Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee

Minutes

Old Naval Hospital

January 2, 2008

 

Present: Chuck Burger, Barbara Eck, Monte Edwards, Larry Gallo, Ken Jarboe, Tom Kuchenberg, Ellen Opper-Weiner, Donna Scheeder

 

The meeting was convened at 7:05 p.m.

 

 1.    Agenda

 

The agenda was adopted as presented.

 

 2.     Minutes

 

A motion to accept the November minutes was presented. 

Mr. Jarboe proposed a change concerning the Parking/Transportation Task Force. The discussion of the alley reopening should be expanded to read: “Mr. Jarboe said that ANC 6B could not agree to the recommendation on re-opening the alley because of the resident objections, but is pleased that the Task Force will be meeting with the residents to further discuss the matter.”

 

The section should conclude with the  statement:

“The motion passed 11-0, with Mr. Jarboe noting his dissent from the recommendation urging the re-opening of the C Street alley.”

The minutes, as amended by Mr. Jarboe, were accepted without objection.

 

 3.    Executive Committee

 

Ms. Scheeder announced that Robin Eve Jasper is the new interim Director of OPM

and introduced Matt Hussman as the  Eastern Market Coordinator for OPM.

 

Ms. Scheeder suggested that  EMCAC send a letter to the City recognizing Ms. Stacy Norris’ service as the Eastern Market Coordinator. Suggestion accepted without objection.

 

Ms. Scheeder reported that she and Mr. Edwards had attended a meeting arranged by Councilmember Wells that was attended by Lars Etzkorn, Gerrick Smith, Stacy Norris and Matt Hussman from OPM and Councilmember Wells and Linda O’Brien. The meeting was held in response to the Report that was adopted at the last EMCAC meeting and sent to the Mayor, all Council Members and the Attorney General cataloguing the long list of OPM failures going back to its failure to conclude the leases with South Hall merchants after at least five years; its failure to provide adequate oversight of the construction of the Farmers’ Line shed; and including its failure to provide EMCAC with the terms of the extension of Eastern Market Ventures’ management contract; failure to share the RFP or any subsequent information regarding a contract for a Construction Manager for the rehabilitation of the Market; and  failure to submit the bid package or the 100% drawings and specifications for EMCAC review (OPM did provide a single copy of the 100% drawings, with the explanation that the 100 %design  merely implemented the 90% design, and that EMCAC review was not required). The meeting addressed the fact that the RFP package for construction of the South Hall had been put out for bids without prior review and comment by EMCAC, in contravention of the law.

 

At the meeting, Ms. Scheeder explained that EMCAC does not require review simply for its own sake, and that because of the expedition required by the fire, EMCAC has waived its review on some matters. She stated that  EMCAC objects strongly to not even being given the opportunity to exercise any option regarding review.  She pointed out that EMCAC has an obligation to maintain the historic character of the Market and if it fails it will be held responsible by the community. 

 

Mr. Edwards pointed out that the specifications do not provide for documentation, survey or protection of the historic fabric of the Market nor do they even recognized the existence and need to coordinate construction activities with the grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and DC Preservation League for that purpose. EMCAC has previously pointed out the need to establish the scope of documentation based on HABS/HAER (the Historic American Buildings Survey and the Historic American Engineering Record) standards.   This involves, in part, measured drawings and large-format photographs. We need to establish a scope of documentation prior to the start of construction, during the progress of construction, and at the end of construction.  Then, if the HABS/HAER level of documentation is too high a standard, perhaps we can develop a supplement to that level of documentation already required in the QEA contract.

 

In response to Mr. Edwards’ concerns that there is no specified procedure or mechanism for communication of construction activities with the merchants, vendors, 7^th Street businesses or the Market Manager, OPM responded that would be the responsibility of the construction management firm. When Ms. Scheeder inquired as to whether that RFP had been prepared she was told that the Temple group would perform the construction management function. Mr. Etzkorn and Mr. Smith explained that Temple was being used because they had time remaining on a contract with the city that OPM could utilize. An RFP specific to construction management at Eastern Market had not been prepared in this case. Council member Wells had commented that he was concerned about Temple. Ms. Scheeder also explained that she had concerns about Temple’s capacity to provide construction management for a historic structure since EMCAC has no documentation about Temple’s qualifications nor was EMCAC consulted. Temple’s role will be to coordinate with the various subcontractors and to insure compliance with the construction specification.

