HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 10-28 EDAP • EDA MEETING
City of Brooklyn Center
October 28, 2002 AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
-The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the
consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items.
a. Approval of Minutes
- Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote
on the minutes.
1. June 24, 2002 - Regular Session
4. Commission Consideration Items
® a. Resolution Authorizing Submission of an Application to the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund
-Requested Commission Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
b. Resolution Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4
-Requested Commission Action:
- Motion to adopt resolution.
5. Adjournment
EDA Agenda Item No. 3a
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JUNE 24, 2002
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center Economic Development et in regular session and was
y ve opment Authority (EDA) m g
called to order at 7:37 p.m. by President Myrna Kragness.
2. ROLL CALL
President Myrna Kragness, Commissioners Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, Bob Peppe, and Tim Ricker.
Also present: City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager Jane Chambers, Planning
and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria
Rosenbaum.
• 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
A motion by Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Commissioner Peppe to approve the agenda and
consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously.
3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion by Commissioner Lasman, seconded by Commissioner Peppe to approve the June 10,
2002, regular session minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS
4a. RESOLUTION DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF
MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS TO MALL FOR PURPOSES OF AMENDED
AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH TALISMAN
BROOKDALE,LLC
Executive Director Michael McCauley discussed that this resolution would authorize the Executive
Director to make written confirmation on behalf of the EDA that Talisman Brookdale Associates,
LLC is in compliance with Section III.3 of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement by
virtue of substantial completion of the minimum improvements, while clearly indicating that
additional expenditures and improvements both inside and outside the mall remain yet to be
completed.
06/24/02 -1- DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -10
Commissioner Nelson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF MINIMUM
IMPROVEMENTS TO MALL FOR PURPOSES OF AMENDED AND RESTATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH TALISMAN BROOKDALE, LLC
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Ricker.
Motion passed unanimously.
5. ADJOURNMENT
A motion by Commissioner Peppe, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting at
7:41 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
President
06/24/02 -2- DRAFT
•
EDA Agenda Item No. 4a
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist
DATE: October 21, 2002
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Submission of an Application to the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund
In 1997 the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners established the Environmental Response
Fund (ERF). The fund was set up pursuant to Minnesota Statutes which allow the establishment
and collection of a mortgage registry and deed tax for deposit into an Environmental Response
Fund (ERF) for Hennepin County. The ERF is to be used for the assessment and clean -up of
contaminated sites located within Hennepin County.
The purpose of the ERF grant application before the EDA is to fund a portion of the clean -up of
the Joslyn site. The specific project proposed to be funded with ERF grant funds is an
unexpected clean -up created by a water main break on the portion of the project now occupied
by the Wickes building. The broken water line was a fire water supply line to the Wickes
• building and apparently failed due to a faulty pipe. The pipe has been repaired, but as is standard
industry practice, the pipe manufacturer and contractor that installed the pipe are liable for
replacing the pipe but not for any clean -up required as a result of the pipe failure.
The results of the failure of the broken water pipe was that a small amount of contaminated soil
was forced to the ground surface from below the parking lot serving as permanent cover and was
deposited in the storm water retention pond on the site.
A Remedial Action Plan, approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, has been
prepared by the developer, Twin Lakes Business Park LLC, to mitigate the contaminated soils
deposited in the retention pond. The project to clean up the soils will involve removal and
burying of the top four inches of sediment, approximately 190 cubic yards, from the retention
pond.
The total cost of the project is $112,775 which includes actual cleaning costs and preparation of
required work plans, lab tests and MPCA oversight. The estimated cost of the actual clean -up
and the amount requested under the ERF program is $65,900, and includes storm pipe cleaning,
pond de- watering, soil excavation, placement and capping along with the required
documentation report and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency oversight. The Joslyn project
has received Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) and
Metropolitan Council grant funds for clean -up of the site but, since this portion of the
development project has been completed, DTED and Metropolitan Council funds are no longer
is available. No local match is required as part of the ERF application, but the developer will be
MEMORANDUM
October 21, 2002
Page 2
•
providing $46,855 in matching funds which provides for preparation of the work plans for
mitigating the soils contamination and lab testing of the soil and sediment samples.
