Okay.

Well, it is now 7 p.m.

And this is the May 19th, Tuesday, May 19th meeting of the fiscal committee, the Board of Representatives in attendance.

I see Thomas Bouchard, Representative Dola Cruz, Representative Dorsey, Representative Parker Johnson, Representative Noella Pine, Representative Eric Morrison, and I am Andrew Zachary, co-chair of the fiscal committee.

And with that, we have a quorum.

So tonight I'll start off with agenda item number one, F32.071 for 398,695.

An additional appropriation operating funding for emergency obestes abatement at services at Yearwood Community Center, 90 Fairfield Avenue.

Matt, do you want to speak out on this?

Sure.

Happy to uh just give a quick overview.

Sorry, I just I need to move this to our vote.

Move item one, move out of the second.

Thank you.

Sorry, now we can go.

So I need to remember my order and care.

Go ahead.

No worries.

Uh uh thank you to the uh committee for taking this item up.

I'll just offer just a brief overview uh timeline for this particular request.

Um so we uh were pursuing a and are pursuing a renovation project at the Yearwood Center uh supported by ARPA funding uh in the course of uh that um uh renovation uh work and inspection was conducted and which uh there was hazardous building material that was uh inspected um abatement um was necessary in order for us to remove asbestos that had been uh identified in the course of that inspection.

Um as a result, uh we took measures to uh immediately uh vacate the the building just out of an abundance of caution, though the the air testing uh did prove that there was uh nothing detected um at that time.

We felt it prudent uh to just move swiftly um and we worked with the uh building occupant, the boys and girls club to relocate uh their services as well as other tenants within that building um and conducted uh emergency um waiver to pursue the abatement project uh that um went through the course of several weeks, which has since been uh completed and we are now um moving forward uh with with all the renovation work.

Um testing has come back clear uh following um that work.

However, it did require us to to move through a uh emergency waiver process, which is why we are coming to you uh following the the execution of the work.

Uh we chose to leverage the blight fund uh in order to cover the cost of this abatement so that we wouldn't um eat into the funding that was appropriated for the scope of the renovation project.

Um so we're before you this evening uh with that request.

Thank you.

Uh thank you very much, uh Director Carnones.

Are there any questions from the floor?

And I see we're joined by Representative Walson, ex officio.

Just one of the one question from Representative O'Paunt.

Yeah.

Hi, Director Kignones.

Could you just um remind us or just clarify what was the original assessment for the asbestos abatement, or is this the total cost, original expectation of the cost?

Well, there was a budgeted amount within the I would say kind of conceptual budget of the renovation project.

Some uh line item was held in anticipation for potentially um uh uh approaching asbestos in the course of inspection and renovation.

However, uh when we conducted the inspection, it was it was beyond uh what that expectation was.

So that's why we chose to move to a different funding source so that we wouldn't eat into uh the the renovation budget um where we would have to uh make compromises on on the overall scope.

Um so um I don't know that might answer part of your question, but I think the other part is this is the totality of that um uh abatement scope at this point.

Okay.

And so then what happens to that set aside that was within the original budget?

Is that roll into just other project costs?

Yes, it stays within the the project scope.

Um, and we can get further uh in terms of that.

So uh you know, as you're probably aware, when we set out a budget, it's at a conceptual phase.

Um, we're now in the process of designing, so we start to fine-tune those cost estimates a little bit better, and um we can get further with our our renovation.

There's no shortage of um requests from from the tenant and building occupants, so um, I have no doubt we'll we'll find plenty of use for for the entire two million.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions on the floor?

Thank you very much.

Uh with that, uh I'd like to call ask for a voice vote on this.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

And anybody, I didn't hear Virgil or uh and uh representative Uchard.

Sorry, bye.

All right, all right, thank you.

So anybody opposed, anybody abstaining?

Thank you very much.

So that's unanimous.

I think that's 700.

Well, it's eight now.

I think representative Dorsey.

I have we're just disagreeing with all the great.

Yes.

I have 700 as well.

Sorry, I can't add to say it's one of those days.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh then item number two, F32.072 for two million five hundred thirty seven thousand dollars.

This is a rejection item for a capital project clause out recommendation, project number CP four, zero zero zero zero six two transfer station two million five hundred thirty seven thousand dollars now law replacement.

Uh uh I would like to move this to the floor for a vote.

Move to approve.

Move to approve.

Move to reject.

Yeah, item two.

Yes.

So this is a rejection item.

So it is the reverse sense.

If you vote yes, you are voting to reject this the rejection, but if you vote no, you're voting to accept the rejection, which is confusing.

So with that, I move this for a rejection vote on the fourth.

Say that one more time.

We can vote affirmative if you want to keep the item as is.

If you want to reject agree with the rejection, yeah.

You say you don't say yes.

Wait, yeah.

If you want to overturn the rejection, you vote no.

Yep.

I flip the sense again.

Okay.

Are you sure with this?

That one.

