MINUTES
Thursday, August 27, 2009
10:30 a.m.
MEMBERS:
D. Dolan-Wallace-Chair, W.
VandeCastle-Vice-Chair, H. Genunzio, D. Slater and D. Piton*
MEMBERS EXCUSED: None.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Rob Strong, Robyn
Hallet, Anne May Steffel, Atty. Tony Wachewicz, M. Barron, Reed Lewis.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Approval of the minutes from the June 18, 2009,
meeting of the Housing Authority of the City of
A motion was made by H. Genunzio and seconded by D.
Slater to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2009, meeting of the Housing
Authority of the City of Green Bay.
Motion carried.
R. Strong introduced the new Housing Administrator,
Robyn Hallet, to the Authority.
COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Communication dated June 23, 2009, from the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development regarding the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Formula Grants and the Green Bay Housing Authority approved
Annual Statement.
R. Strong stated that this is letting the
Authority know that the Recovery Funds of
approximately $341,000.00
that were granted to the Authority have been deposited and are available for
use.
A motion was made by W.
VandeCastle and seconded by H. Genunzio, to received and place on file. Motion carried.
The Authority took item 5 next.
*D.
Piton has arrived at the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
5. Review and possible
action on an injury claim at Mason Manor.
The Authority may convene
in closed session pursuant to 19.85(1)(g), Wis. Stats., for the purpose of
conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral
or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to
litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved. The Authority may,
thereafter, reconvene in open session pursuant to 19.85 (2), Wis. Stats., to
report any actions taken during closed session and to consider all other
matters on the agenda.
R. Strong stated that there
was an accident at Mason Manor and the Authority should move into closed
session.
D. Piton read the closed
session notice. W. VandeCastle made a
motion to convene in closed session. The
motion was seconded by H. Genunzio. A
roll call vote was taken and motion carried unanimously.
Upon return to open session
a motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by W. VandeCastle to deny the claim
based on a lack of information. Motion
carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Authorization to award Drapery Purchase
Contract to R&R Draperies in the amount of up to $28,280.00 over a three
year period.
R. Hallet stated that R&R
Draperies submitted the only bid and it is a reasonable price. Information has been received that they have
done good work in the past.
R. Strong stated that the Authority
had previously given the ok to bid this out and now that the bid is available,
it is being brought back to the Authority.
D. Dolan-Wallace asked if there were
any thoughts why only one bid was received.
R. Strong replied that he had spoken
with A. Monday and that this company has worked with us in the past and is very
good. Also, the numbers seemed
reasonable.
R. Hallet stated that Jackie from
Purchasing had informed her that two other companies had attended the walk-thru
but for whatever reason did not submit bids.
A motion was made W. VandeCastle and
seconded by D. Slater to award the Drapery Purchase Contract to R&R
Draperies in the amount of up to $28,280.00 over a three year period. Motion carried.
3. Review of quotes and award of Painting Contract – GBHA
Scattered Sites to the lowest acceptable quote.
R.
Hallet stated that the opening for the bids took place yesterday. She distributed information to the Authority
regarding the bids. The lowest bid was
from Larson Painting, Inc., but there was a question as to why their bid was so
much lower than the other bids. Jackie
from Purchasing is going to contact them on Monday to make sure that they truly
understood the scope of the work involved.
If they did not and these figures are not what they really would want to
charge, then they would withdraw their bid.
The next lowest bid would be Shefchiks’ Energy Services.
R.
Strong stated that this is before the Authority to authorize the Painting Contract
to the lowest qualified bidder so that if Larson Painting Inc. does back out,
we can move on to the next lowest qualified bidder. The painting would be done
on an as assigned basis. When a unit
needs painting, they would be sent over.
Currently there are units that need to be painted.
M.
Barron stated that she is sure this is a good quote because they have worked
with this company for years. The company
is made up of only two individuals. It
is not a big company and their overhead is probably very low.
R.
Hallet stated that there was not a representative from Larson Painting Inc. at
the bid opening so they could not be asked any questions to ensure the bid
covered what was being asked for.
M.
Barron stated that she does not think that Larson Painting Inc.’s bid proposal
included providing the paint because when he gave her the original proposal, it
was under the assumption that the paint would be provided by the City.
R.
Strong stated that he is sure that the specs that went out would have listed
whether or not paint was required to be supplied.
D.
Dolan-Wallace asked if it was ever looked into if it would be cheaper for the
Authority to purchase the paint since we do not pay taxes and plus we buy in
bulk.
R.
Strong stated that if the specs did include paint and now we want to buy the
paint ourselves, we would have to reopen the project. Similarly, if Larson Painting Inc. did not
include the paint we can’t have them give us another bid that does include the
paint because they know what everyone else has bid that did include the paint.
R.
Strong stated that the Authority could go ahead and award this Painting
Contract contingent on a review by the Purchasing Department on separating out
the cost of paint and see what the difference is if the City would provide the
paint. If it is a significant amount of
money, it may be worth reopening the project.