The resolution before the EDA is to authorize submission of an Enviromnental Response Fund
application from the EDA to Hemiepin County for the clean up project. No matching funds will
be paid by the City or EDA and the FDA's responsibility will be to administer and manage the
grant funds if the project is approved by Hennepin County. A copy of the grant application is
included for EDA review.
•
Environmental Response Fund
Grant Application
Cover Page
Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center, EDA
Address: 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Phone: (763) 569 -3300 Fax: (763) 569 -3494
• E -mail:
Municipality: City of Brooklyn Center, MN
Project Contact Person: Tom Bublitz
Phone: (763) 569 -3400 Fax: (763) 569 -3494
E -mail: tbublitz (a,ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us
Application Preparer: Paul Hyde, Twin Lakes Business Park LLC
Phone: (612) 904 -1513 Fax: (612) 904 -1590
E- mail: t)aul(a),realestaterecyclin�4.com
I. SITE INFORMATION
Name of Site Wickes Distribution Center, France Ave. Business Park
(Building name, location, reference, etc.)
Site Address 4837 Azelia Ave. N
City (or Township) Brooklvn Center, MN
Hennepin County District No. 1
Property Identification No. 10- 118 -21 -23 -0006
If enrolled in an MPCA program: VIC /VPIC Program I.D. # VIC 9730
LUST Program I.D. #
Other
• I. Is this site the previous recipient of an ERF grant for assessment?
r .. Yes X No
2. Is this application for an assessment, RAP development, or
cleanup?
F, Assessment
�.. RAP development
X Clean up
3. Does this application request funds for property acquisition?
X No
4. Current property owner
Twin Lakes Business Park LLC, the developer
5. Property owner after cleanup same
6. Current enviromnental consultant and legal counsel if applicable
Consultant Chris Thompson, Geomatria Consultants
Phone (952) 935 -1010
• Attorney _ N/A
• 7. Legal description escriphon of the site:
Lot 1, Block 1 Joslyn Addition
8. Acreage of site (pond) .33 acres Sq. Footage of site 14,375 SF
9. Attach an accurate and legible location map and site diagram
showing locations of relevant site features such as buildings,
retaining walls, suspected /known areas of contamination, etc.
(photographs are helpful). The map should include the property
boundaries, a scale bar and a north arrow.
See Exhibit 1, Site Survey and photograph of pond, green area
10. What is the current Zoning /Land use of the site I -2, industrial
11. Will the proposed final use of the site require a zoning change?
Yes X No
If yes, describe the expected zoning and the necessary procedure
for obtaining the change.
12. Current economic condition:
':...vacant lot X Developed site (describe below)
Wickes Distribution Center is a 203,040 square foot warehouse
developed in 1999 on the former Joslyn superfund site. Area
subject to remediation is a storm pond /wetland area on the
development parcel and adjacent to 11 acre wetland /natural
habitat.
•
•
13. If the site is currently developed with a building(s) but is not
occupied, how long has the building(s) been vacant? yrs.
mo. N.A., see above
14. If this application is for a RAP implementation, is demolition
required to implement the RAP? Yes X No
p
a. If yes, describe the structure(s) to be demolished (include age
and condition).
b. If yes, does demolition require asbestos and /or lead paint
abatement? If yes, describe.
•
II. SITE HISTORY
1. Please attach a brief synopsis of the site's history. Explain why the
site is believed to be contaminated (if the application is for an
assessment grant) or how the site came to be contaminated. Also
list the titles and dates of any supporting environmental reports,
historical information, etc.
See Exhibit 2, Site History
III.
CONTAMINATION INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
(Complete this section if your application is for an assessment and/or
RAP development.)
1. Current status of the investigation:
•
a. Is the site enrolled in the MPCA VIC or VPIC program?
r Yes No
b. Has a Phase I Environmental Assessment been completed?
