food assistance program as we talked about earlier has served over a thousand low and moderate
income people. Um many of them very low income. um so below 30% of area median income and they are about halfway um through expending all of their funds and um you know right on track and the
gardener athletic program um is we still haven't um received their agreement box. So we'll keep following up um on that um to be able to utilize those funds. >> Any questions about those? >> What is AMI for Gardner? Um I don't
think I have that with me. Um >> we can get that for the next one too. It just just we always talk about 30% of >> AMI for a family of four at 80% I think it's 90 something,000. >> Oh >> yeah. Yeah. I was surprised by the
numbers when I when I saw them. The most recent um Yeah. And that's probably part of the reason why Gardner is no longer over 51% loan moderate income. >> So yeah, I'll I'll definitely have that for you at the next meeting. Any question? Any other questions?
>> And then we'll move on to demolition of school street school. as kind of mentioned um throughout this meeting and in our last meeting, those funds have um been allocated out from or we are positioning ourselves to move them out
from uh the current line item for the school street school demolition which was part of our 20 24 CDBG application towards the uh Greenwood Pool Pavilion um construction. We put the uh demolition of school street school or
the uh purchase of school street school, apologies, um out to bid. Um and we had a well we had two uh applications come in uh following the close of that bid. Um and I believe those bids are being
reviewed by the >> review committee currently. So, that's all we have there, but we'll keep it on the agenda um at least until we actually move the funds out of the school street school
demolition at a future meeting. With that finished, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn unless there are any other questions or comments before we wrap up. >> I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Second.
>> I hear a motion. I hear a second. All in favor say I. >> I. All post say nay. Meet passes. Motion is the motion passes. The meeting is adjourned. [laughter]