Rules of decorum. No person attending a public meeting shall engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including but not limited to, applause, whistling, stamping of feet, booing or making any loud, threatening, profane, abusive, personal or slanderous utterance that disturbs, disrupts or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting.
All remarks by members of the public shall be addressed to the mayor or the chair, and not to any other member of the public or any other single council, board or commission member, unless in response to a question from the member. Signs, placards, banners or other similar items shall not be permitted in the audience during a public meeting.
If the presence of such item disturbs, disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting, all persons attending a public meeting shall remain seated in the seats provided, unless addressing the body at the podium or entering or leaving the meeting. All persons attending a public meeting shall obey any lawful order of the preceding officer. To enforce the rules of decorum. Treat everyone courteously.
Listen to others respectfully. Exercise self-control. Give open minded considerations to all viewpoints. Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate. Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights that are inherent components of an inclusive public process and roles for forging sound decisions. Thank you. Today is August 18th.
We’re calling to order the Carson Reclamation Authority special meeting. Roll call authority. Secretary. Thank you, Madam chair. Board member. Hobson. Present. Board member. Thomas. Here. Board member. Aldridge. Present authority. Vice chair. Hicks. Present. Authority. Chair. Davis. Holmes. Present. Thank you. Flag salute by board member. Aldridge. Okay. Would you please stand and face our flag? Switch sides.
Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We’ll have an invocation by. Board member Thomas. Please follow with me.
Most gracious Heavenly Father, we are so thankful for yet another opportunity that we have on this day to serve this wonderful, great city. We are thankful for all of the many blessings you continue to be stored on us.
We’re praying, dear Heavenly Father, that you will grant us your wisdom so that in the decisions that we make, they will be most beneficial to the city and the goals that we have set here in. Be with us as we go through this meeting. Let us all be on one accord. Bless us always, for it is in Christ’s name we pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Um. All communications authority Secretary. For matters.
Listed. There are none, madam Chair. Our discussion item number one. Staff. So, Madam Chair, at the last, at the regular meeting on August 3rd, I believe, uh, we brought you, uh.
Uh, resolution 2612 cr JPA, uh, which, um, uh, authorized the creation of a new position in the CRA, which is a chief operating officer, um, at that meeting. Uh, the board did not approve the resolution, but did, uh, verbally, um, authorize the creation of the CEO position, uh, with the direction to bring the resolution back, and then, um, and then work through the, um, uh, the, the the duties and the job description and, um,
uh, and I believe you also appointed Doctor Lennox. Doctor, uh, Robert Lennox to the position. This is that item, um, coming back. Uh, Doctor Lennox has had an opportunity to go through the the duties and the job description. Um, and the resolution and, um, um, and it’s back for ratification.
So this would approve the resolution that actually, um, authorizes the creation of the position. We would still come back, uh, to the board, I believe, on the September 8th agenda with the amendments to the bylaws. Uh, where, um, the position then gets added to the bylaws, because right now it’s authorized under section 3.
2 of the 3.02, I think of the bylaws that authorize, uh, the board to create new positions. But this would add the position to the bylaws. Okay. Um, and then, uh, there’s some other further actions that the board would take at that meeting as well. I don’t know if Doctor Lennox wants to add anything to that or not.
Mr. C oh. Oh. Mm. Thank you. Chair. Uh, Davis. Holmes. Thank you. Uh, John Raymond, the review is complete. Yes, I’ve. I’ve, uh, had a chance to update and make changes to the job description. Uh, and everything seems like it’s ready to go. That’s why it’s back on here for your review.
Uh, and as he mentioned, we will be back with the bylaws. In essence, the bylaws, uh, don’t have, um, the CEO position doesn’t have any authorities within the bylaws currently. And that’s why it has to come back.
Uh, and then in addition, we can codify the position with an employment agreement at the next meeting as well, which we’re working with the attorney’s office right now. Okay. Uh. Any questions from my board members? I’m ready to make a motion. Make it. Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair? Yes. Oh. Madam treasurer. Thank you. I have a question about pay. So, will we be paying for Doctor Lennox and J.R. from the CRA account? 50.