.

 

OPM suggested that Matt Hussman could provide that communication and coordination, and EMCAC urged that a formal Construction Coordination group be established, as was specified with DDOT for the Streetscape.

 

A result of the meeting was OPM’s invitation for EMCAC to attend the bi-weekly meeting with OPM, the architect, contractor and subcontractors. 

 

EMCAC expressed reservations that such a meeting (a) would go into construction detail, rather than the overview that is EMCAC’s statutory role, (b) would not include the Tenant’s Council, Market Row Merchants, or the Market Manager, and (c) being during the day, and being likely fairly lengthy, would be difficult for members of a volunteer organization, with daytime jobs, to attend.

 

Following the report of the meeting in Councilmember Wells office, Ms. Opper-Weiner expressed disbelief about the lack of recognition of Market operations that has been exhibited by OPM.

 

Mr. Gallo suggested that the areas addressed by the DDOT agreement will require revision, since the vending areas have changed, and now include 7^th Street on weekends to accommodate vendors displaced by the construction barriers.

 

Mr. Jarboe agreed that EMCAC should be concerned about the need for construction management that understands historic building, and recounted the initial problems in the construction management of the Old Naval Hospital. In terms of construction coordination and communication, Mr. Jarboe pointed out that in accomplishing the Barracks Row streetscape, a representative of every merchant on 8^th Street was included.

 

Ms. Scheeder proposed the following resolution:

 

Resolution Concerning Construction Management

 

Whereas, at a meeting on December 10, 2007 convened by The Hon. Tommy Wells, Donna Scheeder and Monte Edwards representing EMCAC, Lars Etzkorn, Director of OPM at that time, Gerrick Smith, Deputy Director OPM, Matt Hussman and Stacey Norris, OPM, and Linda O’Brien, Councilmember Wells’ office, OPM  stated that construction management would be provided by Temple Inc. Meeting participants were told that an RFP had not been issued and that this company was chosen based on the fact that they had  unused hours on an existing  contract with the city. When EMCAC representatives pressed for details regarding the qualifications of the company to provide quality review oversight for construction of historic buildings, and construction management coordination, there were none and indeed concern was expressed by the Councilmember based on this company’s previous track record on projects in the district. OPM leadership indicated that OPM and EMCAC would be involved to provide oversight of Temple. This situation is unacceptable. EMCAC cannot take the place of responsible construction coordination and quality oversight services.

 

Whereas the Eastern Market legislation states that:

 

2) The CPMO, with the advice of the EMCAC and the market manager, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 3 of Title 2, shall develop any RFP to be issued by the District government for the selection of any architects or contractors to work on Eastern Market or the Eastern Market Square. All contracts shall be awarded in accordance with the procedures in §§ 2620 through 2627 of Title 27 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (Contracts and Procurements) except that the EMCAC’s review shall be in addition to the architect-engineer evaluation board. The EMCAC shall review and comment on each proposal received in response to each RFP and shall comment on the proposals to the CPMO for final selection. Any EMCAC member with a personal or financial connection, or with an immediate family member with a personal or financial connection to any person or entity submitting a proposal, or to any contractor or subcontractor shall take no part in considering, evaluating, or recommending that or competing proposals, or that of any contractor or subcontractor.          

 

And whereas these procedures were not followed in the engagement of Temple Inc. for construction management EMCAC demands copies of any documentation from OPM and /or the Office of Contracts and procurement relating to the engagement of Temple Inc. for services related to Eastern Market and expresses its concern that unless documentation indicates otherwise, the quality of services provided by Temple will be inadequate to the tasks at hand.