Yes No
(If yes, please attach a copy to this application)
c. Do you have an approved work plan for a Phase II
investigation?
r Yes r : No
(If yes, please attach a copy of the work plan and cost estimate
to this application)
d. Has any portion of the work plan been implemented?
I " Yes No
•
e. Please provide copies of any approval and /or comment letters
that you have received from the MPCA and copies of any
reports documenting investigation activities that have been
conducted to date.
2. Briefly summarize ze the identified contamination at the site to date
contaminants concentrations etc. and the objective of the future
planned investigation. If no soil or groundwater samples have yet
been collected at the site, please say so.
• IV. CONTAMINATION INFORMATION
(Complete this section if your application is for a cleanup.)
1. What type of contaminants are present at the site?
The Site contaminants of concern include polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH's), pentachlorophenol (PCP), petroleum in the
form of fuel oil and polychlorinated di- benzo -p- dioxins and
polychlorinated di- benzofurans (Dioxin/Furan) compounds.
2. Attach a copy of the approved RAP and final approval letter for
your Response Action Plan from the MPCA. Also include your
cost estimate for the RAP.
See Exhibit 3, Developers Response Action Plan — Work Plan
for Soil Response Water Main Failure and See Exhibit 4,
MPCA Approval Letter. See Section VI of the Application for
Clean -up Budget.
3.
Summary of Contamination Information:
a. Provide a concise description of the identified
contamination and proposed RAP. The description should
include the occurrence of the contamination (i.e., are
there distinct areas of contamination or is contamination
widely disseminated across the site? Is the contamination
at the surface or at depth ?).
The top 4- inches of sediment in the storm water pond is contaminated due to the
accidental discharge of impacted soil to the pond. Table 1 of the approved RAP
(Exhibit 3 of this application) provides a summary of the soil /sediment sampling
and analysis for the contaminants of concern. The Dioxin /Furan compounds are
present at concentrations above the applicable Industrial SRV for the Site.
The contaminated soils were released to and spread over an ice covering on the
pond at the time of the water main break. The ice then melted and the soil
settled onto the underlying sediments. The soil /sediment sampling and analysis
suggests that the entire 4- inches of sediment in the storm water pond is
impacted.
•
•
b. Complete the following table for soil contamination
(be sure to include areas of contamination that have been
identified at the site but will not be treated or removed as
part of the approved RAP):
General Total Volume of f Total Volume of ,RAP Cleanup Goal
Contaminant type identified identified (i.e., residential
(i.e., DRO, VOCs, contaminated soil contaminated soil Remedy SRVs, industrial
metals, etc.) (cyds) to be remediated SRVs, etc.)
(cyds)
CPAH, PCP _........
.and 190 CY 190 CY Place beneath Industrial SRV
Dioxin/Furan approved cover
.... . ....... .._ ... .. .......... ....... ...... .......... .
...._. .... ........ ...... _._._............... .. .. ....................... ..
f 3 '
f i
S
f
... __......... ..._ .............._.._ ... ..........._._. .. ......... .... ........ ........._... ............ . ... .... .. . ..... _... ................. .. . .......... .................. .. - ......_...... ...-
3
..............__ .._...._........._.._.... ........ ........ ............ .... _..... .. _....... .... .... .. ............ _ .... ......... .......... ........... ....
...._...._....._ . _.............
..... _ ..... ... ................. _.. ..._......... �......_. ... .._....... .................... ........_ .......... _. _.............................. .......... .. .. .. ........__........_.........._........._............... . ......... ....... ..... ....... .. ........�
•
• C. Complete the following table for groundwater contamination. If no or
limited groundwater investigation has been conducted, indicate this.
Also indicate if a groundwater investigation was conducted but no
contamination was detected.
General Contaminant Affected aquifer i.e. Approximate Remedy
type (i.e., DRO, VOCs, water table, deeper dimensions of
metals, etc. aquifers) contaminant plume on-
site. Specify if the plume
extends off -site.
.......................... ................. ............................... ,
_._... _....... _._.__._.... _ .... _... __. .......... _ ...........
t
.. ............................... ......
