Buildings and Facilities Task Force
Monday, February
6, 2023 - 9:00 am
Steve McNally - Chairman
Supervisor Holzer called
this task force to order at 9:00 am with the following in attendance: Stephanie
DeZalia, Derek Doty, Shaun Gillilland, Roy Holzer, Jim Monty, Matt Stanley, Ike
Tyler, Meg Wood, Mark Wright, Jim Dougan, and Mike Mascarenas. Noel Merrihew was
absent. Steve McNally had been
previously excused.
Also present: Anna Reynolds, Andrew Stanley, Dina Garvey, Nancy
Page, and Elizabeth Lee.
HOLZER: Alright, we’re
going to call this meeting to order. Mr. McNally’s absent today, so I get the
honor of keeping Doty in line and Jim Dougan in line, but we have a
presentation today and Anna would you like to start it off?
RENYOLDS: Sure, so Andrew
and I with Mike and Jim have been preparing this presentation to go over the
process and the steps for the agricultural and youth center design plan and the
grant funding that is tied to it and the time limit that we have and we need to
meet in order to use the grant funds that were allocated.
STANLEY, ANDREW: Just a
general overview of the proposed layout and Anna’s going to get into the
environmental application that will kind of tie into the estimate schedule and
we’ll talk about what we need to do with architectural engineering and finish
with the cost estimate.
It’s just an overview of
the whole property, the fairgrounds. One the right hand side, the green, that’s
the area of the existing Cornell Building where the proposed new building’s
going to be. Zoomed in, you see Sisco Street from the bottom of the screen and
then the Cornell Building, kind of squeezed in there, between some existing
buildings with a proposed parking area along Sisco Street.
The view there, if you’re
standing on the track, looking towards Sisco Street.
The view from Sisco
Street, looking back towards the track.
So, based on the area
here, we’re taking that parking along Sisco Street is realty a good idea, easy
access. I don’t think in that, we take the area with the red X there, move it
over to the other side, next to the existing Cornell, probably better
utilization of the parking area and still have all that grassy area, too.
Similar to this.
DOUGAN: Yeah, yeah, that
thought process just to jump in, came from our last meeting and even the other
design from the Hall Design Group and that little parking area that is seen
here, seemed like a better space than using up that green space. Those are
really comments that we felt came out of this last, you know, the last time we
met as a facilities committee.
HOLZER: Okay, just for my
own clarification. This is the existing building and this is the proposed
building?
DOUGAN: Nope, nope, nope
that was from, the was a design from the Hall Design Group, alternate; okay?
MASCARENAS: What we’re
essentially looking at, Roy. Is there’s two different plans and you’re seeing a
combination of what we felt came out of last month’s meeting on what was the
preferred options of this group. So, Andrew’s showing you that that parking lot’s
not going to be there, the large one.
DOUGAN: The big X.
MASCARENAS: And what
we’re going to do is utilize the parking that was brought in on the other
design. I know it’s a little confusing.
STANLEY, ANDREW: It’s
like a little bit of hybrid, as far as concepts.
GILLILLAND: And this is
Sisco Street on the bottom; right? So, where that proposed parking is, already
is used as parking there, during events. It’s just parking on the ground
instead of parking on asphalt.
HOLZER: So, basically if
I’m entering the fairgrounds, I’m coming this way, right now?
DOUGAN: Nope
STANLEY, ANDREW: No, the
entrance to the State Road is over on this side over here. Where we would go,
this is the existing Cornell Building.
DOUGAN: Point to the back
gate. Point to the Sisco Street gate, Andrew.
STANLEY: The Sisco Street
Gate is here.
HOLZER: It confused me,
because it said 2-story residence.
STANLEY: Yeah, I think
it’s probably because it’s a tax map.
HOLZER: Okay
STANLEY, ANDREW: Anyways,
so that’s kind of the hybrid idea.
REYNOLDS: So, this was
due to the allocation from Stefanik and the Congress allocation that was given
that was nearly a million dollars the first step would be the environmental
review of the proposed project of the new structure. So, the first would be
involving the agencies with letters of correspondence with the details of the
proposed projects. So, square footage, area of impact, so I just listed the
involved agencies, right there. You’ve got the National Historic Preservation,
SHPPO, the Tribal Council, US Fish and Wildlife Service, APA, DEC, those have
done environmental review records with us before with the CDBG programs. It’s
similar progress.
