Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/10/10 - ADMIN - Minutes - Economic Development Authority - Regular(1 I Economic Development Authority Minutes October 10, 1988 5:00 p.m. C ) MICROFILMED 1. Call to Order Due to a lack of a quorum at 5:00 p.m., Chairman Duffy called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Tom Duf fy, Lyle Hanks, Allen Friedman, Tarry Mitchell and Bruce Battaglia Members Absent: Keith Meland and David Strand Staff Present : James Steilen, Sharon Klumpp, Carmen Kaplan and Sharon Anderson 3. Can American Proposal. for Tax Increment Assistance Bryan Weber, representing Can American Company, presented his request for tax increment assistance for the Cityscape Project on the grain elevator site at Highways 7 and 100. Mr. Weber explained the necessity of the request for additional tax increment monies is due to the configuration of the site and he felt that the monies would be returned to the City by additional tax dollars generated. In response to a question by Commissioner Hanks, James steilen stated that this should be an EDA vote , and he would see no necessity for this item to go to the City Council. Commissioner Friedman questioned why this item involving tax increment would be under the jurisdiction of the EDA rather than the City Council. Sharon Klumpp responded that in the formation of the EDA, it was decided that all tax increment districts would be under the auspices of that body. Commissioner Battaglia asked for clarification of point 4 in Mr. Weber's letter. Mr. Weber stated that without any tax increment help the net amount in the City coffers would be approximately 20 percent or $320 dollars per dwelling unit. The minimum benefit using tax increment dollars would result in $480 per unit. In response to a question by Commissioner Friedman as to why this was coming back after the first proposal, Mr. Weber stated that it was due to economic hurdles with higher interest rates. Commissioner Friedman stated that in other words the lenders didn't feel that the money could perhaps be paid back and so the City is then being asked to pick up the difference. Mr. Weber gave some history of the financing techniques used for the project. Commissioner Friedman pointed out the variable, namely the cost of the land, to which Mr. Weber responded he did not feel that he is paying too much for the land given the high visibility of the site etc . He stated that he had negotiated for a lower cost but had been unsuccessful. ®0 J 1 I MICROFILMED Commissioner Freidman expressed concern that this could set a precedent with the requested financing. Mr. Weber emphasized that this is not a typical site and pointed out the necessity for removal of the grain elevators. Commissioner Friedman asked what other types of uses could go in on the site. He also expressed concern about apartments and the possible saturation in that market at some point. He further stated that it would be difficult to decide what's worse, looking at the grain elevators or apartments that can't rent. Chairman Duf fy stated that he had talked to David Strand who had not supported the additional dollars at the previous meeting. Commissioner Strand had met since that time with Bryan Weber and stated that he now supports the project for the $800 per unit (even though he could not be present for the meeting). Chairman Duf fy further stated that the EDA needs to look at this and decide if it needs to be done to get the Highway 7 Redevelopment District going. He feels that this is a project that can go forward, that it would be a benefit to the City and that it can work. Commissioner Hanks moved that the revised proposal with the maximum of $800 per unit or a 50% tax rebate cap for the property, not to exceed $800 per unit, be approved. Commissioner Battaglia seconded the motion. Commissioner Hanks stated that he feels this would be the impetus to get the Highway 7 Redevelopment District moving. He pointed out that the City's money is not going into the District at the beginning; and he sees that as a benefit. Commissioner Battaglia stated that he had opposed this proposal at the last meeting and since has reconsidered. He stated that he does not expect, however, to see the developer back with a request for additional assistance. The vote on the motion was 3-1-l with Commissioners Hanks, Battaglia and Duf fy voting in favor of the motion; Commissioner Friedman opposed and Commissioner Mitchell abstaining. Commissioner Hanks moved that this proposal be prepared to be considered at the November 7 EDA meeting and that in the interim staff could be proceeding with work with the assumption that it would be approved at that meeting. Commissioner Battaglia seconded the motion. Commissioner Hanks explained that this motion is an effort to not delay the developer should the proposal be approved at the November 7 meeting but that this motion in no way consti tutes approval. The vote on the motion was 4-0-1 with Hanks, Battaglia, Duf fy and Friedman voting in favor and Mitchell abstaining. 4. Extension of Purchase Agreement for Oakmont Project Chairman Duf fy explained that tax-exempt bonds can only be used until the end of the year. The last extension on the purchase agreement will terminate on November 1, 1988 so it is necessary that an extension be made since this termination would take effect prior to the next EDA meeting. It was suggested that the extension be made to December 31, 1988. Commissioner Battaglia moved that extension of the purchase agreement be approved to December 31, 1988. Commissioner Hanks seconded the motion which passed 5/0 with Hanks, Battaglia, Duf fy , Friedman and Mitchell voting in favor of the motion. 2 5. Techni cal Presenta ti on MICROFILMED ( ] James Steilen stated the the developer is present along with technical experts hired to analyze some of the contaminants found an the site. It is his intention to provide information so that the EDA would be apprised of the risk and will be aware of how the PCA feels. He hopes at a future meeting to have representatives from the PCA and from the lending community present to give their viewpoints of the site. Present at the meeting were Rick Johnston from Braun Engineering, Bill Gregg from ENSR, and Jim Payne from Popham Haik who has also been negotiating with the PCA. Rick Johnston addressed the EDA outlining the boundaries of the old Belt Line dump and its proximity to the site and the surrounding area. He stated. that the levels of contaminants found on the site are very low. He further stated that the reason for the contaminants would be precipitation or free liquids that would cause surface contaminants to be absorbed into the soils. Mr. Johnston stated that five borings were initially done on the site and that no contaminants were found at that time. Since a dump had been located on the site, it was recommended that additional tests be made. Another series of