I think that's how we've done it for the past few rejection votes, but they don't come up often.

Yeah.

Can you say this?

Um, you cannot make a motion and then it will automatically be rejected after 60 days.

Um, you've done it that way too.

Okay.

So I rescind the motion.

Right, no, no motion made.

No motion made.

Um, and if there's no motion, there's nothing to discuss.

Unless you discuss it.

Unless anybody wants to discuss it.

I would like to just clarify a few points on why the item is on the agenda to begin with.

It'll help you um come to peace with this.

Um, good evening, Lou Castle, City Engineer.

The uh first item is a capital project closeout recommendation.

And um, as uh Tony Romano mentioned, um, this is this is a closeout item, and he suggested uh a way in which you could act on this.

The reason that it's here is um pretty simple.

So uh this project is being funded in portion by a grant through the uh economic development administration.

And this has been uh a grant that Anita Carpenter, our grants director, has been pursuing for a long time.

Um and uh it's gone through a couple of changes over time, and the main change is it's gonna be tied into item two, is that the grant allocation um was originally going to be 80% federal, uh 20% local.

And um, and the project was all uh lined up to go, and we were moving forward with the the grant process, and then it it stalled on the federal level for for quite some time.

Um now it's been re-resurrected.

The grant uh uh allocation now is no longer 80 20, it is 6040.

Okay, so what's item one is about is basically um closing out that uh 20% portion of the federal aid.

That's what that is.

Um, and we'll talk about the um the appropriation request in item two, which will be basically to ask for the 20% in terms of local bonds.

So the match then becomes uh 40% versus the original one, which was 20.

Uh, your board um approved the uh original appropriation for the 80 20 um uh funding allocation back on uh August 5th, 2024.

Um, but we're here tonight to present to you the the changes that have happened with the grant over time.

So I hope that clarifies uh what item one is about.

It does indeed, at least for me.

Uh question from Representative La Pine.

Lou, can you just confirm if the total project costs has remained the same throughout, or is that changed as well?

That's the same.

Okay, it's just the grant allocation is different.

Yeah.

Thank you.

So you'll see in item two.

Uh you're you're basically not acting to close out the two million five hundred thirty-seven thousand, but in item two, um, I'm asking for that exact same amount as city bond.

So we're closing out the 20% uh uh federal uh uh um match and we're adding it in as city bond as an additional 20%.

Okay.

Okay, well then there's something that excuse me, uh are you done?

Thumbs up.

Yes, sorry, sorry.

Uh there's something uh I I don't understand.

If the 20% was originally called two and a half million dollars, 40% shouldn't it be double that at 5 million?

Yeah, the grant the grant went from 80% federal to 60% federal.

So originally um on August 5th, you approved uh a total of 12,685,000, which was a federal grant of of 10,148,000 and 2,537,000 as bond.

That bond amount was was the 20% component.

So another 20% would be another 2,537,000 dollars.

So that's what I see here.

It's actually our item three and our action agenda for tonight, uh is for 3,437,000, which is not all.

Yes, let me explain that even further.

This is something OPM uh recommended we do to uh I guess simplify the paperwork, but it requires an explanation.

So in addition to the um federal allocation from uh the economic development administration, again at 60% contribution, 20%, a 40% local match.

That money is only for construction, the not for design.

So in item two, you're seeing a larger amount than two million uh two million five hundred thirty seven thousand because that additional money in item two is a FEMA grant, a FEMA brick grant that we're pursuing, and you'll see the breakout of that and item number three, and that is strictly for the design, so that's why it's more.

Great.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, so there's no action to be taken on this.

You would entertain a motion, and if there isn't one, we move on.

I entertain a motion.

No motion from the floor, then we move on.

So item three, F32.073, 3 million 437,000, additional appropriation capital.

Project CP40062, transfer station canal wall replacement project to replace the east branch harbor canal wall.

And Engineer Casolo.

Are you given a good explanation?

Sure.

Back again, real quick.

So item number two in the amount of 3,437,000.

That's our request.

That's broken out as follows.

Money of 20%.

And below that is $225,000 for bond, which is coupled with the FEMA grant of $637.

FEMA's contributing if we do get the grant, Anita and I filed this last week prior to their deadline, so that's still pending, but we're seeking your approval of the authorization, assuming we're moving forward.

That's for design money.

So that match is 25% 25% local, which is the 225,000, and 75% federal or 675,000.

So we're coupling those together in this appropriation request.

The EDA amount of the additional 20 that goes to the city bond, plus the design money that's made up of a FEMA brick grant with a 7525 split.

All right, thank you very much.

So I would this make a motion.

Entertain a motion.

So moved.

You get moving for approval for approval.

Yes.

Second.

Any questions from the floor?

Seeing no hands, I'll move this for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Anyone opposed?

Anyone abstentioning?

Abstaining?

Okay.

So uh representative Graham, I see you joined us.

Did you say aye on this motion as well?

Yes, I.

Okay, thank you.

