Banks asks if capital funds could go to sponsors instead of NYCHA
Banks says a briefing suggested giving money to the sponsor because NYCHA is slow on capital improvements. He asks if that would work better. Fradkin says for substantial capital work, NYCHA prefers to manage it, and capital work typically takes about four years due to design and procurement. Banks says some repairs have taken longer and are dire.
Sure.
On the side of the capital side, I know...
A briefing that I had with the capital improvements team at NYCHA, it was suggested that, well, we know that NYCHA is pretty slow when it comes to,
I guess, bringing down the money or making capital improvements.
Sometimes it can take years.
It was suggested that we give money to the sponsor.
Is that something you would suggest or you think would work better since NITRA hasn't been
as efficient, but making those capital investments to the out centers.
For any substantial capital work, NITCHA, you know, if it's a major capital renovation to the space, upgrades to the building system, NITCHA,
would prefer to manage that work.
Any capital work is necessarily typically an average of four years because there is an extensive school design process.
But it seems like it's taken longer than even the timeline that you just mentioned.
And some of these, you know, some of the repairs and the things that are needed are dire.
And some of these centers, it's been going on for years, on top of years.
I mean, if NYCHA is not able to do it, would it be okay that we give it to a sponsor or the sponsor of the development or, I mean, of that particular center or the CBO?
If you have particular examples, we're happy to work with you to kind of identify the best way forward.
Typically, our providers are not able to manage capital work themselves.
And so that is why NYCHA manages the work once full funding is allocated.