Of Doctor Lennox? Okay. And that’s the same for J.R. as well. They are the his. Yeah. You’ll be paying for J.R.. From the CRA. Mhm. When does it start? Yesterday. Yeah.
So the proposal that will come to the board at the next meeting will spell out also a budget amendment to ensure that the start date of both the CEO and then the existing uh approved budget are adjusted to show those. But the effective start would be essentially ratified back to the beginning of August. Thank you. Yes. Do I have. Money? Okay. Thank you. Uh, those are the details. We’re going to have to work out. Yeah. Um, so, madam.
Yes. Board member. Yes. Uh, I moved to approve staff recommendation. The way for the reading and adopt resolution number 2612. Dash CPA resolution of the Carson Reclamation Authority Board. As they remove my sign as I’m reading it, I don’t know why they. Did that so quick. You gotta.
Put my sign back up. I was reading it. Wait, let me get to it. Who did that? Uh, here, I got it. No, here it is. Here it is. Okay, I’m going to start all over. Uh, staff’s recommendation to approve it doesn’t have it all done here. Okay. Mm. Way. Further reading.
And adopt resolution number 2612CRGPAA resolution of the Carson Reclamation Reclamation Authority Board creating the position of chief operating officer. And direct staff to return with related and required updates to the Carson Reclamation.
Reclamation Authority bylaws to integrate authorities of the Chief Operating Officer position and direct staff to return with an employment agreement for Doctor Robert Lennox to ratify his appointment as the Chief Operating Officer of the Carson Reclamation Authority. Second. Been moved and promptly second. Hearing no further comment, please cast your vote. Okay. The vote is unanimous. Motion carries. Thank you. Number two is consider resolution number 2613. CRA JPA staff.
So, Madam Chair, uh, the item before you is, um, is kind of a big item. Um, it’s, um, it’s, uh, it’s a resolution approving an EB five loan agreement between the Carson Reclamation Authority and an entity called Can-Am California Regional Center, LP number nine.
And in an amount not to exceed $180 million for the purpose of installing remedial systems on sols three, four, and five and a portion of South three in the former Cal Compact landfill in the city of Carson. Um, as the board knows, we have been working with our development partner, uh, Carson.
Gus, owner, um, on the the development of cell three, four and five since the year 2020. Um, and, um, they’ve got entitlement. Um, and, uh, they’ve, they’ve got plans that are ready to go.
And over the last couple of years, we’ve looked at they have looked at a number of different, uh, development partners and a number of different financing arrangements and ways to finance the construction of the improvements. And, um, about 8 or 9 months ago. Um, they came to us with the, uh, proposal to become the borrower for, uh, an EB five loan and the EB five program is a program that’s created by the United States, uh, Customs and Immigration Service.
Actually, it’s created by Congress and administered by USCIS. And it’s a program where, uh, for qualified foreign investors, uh, make investments in job creating businesses in the United States.
And in return for that, they’re eligible to, to to, um, to receive, um, um, a pathway to citizenship, a green card, and in all that, um, the buy in, uh, for foreign investor, uh, with a public infrastructure project of which this would be because we would ultimately be the owner of the infrastructure is, uh, $800,000 per applicant. So for $180 million, uh, you need 225 investors. That’s a regional centers come in. Can-Am is a regional center.
They operate regional centers all over the United States, are the largest regional center. And EB five lender in the business. Right. So they’re big and they’re sophisticated. They’ve got, um, uh, uh, agents in other countries that recruit and manage the investor process and they, uh, really, uh, fairly sophisticated lender.
Uh, so we’ve been working with them, uh, since December, uh, with, with our partner, Carson Goose, owner Sego. Um, on this, uh, on this loan. So we’ve gotten to the point, um, here where the loan agreement is ready to go. It’s ready to approve.
And, um, and so this loan agreement and it’s a loan agreement, and the note, it’s the only things that you’re approving at this point. Um, we’ve already approved a letter agreement earlier in the year called a loan support agreement, because this is not the CRA being on the hook for $180 million is a guarantee by Siegel and its affiliates.
