HUD flags Tallahassee lead‑hazard program for review; city says it paused work while resolving contractor certification and is cooperating

Tallahassee city staff told the commission on May 13 that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has designated the city's lead‑hazard reduction grant as "high risk" following a monitoring visit, citing concerns about outreach strategy, procurement documentation and cost reasonableness.

Christian, the city's grant lead, said HUD's monitoring letter requested detailed documentation and set the city on a path of biweekly reporting and technical assistance. In response to HUD questions, city staff provided procurement records, contractor certifications and cost comparisons and said they temporarily paused certain remediation work when they learned a contractor needed an additional EPA supervisor‑level certification required for the grant.

City procurement and grant staff explained the RFP process and the selection of Chief Cornerstone Construction as the single responsive bidder. The RFP required EPA certification for renovation/repair/painting (RRP) and lead‑abatement credentials; procurement records and the submitted bid identified Chief Cornerstone as an EPA‑listed certified firm with a certificate valid through 12/05/2029. The contract was executed in August 2025 and work commenced the following month; staff said they temporarily stopped a limited amount of door work in September 2025 when it became apparent a specific supervisor‑level credential required by the grant was missing, and the contractor obtained the supervisor certification and resumed work in October 2025.

HUD's letter also questioned the per‑unit costs documented in the grant file, citing an example of approximately $8,400 per door for work performed at a Holton Street property. City staff said prior outreach and market quotes supplied context: a pre‑procurement quote for full lead removal and door replacement had been roughly $9,474 per door from one firm and another quote for paint stabilization was lower. The city told HUD it ran a competitive solicitation and awarded to the responsive bidder after evaluation; staff said additional documentation, cost comparisons and procurement justifications have been provided to HUD as part of the response.

Commissioners pressed for internal review and clarity: some asked whether staff knew of any certification lapses earlier and whether additional oversight or staffing is needed for the grant. The city confirmed HUD's questions focus on outreach methods, documentation and procurement rationale; staff said they have uploaded requested records, paused work when appropriate, and will continue detailed reporting to HUD while addressing the high‑risk designation.

No criminal investigation was acknowledged at the meeting; the city attorney noted that personnel or whistleblower investigations, if they exist, may be confidential. Commissioners asked for more detail and for the grant team to return with additional documentation and a plan for corrective actions.

The city emphasized that the grant work provided lead‑hazard remediation in housing units and that staff will continue to work with HUD, provide requested records and seek to resolve the monitoring findings through the established HUD process.