A
motion was made by W. VandeCastle and seconded by D. Piton to authorize awarding
the Painting Contract to the lowest qualified bidder, contingent on a review by
the Purchasing Department to separate out the cost of paint to see if it is a
significant amount that would warrant reopening the project. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Review and approval of expansion plan
design for Mason Manor and authorization to seek bids.
R. Hallet went to ask Reed Lewis to
step into the meeting.
R. Strong explained that Architects
Group Limited was asked to do this work and present a plan in August so that we
would be ready to go in September on the bids.
The representative from Architects Group Limited had a conflict and
could not attend this meeting. R. Hallet
and R. Lewis did meet with Dave from Architects Group Limited earlier this
morning to review the plans.
R. Strong stated that basically this
is an addition to the north end of the building. The addition is needed to be able to get
another large elevator in the building to help service move ins or move outs,
and also to assist with emergency services that may be needed such as with a
rescue squad. The addition will also
provide additional storage for the tenants, which is in high demand.
R. Hallet returned to the meeting.
R. Hallet showed the Authority the
specs that Architect Group Limited provided and went over the plans. She
pointed out where the addition would go and stated that the gazebo would need
to be relocated. Sidewalks and four
regular parking stalls as well as two disabled parking stalls would be impacted
during construction. There may be other tenants that would want to park somewhere
else as well.
The Authority stated that there
should always be access to and from the stairwell during the construction in
case of an emergency.
R. Lewis stated that keeping the
access to and from the stairwell would not be a problem.
R. Lewis showed where the
transformer would be for the new power supply.
He explained that the existing
electrical panel could handle 1600 amps and there are only 800 amps in it
now. There have been some code changes
that state that if you update your electrical panel in your building you would
then have to have all of your apartments separately metered. If you don’t do anything then you are
grandfathered in, but once you start upgrading you have to comply with all of
the new code changes.
R. Hallet stated that a curb would
be removed with this plan. Some of the
pros of removing the curb are that it would make it easier for tenants to move
in and out and not have to go up and down the curb and emergency personnel
could move a gurney out of the building without having to bump off the
curb. Cons are that tenants could pull
in too far and be over the sidewalk or bump into the building.
R. Strong stated that wheel stops
may have to be put in to prevent tenants from pulling in over the sidewalk or
bumping into the building.
R. Lewis stated that in the area
where the curb is, the biggest problem is the grade. There is a pitch problem. He pointed out where the sewers are located
and stated that the water needs to be funneled in such a manner that it doesn’t
go into the building. A roof drain will
be added to the building to come down and tie into the sewers.
The Authority discussed the
possibility of designating a couple of the parking spots in this area where the
curb is being removed as a no parking zone.
If that does not happen, cars would be parked there and block emergency
vehicles and people trying to move in and out or people trying to move in and
out would block the tenants from parking in those spaces until they were done.
R. Lewis stated that he does believe
that the architect had that intention to keep part of that area open as a
loading zone.
R. Lewis wondered if the sidewalks
could remain and a strip drain be put in.
R. Strong stated he liked that idea
because he would prefer to keep the sidewalks.
R. Hallet stated that there would be
firewalls between the new addition and the old building. All doors are 4’. The elevator has a 5000 lb. capacity. She went over the type of flooring that would
be utilized. She showed where the new storage areas would be located and showed
a pamphlet from the architect regarding the two types of storage units that the
architect would recommend. A third unit
is just half sized and not a walk-in, so we probably would not want to go with
that one. Of the two walk-in options, one
is sturdier and has a metal support that goes all the way around the doors,
which the other walk-in style does not have. She is thinking that it would be best if we
provided the locks for the storage units so that we would have a master
key. If someone misplaced their key,
staff could unlock the storage unit.
R. Lewis stated that if staff felt
there was something being stored in a unit that was unsafe this would also
enable them to unlock it and take a look.
Empty storage units could be kept locked so that no one is taking over
another storage unit, putting a lock on it, and then no one knows whose
belongings they are.
R. Hallet stated that there would be
fifteen storage spaces on the first floor and only ten apartments, which would
leave five storage spaces for staff to utilize as needed. On the second floor there are twenty-one
storage spaces and eighteen apartments so there will be three extra on this
floor. The remaining floors have the
same number of storage spaces and the number of apartments.
R. Hallet stated that the elevator
runs on a belt and not traction. Reed
had brought up a concern with maintenance and proprietary parts.
R. Lewis stated that the problem
with having a certain brand name is that they all have their own software
packages and when they put that service in, they are the only company that can
perform the service work. The City has
run into this issue with a couple of recent projects that they have done.
The Authority agreed that it would
like to see other options where the elevator is concerned that would allow more
than just one company to perform service work.
R. Hallet stated that the elevator
would be ventilated, which is required when going higher than four
stories. The elevator shaft and the
elevator car would have heat.
R. Hallet briefly went over the
windows and the brick that would be used.
The “fake” windows would be the best insulated area and would not need
much maintenance at all. The brick being
used is a little more expensive but a better quality and would match the
existing brick.