The the the guarantee, the repayment of the loan, the guarantee, the payment of the debt service. Uh, they provide a, um, completion guarantee for the work on the site. Um, and in return for that, uh, because they’re at the financial risk, we’ve agreed that, um, to the extent that, uh, except we are the holder of the construction contract, they’re the project manager and the construction
manager of that work. So they will be, um, they’ll have the ability to oversee the work on the site and, and, and kind of control their own destiny. Right. Um, ultimately, all of these improvements, everything that gets constructed will be owned by the CRA. And so qualifies as a public improvement.
Uh, but it’s for the benefit of the vertical development that will go on top of it. The buildings that go on top. Um, and so it’s a it’s a true public private, um, uh, measure and um, and it’s, uh, it’s pretty creative and innovative.
It’s the, um, um, uh, the, the qualification, um, ultimately is isn’t the amount of money spent, it’s the amount of jobs created by that activity. And as actually as one and you can see it in the packet as one of the exhibits, the loan agreement is actually the economic study that Can-Am commissions.
This isn’t something that we commission they they commission these this firm does economic studies all over the country on these projects, and they have an economic model, and they translate certain types of construction and the number of jobs and permanent and construction jobs, et cetera, etc.. So to qualify for the the job creation. So this, um, um, this loan agreement would be executed right away.
Um, and, um, and then it’s not funded until there’s a whole number of other conditions that are precedent. The, uh, we need to finish the Amended and restated option agreement for sell three and four and five. They they they they want to have the agreements on sell two.
There’s there’s other precedents on that. Um, they have a re entitlement. Uh, that’s in process right now on sell five. Um, um, that’s uh goes to the council in September. Um, there’s a, um, and there’s other there’s a whole bunch of other factors. The, uh, the construction contract with the contractors needs to be in place.
The insurance behind that, uh, construction program needs to be in place. So there’s a there’s about a dozen things that are conditions, precedent of funding, um, that need to be met before it’s funds. And until the loan funds, there’s no liability to either party. Um, no financial liability because nothing is funded.
And once the loan does fund the liability, we’re indemnified by by CGU and their and their and their guarantor or their affiliate. Um, and so, um, that kind of moves forward. So that’s the, that’s the, um, that’s the deal that we have talked about over the like the last six or 7 or 8 months.
Um, and it’s all, it’s all, uh, sort of contained in this, uh, in the loan agreement itself. So, um, um, I’d be happy to answer any questions. Um, well, I just want to make one point. Um, it’s approved by resolution.
So, um, we we didn’t anticipate the chair to be here, so we put the vice chair on the resolution. But I have a version of the resolution with the chair. So if you want to sign. It. I can leave. Well, we can have you sign it. I just want to read in the record that it’s going to be signed by the chair. Um, yeah.
It’s I, I have, I have both versions, uh, and but you can sign the resolution. I just need to for the, for the authority. Secretary. I just need to read in the record that. So you want to sign it? I can sign it. Yeah. Okay. All right.
I’m just reading that in the record that the. Okay, the resolution. Was not supposed to be. Yeah, right. Um, and that’s it. So I’m. I’m sorry, Madam Chair. I’m happy to answer any questions. Um, before I turn it over to my colleagues, I have one question to our CEO and to you.
When we met, there was an outstanding letter that had to be sent to regardless survey Cogs donation that we needed to have proof of funding or. Yes, Madam chair, I think you’re referring to the Metro grant and guarantee, the $8 million. So I believe we’re we’re waiting for the grant agreement, uh, from Metro to come through for full execution.
Uh, but we did find sufficient, uh, award acknowledgement, uh, via email, as well as the minutes from Metro board that helped get the the loan agreement across the finish line. Uh, so far, we haven’t ran into any other snags. And Jared can correct me if I’ve misstated that. Yeah.
So Keenum has packaged up what we sent uh last week on the verification of the municipal funding. And and they have it it’s um ready to send to USCIS. And they think. It you explain it to my colleagues because it’s just the three of us in the meeting. So they’re aware of what we were speaking of. It’s a part of it, part of the overall project.
