Acceptance of FEMA/MEMA Grant for Lebanon/Sylvan Drainage Design

Transcript (~10 min @ 44:20)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 44:17 Mark Garipay: Opposed? That order 2025-784 will be recommended. Thank you.

▶ 44:22 Speaker 2: Thank you. Thanks, guys.

▶ 44:24 Mark Garipay: Good job. First time.

▶ 44:26 Speaker 2: Thank you.

▶ 44:26 Speaker 6: Thank you.

▶ 44:27 Speaker 2: Yeah.

▶ 44:29 Mark Garipay: Moving on, we have ID 2025-778, acceptance of FEMA/MEMA grant for Lebanon and Sylvan Street drainage design. We have Jay Coy with us.

▶ 44:42 Speaker 5: Good evening, Council. Um, so yeah, so we were awarded a congressionally directed spending, um, grant in the amount of $1 million through FEMA that comes to us by way of MEMA. As you are all aware, the Lebanon and Sylvan intersection, um, is a disaster when we get any sort of substantial rainfall. Um, we've been working with our consultant, Weston & Sampson, um, to start the design process, and this, um, grant will allow us to finalize that design and get us to construction-ready documents. Um, the grant does not fund the construction, but once we get there, we'll be, um, uh, intending to s- submit additional FEMA funding for the construction. Um, they wouldn't let us phase it out. They wanted us to do it into these separate, um, design project and then a construction. So that's where we are.

▶ 45:34 Speaker 1: Councilor Romanul.

▶ 45:35 Devin Romanul: Um, thank you so much. Um, this, uh, is in- in my ward, so, uh, v- very much a- an issue for any time we get a drop of rain or, um, there's a- we get a lot of resident complaints and- and flooding there, um, as- as you well know. Um, I wanted to ask, this is, uh, related to the matching funds that we appropriated, I think this spring.

▶ 45:54 Speaker 5: I- I believe so. Yeah. The- the funds were, um, were appropriate already w- in free cash, s- of 300,000, which is the- the match. Um, there's also an additional 33,000 of in-kind services that, um, we will be using as well. That's great.

▶ 46:07 Devin Romanul: Um, and i- is there, um, any kind of... I know we still have to go through the planning and then ultimately get the funding, but is there a ballpark timeline when folks can look to that we may s- start to see some improvements in- in so far as flooding and infrastructure? And I- I know that's maybe an impossible question, but if everything goes to plan, let's leave it at that.

▶ 46:28 Speaker 5: So it's- it's not an impossible question, but this is a two-year grant, um, so the construction documents are- are said to be ready by, I believe, uh, October or September of 2027. Okay. And then it's just a matter of funding for that construction, um, and then how long that construction takes. Um, so that is the impossible part of the question 'cause I just don't know. You know, um, hopefully a little sooner than September of 2027, we'll know what we're looking at for estimates so that we can start applying for any sort of funding ahead of time so that when the documents come out t- for construction, we can just hit the ground running. Yeah.

▶ 47:08 Devin Romanul: And is there- is there any interplay between the- the TIP program for the rebuild of Lebanon on that end, or are they just totally separate, you know,

▶ 47:16 Speaker 5: (...) ? So we have been coordinating with our consultant, Stantec, on the TIP project, um, letting them know that th- this is an issue and we want to coordinate. And they've actually already started to incorporate some, um, a little bit more robust drainage design in the TIP project. They're- they- we did some test pits recently on Lebanon to look into infiltration systems that will be underneath the sidewalks and grass areas. So the catch basins would collect water, send it to infiltration systems before it goes back into the drainage system to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that's coming down there. They're also adding, I believe, more catch basins up Lebanon to- as you to- as you go towards the, uh, main street, um, so hopefully that will improve things as well and- as part of that project. So we are coordinating as much as we can. Um, I think the- the biggest issue with that intersection is just the downstream capacity is just not there. Yeah. So while the TIP project will hopefully help, it's not gonna solve it. Um, so... But they- we are working together as best as we can. Yeah.

▶ 48:17 Devin Romanul: Fantastic. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

▶ 48:19 Speaker 5: And, uh, l- let me know if there's anything I can do to help. 2 hours. Thank you.

▶ 48:22 Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilor Williams. Uh, motion to recommend.

▶ 48:26 Mark Garipay: Second.We have a motion to recommend, uh, by Councilor Williams, seconded by Councilor, um, Romanul. Uh, on discussion, I had a couple questions, if you don't mind? Absolutely not. Uh, the 300,000, I should know this, but the 300,000 that we've already, um,

▶ 48:41 Speaker 1: approved, was that in the last year? I'm trying to- Um- Last year, year and a half?