That's 800.

So we have 800.

All right, item four, F32.074 resolution, amending the capital budget for fiscal year 25-26 by adding an appropriation of three million four hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars for the transportation canal law replacement and authorizing two million seven hundred sixty thousand dollars of general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation.

Uh I entertain a motion to approve this item.

So moved.

Second, okay.

Any discussion?

Hearing no questions, no act.

I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

I see that approved 800.

Okay.

Item 5, F32.075 for 25,000.

And a additional appropriation grant, Department of Health and Human Services, Project Champion Grant Substance Use Prevention Initiatives Targeting Use in Stanford.

Uh, entertaining a motion to approve this.

Motion to approve.

Okay.

Uh.

Ms.

Carpenter.

Would you like to describe this grant?

Sure.

Hello.

Anita.

Anita.

You're muted.

Oh no, you're not.

No.

Now you're muted.

Can you?

Yes, now we can.

Okay, so sorry.

Um, so I thought I was unmuted.

Good evening.

Uh, so this is a basic operating or programmatic grant for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide some programmatic activities related to prevention work and um get the other piece of it, but it is to support their basic mission from Tamsta.

Thank you.

Uh any questions from the floor?

Hearing none.

Uh I ask for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries eight zero zero.

Item six, f32.076.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Child Health and Development Institute for Project Champion.

Uh I'd entertain a motion to approve this item.

So second.

Uh any discussion.

Seeing no hands, uh, I ask for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries eight zero zero.

Item seven, F32.077 for sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars.

An additional appropriation capital.

Project CP0231, citywide dredging operations department, Cummings Marina, and Basin Revetment.

Um I entertain a motion to approve this.

Motion to approve.

Item 8.

Item 8.

Segment.

Okay.

Uh any discussion.

Uh Lou, do you want to weigh in on this briefly?

You're muted.

Sorry about that.

Uh, real quick, this is a uh a request for 62,500.

It's a state grant.

We received a grant through the Connecticut Port Authority for a 50% cost for uh a an analysis to do chemical testing of dredge spoils.

This enables the city the opportunity to test the material to find out if we can dispose of it in the open water uh as opposed to upland by by disposing in open water, it's considerably cheaper.

Uh, but you have to go through this uh uh chemical testing process to do so.

So we were fortunate to get a grant to cover half of it, and that's what the amount is being requested, just for your own information.

We're in the middle.

Well, we've just started and embarked on a design to do the dredging of Cummings Marina.

That's the marina that was taken out by Storm Sandy.

Um, so that's what this is being applied towards.

Any discussion from the floor?

Any questions?

Seeing no hands and a call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Uh Representative Graham, were you opposed?

No, sir.

I I voted yes.

Uh sorry, okay, it came in a it coincided exactly when I asked if anybody's opposed.

Okay, uh, great, thank you.

And any abstentions.

So this carries eight zero zero.

Item eight, f32.078.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Connecticut Port Authority for financial assistance for the Cummings Marina Dredging Pop.

Sorry, Cummings Marina Dredging Biological Testing Project.

Um, to take a motion to approve this item.

Second.

Okay.

Approved and seconded.

Uh any discussion?

Any questions?

Seeing no hands, I call for a voice vote.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries eight zero zero.

Item nine.

Sorry.

Uh, want to note for the record uh on item seven, my motion was to approve item eight.

That obviously should have been motion to approve item seven.

Okay.

Item nine, F32.079, resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the department of emergency management and Public Protection Division of Emergency Management and Homeland Security for the Emergency Management Performance Grant Award.

Allocation of 69,500 is already in.

I undertain a motion to approve this item.

So moved and seconded.

Can you describe this quickly?

So this is uh grant funding that is for to support the um regional emergency management hazmat team.

Uh the money was already in the budget and approved previously.

So this is just the resolution to allow us to sign documents and engage in the agreement.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Seeing no hands, I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

I need opposed.

Any abstentions?

The item carries 800.

Item 10, F32.080.

A resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Office of Early Childhood for quality enhancement funding under early start CT.

Uh I understand a motion to approve this item.

So second, moved and seconded.

Um discussion.

With that, I call no since there are no hands on the floor.

I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

Noted.

Absolutely from representative Le Pine.

Okay.

Motion carried 701.

Item 10, sorry, 11 rather.

F32.081 for 9,925,945.

An additional appropriation capital project 001460.

Stanford High School Priority Project.

And then F federal year, sorry, fiscal year, 2526 budget for improvements to the 1971 building.

State grant funding.

Motion to approve item 11.

Motion to approve item 11.

Second.

Catherine.

Can you discuss this item?

Sorry, can you can you hear me?

Yes, we can now.

Oh, great.

I think we are up.

You guys, we guys went so fast through this.

I am joined by uh Travis Schnell here from KGD.

Would it be possible to promote him as well?

Um a short summary of this is that we are consolidating a number of uh capital initiatives in line with the long-term facilities plan that um are allowing us to seek a state grant, a priority project.