And it’s not EB five funded. Uh, but it’s part of the overall work project, and it actually counts toward the job creation. Um, requirements. And everything is actually the construction of the, uh, work that we’re doing on Leonardo and constructing Leonardo. And we we plug that number in at $57.7 million.
Uh, and, um, and that’s, um, a generally like right now, today, the amount of the, the construction contract with the, with the general contractor. Um, so, um, as they’re package packaging, uh, material up to, to respond to an information request from USCIS, one of it, one of the things was a confirmation of the municipal
funding for that portion of the of the project, the Leonardo. So we, uh, we have the 22.4 or $23 million thereabouts of the 2019 measure. Our measure and bonds. We have the allocation within the 2024 lease revenue bonds of 26 million. That’s 49,750,000 of diff funds that came from the evolve.
That was sort of transferred over from the Evolve traffic mitigation fee. That’s for traffic signals. And then there was the $8 million of of from from Metro, uh, that’s been awarded as Doctor Lennox said, uh, but we do not have the grant agreement yet.
So we don’t have the grant agreement to give them. But we had evidence of both. Um, the initial award back in September of last year. And in a follow up email from July, I think July 21st, from, uh, from Metro itself, wanting to confirm the signature block.
And then it’s no longer a gauze and Albert Robles or whatever it was. And I mean, they had like an old, old signature block. It’s like, who’s who’s a signer? So we sent that and, uh, and we said, no, here’s the new signers. And so there, so they, they, they have prepared the grant agreement. It is going through their review.
We’re hoping to get it to have it on for September 1st. And the city, it will go to the city Council, not to this board. Um, um, but if it’s not September 1st, it’ll be September 15th.
And, uh, but that evidence that the combination of those two pieces and the three things, um, there was a resolution of city council approved budget resolution, I think, in 2025 on the diff. And so they’ve got all that. And so that, that, that answered the mail on that question. That’s why we were able to move forward. One of the reasons. Yeah. Okay.
Um, also I’m, I’m reading your report, uh, the CG and oh, as a project manager and Hines as the international development construction firm, as a construction manager, am I reading this to take that? That raise has gone or will not be? Know or Snyder? Langston.
Well, uh, whether Arias and in our Langston are in or out, um, whether we decide to proceed to public, you know, publicly bid it or, uh, engage with them through Arias and Snyder. Langston in either case, Sego is a project manager, and Haynes is the construction manager. So, uh, in the case of the negotiation with our.
Yes, they would not be, um, they would would have been the holder of the contract with Snyder, Langston Center. Langston would have been the contractor, but, uh, the work the that they performed, like today, uh, on Leonardo would be done by Sego and, um, um, in, Haynes and. Ah, yes.
Would have had a way smaller role of really just advising the CRA over whether, you know, because it’s all remedial systems, whether remedial systems are, are consistent or creating any issues or conflicts with the operation of the existing landfill gas system or things like that, because there’s some complicated stuff of trying to, um, um, tear up existing liner and cut and carve landfill gas falls while we’re still
operating a landfill gas system. And, and it’s different entities. So they, you know, they still have some roles. So that so that’s the point. There is that in in either case, however, we bid the the work as a project manager. And Haynes is a construction manager. Okay. Okay. Council vice board member. What are you x.
X? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, staff, for that report. Um, I’m shocked to hear about the Metro funding from September of last year, and we still hadn’t gotten that information. Or the grantee for that when it was secured back last summer.
Um, I offline, I talked about the other 4 million that was for Cal State Dominguez Hills. If that went through as well. But my question to staff, um, based upon this EB five, the timeline of the deadline date for this to be completed, or at least start the process to get to the to the finish line. There’s a whole bunch of different timelines.
I mean, I mean, as far as I know, there’s timelines in between to get this and that and this and that. But I mean, when do you get to the point where you know what, there’s no return at this point in time.
So the, um, when I went down the list of the number of different conditions, precedent. Right. Um, that to to funding, um, that’s a fairly long list. There’s a couple of months worth of, uh, there’s at least a couple of months worth of negotiation on the different option agreements.