Not Applicable. The focus of the remediation is the
impacted soils in the pond. Water in the pond is comes
from runoff of rainwater from the Wickes Building
parking areas. Sampling of the pond water revealed no
traces of PCP or PAH. There is a likelihood that as the
pond is being pumped out, impacted soils will be mixed
in with the pond water.
Accordingly, the Remedial Action Plan requires that the
water currently in the pond be pumped into the
sanitary sewer system prior to the excavation of the
impacted soils from the bottom of the pond.
•
® d. List all compounds comprising the identified release
in soil and the corresponding average and maximum
concentration for each compound. Also include petroleum
in the table. If distinct areas of contamination are present at
the site, please describe separately. (NOTE: It is acceptable
to provide an overview with estimated average and
maximum concentrations. For the carcinogenic PAH
compounds, provide BaP equivalent concentrations.)
Compound Tier I Average Maximum
SRV (residential) Concentration Concentration
CPAH 4 mg /kg < SRV < SRV
PCP 135 mg /kg 4.4 mg /kg 8.0 mg /kg
Dioxin/Furan 350 ng /kg 443 ng /kg 964 ng /kg
_
.......... _ ..........
• e. Please do the same as in D. for groundwater.
Compound HRL Average :Maximum
i
E
',Concentration Concentration
Not Applicable
.... ......._........... .
E
._ ....... .............. .. ....._.... ....... ... ........ ... .. ....._. .... _... .. ....... .... .. ... .. .... ............._. .....,....
........._ ...... ........ ............... _............ ......_...._... i _...._. .... _...... _ _
•
• f. If groundwater at the site is contaminated, note the geologic makeup
of the affected aquifer (sand /gravel, till, lacustrine clay, etc.), and the
estimated average linear velocity (be sure to indicate how this number was
determined).
Not applicable
g. Briefly describe the possible exposure scenarios posed
by identified contamination at the site (i.e., ingestion or
human contact with contaminated soil, consumption of
contaminated groundwater, ecological impacts, etc.), and
nearby receptors that could be affected by contaminants
migrating from the site (high resource value
wetland /creeks /rivers, etc.).
The storm pond is adjacent to and discharges to a wetland that borders Twin Lake.
Twin Lakes is a Class I water that is part of the Shingle Creek Water Management
Organization. The storm pond is shallow and is used by wild life such as Deer,
waterfowl, and amphibians. The storm pond is also located adjacent to residential
areas of Brooklyn Center.
h. Provide a concise description of the proposed RAP
activities. Include an estimate of volumes of soil and /or
groundwater to be excavated /treated. Also describe
demolition activities necessary to perform the cleanup.
The standing water in the pond will be pumped and discharged to the sanitary
sewer, under a permit from the MCES. Water will be pumped to de -water the pond
sediments. The inlet and outlet to the pond will be temporarily blocked off. A
trench will be constructed along the north side of the pond and the excavated soils
will be saved for use as cover. The top 4- inches of the pond sediments will be
excavated and placed into the trench. At least 3 -feet of clean soil will be placed over
the excavated soils. Clean topsoil will be placed and vegetation will be planted to
prevent erosion. A complete documentation report will be prepared for MPCA
approval and the cover over the excavated soils will be added as another item for
oversight in the Site Operations and Maintenance Plan.
•
• V. COST RECOVERY
Is the site receiving funding from any other state or federal
funding program(s)?
F Yes X No
If yes, which program(s) and at what funding amount?
Has the site been identified as a state or federal Superfund
site? X Yes r No
Prior to redevelopment in 1999, the Joslyn site was on
NPL and state PLP. Site has since been de- listed from
PLP and NPL.
Has the party responsible for the contamination been
identified? ' ..:.Yes � No
Not applicable. Impacts to pond resulted from water
• main failure that brought impacted soils underneath
MPCA approved permanent cover to surface. Water
from water line break carried impacted sands into
storm pipe and storm pond where they are today.
If yes, who is the responsible party (RP)?