Um, I apologize.

Um allowing us to seek a priority project.

Um, so this all with this authorization, um, and item number 15 actually um on your agenda.

Um, we are putting together an application for a project with a total project budget of 27 million dollars.

However, we have secured today all the local share for for this endeavor.

Um I think there was a rather lengthy slide deck submitted to you, and I'd be happy to um show you a very condensed reduced version if you would like uh that talks a little bit about the content of the project.

Uh we are focusing on uh an improved exterior envelope because there is water infiltration, um, tie backs from the exterior facade to to structure have uh deteriorated since the 1970s.

We are doing asbestos abatement of the flooring, uh limited um univentilator replacements, a limited HVAC replacement, um, and making the labs, uh, the science rooms, uh, universal uh learning spaces, which are more in line with how we teach today.

Um, that's an important improvement.

We often talk about how we are flexible forward, how we're preparing ourselves for the future, and uh that's what this part of this interior effort is is prepared to do.

But I'm I'm very happy to give you a full slideshow.

I don't know how how much you'd like me to to dive in, but I'm happy to do a deep dive.

Yeah, I think we should take a look.

Perfect.

It's a large appropriation.

Let's see what it is.

Excellent, wonderful.

Travis, you have the slides.

Great.

Yep.

Okay, while Travis is pulling that up, the opportunity to go for the priority and non-priority is a bit of a misnomer.

Every project's important, but we only get the opportunity to go for priority grants one time a year, which is why the timing of this is very important.

Um there are projects that we do throughout the year, uh, window replacements, roofing replacements, and it's just a state categorization.

We're allowed to apply for those um before the 10th of effectively each month.

But these types of capital improvements we only get to go in for once a year.

So our shot comes up June 30th.

Um Travis, you got the slide deck or is it not showing?

Sorry, I don't show.

Oh, okay.

That's weird.

Hold on, hold on.

Sorry about that.

I see you were just killing time.

I was, I was just buying it.

I can almost do the deck for a minute.

We might be able to you can email it to Barbara.

One second.

I got it.

I got it, we got all the different.

If sharing screen doesn't work, try sharing the application.

Got it.

Try screen one.

Let's try this one.

How about now?

It says you're started.

All right.

There we go.

We're in the middle of the slide.

Yeah.

Right.

All right.

Okay.

So let's start with the dollars, because as you said, it's a it's a large authorization request.

So the local share has been authorized over time uh through multiple fiscal years.

Originally we were saying, well, should we seek smaller priority applications or non-priority applications for each one of these items?

Asbestos flooring and uh exterior facade, window replacement, and MEP.

Um, and so over using the long-term plan as guidance, we had started setting aside money for all these different projects.

And we realized that by combining them, we're actually able to take our dollars and do more with it with our partnership now with the 60% reimbursement with the state.

Um, so we are anticipating a 60% reimbursement.

Um, you will see the split isn't a perfect 6040 here.

Uh that doesn't, I that doesn't mean we're not going to achieve that or very close to that at the end of the day.

Um, but the we actually got feedback on our last successful priority application that they like to see us carry a little bit higher local share than the bare minimum.

Um so we are um here before you tonight asking for you what is effectively an authorization to the state share only.

So the grant, what will be part of the grant portion, um as separate projects scattered across the the long-term facilities plan.

We weren't able to bring home as much of a state share.

Um that's for a number of different reasons, but effectively it was a lot less inefficient.

So we think this this will be much more efficient for us.

Um next slide.

And in terms of the timing of this, um, this is the first time you're seeing me.

Um it's not necessarily the last time that we go before boards for different resolutions and approvals.

Um we will be applying for the grant this summer, as I mentioned, but we won't be authorized for the grant.

Um, the funding won't, we'll we'll find out in around Christmas time of this year, an early Christmas present, so to speak.

If we've made the list, if we're on the good list or the you know, there is no naughty list with the state, but if we'll find out if we're on the on the nice list in December, and the following summer is when the state delegation, the legislature will actually release the funding, and then we plan to go into construction the following summer.

So it's a these priority projects do take a longer period of time, but because we're getting that 60% reimbursement, we still end up ahead of the game.

Um rather than paying, you know, 27 million dollars bonded cost or local share.

I heard the question.

If I may, so this project actually you're if it's approved.

And we get the grant from state, it would actually go start construction until summer 2028.

Is that how I understand things?

That is correct.

It is, it's a very long process, correct.

Okay.

And is there expectation that in two years this would be sufficient to cover the funding required for the projects at hand?

So we are we have built in escalation to the midpoint of construction, I believe.

Travis, correct me if that's correct.

Yeah.

So this number takes into account that escalation.

With uh the current industry standard of I think around 4% per year.

Yep.

And then there are um contingencies and soft costs.

Uh we brought on KGD as professional services to help us build that budget.

Um, as this is this is just the like the the pre the conceptual work.