There’s some processes that we need to go through on, um, uh, on freeing up the land on sell two. Um, uh, the biggest I’m probably the, um, um, the, the, the longest pole in the tent is probably the entitlement and redesign and, um, and approval of the plans on cell five, because that project is changing.
It’s, you know, it’s going to be in front of city council in a couple of weeks on September 1st. Um, but it, it, um, changes. What was the country mart or Carson place, uh, into um, a much flatter design. And so they have to redo the grading, uh, which grading? Um, goes to L.A.
County, and they have to also redesign the landfill liner, uh, underneath it. And there’s a landfill liners kind of complicated, and that has to go to DSC. And DSC has its own timetable for approval. So we’ve said that it’s probably at least four or 5 or 6 months of design and back and forth with the county and DTCC.
And so even if they were to submit today, you’re looking at probably six months from now, uh, if we’re getting close, we can be in the process of beginning the process of bidding. But we wouldn’t bid until you have plans. You have plans and everything that you’re going to bid.
Um, and, um, and so the bidding would occur, you know, around that time period, the insurance, um, uh, you know, we would do that, um, uh, kind of contemporaneously, we’d do it at the same time that we’re, you know, we’re in the process of bidding and finalizing the, uh, the bid process and the, um, uh, construction contract.
And so, um, I’m just trying to think if there’s anything else that’s sort of out of our out of our control, it’s it’s really DTC and, um, um, um, and really the timing of getting the plans completed and it’s their plans. It’s not our plans.
So we’re not in the driver’s seat on getting any plans done. And, um, and all of that. So, um, so it’s so it would when you when you ask about the point of no return, that would be at the point that the first draws requested and the interest rate that the first draw would be requested when they when they submit for reimbursement for all of the
insurance policies that we have to acquire at the at the beginning of construction. And that’s going to be several million dollars. It’s going to be, you know, three, 4 or $5 million for for insurance. And they would submit that and that would be probably the first draw, and then they’d want to we’d start drawing after that.
Now the, the, um, uh, in the, in the loan agreement, I believe now, I think we finally agreed that that that the that the construction period would be 20 months, 20 months from um, really from the first draw, uh, to the completion.
There’s some there’s a little bit of flexibility on that, particularly for acts of God, which is going to be very helpful this year because we’re looking at Super El Nino. Right. And if they start, um, if they start work in the winter, um, um, it could be really very difficult. We did that with cam where we started in December and regretted it.
Right. And, um, um, so but the I think the outside, um, the outside amount of time for the construction would be 24 to 25 months, and then there’s some additional periods.
There’s a 24 month, uh, what they call it at risk period for the, um, for the investors, after construction is complete and then the loan, the the but the loan term is five years. And so everything is sort of paid off in five years and five years from funding. I think it’s from funding. Um, and so that’s what I mean by there’s, there’s a lot of different.
But my, my ultimate question is we are here today on August 18th. You’re saying six months down the down the pike. That’s February of 2027. That’s correct. If we get to February 2027 and all the things that you’ve stated, it’s nowhere near what’s to be done. My concern is that you’re saying this liability, there’s none at this point at time.
But when do the investors start giving of their moneys to secure? If not, then they are locked in and can’t go to any other EB five programs, and then they have some type of, um, leverage at that point in time because you actually gave them a false hope. Yeah. That’s um, that’s much sooner than February.
Right? So, um, after after, um, unless Congress re authorizes the program, uh, before September 30th, on September 30th. So that’s the drop dead date. September 30th of this year. It’s not a drop dead date, but it’s a but it’s a it’s a milestone. Let’s put it that way.
Um, that’s the date at which, um, um, but that the but that situation exists even today. If an investor wanted to withdraw and go into another program, another public infrastructure program, there’s really not enough time to to withdraw and get in.
I mean, it’s already August 18th, right? And so, um, um, but the but the, the the reality is that, um, uh, and this is why when we’ve talked about it in the past, we’ve talked about September 30th as a very meaningful day.
And every day that goes past September 30th, um, you want to be more and more sure that ultimately you’re going to close, um, on the loan and the investors get, you know, their job creation credit. And they, you know, they. We have a lot of moving parts. That’s not our control. There’s there’s a million moving. Parts that’s not our control. So we we there’s no guarantee that. There’s there’s hardly any parts under our control.