 

Discussion of the resolution was favorable, with some suggested edits proposed by Messrs. Jarboe and Burger. Ms. Eck moved adoption of the resolution and Ms. Opper-Weiner seconded it.  It passed unanimously

 

 

 

Mr. Edwards suggested a second resolution that would propose the establishment of a Construction Coordination Group, whose purpose would be to communicate construction schedules and impacts to the Market Manager, Tenants Council, the Market Row businesses along 7th Street, and the area residents. It would be based on the April 5, 2005 agreement with DDOT concerning the Streetscape (copy attached).

 

Mr. Gallo pointed out that the DDOT agreement defines a different vending area, and would have to be amended to encompass the closed 7th Street.

 

Ms. Opper-Weiner moved that the concept and substance of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gallo’s suggestions be formalized by the Executive Committee into a resolution.  Mr. Burger seconded and the motion passed unanimously. It was moved by Mr. Edwards and seconded by Ms. Eck that a copy of the Resolution be forwarded to the Office of Property Management.

 

 4.    Market Operations Subcommittee

 

Mr. Kuchenberg reported on the meetings that had been held with the Project for Public Space (PPS) organization on December 13th and 17th to define market operations and to assist in preparing an RFP to hire the next market manager. While the meetings have been productive, Mr. Kuchenberg expressed concern about being able to attract Market Manager candidates with the ongoing contentious issues related to the North Hall.

 

PPS will meet with the Tenants’ Council workshop on January 16, and a large public workshop will be held on January 17^th at Hine Middle School. EMCAC members and attendees were asked to publicize this public meeting to everyone and the Market Manager was specifically asked to place it on the Market website.  It was further noted that the website often is outdated and needs attention.

 

Mr. Burger raised the question of whether legislative changes should be pursued to provide clarity for the RFP process.  Ms. Opper-Weiner expressed doubt that there would be enough time to do so, and expressed the view that the possible changes that have been mentioned would not affect management.

 

Mr. Kuchenberg asked OPM to address the heat-gain issue in the East Hall that has been a problem even in the mild fall weather, but will likely become oppressive during the warm months that are yet to come.  Already it appears that some of the display cooling equipment is having problems in maintaining temperature on warm days.

 

Mr.Kuchenberg asked the Market Manager to address progress in establishing a weekday market.

 

 5.    Capital Improvements Subcommittee

 

Mr. Edwards reported that on December 7 he provided a memorandum to OPM concerning the apparent inconsistencies and inadequacies in the specifications that were a part of the RFP concerning:

• Historic restoration skill requirements

• Historic fabric protection

• Streetscape work

• Building occupancy

• Construction management and coordination

At the meeting in Councilmember Wells’ office, OPM provided a three-page document that addresses only a part of the historic restoration skills requirements. The document is not complete and OPM was asked to provide the balance of its response.

 

Mr. Edwards reported that he was able to locate the March 20, 2003 Heery Report, which contains the identification of original paint colors, by layer, that was prepared by  Bell Architects, dated July 2002. That was delivered to OPM on December 2, 2007, The transmittal memorandum repeated EMCAC’s prior recommendation that the attached historic paint color analysis be specified as the starting point in selecting paint colors for the renovation of the Market.  EMCAC is not advocating absolute adherence to those original colors; for example, EMCAC has previously recommended contrasting, period colors to distinguish the cast iron from the wrought iron elements of the unique Cluss-designed South Hall trusses, recognizing that originally they were probably a single color.  EMCAC recommends a painting scheme that is based on the original colors, and where appropriate, the use of color to emphasize the unique architectural features of the building be employed.

 

 6.    Market Manager

 

Brian Cook reported that that the East Hall maintenance issues have been largely resolved, and he expects to have the light fixture issue resolved tomorrow, January 3.

 

• EMV is working with OPM to complete the East Hall leases.
• EMV has not yet obtained the historic electric usage information from the East Hall merchants that will be used to pro-rate the electric bills.  Neither EMV nor OPM have received an electric bill from PEPCo since the East Hall has been in operation.
• EMV is attempting to determine the health code compliance of the Farmers’ Line and outside food vendors. About half of the vendors have replied, but no information on the outdoor “cooking” vendors has been obtained.
• EMV has not been able to determine information on the tenure and classification of the  outside vendors for the purpose of  determining their classification and eligibility for  “grandfathering” under the  legislation. Ms. Opper-Weiner has historic information on that subject, and offered to provide it to EMV.