borings were done along the northerly part of the property. No refuse was encountered so it appeared that all materials are in place soils. At that time, some low levels of contaminants were found. Approximately 40 soil gas holes were installed, fairly shallow on the site. From the results of that investigation, permanent monitoring wells were installed. Again some low levels of contaminants were found. The materials found were volatile organic compounds. The concentration of the contaminants was very low. In total, approximately 14 soil borings were done, four temporary ground water monitoring wells have been installed, and five additional permanent monitoring wells have been installed on this site. Mr. Johnston reported that at the northwest corner of the site, the levels of the soil gas were 15-19 parts per billion. In response to a question of Commissioner Battaglia asking how static the situation might be, Mr. Johnston responded that it probably is not static but there is actually no way to know if it could get better or worse. With all of the parking lots in the area, there is probably very little opportunity for infiltration. Commissioner Friedman clarified that this was never a municipal dump site. There was no garbage on this site, but rather rubbish, such as old beds , tires etc. Commissioner Friedman felt it important that it is clear that this was never a municipal dump site but rather a private dump site. Bill Gregg of ENSR spoke to the health factor involved. He explained that the risk assessment they did involved looking at the groundwater data, soil data, and soil gases produced by Braun Engineeriing. He explained that the concern is exposure to the human population such as through skin contact or accidental ingestion. In terms of the groundwater, Mr . Gregg explained that since there are no drinking wells used from this site, the assessment was then based on a hypothetical case of drinking two liters of water every day over a life time of 70 years. 3 7 % > T. c7 MICROFILMED Mr. Gregg explained that there were no comtaminants found in the soils. In the soil gas he stated that the VOC are based on directly breathing the soil gases. The carcinogenic risk was found to be one in ten to the minus 7 to ten to the minus 8 which is ten times safer than the EPA would deem acceptable. The noncarcinogenic risk is about the same and well below the threshold considered acceptable. In terms of the groundwater, if it were being drunk, the carcinogenic risk was 6 in 1,000 which is a calculated risk. The high level here was related to some arsenic detected , however, it is not above the acceptable standard . In response to a question of Commissioner Hanks if the PCA is cognizant of this information, it was indicated that they are. » ] J James Steilen pointed out that there is no significant difference between the retail or the Phase l portion of the site and the remainder of the site. Mr. Johnston added that there is no significant difference across the entire site and further stated that the contaminants identified were in the far northwestern comer of the site. In response to a question from James steilen on how advanced the science is and how great the potential would be to change the standard, Mr. Gregg responded that lie could not give a concrete response, but he defined same of the progress in the regulatory arena. He further stated that due to the low detection levels, this would probably not pose a problem even if regulations were altered. In response to a question of Commissioner Hanks, Mr. Gregg responded that the only possible area where regulatory people would be concerned on this site would be with the groundwa ter . Jim Payne reviewed the no action letter from the PCA. He explained that this letter states that based on the facts, the PCA will take no action at this time. Mr. Payne feels that this letter goes far beyond any no action letter which he has previously seen. He further stated that there were ambiguities in a previous letter received from the PCA and that the August 17, 1988 letter is a clarification of the March 22, 1988 letter. Mr. Payne stated that the PCA is not concerned with the development site so much as with the adjacent former dump site. He further stated that they feel that any contaminants on the development site are from the adjacent site. He pointed out that under the Superfund Iaw, they feel that neither the developers nor the lenders would be responsible for contamination on the adjacent site nor for contaminants on the site which flow from the adjacent site. The PCA feels that during excavation there will be no significant contamination found. In response to a question concerning the PCA, it was stated that the worst scenario might be that one pump out well would be needed on the site for the groundwa ter . James Steilen asked Mr. Payne if he feels the PCA considers this site to be significant or not significant. Mr. Payne responded that the PCA does not consider this a high priority site and in fact it has been difficult to get answers from them because the project site is not a high priority for the PCA. 7 · 1 4 Jo -to-83 MICROFILMED The EDA moved into executive session at 6:40 p.m. Following the Executive Session, the EDA reconvened at 8:15 p.m. 6. Consideration of By-Laws < . . e , Commissioner Friedman asked about flexibility in terms of the 5:00 p.m. time. The attorney will look into this and report back. Commissioner Hanks moved that Ash Wednesday be deleted as a holiday and that the holidays, President's Day and Martin Iuther King Day be added to the By-laws. Commissioner Mitchell seconded the motion which passed 6/0 with Hanks , Battaglia, Duf fy , Friedman, and Mitchell voting in favor. It was moved by Commissioner Hanks , seconded by Mitchell to amend the By-laws to provide for an Assistant Secretary. The motion passed 6-0 with Hanks , Battaglia, Duf fy , Friedman, Meland and Mitchell in favor of the motion. Commissioner Strand moved that there be a clarification citing the Ordinance section in which the City Manager is named the Executive Director. Commissioner Hanks seconded the motion which passed 6/0 with Hanks, Battaglia, Duf fy , Friedman, Meland and Mitchell in favor of the motion. Ihere was discussion on the use of the Pic-a-Pop and On-The-Avenue sites by nonprofit organizations. Given the uncertainty of future development, Commissioner Hanks moved that staff be directed to not allow any use of these sites at this time. Commissioner Friedman seconded the motion which passed 6/0 with Hanks, Battaglia, Duf fy , Friedman, Mitchell and Meland in favor of the motion. 8. Adjournment Commissioner Friedman moved that the meeting be adjourned . Commissioner Strand seconded the motion which passed 6/0 with Hanks, Battaglia, Duf fy , Friedman, Mitchell and Meland in favor of the motion. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 77tr Tyle Hanks Secretary cJ 5