It’s okay. And um, um, and so yeah, so the, um, um, and it’s been a negotiation with cam to, to where there haven’t really wanted that, that sort of period of, hey, there’s all these other conditions that are out there that need to be satisfied to be kind of infinite, right? It can’t be a
really long time. And so they pushed, uh, to make it as short as possible, as quick as possible. Uh, where uh, but the reality is with entitlements and with the number of things that are not under our control, you know, we’ve been able to sort of push back to, to get a little bit more grace and have
it be a little longer. Uh, but it’s, um, um, yeah, that the, the, there’s two types of risk. The first risk that I said that there’s, there’s not really risk of signing the loan agreement with the loan not funding. There’s not a financial.
You don’t owe anybody anything, right? You don’t owe the lender anything because they haven’t disbursed anything. But the other risk, which is the, um, uh, the risk of, uh, say, investor lawsuits, is the risk that we’ve talked about over the like the last 7 or 8 months. And, um, and that is a risk that number one, there’s an indemnity by can can arm the lender against that.
As long as we’ve disclosed everything. Um, and then you have a further indemnity, CRA has a further indemnity by the guarantor and Sego. Um, uh, beyond the can, an indemnity on that? Um, and and it’s, um, it’s hard to say if anyone would sue if a lot of people would sue or a handful.
Um, and, um, uh, but the way that it you come out, the come out the best on the other side is you close on the loan, do the work, and everybody’s happy. So that’s, that’s that’s where we are.. Not a whole lot. Okay.
Uh, the good part about it is that we’re not on the hook because we’ve been location. That’s correct. We’ve we’ve got the guarantee. You’ve got a guarantee. You’ve got an you’ve got a guarantee on the loan part, you’ve got indemnities, you’ve got a couple of different indemnities on the, on. The risk. They, they still defer back to, uh, CGU if they were someone to sue. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. So um. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. Mr. chair, uh, board member alders. Okay. Yes. I still like to get a little clarification. Uh, the mayor asked you the question about, uh, raise and Snyder. Langston. Okay, we we’re the land owner.
Okay? And you said Sego is the project manager, and Hines is the construction manager. So I’m. I’m still a little confused on where Rees and Snyder Langston play because we’ve been paying them. Do we continue to keep paying them? And what is our role in paying them? If it doesn’t seem like we were part of the construction or project managing or any of that? Well.
Right now you’re paying them to to build Leonardo. Right? So they’re they’re actually the contractor out there building Leonardo Drive. Which then we put Leonardo as a kind of like a separate project. Yeah, it’s a separate project.
It was it was able to be counted as part of the equity contribution of the of the CRA in the city and the and and CXC Sego uh, has a fair amount of land value in his equity. Right. Okay. All the money they’ve they’ve they I don’t think it’s security costs but other money that they’ve put in, other costs that they’ve incurred that sort of stuff.
So they’ve got a number in there as a land value. We’ve got the 57 million in um, on the, on the, um, um, on the EB five work, the EB five work. If we were to go with the raise in Snyder, Langston, same contracting arrangement we have today, they would be new work orders.
It completely separate scope of work than Leonardo would be at work order five. And I think work letter amendment number five. I think the different different terminology for the different firms.
Um, we have not um, um, uh, uh, so that’s, that’s what it would be if it were that, um, um, if we were to bid it, um, we as the borrower, um, and as a public entity would have to be the we would have to bid it. We’d have to bid it under the Public Works code. Um, um, you’d be, you know, before it went to bid, you’d have to approve the plans and specs.
I mean, there’s a whole bunch of stuff that we’d have to do. We’d have to bid it. It would be a new contract or a new general contractor. Uh, contracted directly with the CRA. For example.
Uh, and in that case, there would be, um, um, CBO as a project manager and Hines as a construction manager probably would be leaning mainly on Hines because there’s a lot of technical stuff that somebody is going to have to do to help assemble the pack and all that.