N /A. Responsible Party for superfund site cleanup
(Joslyn Manufacturing Co) performed cleanup of the
original woodtreating site according to an MPCA ROD
and Consent Order. Developer Twin Lakes Business
Park LLC performed an MPCA approved Developers
Response Action Plan and obtained Certificate of
Completion from MPCA for completed cleanup and
redevelopment of Wickes Building. Pond impacts that
are subject of this cleanup resulted from water main
rupture.
•
Is there any financial commitment by the RP for the
cleanup? : Yes X No
RP for original superfund site has performed their
cleanup and they are not liable for this work.
Are there available resources for the RP to pay for the
cleanup? ... Yes X No
NA, see above
Please explain:
Is a cost recovery plan to recover costs from responsible
parties in place?
�' Yes X No If yes, please attach the plan and
amount of costs to be recovered.
N.A. There is no RP in this instance. See above.
• Has consent of the Attorney General been obtained?
1-", Yes X No NA, see above
NOTE: It is not required that you have a plan to recover costs from the party responsible
for the contamination. However, if you are plaiming on recovering your costs from the
responsible party, attach information on the process.
VI. COST ANALYSIS
INVESTIGATION, CLEANUP AND PROJECT COST BUDGETS
1. What is the grand total of investigation, cleanup and other project
costs for the site? $112,755.00
2. How much funding are you requesting from ERF? $65,900.00
3. Please fill out the following budget table to identify the
assessment, cleanup, and project costs for the site. Include a time-
line for completion of the assessment and /or clean up. Attach
additional sheets if necessary.
BUDGET TABLE
Assessment and /or Investigation and Amount
RAP Implementation Activities
Emergency response, Work Plan for soils $20,023.00
management during water line
replacement; Sampling of soils and pond
sediments; Oversight of soils management
during ater line replacement
g p
Lab Costs — Soil and Sediment samples $13,200.00
Work Plan $13,632.00
•
SUBTOTAL (I) $ 46,855.00
•
Soil and Groundwater Cleanup Amount
Activities
_..... _ _ ..._ ............. _............. ...... .... ............... ...... .....
.._.......... .._............................ _. _.............._.._:
Storm Pipe Cleaning; Pond dewatering; $52,100.00
Soil excavation, placement and capping
Documentation Report $6,800.00
MPCA Oversight $7,000.00
SUBTOTAL (II) S 65,900.00
TOTAL Investigation and Cleanup
SUBTOTAL (I) + SUBTOTAL (II) S 112,755.00
Other Project Activities necessary to Amount
implement RAP (i.e., acquisition costs,
demolition and all related pre -demo
abatement and special waste disposal)
.......... .. _...... _..._........_.._ ......_.... ......_... .... _ .... ............._............_....
SUBTOTAL (III) S 0.00
TOTAL Investigation, Cleanup and Project
SUBTOTALS (I) +(II) + (III) S 112,755.00
•
4. Is there a possibility that the site will be investigated
and/or cleaned up without
ERF money? r' Yes X No
Please explain: The failure of the water
main was an unusual and unexpected cost
that occurred after the Site had received
its Certificate of Completion from the
MPCA. The water main break brought
impacted soils to the surface where they
were transported by the water to the
storm pond. As mentioned above, there is
no Responsible Party for this cleanup.
While the pipe installation contractor and
pipe manufacturer are responsible for
repairing the ruptured water line, they
have no legal liability for the clean up of
impacted soils that resulted.
5. Have other sources of funding for this project been
identified?
X Yes F ,.'. No
a. If yes, what are the sources of funding
and dollar commitment from
each?
Source Funding Amount
Developer /Local Match S 46,855.00
b. If no, what efforts have been made to
secure other funding? (Attach letters of
rejection for funding requests, city council
minutes, etc).
Also attach a narrative explaining why
the project cannot be financed
exclusively with local resources.
• DTED was approached for permission to use a portion
of the DTED grant in place for the final phase of the
development. DTED's response was that the grant was
made for the adjacent site and is not eligible for use in
cleaning up the pond on the Wickes site.
Nor is there any tax increment financing available. The
in
TIF district in place for the redevelopment is short of
funds as a result of 2001 legislative "reform" of the
property tax system that reduced available TIF by 40 %.