R. Lewis mentioned some of the
windows that are being proposed are sliders while the current windows are
double hung and he was concerned the sliders would not match. Double hung windows are easier to
maintain. Cleaning double hung windows
can be done from inside the building and you would not have to have someone
come in and clean the windows from the outside.
R. Hallet showed where the door to the
roof would be located. The door would be
4’-8” tall. The roof would be a rubber
roof and she pointed out the roof drain.
R. Lewis questioned if there should
be something provided in the structure itself to mount the antennas that are on
the roof.
R. Lewis stated that the stairways
would be fully enclosed and the architect mentioned that there would be
something done differently with the railings because of code changes.
R. Hallet stated that there is no
floor drain in the storage units so if someone had a spill, it could actually
spill out into the other units.
R. Hallet pointed out the glass on
the doors. It is a fire glass, which is
very expensive so it is being kept small.
R. Hallet stated that the heating is
based on electrical heat but could be changed to hot water.
R. Lewis stated that electrical heat
is the reason for adding more amps and spending $40,000.00. Another option would be putting in a small
boiler. To him electric heat is not the
answer.
The
Authority felt that the electrical heat needed to be looked into a little more
as well as the site.
R.
Lewis stated that roof access currently is very poor and that is why there is
roof access being provided with the addition that is a lot safer.
A motion was made by H. Genunzio and
seconded by D. Piton to approve the expansion plan design for Mason Manor and
authorization to seek bids with changes discussed. Motion carried.
6. Review and possible action on the 2009
Public Housing Assessment Subsystem (PHAS) report.
A.
Steffel stated that she prepared the resolution but does not have it with her. The
submission deadline is August 31, 2009, and it has to be Board approved. Staff at City Hall is being contacted to
print it off and fax it over.
A.
Steffel stated that every two years HUD evaluates how we manage our programs
and determines what type of performer we are.
Being classified as a high performer gives you first dibs at HUD
funds. Last time when the Authority
applied in 2007, it was when there were some issues with ICS and we were
classified as a standard performer and therefore we may lose out on some of the
funding this year. Because we are a
small Housing Authority we only have to do this every other year. She went over the basic areas that we are reviewed
on and each member should have a copy in their packet.
A
motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to approve the
resolution. Motion carried.
7. Review and approval of
the year end financial statements for FY 2009.
A.
Steffel stated that overall the revenues were above the budget amount and the
expenses were less than anticipated. Our
operating subsidy increased as a result of the project based management.
A.
Steffel stated that there were not any big surprises with the year end
financials.
A
motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by H. Genunzio to approve the year end
financial statements for FY 2009.
Motion carried.
8. Review and approval of the five year lease extension with
Sprint for a cell tower.
R.
Hallet stated that included in the packet is an addendum to the original
contract that needs to be signed and will allow a five year lease to Sprint to
use the cell towers. Sprint will pay for
any costs to move the towers at all.
R.
Strong stated that we would receive a 5% increase now and we were also able to
negotiate another continuing 5%.
A
motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by D. Slater to approve the five year
lease extension with Sprint for the cell towers. Motion carried.
9. Discussion and action on obligation of $25,000.00 for ramp
repair.
R.
Strong stated that every three or four years we need to do repairs. We need to obligate this money by the end of
the month. The bids will then go out and
this will be back at the September meeting to award the contract.
A
motion was made by H. Genunzio and seconded by D. Slater to approve the
obligation of $25,000.00 for ramp repair.
Motion carried.
INFORMATIONAL:
10. Notice received from NAHRO approving
scholarship for one staff member to attend NAHRO seminar. Scholarship pays for attendance at seminar
but does not cover exam, travel, or hotel.
R. Strong stated that we applied for
two scholarships and did receive one that A. Monday would be utilizing. This is just an informational item to let the
Authority know we were successful in obtaining a scholarship.
FINANCIAL REPORT AND BILLS:
A motion was made by D.
Piton seconded by D. Slater, to accept the financial report and bills as
presented. Motion carried.
STAFF REPORT:
R. Strong stated that we made application to separate
different projects for the scattered sites and Mason Manor for recovery
funds. Because we were not classified as
a high performer, we dropped down to the second tier and have to compete for
any leftover funds. We know that the
scattered sites are still in the running for some funds but have not had any
word on Mason Manor.
R. Strong stated that he had spoken with Keith
Pamperin about a week ago. He is on a
Board for UWGB and they are considering building another housing structure out
on the campus and they will be coming to the Authority in September for housing
revenue bonds. The City Attorney’s
office will represent the Authority.
R. Strong stated that Time Warner has changed their
payment schedule. We used to give them a
lump sum in the beginning of the year and because of that they have given us a
discount. They did not like getting this
lump sum payment so they asked for monthly payments. We have agreed to that but we want it for the
same amount and they have agreed to that and made the change to our
agreement.
R. Strong stated that there is a new maintenance
person at Mason Manor named Jeremiah Goin.
A motion was made by D. Piton and seconded by H.
Genunzio to adjourn the meeting at 12:53 p.m. Motion carried.
:dmr