So, Hines, this is what they do if under the scenario and the first scenario under Aria’s and and, um, and so Langston Hines would still do all that, Hines would do everything that they would do if we were to bid it, they would do it. If Arias were the the holder of the contract, except for there’s a there’s small carve out for, um, the unapproved change orders and emergency change orders. Right.
They’d have a little bit of authority over that, but they would not be running the project. Now. They’re still running on em on the site. You’re still managing the groundwater extraction system, is still managing the landfill gas system. They still do. They? Who they are. Yes. Yes. Right.
So in in either case, they’re the O&M contractor, right. Whether they’re have a little role in the EB five work. Um, or don’t have a little role. Um, there’s still the O&M contractor. So, um. But they’re still working for us. They still work for us. Hines. Right. Well, that’s the part I’m kind of confused.
It’s like they got a project manager. You got a construction manager? Why are we still in the mix as far as dealing with. Okay, I don’t understand your question, so. Okay, I guess what I’m saying is it just sounds like it’s too many cooks in the kitchen.
Kind of scenario where you have a project manager, you have a construction manager. I’m and I know we’re the owners, but then we’re dealing with a it seems like a separate like we have our own other people over here doing it seems like they would come under one of those either the project or the the construction. Yeah. So it’s.
I mean, yeah, once Leonardo is out of there, I understand you say, you know, Leonardo is a separate project. They’re they’re working on that. But after they’re out of there, I was trying to see what our role as as the CRA, what our role is in hiring people to do stuff. If we already have.
A at the end of the at the end of the day, uh, board member Aldridge, we hire everybody, right? Um, and, um, um, so again, going back to the current scenario, we hire raise and they hire Star Langston.
Um, under the under the, um, under a scenario where that was going to be the contracting mechanism for the CB five work. Um, CGU had to work out some, uh, the proposal from Arias for, you know, what they would charge for their services. But I don’t think that they would be working directly for Sego.
They’d still be working for us, but that would be the compensation package, because they’re they’re the holder of the under that scenario, they’re the holder of the construction contract and they’re contracted under us to hold that contract. Right. So they couldn’t then also have a contract with somebody else as a project manager.
But that right relationship had to be had still be negotiated because they were going to be paying CGU was going to be paying for it, and they needed to make it work as part of the whole package under a completely different scenario where we said we’re we just we ultimately decide we’re not going to use raise for the EB five work, and we’re not going
to use our Langston for the EB five work. And I’m leaving it all kind of up in the air because. We, um, because. Right. Um, and, um, um, under under a contracting scenario where the we we as a CRA would be the public agency that would go through the public works bidding process.
Right? Uh, just like the city does when they’re building, uh, um, whatever. You know, they’re they’re redoing Avalon Boulevard or something like that. Right. Um, except instead of a $4 million or $6 million or $8 million project, it’s $150 million project. Right? Because probably the 180 million is 30 million.
It’s soft cross insurance and things like that. It’s probably the contract with the contractors going to be like $150 million. So there’s going to have to be the plans. There’s going to have to be the contract.
There’s all sorts of things you recall, and we know this every single worker on that site at all times has to have 40. Our has Whopper certification. That’s going to be the baseline qualification of any contractor. And so Hines Hines and um, who’s going to be the construction manager. They’ll do the request for the RFP as a request for information.
They will generate the change orders, um, with the contractor, uh, they’ll be doing that essentially for Sego to be doing it for us. And so there’s going to be kind of a a circle because they, they Hines won’t work for us as a work for Sego.
Sego will have this project manager relationship with us, which they do have now through the loan support agreement. So, um, so it becomes a version, a version of what we have today with Senator Langston. But it’s different because, uh, we don’t have a we don’t have a contract with Snyder. Langston Arias does.
In the case of the contractor that you that we would potentially bid, they would work for us, but they’d be managed by Sego and by Hines and, um, and, um, that’s something we’re still wrapping our head around. Uh, how that how that actually would work. Okay. That’s a whole lot. We still don’t know.
And and in that case, in that case, in that particular case, now, you wouldn’t be paying Senator Langston for anything, right? And you wouldn’t mostly be paying Arias for anything related to construction except for those couple of couple of exceptions, um, that are the unapproved change orders and the um, and emergency because you still need them as your owner’s rep for the sort of.