Finally, this "release" is not within the scope of
CERCLA or MERLA funding.
Since there is no RP, and no grants or TIF available,
this clean up will not happen without an ERF grant.
VII. SITE VALUE
1. What is the current estimated value of the site? $7,700,000
(Wickes Buildine)
• 2. What is the estimated value of the site, should contamination be
found and remediation completed? $7,700,000
a. How was this figure determined.
Market value appraisal
b. Who determined it?
City of Brooklyn Center Assessor
VIII. REDEVELOPMENT
1. Explain the likely use of the site after investigation and cleanup
and how this was determined (give examples of prospective
developers, interested parties, zoning requirements, etc.).
While the use of the site will not change after the cleanup, the
pond will be restored to a safe, functioning green space
component of the redevelopment. Since the Wickes building
lies adjacent to an 11 -acre %vetland, developing the pond to
• look and act like a wetland is an important component of the
• development. The walls of the pond and surrounding green
space were planted with natural wild grasses and plants to
better incorporate the pond into the neighboring wetland. In
addition, the pond now features mature cattails, an important
characteristic of a wetland. A variety of birds, ducks and geese
can be seen in and around the pond. By cleaning up the pond,
we are removing contaminants that may pose a threat to plants
and birds that use the pond.
2. Describe how the community will derive benefit from the project.
Provide a description of to what extent the project will remove
blight; also indicate other measures such as green space creation,
job creation, etc. to help quantify the community benefit of your
pro] ect.
The primary benefit to the community will be the removal of
dioxins /furans from the pond. These contaminants pose a risk
to wildlife that use the pond. Removing the impacted soils
from the pond bottom also eliminates the chance that the
impacted sediments may be transported into the adjacent 11-
• acre wetland. Finally, the removal of the impacted soils from
the pond eliminates any chance for human exposure to the
impacted sediments. The implementation of the Remedial
Action Plan will place the impacted soils underneath
permanent cover and restore the green space to its intended
use.
3. If the site will be redeveloped for residential use, provide the
following data:
TOTAL # OF RENTAL UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED
N/A
Monthly rental cost per unit
Number of affordable units
• Construction cost per unit
• TOTAL # OF OWNER — OCCUPIED UNITS TO BE
DEVELOPED
Purchase price per unit /home
Number of affordable units /homes
Construction cost per unit
•
•
EXHIBIT 1
5
I ;
�i
r / •I;I a I — EXPLANATION
4 1 k Permanent Cover
I
I
'rl r dd d 7F Final I � A ddendum ma Cover
i
:I
_______________ Site Grid System Exa p .
f .
�.I Syst m le'
200' - 1
3
Building 1
I
" J 2
,
* 1
7`
C
L nl,
2
,
ff`
i W
i
i
,
', t
i
Building 2 `
D -- # � = W N
_
-- C = � yy
Fre)
y
' I
.. -
0 150 Feet
I I
L
9
PERMANENT COVER STATUS
Notes: Response Action Plan Implementation - Building II
6 1) Base map Courtesy of Sunde Land Surveying, LLC., revised March 13, 2001. Joslyn Site
2) Do not use this drawing to locate site utilities. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Project No. Figure
GGFOMMA I 5345 I 2
23- MY-2002 4 -37 MSkoMikora
r\5000 \5315 \5545. 000\ 5345.000a\02-0525_YrmrLl�Ol.dyn
CFIECKm:_____ \ \SF%Uli2 \Spbh Ndd b5-NW�r.atb WP_Wt 4x.p.,
A i+ Pond \ \
• - +..> Outlet
Impacted Soil'.:."
Pla cement Area
Pond 1 � �. \ �, - - • _ �
Pond Inlet . _
i Pond See SCALE IN FEET
Limits of ice on February 5, 2002
Current water level (approximate) T
'CB 6
�
i
Storm Water Retention Pond No. 1
I
I
i
CB 5 r
%. —
F - .- - -
Vf CB 4
r
v'I
7-
:CB 3
2;?