MASCARENAS: So, yeah,
anytime you get federal funding, just so everybody knows it pushes a NEPA
review; which is a higher-level environmental review process, which takes some
additional time.
HOLZER: How long does it
usually take to get their response back after the 30-day period?
REYNOLDS: Well, yeah,
they’re required to respond within 30 days.
HOLZER: Oh, the agencies
are?
REYNOLDS: Correct
HOLZER: Okay, okay
REYNOLDS: So, usually a
non-response is their comment. They do not have a comment on this project,
because they didn’t respond. So, then I would take all those correspondence, if
there are comments, we have to address them, and then when it’s all said and
done, we would put together a report with a narrative, maps, all the
correspondence and submit it to Rural Development for final signoff.
HOLZER: So, as part of
this process is there a Public Hearing we need to do?
REYNOLDS: Yes, that is
included in the application phase.
HOLZER: Okay
DOTY: Anna, does the
application extend the life of the grant, so we have a little bit of breathing
room? Because my impression is that time is running out.
REYNOLDS: Yeah, the
application is a part of the life cycle of the grant. So, we’ve got the
allocation, but we still have to apply to get that funding. So, the
environmental report is required. That’s a part of the application. We have to
have a preliminary architectural report, it’s one of the checklist items, construction
budget, so we do need have to know what the cost is going to be, required
forms, that’s typical and then, yes, a public hearing is required and you have
to put all the information in the application packet.
MASCARENAS: Right, so, to
kind of answer your question, too, Derek, keep in mind, I don’t know if this presentation,
I don’t think this presentation touches on it. Anna’s speaking to the
requirements for Rural Development. She’s not speaking to the ARPA
requirements. So, that’s more of where time is of the essence. My guess is that,
while RD has been on our case to get this full application completed and in. My
guess is when we actually get a physical contract it will extend the life of
the grant, but the life of ARPA will not be as long as that. So, this
presentation is really about trying to keep us on track. It’s really about
trying to show us a decisions making process moving forward that we have to
meet in terms of getting this done.
DOTY: So, the end of ’24
is our ARPA deadline.
MASCARENAS: Exactly
DOTY: For spending down?
MASCARENAS: Yes
DOTY: Yes
MASCARENAS: Committed, so
if I can have these things under contact.
DOTY: Then we’re safe.
MASCARENAS: Then I think
we’ll be okay.
DOTY: okay
HOLZER: The ARPA money we
already have?
MASCARENAS: We already,
but that’s where our timeline’s a little tighter in terms of that expense.
GILLILLAND: So, we’re at
a binary decision process here. Delays and it goes to zero. So, we’ve got to
move forward.
DOTY: Okay
REYNOLDS: That makes
sense, it’s good question.
STANLEY, ANDREW: So, that
leads into this. This picture shows the most disturbed area, which Anna will
need to move forward with the application phase or the environmental review.
DOUGAN: So, there’s a
couple of decisions today. So, and when we get to the schedule Anna and Andrew
will show you what one of the key decisions to stay on that schedule by the end
of 2024 ARPA funds is to start the environmental phase. So, if we can agree
that that is the disturbed location, the kind of the area that has been
highlighted there. That is one of the pieces that Anna will need in an
environmental, in the first step of an environmental submission. So, we kind of
showed before that that big parking lot had the X; we were going to get rid of
that. That’s why it’s not included in the disturbed area. Instead, the
disturbed area is over there in front of the existing building where we’re
going to have parking there and then those, the two sheds and then the two
appendages off of the 4H cow barn are going to be removed. Those are the three
red dots there. If we can agree on that, that is one piece that Anna needs for
environmental.
HOLZER: So, is she going
to need a resolution to that affect from this committee?
MASCARENAS: I think an
agreement, so what we’re saying is, we’re not saying this is the final building
design. What we’re saying is, we’re not going to disturb an area larger than
18,000 square foot, just so you know that. It has nothing to do the final
design, this is where it’s going to be and we’re not going to be disturbing any
area any larger than that. It will allow her to start her process and get that
ball moving, just so everybody understands that.
HOLZER: I’m fine with it.
Is there any other committee members that have concerns before we move on?
DOTY: 18,000 meets all
your setbacks on a new building or you’re not under setbacks?