So once we get the grant um submitted and approved, we go into actual design schematic and design development and construction documents, and along the way we do estimates at the end of each of those phases to make sure we're still on target changes for us.

A year from the release, a year, year and a half from approval in December of this year, if that happens to construction.

Is that good?

Maybe I misunderstood the question.

Well, you're saying uh as I understand it, it's roughly 18 months to for design.

Um schematics, design, cost estimates, uh construction documents, all the existing any other side prep that needs to be done before we can actually start construction in June of 2028.

Some of that timing is a function of uh when it's we can start the work because obviously this is uh occupied high school, and some of that is a function of when we are commencing the design um based on our grant authorization, so to speak, I guess.

Is that if that helps at all?

Um I don't know if it's Travis, is it necessarily 18 months of design and like yeah, but remember we also we can't really start until you know later this fall at the earliest because you know the uh Stanford needs to be you know confident enough that the grant is going to be approved, so we can start usually we start with schematic design a little beforehand, but we really can't get into it until the grant is approved, which is getting into the you know the 27 year, and then you're really you're getting ready for bid at the beginning at winter of 28.

So you're you're probably more like you know, you're in that 12 month or less time period really for design.

The bidding process is a bit lengthy as well, as is the estimating process in between.

So yeah, usually you're bidding ideally in February um for construction work that's going on in the summer, so you're getting a good um market or better summer work.

All right, thank you.

And we can continue here.

So I'll jump in here.

This just shows an example of the existing conditions that we're dealing with at the 1971 edition.

We've got the uh four-inch brick veneer, it's tied to an eight-inch backup wall, and there's structural deficiencies to the veneer.

So the brick is spalling, there's bowing brick, um, there's rusted lintels and likely deteriorated brick ties.

Uh, the existing walls, they have no insulation, there's no air vapor barrier, the windows are single pane, non-insulated, no thermal breaks, um, they're corroding, they don't function well, and there's loose mortar joints, cracked sills, you can see deteriorated joint sealants, and so all this just contributes to water infiltration that just continues to damage the building over time.

So if you and the other thing to add here, if you were to do this just as a repair work, it wouldn't be reimbursable as a non-priority project.

But by uh, you know, combining this together and labeling it and marketing it as a um energy, you know, to get better energy savings on this, then it becomes a priority project, and we get the funding from the state.

So by putting the continuous installation by putting the air vapor barrier in there and doing a full restoration work, it becomes an eligible project.

The I I'll also add, and not to get too technical, but the condition of this brick uh ultimately could be just uh we're gonna end up chasing problems.

Um, you can see spalling brick, you can see cracked bricks, so uh to just approach this as a repointing project, uh, we think it would add significant costs that would be fully burdened by you know by the local uh bond dollars, as Travis mentioned, but it also would be uh, I guess it's unpredictable.

Uh yeah, it becomes inefficient.

I mean, usually like uh yeah, a masonry restoration project is usually better when it's more spot, you know, on the elevation and for sections, but when it's the entire facade that you're dealing with.

Um, yeah.

So there's a little bit of this evaluation as well that helps kind of shift our thinking on how to approach this project.

Question.

Absolutely, question from Representative.

Catherine, I'm just curious.

How do you I'm sure you have your methodology and have to go deep into it, but just when you when you're doing this kind of work, how do you guard against all the unknowns of what's behind the walls and how often do projects like this, uh, even with your contingencies and and protections lead to unknown expenses that exceed the budget.

So unforeseen, that's a great question.

Um, unforeseen conditions are something that we try and protect against on every project.

Um, sometimes we're able to mitigate by uh exploratory uh demolition.

Um we have pocketed uh uh part of um the dollars with KGD's professional services once we really commence into design to do that.

I'm calling I'm saying exploratory demolition, but we sometimes it's not invasive.

Uh in any chance that we can get to sample and test areas before we're uh in full-blown construction.

And another mitigation factor, um, I know this board's heard me talk about it quite often, is uh considering a partnership with a construction manager at risk for constructability reviews up front versus a GC bid, where um there can be a tenuous line between uh directing uh means and methods and uh a lowest qualified bidder scenario.

So I think by putting those kinds of conversations on the table up front with these difficult projects which have squirrely conditions that can be tough to get into, those are the ways that we're mitigating it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And then just to go over briefly the uh the science lab work.

So they're you know, the existing science labs, they haven't been renovated really since they've been, they were constructed.

So this they have a static layout, they no longer meet the needs of the district and school's program requirements.

Uh you can see the existing millwork and finishes.

They're just past their useful life.

Um, and the existing MEP systems, they're aged out.

They're inefficient.

Um, that includes unit ventilators, window ACs, and um existing lighting.

And this shows you the location specifically of the work.

So the 1971 wing is the portion uh located there in the middle.

Um, and it includes the entire brick facade, the windows, uh some of the caststone spandrel that are on those connecting bridges tying back to the 1927 wing.