Parkinglot 2 Parkinglot 1 R\
-
!t -
• LEGEND
e SOIL SAMPLING POINT Catch Approximate Depth SITE PLAN
Bas h# or sod (in inches) Water Main Failure Soil Response - Building 1
1 °
2 N Joslyn Site - Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
3 - 4
4 -1
5 Trace I Project No. Figure
6 0
5345.000
OEOMATRIX 1
x �
LL � � 'S i r
r�,
":�.^ �, a 1„ `: 2 c a,•: ,:sc�" y" }
.x 4
�
k '
Ri t.
��'>�,.. 1 , : � sq�lYy'�.d . • Y ,. � ,' F t ., Yj, .�� � y +. " ��'
pi
" .�.� " ;' ' ' ,/� ... ¢ �,. �� � ��+4d �,,�tC'f,�+t'� 1���"z•,s+,�t ,}'a�,Y+ r �t
*� * � •s���'x"�'�� �; � �' �� to �" Y,iG , � �,� � i
,It . g,rii��e,^t:
C V l ei y � , ril "
Ak
.N �'' F I
tr7 J
At I
4'9 1 UA
k 'CAF ~ ° �4,w �,N,
EXHIBIT 2
•
Site History
The Operation
The France Avenue Business Park is located on the former Joslyn wood pole- treating Site
(the "Site "). For 75 years the Joslyn property was a railroad vard used for a wood
treating operation. Utility poles, railroad ties and lumber were treated using creosote,
pentachlorophenol and copper chromated arsenic as preservatives. Releases of
preservatives occurred from normal dipping, heat- treating and pressure treating
operations. Several accidental spills resulted in major spills.
Joslyn was one of the first wood treaters to use pentachlorophenol in its process. In the
early 1940's, Joslyn began the use of this compound, which must be dissolved in a carrier
solvent — No. 2 fuel oil. Joslyn's treating operations evolved from butt treating tanks, to
thermal treating tanks to pressure treating cylinders. Pentachlorophenol and its fuel oil
solvent, which constituted the bulls of the treating fluid, were used in each of these
operations from the 1940's through the completion of operations in 1980.
The contamination at the site resulted from dipping, boiling over, cleaning, sludge
disposal, accidental spills and leaking from these various operations including the fuel oil
• carrier.
Joslyn's investigation and remediation necessarily focused on the "hazardous"
pentachlorophenol in the context of remediation under the federal and state Superfund's
jurisdictional tie to "hazardous" substances other than petroleum. The Developer's
Remedial Action, on the other hand, must also focus on the evaluation and management
of any "petroleum" contaminated soils that may be encountered in the redevelopment of
the site.
The contamination entered the soil and groundwater of the Site. In 1983 the Site became
a Superfund Site once it was placed on the federal National Priorities List. In 1984 it was
placed on the state Permanent List of Priorities.
The ,loslvn Site Remediation
The MPCA specified the nature and extent of remediation for the Site in a 1985 Response
Order and 1989 Record of Decision (ROD). The Responsible Party, Joslyn
Manufacturing & Supply Corporation, has spent over $17 million to remediate soil and
groundwater contamination and meet the cleanup standards of the Response Order and
ROD on this Superfund site. Known areas of soil contamination have been treated using
bioremediation. Groundwater contamination is being addressed by three operable units,
the first addresses the shallow groundwater aquifer, the second the deep aquifer and the
• third addresses the free product. Through the pumping and treating of groundwater at the
• three operable units, the free product is slowly being removed and the groundwater plume
has been contained on Site. Based upon these remedial actions to date, Joslyn has met its
legal obligations to clean up the Site.
Developer's Response Action Plan — Wickes Buildinz Site
In 1999 Twin Lakes Business Park LLC completed the first phase of the remediation and
redevelopment of the former Joslyn site with the completion of the Wickes Distribution
Center. The MPCA issued its Certificate of Completion in 2000. MPCA de- listed the
former Joslyn Site from the state Permanent List of Priorities in 2000. In 2002 the U.S.
Enviromnental Protection Agency de- listed the developed portions of the former Joslyn
site from the National Priorities List.