DOUGAN: No, I think we’re
fine there with the way that things are built, obviously we’ll, actually it’s a
county facility, so therefore, we, as far as building code are concerned, it’s
reviewed by our own Health and Safety Officer, but we’ll obviously need to
submit to Westport, but I think our setbacks and things are find here, based on
the other building that is right up close to Sisco Street. One of the next
things, unless Andrew takes us back to the old slide, will also be the
character of the building; okay? For example, the other structures on-site, you
can go back to those couple, the other buildings on-site are the white horizontal
clapboard look, with a red roof with cupulas and spires. I think some of that needs
to also be in what Anna says what we’re going to do there and I don’t even know
that’s a question. I think everybody here as generally said that all along that
we want it to look consistent with all the other buildings, but it needs to be part
of her submission. So, those are, in a way, almost the two big general
questions that we need answered so you can do an initial environmental
submittal; right, Anna?
REYNOLDS: Yes
STANLEY, MATT: Does it
hurt to go bigger, just in case you need that space?
DOUGAN: We could make the
space a little bit bigger if people would like, but we think overall and we’ll
get to that when we get to construction budget, that already, Elizabeth and
Cornell have said that they may be some places that we can make things a little
bit smaller from what their initial request for space was and so we think that
the building…
STANLEY, MATT: I’m not
talking about the building; I’m talking about the space for the environmental
review. If we made that space bigger, would it impact, in case you needed to,
not to go back later to say, hey, we need a little more area?
REYNOLDS: Yeah, I don’t
want to underestimate, but I think this was done with an over-estimation
profile. Like this will be the max amount of space we need and then as we go
into design, they’re going to look at the configuration of the building.
STANLEY, MATT: I mean, I
guess just looking at where the cattle barn is, like if there was something
that were to disturb the cattle barn and need to actually work around the
cattle barn that’s not included in that proposed area of work.
MASCARENAS: Correct
STANLEY, MATT: So, would
it hurt to actually include around that cattle barn in case there’s something
that is impacted, so you don’t have to back through the environmental review.
So, bump that up to 25,000 square feet or whatever.
REYNOLDS: I’m wondering
if that, I am free speaking right now, like it’s not included in the grant
program. Like this is purely for construction of the building. So, maybe any
other disturbance of the outside structure shouldn’t be touched with this phase
of the project. So, there might be impact with the construction phase, like
trucks or the small buildings, but that’s not, I don’t think I should be doing
the environmental on that.
DOUGAN: Yeah, I think
Matt, your question is, and that philosophy is always a good philosophy to go a
little bit bigger. I think the 4H cattle barn is going to be considered
historical in nature. So, I would rather not have it be in the disturbed area,
other than the two appendages that we’re taking off. I think it’s a good
question and I always use that technique, but you know we really have no intent
of disturbing that and I think it’s better that we tell SHPPO that we don’t,
other than those two appendages. Is my opinion on it. We want them to come back
with no significant impact and so I think we’re better off showing that area as
not disturbed and even describing that parking area that we’re always used it
for parking in past.
So, Roy, started kind of
questioning on both the disturbed area in included with the disturbed area for
environmental purposes if we could just say, we agree with the disturbed area
and we agree that it’s going to have the character or horizontal clapboard,
white with a red roof with spires and cupolas to match the character of the
other things, because Anna’s going to need to be able to describe that in her
submission. If we agree with those things, if the Committee agrees with those
things, then that’s one of the questions we need to answer today, so hopefully
we can immediately, she can start filling out a bunch of paperwork.
PAGE: Jim, can I just say
something. I think it’s important, also, perhaps that you say that it’s not
going to compete with the character of the existing historic structure, in
other words, if there’s too many spires and copulas, even though we showed one,
you know on the design Mark Hall gave us, that you probably want something
simpler, somewhat simpler than that. So, you might want to say that you’re
respecting, you know, the historic quality of the existing building and not
competing.
DOUGAN: Okay
PAGE: Something along
those lines.
DOUGAN: I like those
words, thank you. Yeah, I like those words. Anna, write those words down.
REYNILDS: I already
cheated.
DOUGAN: By all means, but
yeah, thank you. I agree, I agree.
DEZALIA: Is the bottom
going to remain parking, also? By Sisco?
DOUGAN: No
DEZALIA: Is that parking,
the grey?
DOUGAN: No
DEZALIA: What is that?
DOUGAN: That is a new
parking lot. It’s been used as parking, but it’s a grass area, right now, but
it’s going to be a new official parking lot.
DEZALIA: Okay, so there’s
going to parking there, the new building, and then parking out front?
DOUGAN: That’s correct.
TYLER: And there’s
parking along Sisco Street, as well.
DEZALIA: Okay
HOLZER: Any other
comments before we move on? Okay, I guess we’re in agreement.