And then the gym is also included in the scope since it's from the same vintage that middle more modern section with the barrel vaulted roof that is from 2004 and it was kind of built over and through the middle of the 1970s.

But that gym portion is all the same type of brick the same vintage and is scoped.

And I'm going to talk about cost control here because I just I think I want to keep harping on it.

This is another way that we try and manage um cost controls with projects can sometimes be with ad alternates.

Anybody on this board if they're familiar with West Hill High School they'll know that the nadatorium was an ad alternate um it was a lever that if we you know we had to pull which we hoped not to because you know there's intrinsic value in something like that there's intrinsic value to us being most efficient in doing this gymnasium facade which is the same vintage it has the same struggles um but we have included it specifically as an ad alternate to help manage um anything that might you know concern us about cost under uh overruns or increased budgets so that's an that's another one you know there's a lot of different there's never one magic you know wand wave that we can do to control but it's thinking about all these things up front.

Right.

And and also we could really we can modify and add um additional alternates as we go through the design phase before we go up the bit.

Right.

There might be other ones but this one is a you know is sizable it's in the millions so if we're starting to see the market changing against us or something like that we really want to focus on um primary those those you know of course the gymnasium is a very important piece and it holds very expensive things like gymnasium flooring.

So we want to make sure that we and it's expensive to heat and cool and that's why obviously we think it's value to this project but again we just want to have those levers in place in the event that we have to make difficult decisions about budget.

And then just to go over the new work at the facade so we already spoke about everything that's being removed so the brick would all come off and we replace it with a combination of new masonry veneer and panelized rating screen system again as we get into the actual design of this project and it will have new continuous insulation new air vapor barrier new windows and again everything going under the fact that this is an energy performance project to upgrade the building and yeah with the science labs the alterations will bring uh the labs up to modern standards and that meets the actual science program.

So we'll have 15 total labs they're sized to about 1200 square feet to accommodate 24 students each and that'll have those eight universal labs that can be for anything biology, physics or science and then we'll have four dedicated chem labs and three uh STEM labs that focus on robotics coding and um computer and Travis worked really hard with the district for this we didn't just like make this up in a vacuum or anything he worked um uh many thanks to um Stanford High School and the district coordinator for science labs so exactly yeah what you're not seeing here is there was a whole ed specs um that were put together based on input from the district on what's needed for these spaces right yeah this is just the output but there was a lot of a lot of intake right and yeah and that's that's the abbreviated uh slides.

Thank you very much um any questions from the floor thank you very much excellent presentation um uh seeing no hands on the floor, I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those anybody opposed.

Anyone abstaining?

Motion carries eight zero zero thank you very much.

Thank you all item 12, F 32, not 082 for 125,000.

An additional appropriation capital project 001461.

Stanford Harbor Boat Launch Feasibility Study Phase to complete site evaluations, preliminary boat launch design.

Or public, sorry, for a potential public boat monitoring facility on the Stanford Harbor Shoreline.

To approve this item.

Damian?

Yes.

Which who's going to handle the discussion?

I'll be I'll be happy, Damien.

If you want me to jump in.

Right.

Either one of you.

Yeah, either either one of us.

Kevin is our city side uh helper on all things fiscal.

Um I'm chair of the harbor management commission.

Um, so you know, I can speak more to the project in terms of the goals, and he can speak more to the you know the finances.

But it's a it's a pretty basic uh 50% match from Connecticut Port of Authority.

Uh this is phase two of a grant project.

And um phase one, we did a tabletop study.

This is phase two to you know dig a little bit deeper um into creating a boat launch at Cape Park.

Um just north just south of the hurricane barrier, um, as the inner harbor has no boat launch facilities that are public, and so we feel for a number of reasons, not the least of which uh is safety that uh we should have a ramp there and um the 50% match uh the harbor commission has funds set aside uh from previous projects, uh that we are covering the entire cost ourselves of the match, and Port Authority's covering the other 50 percent.

Where exactly would this be cited, or where's the potential sites that you're considering?

Or I should say where are the potential sites you're considering?

Uh just to the south and west of the hurricane barrier on the east branch of the Stanford Harbor.

On the east branch, okay.

The park would be Casciesco Park.

Okay.

And um there is some concern about we've heard from constituents concerned about the use of that park because it's it needs help.

Um is there some concern on your end as well about using that as a boat launch site.

Um yes, I I recently became aware of the issues.

I think we're probably both talking about the same email.

Um uh about paths and walkways and things that haven't been maintained.

And you know, while that's not necessarily the purview of the harbor management commission, um, we feel like uh, you know, creating more public access to uh the water is uh something that would drive additional interest in the park and thereby create additional interests uh by the city to maintain um the uh park in its total.

In regards to the the lack of maintenance, um I refer to the just the park itself.

Um the park was built on uh a landfill.

Um so there are requirements and obviously approvals needed.

Um deep is one of what we can actually do.

So there's many steps of approval.

Um there's also um funding that needs to be supported.