 

Mr. Gallo asked about the conflicting information that is being disseminated by EMV and Market 5 Gallery about about whom the outside vendors should  pay their rent to and who manages the outside vendors. Mr. Gallo stated there were two letters distributed : one from EMV stating that they would manage the street vending and one from Market 5 stating that the EMV letter was untrue and that rents should be paid to Market 5.

Mr. Cook stated that this issue was being addressed by OPM.

 

Ms. Opper-Weiner inquired about the water drainage problem, that while the problem at Southern Maryland Seafood had been addressed, there was still a problem with Market Lunch. Mr. Cook responded that he thought both problems had been addressed.

 

In response to Mr. Kuchenberg’s question about a weekday Market, Mr. Cook stated that no one has been recruited and seemed to indicate that management had done nothing about the issue.  Mr. Kuchenberg expressed frustration that EMV did not act upon EMCAC’s  request that management look into the possibility and survey the current farmers to determine interest and investigate recruiting additional farmers, because Mr. Cook had told the EMCAC meeting that they would do so..

 

In terms of trash, Mr. Cook described the situation as “improving”, with both compactors now working, the open-top dumpster has been removed. There   is a problem with how to secure the dumpster located in the construction area.  Community member Sonia Conley [spelling?]  presented photos taken by Vernon Mallu on December 21 and January 2 indicating there continues to be a problem with overflowing dumpsters and  trash on the ground in the alley behind the Market. The issue of dumpster capacity was discussed. Mr. Bowers noted that the current market renovation plans did not allow for the need to increase the number of dumpsters in order to deal with the trash problem. Mr. Gallo suggested that management provide enclosures for the dumpsters in order to hide some of the unsightliness. Mr. Hussman indictaed that the problem was more complex and he outlined why. He stated that he would continue to work on a permanent solution.

 

Ms. Opper-Weiner raised the on-going question about the status of Market 5 Gallery. Mr. Cook responded that their staus is ”in limbo.” In response to follow up questioning by Mr. Burger, Mr. Cook stated that Market 5 has not been evicted, and reiterated that their status is “in limbo.”

 

There followed a brief discussion of the theological significance of “limbo” and an expression of general dissatisfaction that the Market 5  situation has not been resolved.

 

 7.    Office of Property Management

 

Mr. Hussman reported that OPM will get the word out about the Project for Public Space Workshop that will be held on January 17^th at Hine.

Mr. Burger offered to prepare a flyer for that purpose.

 

Mr. Hussman is still going through the files and boxes he “inherited”, much of which involves reports and concerns from EMCAC that he hopes to be able to respond to.

 

Mr. Hussman reported that a webcam is now in operation and people can view the installation of the trusses on the OPM website.

 

Mr. Jarboe pointed out that when the crane sets up at the south end of the Eastern Market building to lift those trusses, OPM needs to work with Marvelous Market and other adjacent businesses to notify their customers about the “no parking” restrictions.

 

Mr. Hussman acknowledged that trash around the open-top dumpsters in the alley behind the Market is a problem, but there is no easy solution to secure those dumpster.  OPM is evaluating the required level of trash capacity and how to isolate the construction dumpsters.

 

Mr. Curtis Clay reported that work on the South Hall to permit installation of the new trusses is almost complete.

 

Mr. Clay reported that there will be three window mock-ups installed in the North Hall to evaluate which would be most appropriate for the South Hall windows and doors:

Type A – 53% visible transmittance, 75% UV blockage

Type B – 25% visible   transmittance, 95% UV blockage

 

The glazing which is specified for the skylights in the South Hall will provide

33% visible transmittance, 99% UV blockage.