REYNOLDS: Okay
STANLEY, ANDREW: Just
basically a clip from the overall schedule, just to show how far out the
environmental phase and application reaches out.
REYNOLDS: So, the first
line, the environmental phase. We can begin that as soon as we have a little
more detail. Footprint application phase happens simultaneous. You saw the little
list earlier. The solicitation for architectural engineer, again the
preliminary architectural engineering report has to be included with that
process. So, that’s why those go down as dependences. So, the hiring the
architect and preparing those schematics is a part of the phase.
HOLZER: So, do me a favor;
make sure all the Supervisors get a copy of this proposed schedule, in case
we’re questioned from the public.
REYNOLDS: Okay
HOLZER: And we kind of
answer them.
MASCARENAS: And it’s
important to understand that this schedule is a duration schedule.
HOLZER: Yeah
MASCARENAS: Because if we
miss any one month, it’s going to push us back a month or two, every time we
falter to make a decision.
HOLZER: Right
MASCARENAS: It’s coming
at the cost of time.
STANLEY, ANDREW: And this
is just the estimated overall schedule. So, we’re looking at basically a
22-month process, which would basically be the end of 2024. So, that shows the
importance of why we got to stay on track with it. We miss something and it’s
going to throw us off.
MASCARENAS: What that
schedule also shows is really a parallel process, across the board, on a lot of
these items. Typically, you would do some of these things once something is
totally complete, in terms of environmental review or application, but in order
to even meet the timeframe, Anna’s going to be working with Andrew on things on
a parallel process so we can try and meet this timeframe as quickly as
possible. While we’re grateful for the money we got, R&D is one of the most
cumbersome programs to work through I did it during ERA, a lot of years ago and
it’s certainly cumbersome, makes DOS look simple.
STANLEY, ANDREW: Let’s
move to technical engineer, so a key component of the process is procurement of
an architectural engineer. We aren’t able to finish the application process
without some mag designs. The way this is set up, we need to procure an
architectural engineer so that we can get those schematic designs, so that the
application phase can be complete. So, that’s something that we need to make a
decision on for RFP on that, soon.
HOLZER: So, is that what
you were saying we need to move on, today?
MASCARENAS: Yeah, I think
if we can get permission from the Board to go out to RFP for architectural
design, we can get that back sooner. If we don’t make that decision, today, it
sits another month until our next Full Board Meeting.
HOLZER: Okay, I can see
what we can do.
MASCARENAS: It doesn’t
mean that we’re approving an architect. It simply means that you’re approving
the ability to go out to RFP.
STANLEY, ANDREW: Yup,
start building the scope. Then moving to the estimated project cost. So, this
was the estimate that was given to us from CPL, based off of the 11,425 square
feet came in about $6.2 - $6.3 million. So, it’s pretty steep there. Mostly I
would say, mostly, because of the current condition of the market. Materials
are pretty volatile right now, they’re all over the places. We kind of checked
their math a little bit, this is a chart that shows PPI, so the producers price
index. From 2017 to current, why 2017? That’s when we did the nutrition
building, so similar site, similar scope, I guess, we went from about $2.6, so
somewhere in the $3 range to 20%, 4th quarter of 2022.
DOUGAN: For the Nutrition
Building, we knew what that cost us, here in Essex County and we know that our
architectural firm that did the conceptual design and did that cost estimate is
from Albany, so we wanted our own double check. So, that Nutrition Building
cost us around $457.00 to $460.00 and
square foot when we built that in 2017. So, just as a double check of
where he was.
HOLZER: SO, what was the
total cost of the Nutrition Center?
DOUGAN: $1.63, I think it
was.
HOLZER: So, is $6 million
a realistic number? That seems like a lot.
DOUGAN: We think it’s
high, but it’s also. We also think the building is, there’s already been some
discussion, from our proposed tenants that some of that is bigger than they
might really need. So, I think as part of the RFQ process with an engineer, we
look at those needs and we make sure that it’s an efficient use of the space. I
really think that although CPL put some stuff together for use, fairly quickly,
it’s just boxes and squares. Efficiency isn’t thought out, it’s not really all
taken into account. So, I think the $6 million is a lot, in part because of the
square footage. They also have a lot of contingencies in that estimates, the
last few columns are all contingencies; which I appreciate. You know we’re
trying to figure where this is going. You have another slide that is on where
we think the PPI is going.
