The primary focus was the discrepancy between the original budget estimates and the actual bids, which were described as “twice what we have.” This shortfall highlighted a broader issue of engineering estimates’ reliability, as voiced by a member who expressed frustration over the lack of clarity on the potential cost of $1.5 million. The sentiment “engineers aren’t always 100% either” underscored a systemic problem with forecasting expenses accurately.

Efforts to secure additional funding took center stage, with a sense of urgency emphasized by a member who noted it was “year three now” in attempts to launch the project. Commissioners were urged to advocate for more resources from higher authorities, including “Chris Smith” and HUD. A needed $300,000 was identified to move the project forward, with a proposal to proceed with a revised budget of $1.2 million if these funds could be secured. However, challenges with managing project costs, including change orders and the gap between initial estimates and final costs, were acknowledged.

The conversation also addressed the engagement of an engineer for weatherization efforts, although the timing of their arrival remained uncertain. Concerns were raised about the piecemeal approach to renovations, with one member pointing out that doing renovations wall-by-wall could lead to higher costs and prolonged disruption, notably if scaffolding remains in place for extended periods.

Additionally, the authority’s funding constraints were discussed, revealing an annual capital fund of approximately $90,000 to $100,000, insufficient for comprehensive renovations. Deed restrictions on the property further complicate matters, as they prevent the authority from incurring debt to finance repairs. A member highlighted this as a significant obstacle, stating, “that’s where our hands are tied.”

Safety concerns were spotlighted by a recent incident where scaffolding fell during heavy winds, raising questions about building safety and the potential for recurrence. Although specifics were unclear, the incident underscored the need for vigilant oversight of the building’s condition.

The meeting also touched on potential private donations to support the project, although skepticism about this option’s feasibility persisted. A suggestion was made to explore financial support from local banks, notably “Carney Bank,” though it was unclear if this avenue had been pursued.

A discussion emerged around integrating with the borough’s affordable housing plan. It was noted that approximately $200,000 is available in the affordable housing trust fund, which could grow if larger projects materialize. Utilizing these funds might alleviate some financial pressures and address community housing needs.

The meeting also involved addressing immediate preparations for the winter season. The Executive Director reported ordering window inserts to improve insulation, with their success potentially leading to additional orders. An engineer was contracted for a weatherization study, with anticipation for their arrival, and a new safety inspection method called “Inspire” was scheduled for the week of Thanksgiving, focusing solely on safety rather than aesthetics.

In new business, three resolutions were proposed: rejecting all bids related to façade repairs, closing the waiting list, and certifying salary increases for eligible employees. Questions arose, particularly about the salary increases, which were confirmed to involve only three staff members.

During the public comment period, a community member expressed concerns about the bidding process, questioning if the same rules applied to the housing authority as to the borough concerning bid rejections. It was mentioned that bid specifications would be revised to lower project costs. Another individual inquired about potential additional funding sources, emphasizing urgency given financial limitations.