 

EMCAC was given a 18 page package of documents that represented amendments to the solicitation for bid package that Mr. Clay represented as primarily technical.  The package consisted of amendments in the form of AE responses to Bidder Questions, revised price breakdown forms and a Department of Labor general decision.

 

He reported that at the public bid opening in December, the following bids were received:

$9 million – Vista Contracting

$9.7 million – Prince Imus / WM Schlosser  (A joint venture)

$7.5 million – RBK Construction

$11.5 million - Keystone Plus (the company currently doing the windows)

$8.1 million – Forney Enterprise.

 

The bids are being evaluated by the Office of Contract Procurement.

In response to a question from Mr. Edwards, Mr. Clay provided the following contract cost figures for contracts that have been awarded:

 

Roof — $1.4 million (Following the meeting, Mr. Clay confirmed that this is the amount that was authorized by the  City Council in approving the roof contract. There was an additional $900,000 in “start-up funds” authorized by OPM to get the job started, and there have been “additional improvements added after the award of the contract which have cost approximately $300,000″.  Thus, the total cost-to-date of the roof is $2.6 million.)

 

Windows — $0.6 million

 

Mr. Clay stated that OPM and the architects are looking into the paint analysis prepared by Bell Architects, but are unsure what layer should be used. (Following the meeting, QEA confirmed that there was no final report from Bell Architects, and thus additional paint color work needs to be done.)

 

He stated OPM is working with the architect to implement the bulletin board design prepared by Edge Advertising for the arch stall.

 

In response to Mr. Clay’s description of the hiring of the Temple Group for construction management, Mr. Jarboe explained that coordination of contractors and subcontractors, which appears to be the role of Temple, is very different from coordination of stakeholders, which is essential and critical for the work at Eastern Market..

 

 10.            The North Hall

 

Following the OPM Report, Mr. Burger explained how very difficult the negotiations have been with John Harrod and Market 5 over the past 6 years. He has proven to be a tenant that detracts from the Market, and the worst outcome would be for Market 5 to continue as a tenant.

 

The North Hall is as important as the South hall to the viability of the Market, and the City needs to deal with the North Hall in a manner that serves he best interests of the Market.

 

Ms. Scheeder asked if other members of EMCAC agreed with Mr. Burger’s comments, and by show of hands, there was unanimous agreement. The following statement was approved unanimously:

 

The Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee has established a position on Market 5 Gallery.  At our meeting Wednesday, January 2, our members, representing The Advisory Neighborhood Commission, Stanton Park Neighborhood Association, The Capitol Hill Restoration Society, The Capitol Hill Association of Merchants and Professionals, the Market merchants and vendors, the representatives of the Mayor and the City Council member, and the Independent Community member unanimously agreed that Market 5 Gallery has been a bad tenant.

 

The future success of the search for new management for the Market and the effort to have a unified management structure would be severely undermined if there is an agreement to allow Market 5 to resume occupancy after the construction project. We are not opposed to continuing having the North Hall as a community arts space. We are opposed to continuing a relationship with Market 5 which has consistently been in arrears in its rent, failed to produce reports required by the now lapsed settlement agreement and has conducted its business in disregard for a number of the legal obligations required by the Eastern Market legislation and the settlement agreement.

 

In short, EMCAC is opposed to any efforts to allow Market 5 to return to the Market.

 

Ms. Scheeder also inquired as to the status of the audits that Mr. Etzkorn had initiated of both Market 5 and EMV. Mr. Hussman stated he would inquire as to the status.

 

 11.           Tenants’ Council

 

Meetings with the architect are continuing and appear to be productive in the design and configurations of the individual Merchant stalls.

 

 12.           Treasurer’s  Report

 

There was no Treasurer’s Report.

 

 13.           Announcements

 

Mr. Burger reminded us that Bernie Prince had indicated an interest in operating a weekday market.

 

 14.           Next Meeting

 

The next meeting of EMCAC will be on Wednesday, January 30^th.

EMCAC meetings thereafter will take place on the fourth Wednesday of each month: February 27, March 26th, April 23, May 28, June 23, August 27, and September 24.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm and is filed under Meeting Minutes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.