STANLEY, ANDREW: Yeah, so
you know, this one’s just basically off from PPI from 2017 to now, there’s fits
right on, just based on inflation rates and PPI.
LEE: Can I make a
comment? I do, it does seem like a very high estimate I know that there are a
lot of trade-offs that everybody will be talking about in terms of modifying
that amount of money. My highest priority is actually the safety of the staff
and I know that sometimes it’s cheaper to buy materials or use processes that
are cheaper and an example I’ll give you is blown-in insulation. I have just
been seeing in the public health space a lot of pushback on blown-in insulation,
because it’s cheaper, but it off gases and the health, so I’m thinking of the
health of the staff and so another area that there’s, it might be more
expensive to use other kinds of insulation, but long-term the health of the
staff is really important and the people that work there. Another one is, carpeting.
I would rather have bare floors and rugs than expensive carpeting that actually
is off gassing and I know how it anyone of you have seen any of that
information from other building, I would be glad to share with you what I have
heard or what I know. I am not a builder, I am not in the construction
business, but I would rather have less space and employee safe building and I
am just going to put it out there, because I don’t really know much more.
DOUGAN: Fair enough, fair
enough. The Nutrition Building, the entire walls were made out of ICF, it’s an
R200 and it doesn’t have that, some of those same concerns. But, we’ll
definitely and we value your input in that, Elizabeth.
STANLEY, ANDREW: This is
just showing the current, the PPI current. As I said before, I think their
estimate was taken based off the numbers and we’re heading down, pretty hard,
right now. It kind of goes along with the inflation forecast. So, this reaches
out to the end of 2024. The forecast is showing that we’re basically going to
bottom out, somewhere around 2.5% to 3%, somewhere in that area. So, that tells
us, we should be somewhere back in the neighbor of $4.60 square foot, as with
the Nutrition Building, which you know if we go with the proposed square
footage, brings you about $5.2 million and you know if you decrease the square
footage, somewhere in the 800 square footage, brings us the range of where we
wanted, at $3.6.
DOTY: Jim, is there
anything appreciable in in-kind services, like site prep and infrastructure
additives?
REYNOLDS: No
GILLILLAND: Can’t do
that.
DOTY: Kind of, bound to
put it all out?
GILLILLAND: You know the
whole prevailing wage, all that stuff and this is federal money.
DOTY: I mean I think of
sewer hookups and water lines. I mean we could come up with $300,000.00-$400,000.00
of work ourselves, just bound.
GILLILLAND: You’re
walking a minefield.
DOUGAN: Yeah, I would
agree with Shaun and I will tell you that this program from RD, we’ll look at
it really closely, as we move forward, but I think Shaun’s probably got it
right, but we’ll look at it really closely. This is, this program, we believe
is their building facilities program through Rural Development; which is from
the Department of Agriculture. A lot of us that have dealt with Rural
Development in the past, it’s all been in there. Their water and sewer, which
is a slightly different program, so we’ll look at it really closely, but it is
tough to do force account work with federal dollars and with this agency.
DOTY: Understandable, I
just didn’t know.
DOUGAN: We would
definitely look at that, you know, can we do some of this ourselves, but it
might be tough.
STANLEY, ANDREW: That’s
pretty much all I have.
DOUGAN: You know, again,
to stay on that schedule, each month we’re going to try and bring some
questions to this committee. So, we’ve generally answered our environmental and
our architect here, that we’re going to go out to RFP for that, then we’ve, I
think identified the questions for today to keep us moving within that duration
schedule that Andrew and Anna had put together.
I think that’s really
where I’m at, you know we, if Elizabeth or Soil and Water have other thoughts on
really looking at the space, we might be able to get a jump start in talking
with them, between now and when we hire that architect. That would be the only
other thing that I might suggest.
MASCARENAS: Just on a
side note, I think by my committee meeting, I’ll be prepared to present to the
Board the ARPA plan. I’m really close. This project is in there and what I’ve
got in addition to the million is $2.5 set aside for it, so that $3.5 number
and when we start looking at the plan, it’s hard to understand what I’m talking
about without seeing what else is in the plan and what you’re giving up, but I think that $3.5
number is probably about where we need to being terms of not giving up the
opportunity to get some of those other things accomplished with money that
we’ll never again.
MONTY: Correct me if I’m
wrong, this is just construction of the new building. It has nothing to do with
the cost of rehabbing anything with the old building, am I correct?