The Water Line Break
In February 2002 the water line serving the Wickes building ruptured, bringing some of
the impacted soils buried under the parking lot to the surface. The water line was
constructed in an area of the Site that was provided with an engineered permanent cover,
over the impacted soils, to prevent potential exposure to the Site contaminants of concern
including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), pentachlorophenol (PCP),
petroleum in the form of fuel oil and polychlorinated di- benzo- p- dioxins and
polychlorinated di- benzofurans (Dioxin/Furan) compounds. Water from the water line
break carried some of the soils into the storm sewer system and eventually, the
stormwater pond serving the Wickes building. Persom7el from Geomatrix Consultants
• responded to the water main break and assisted in closing off the area where impacted
soils were brought to the surface.
Over the course of the next several days, the water line was replaced and the impacted
soils sitting in the parking lot in the area of the water main rupture were cleaned up and
covered. A work plan was approved by MPCA for sampling the soils in the parking lot
and the storm pond. The goal of the work plan was to determine whether impacted soils
had been brought to the surface and transported to the storm pond. The results of the
investigation revealed that impacted subsurface soils were sitting on the bottom of the
Wickes storm pond. The soils were impacted by some of the contaminants of concern in
the clean up of the wood - treating site, i.e. dioxins /furans.
Twin Lakes Business Park submitted a Response Action Plan for cleanup of the impacted
soils in the pond. The MPCA approved the RAP in the summer of 2002. This
application seeks funding for the costs of remediating the pond.
e
Commissioner introduced the following resolution and
• moved its adoption:
EDA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND
WHEREAS, an application requesting grant funds from the Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund has been prepared for submission by the Economic Development
Authority of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, the grant funds will be used for environmental clean -up of the
Wickes Distribution Center site in the France Avenue Business Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development
Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center, Mimiesota that the Enviromiental Response
Fund application is hereby authorized for submission to the Hem - iepin County Department of
Environmental Services no later than November 1, 2002.
• Date President
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
e
EDA Agenda Item No. 4b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist
1
DATE: October 22, 2002
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4
Upon completion of the public hearing, b y t r
p p g> } he Brooklyn Center City Council regarding
Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Soils
Condition) District No. 4, the EDA must also take action on the proposed amendment. The text of
the Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Soils
Condition) District No. 4 and accompanying staff memorandum is included in the City Council
packet for this item. An EDA
p Resolution Approving Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 is included with this
memorandum for EDA consideration.
•
•
• Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
EDA RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (SOILS CONDITION)
DISTRICT NO. 4
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Economic
Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (the "Authority ") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. On March 8, 1999, the Authority approved the creation of Tax Increment
Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4, and adopted a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor,
all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.123, both
inclusive, as amended, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, both inclusive, as
amended.
1.02. The Authority has investigated the facts and has determined that it is necessary
and desirable to amend the Tax Increment Financing Plan to unfreeze the original local tax rate
applicable to the Tax Increment District in accordance with Mimnesota Statutes, Section
• 469.1792, and has prepared a document entitled Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment
Financing Plan (Amendment No. 1 ").
1.03. The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to
the adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan, including, but not
limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District Number 281, which
have taxing jurisdiction over the property included in Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition)
District No. 4.
Section 2. Ratification of Findins2s for the Establislunent of Tax Increment Financing
(Soils Condition) District No. 4 and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor.
The Board of Commissioners hereby ratifies its earlier findings that the creation of Tax
Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and adoption of a Tax Increment Plan
therefor are intended and, in the judgment of the Board of Commissioners, its effect will be, to
provide an impetus for the removal and remediation of hazardous substances to allow
development to proceed on certain polluted land, will increase employment and the tax base, and
otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the
Tax Increment Financina Plan.
b
Section 3. Amendment No. 1 to Tax Increment Financinv- Plan.
3.01. Amendment No. 1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
• Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 is hereby approved and Amendment No. 1 to the Tax
Increment Financing Plan shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
RESOLUTION NO.
• 3.02. The staff of the City and Authority and the City's and Authority's advisors and
legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of Amendment No.
1 to the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Date President
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•