Um, obviously, that would go before you guys, um, board of finance and and also the border reps um for a capital campaign, or if we could leverage it from any grant funding, we will be looking to do so.

Um the parking lot is in dire need.

Um, it just cannot just be paved.

It needs it needs to be um surveyed.

It needs to be um tested.

Um, there has to be deep uh authorization in regards to what we could do there to for compliance reasons.

Um there has to be uh constant monitoring.

So those services have to be rendered before and and ongoing on any project.

There was no water in the park for about two and a half months because that's how long it took for us to get a monitoring company out there.

We had to get obviously follow all the approval steps.

But also the funding that supports any disturbance on a landfill, there's a big price tag to that.

So therefore, obviously, with any upgrades within that park, and I'm agreeing to all the people that reached out to your office in regards to the conditions of the park.

We've done our due diligence in regards to laser grading the parking lots, the drive-ins, the stone dust paths.

There's a huge amount of erosion.

Every time it rains, the water runs off, creating these potholes in regards to the ruts.

So therefore, drainage upgrades, paving upgrades, pedestrian walkways, pathways need to be upgraded.

And we will be doing our due diligence to look for money to support, and hopefully your Board of Reps and Board of Finance will support that going forward in the years to come.

And none of that is subject to this particular grant by the Connecticut Port Authority.

Okay, guys.

I'm gonna ask you about to pause for a second.

I see a hand from Representative Graham.

Please go ahead and ask your question.

Thank you, Chair.

Yeah, that's my district, and I had some concerns also about the infrastructure before entertaining a thought of a boat launch in that location.

We have a bridge that's sitting there from the Pulaski Bridge along like uh with uh he said about the parking lot and the infrastructure there.

I just don't see it as a concern of the constituents in that neighborhood to have a boat launch, especially because we have two public boat launches in the city as right now, and Yacht Haven is right next door.

Uh the concern with the boat launch and the positioning of it is yes, we do have public boat launches at Cove and at Cummings Marina or in the West Beach area.

Um but should there be foul weather and we need to start evacuating boats, you would have to leave the comfort and safety of the harbor and the breakwater to go around to those if you moored your boat in within the harbor.

Um so that creates risk when you go out in the open water, and or you may not even be able to get around to those boat launches, and that's why we feel like it's imperative to have that uh ramp for public access and safety.

Um and again, the uh, you know, the harbor management's purview is not uh bridges and that sort of stuff, uh, you know, and we totally agree that that should be maintained and upkept.

And um, you know, but again, this is a specific dedicated project um that is within our purview.

And uh again, we are uh you know using our own funds to sponsor that.

I got a question question from representative Parker?

Yeah, thanks.

Uh quick question, just uh in general, quite supportive of doing the homework on this one.

Uh, can you talk a little bit to expect your timeline?

Uh timeline is uh really it's more of uh uh permitting and and uh trying to get uh the the the approvals that we need uh using uh the we're gonna have to go out to RFP and and get uh um a vendor to come on board.

Uh we did have a vendor to do the tabletop study component um and uh um you know, provided they uh win that second bid um or somebody else who can do it better.

Um we are looking to pretty quickly uh get that information back um there is another port authority round uh supposedly coming up in september um we may very well miss that um but the port authority rounds happen typically once a year sometimes twice a yeah um and so you know this is really like permitting and design and then we move more into the construction phase um stuff so so it's it's not it's not tomorrow um it's probably not even you know maybe we're talking a year okay I see a hand from uh representative de la cruz uh thank you I just wanted to add to uh Chair uh's comments on the need to evacuate boats out of the harbor uh the uh the boat yard on the uh Fortinegor Peninsula is just being restored after many many years so that population of boats in the harbor will increase substantially and if they need to evacuate all those boats uh rises uh that both uh boat run uh would be needed uh so there is that uh the consideration uh thank you thank you representative is there any further uh uh Kevin Murray I see you have your hand up did you want to add something to the session or did you have a question for the no no no question I apologize my camera's not working I'm not sure what's going on but um I just want to add to is another priority in regards to the park is is the park lighting itself um working with the engineering department um we're looking for um uh the solar lights that were installed there um on the onset of the park being created um never really took um so the goal there is to get 100% lit so I'm working with the um engineering department um to do so to make that happen um so that's a major safety issue um and we did have some concerns with incoming boat boaters from the harbor um getting confused with um the channel channel markers uh channel lights uh coming in so that's another issue with the with um you know the lighting within the park um therefore we're looking for um better um shields in regards to fixated lights within the park to obviously um create safety um visibility um but also not be um not blind um incoming boaters as well so um our goal is to be 100% lit in that park um with the engineering department that's a if i'm if i may this sounds it does sound like there's a uh a very large amount of work that needs to be done to make the park not only usable by residents as a park but even suitable for a boat launch uh and a boat ramp that this design study is very small in scope and doesn't really touch on a number of issues that might necessarily need to be addressed before you can actually use it if you can't bring cars onto the little park to take the boats out and if you can't you walk on the trails and the soil isn't safe to walk on because it's polluted or marshy or it's just simply uh unsafe landfill how is that going to fit together as one entire project.