HOLZER: Not as of yet,
but we’re going, you know from a logistics standpoint, we should in the next
few meetings, at least have an outline of things that we’re willing to do. So,
when the public’s looking at this, they realize we’re not abandoning.
MONTY: A beautiful new
building and we got the other sitting there, makes no sense.
MASCARENAS: What’s
killing us right now and Shaun and I, it’s not from lack of trying, have been
trying to shake that contract loose.
HOLZER: You’re talking
about the DASNY money?
GILLILLAND: It’s still in
the budget.
MASCARENAS: It’s hard to
come up with a schedule, when we can’t even…
MONTY: Can’t we get some
of that extra $92.5 million that they
gave ORDA?
HOLZER: Well, first of
all the DASNY money we got to spend before we get.
GILLILLAND: We can’t
spend any money on it until we get the contract and it’s still in budget review
and it’s been in the budget review since?
REYNOLDS: 2021m probably,
at least.
MASCARENAS: It’s been a
long time.
GILILLAND: But, it’s
$550,000.00 total in there, which if we can get this moving, down the road and
you know it gets its own momentum, then we can start taking a look at scoping
the $500,000.00.
HOLZER: And just to put
it out there, whether we get the DASNY money or not, I’m committed to doing
something over at that building.
TYLER: Well, personally,
I think something needs to done there sooner rather later; we can’t wait a
couple of years. I roof is the main thing that we need to fix in that building.
PAGE: Something that we
talked about last meeting was having, potentially having the same architect
make recommendations for the existing building, as well as a design for the new
one so they work in tandem and from a review point of view it might be a real
asset to be able to find out that you have plans for, specific plans for
renovating the existing building, so you don’t have a dilapidated building
sitting next to plans for a new building.
MASCARENAS: Yeah, I
wouldn’t want to include that as part of the current RFP, only because I don’t
want to confuse the two projects and jeopardize the funding. I don’t disagree
with you. I think on a future RFP, we could assign points to an architect that
has experience, but in terms of this RFP, I think, we can’t confuse the two,
where all the sudden now we’re saying we’re doing that building and it’s a
whole separate environmental review process and all those things.
DOUGAN: I would agree. I
would agree with that, but it’s a point well taken. We could, we definitely,
when we put the RFQ, RFP out, you know we will address the fact that it has to
fit with and not compete, to use your words, if the other buildings that are
here and that maybe even have some qualifications for historical experience,
historical building experience.
PAGE: Well, you should definitely
have that in the RFP.
DOUGAN: Well, it is a new
building, but we want it to fit within the historical character. So, that’s why
you put it in the current proposed new building. We should, so that we could
potentially use that consultant, we’ll just have a requirement for something historical.
GILLILLAND: And one thing
about the $500,000.00, $550,000.00, I guess, because it’s two grants, but they
are geared toward structural and mechanical. It is not a SHPPO grant for historical
renovation or preservation. So, there’s no reason that we can’t continue to get
SHPPO, because they sent emails about how much they support that project.
HOLZER: Any other
comments before we wrap this up.
PAGE: Just a follow-up on
what Jim was staying. I think also we talked about the fact you need really a
firm, that it should be part of RFP that has experience going through this kind
of review, because it’s going to be a tricky one. Where you have all these
different agencies that are looking at this, it’s in two historic districts,
it’s a sensitive location, so you really want somebody with experience to do
the project.
DOUGAN: Sure, yeah, that
makes sense. We’ll put that as part of qualifications.
MASCARENAS: A lot of our
projects we started doing that on, simply because it’s really hard to work with
a contractor that doesn’t know the requirements of the program that you’re
working into. It can be really a headache, so I think that we learned that a
few years back and we try to have people apply that have experience with
different grant cycles and grant programs, so that it’s not pulling teeth to
get information out of individuals. These two guys, there’s nobody better at
it. Just so everybody knows, they’re going to be coming to our meetings moving
forward. They’re going to be driving this process. Andrew’s going to be leading
on, does everybody know Andrew? That’s Andrew Stanley, everybody. You don’t see
Andrew a lot, but know that all the things that are getting built in Essex
County, he’s got his hand in, typically. Everybody knows Anna and the great
work that their department does, so I think we’ve got a really good team and
hopefully they keep us on the right track on what we need to continue to do to
stay focused.
HOLZER: We’ve done, we’ve
adjourned.
AS
THERE WAS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BUILDING AND FACILITIES, IT
WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:38 AM
Respectively Submitted,
Dina Garvey, Deputy Clerk
Board of Supervisors