And they’re also the site manager. Right. So they have to make sure that the site works and they have to make sure, ultimately that the, um, they’re like the quality, quality control of the work because they’re responsible for how it’s going to operate both during construction and after construction. And, and in perpetuity.
So you need, um, you need a set of eyes that is not the affiliated with the contract construction process, but has it has a different role. And that’s so it’s a really small, um, and, it, it, um, and it may just come through on em.
It may be just part of the, the contract with O&M, if we were to do it that way. Okay. So at the end of the day, uh, Carson Goose is paying these bills. Did they did we ever send them their invoices that they’re buying. On? Invoices. Because we’re on our beyond critical path. Yeah. I. I don’t know what they’re waiting for.
I mean, could I see oh, reach out to him and and tell him this board is, uh, they need to come to the table? Yeah, we and we have communication with them about what might still be missing in their eyes, uh, so that we can make sure that we continue. And, uh, carry costs, continue to get paid.
And ASAP. Correct. Okay. So, again, like, I asked, uh, uh, J.R., if you’re getting reluctance, let me know so I can pick up the phone because we can’t keep. It. Dragging. They can’t keep dragging their feet. Okay. Are you ready for a motion? Yeah, good, good. Yes, indeed.
So I’d like to make a motion that we, uh, approve staff recommendation for, um, approval of the, uh, resolution 2613 dash c RIJPA approving an EB five loan agreement between the Carson Reclamation Authority and Can-Am California Regional Center, LP nine lender in an amount not to exceed $180 million for the purpose of installing remedial systems on sales four and five and a
portion of sell three of the former Cal Impact Cal Compact landfill in the city of Carson. And authorize. A second, another. Part. There’s another part. Authorize the executive. Authorize the executive director. If you roll down, scroll down on your screen. Oh, there we go. So you want me to do under some number. Two, authorize executive director.
Oh, let me get there. Oh, I got you, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Thank you. Authorize the executive director to execute the loan agreement and promissory note. And any ancillary documents subject to approval as to form by the authority Council. Second. Okay. Again. That is good. All right. Yes. Been moved in properly.
Second here, no further dialogue. Please cast your vote. The vote is unanimous. Motion carries. This further commentary. All Communications Authority members. Uh, I’d just like to remind all of the Carson residents and those who might be watching from near and far that we are having our family fest this Saturday.
It’s going to be at Stevenson Park, which would be the 22nd, begins at noon. It’s going to be a fabulous event, so get there and enjoy. Bring the family and lots of great entertainment, food vendors and all of the things the way we do it here in Carson. Looking forward to this Saturday. That’s all I’ve got.
Yes, Madam chair, to the Carson residents who live around Dauphin Park or any other areas within the city, but I’m doing my series of town hall meetings. I do every year. Uh, this one is at Dolphin Park on this coming Thursday, August 20th at 6 p.m. at Dolphin Park. Come out and get updated information.
What’s happening in the city and what’s new is on the pipes. Thank you, thank you. And I think there’s another one coming up. Uh, uh, but I’ll be out of town September 3rd, I believe Del Amo Park Councilwoman Rojas and I were supposed. But I won’t be here, so congratulations and welcome aboard, Mr. C. Oh oh. So.
Now we can get a little pressure off our executive director, who’s been stressed out. But I want to say thank you. It’s going to be our collections guy. It’s going to be what.? Our collections guy. Okay, so, uh, are you going to change the signing authority? You want Cedric to sign it? Uh, okay.
We got both. Okay. All right. Hearing no further comments. Uh, this meeting is adjourned. I hope we do not have another special meeting. We’re supposed to be on vacation, dark. And look at our new, uh, interim acting. Uh, thank you, Madam Attorney, for joining us. Always. It’s always a pleasure being here.
Who did you learn? Something? Always. Yes. Thank you for filling in. Until our city clerk and city treasurer. Thank you all. So this meeting is adjourned. And? And your dinners are in the back. Oh, our dinners are in the back. Oh, thank you for the dinners. I beg your pardon?