Well that's a part of why we do the um you know the design study is to answer those questions site conditions and um there is uh what from what the the research done we're actually not even in the capped land uh fill area for the boat ramp um um that that area is is not a part of it um so you know again that's why we're that's why we're taking the next step in doing the study the the first grant that we that we went through was the tabletops uh exercise and there were several sites that were reviewed and this was was found to be the ideal site uh you know the the the best of the of the worst right if there were a perfect site it would have been built already um but yes we recognize that there will be hurdles and challenges and um you know that that uh but we're still trying to push forward and and meet that need um and if some other good stuff happens in the interim to uh update the park and improve the the site conditions we're all for that you feel that there's a chance if this if we approve this grant and it gets through do you feel that that will encourage other grant uses or other grant to or other city money to come in and improve the rest of the park as well uh I believe so yeah that's that's above my pay grade but yeah I hope so okay I believe this would give leverage this would definitely give attention to the park obviously with the growth that um in that district um in the past several years um with this boat launch I think is gonna definitely attract more and more people to the park in regards to the the use um and and obviously the activity um which will say a lot of eyes there and obviously our our campaign would hopefully get leverage um with this work that's going to be done um just the ad to it to to our case all right thank you thank you very much uh any further questions from the floor so won't quote one uh representative thank you any role that uh isn't uh there are large uh project by uh BLT right uh adjacent to where this is going and and if so are they playing any role in supporting this project weighing in on it or do I have the wrong location um that would be the other side of the of the harbor on the west branch uh and the project that uh as representative de la cruz hinted at is the restoration of the marina um on the 14 acre uh former 14 acre brewer boat boat yard site um and no we have not had any communication with them uh regarding this project okay yeah to answer that in the past there has been uh coordination with uh um working with blt um they assisted with um the straight main um drive through drive in into the park um and they also um assisted with upgrading um lighting into the park um when you enter uh k park um so they have done that in the past for us um um and and assisted with funding to support that um so hopefully obviously this could obviously maybe open up those discussions again with our administration and and correct me if i'm wrong but i think they still owe us 500 000 towards the west beach boat ramp um that they are not uh moving uh coming coming forward with um because they haven't satisfied the conditions of the uh mgeav boat yard could be yeah well any further questions from the floor seeing none i call for a voice vote all those in favor please say aye aye aye aye all those opposed representative graham opposing uh any abstentions i abstain representative dorsey abstains okay uh representative dorsey abstains uh virgil i didn't hear a vote from you representative de la cruz uh yes i grew them on the earth fast enough okay thank you so i think the motion carries this one six months no uh there are two obstentials no with one no one eight also so i'm staying okay i think it's five one two one five one two five one two so the motion is approved five one two thank you all right thank you very much uh item 13 f 32.083.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Connecticut Port Authority for the Stanford Harbor Boat Mars Feasibility 2 project.

And we motion to approach it or team to approve item 13.

Any discussion from the floor.

Seeing none, I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please say no.

All those abstaining, please say aye or say something.

Any abstentions?

I abstain.

All right.

Thank you.

All right.

Item 14, F 32.084 for $85,000.

An additional appropriation grant.

Supplemental revenue sharing grant funds to provide $50,000 to Project Music and $35,000 to ROSCO for youth youth music education, child care, and enrichment programming serving Stanford residents.

I entertain a motion to approve item 14.

So move.

Good evening, thank you.

So the city received annual supplemental revenue sharing funding.

Um and there was an additional appropriation of about 430,000 this year.

So we received so we appropriated the usual amount of two point, I think it was 2.8 million, and then uh under Senator Pat Billy Miller, we received an additional 430,000.

Her intention of that um allocation to us was to include this funding for project music in Roscoe.

And um it it got into our general fund, and now we're just making the correction to move that money and get those to those projects with her intention.

Thank you.

Any questions from the floor?

Seeing no discussion, I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Seeing none.

Motion passes 800.

Uh moving on to item 15, F 32.085 related to resolution related to the application for a school construction priority science lab alteration and energy conservation grant for Stanford High School.

Uh I entertain a motion to approve this item.

So move.

Moved and seconded.

Any discussion?

Any questions?

Seeing none, I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Seeing none, I call this.

We the motion passes 800.

Item 16, F32.086.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the U.S.

economic development administration for the East Harbor Canal Retaining Wall Project.

Um I entertain a motion to approve this item.

Any second?

Second.

Okay.

Uh any discussion.

Um seeing no hands, then I call for a voice vote.

All those in favor favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Fine.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries eight zero zero.

And we've got meeting is I make a motion.

I voted to adjourn.

At uh eight oh seven p.m.

Um Tuesday, May 19th.

Uh, good night all night.

Good night all.

Good night, everyone.

Thank you.