▶ 48:48 Speaker 5: ... it's recent. I don't n- exactly know when. Um, I'd have to get back to you on that, yeah.

▶ 48:53 Mark Garipay: And- It's zero- ... this ye- uh, number of years ago, we had a, um, a grant application in for a FEMA grant that got denied, right? Mm-hmm. And that was, that was for a different project, right? Or is this part of all the same project? I'm just-

▶ 49:09 Speaker 5: S- um, I mean, if it's the same FEMA project, if it's the same application, it's for the same project. Um, so the application was before I started here, but I was a part of multiple RFIs from FEMA for that project. They kept asking for more and more information, and we kept giving it to them, and finally they, finally they just decided to not award the funding. Um, and that was a few years back at this point, probably at five, at, you know, four and a half, five years ago.

▶ 49:40 Mark Garipay: And this is separate. In 2017, say, there was another project that was on the back side of the cemetery, 'cause there's a culvert down there that's not connected. That was all... This has nothing to do with, with the issue down the drainage at the end of the cemetery going through Pinebanks? Correct. That's a different project?

▶ 50:02 Speaker 5: Um, that I'm not sure. Um, I know that all of this, this drainage does go through the cemetery out to an outfall that's in Pinebanks Park. Mm-hmm. Um, I don't know of any other outfalls or drainage that goes through the cemetery that isn't connected to this. They're all, they all go to the outfall. Um, so it could be a separate project, but it could also be the same.

▶ 50:23 Mark Garipay: Is there any way you could just, um, see if this is part of it? Only because- Yeah. ... there was a part of expansion in the cemetery they were looking, but they were waiting to see about this grant. So that could, uh, you know, impact some decisions, um, in the cemetery as they try to find more space. Yeah. Absolutely. Um, and then, um,

▶ 50:46 Mark Garipay: any idea how much we've actually invested into this design? Um, so far we got the 300,000. Uh, how much has the city actually invested in... What is the... Are we gonna be able to afford to finish this project or is that, we're gonna wait for another grant?

▶ 51:03 Speaker 5: Um, well, so this, the million should get us to design and construction documents. That's the, that's the goal. Um, and we've already worked with Wesson and Sampson. Right. Right. Right. So that's, that's the goal, is we'll have construction-ready documents. Um, s- the funding for the construction will be the other part of it. Um, because we just-

▶ 51:24 Mark Garipay: Yeah. I guess my question is are we gonna, are we looking for another grant for construction or is that something that we're gonna try to take in house and, and pay for it? And

▶ 51:33 Speaker 5: I'm, I've no idea what that cost would be. No, our, our, our hope is, our hope is another grant. The re- The biggest reason that FEMA denied the original grant was because we needed a design that proved whether we met their, um... and now I'm drawing a blank on what it's called, but basically we need to prove that if FEMA gives us the money, it saves them the money. Um, and we weren't able to do that because we didn't have a design. We had a rough estimation, but they wanted a full design. So it was this Catch-22 where we needed a design to get funding, but they needed funding to get the design. So, um, yeah. So hopefully we will be able to apply for more FEMA funding once we get the final design. Okay.

▶ 52:18 Mark Garipay: I fully... I mean, I, I grew up down there and it floods bad. Mm-hmm. It's bad. It always has.

▶ 52:23 Speaker 5: Yes, it's bad.

▶ 52:24 Mark Garipay: Yeah. Back when I was growing up, years ago. But uh, um, and I'm in favor of this, I just want to make sure there's an end game here to, to get this project done. We seem to keep on allocating money and grants and applying, which is great, but, um, we wanna get to the, uh, finish line, I guess. Councilor Williams?

▶ 52:42 Ryan Williams: Yeah, I just, I took the, uh, opportunity to look through, at QM2, at some of the old appropriation documents. And I, um, if it's helpful, we appropriated $175,000 in April of 2025. That's this year. Um, which is what this is referencing. Uh, and then we appropriated another $129,000. In the memo it says, "In years past," which I couldn't find, but presumably it is some early stage of the project. Um, it doesn't quite add up to $300,000, but there's also a match here, so I think that the, the math is, is a little bit, maybe a little bit off. Or there's a little bit in here that, uh, um, that we are estimating in the narrative of this. But I think that the appropriations have been 129 and then 175, um, all towards this design phase to get this million, and I think that's where we're at.

▶ 53:40 Mark Garipay: Yeah. I think, I, I remember being on the board, one of the first, first years when I was on that- Yeah. ... this came up when we did some funding. But that's- Yeah. ... ringing, that's in the back of my mind. But, um, okay. Uh, anyone else have discussion? All in favor?