CCP 02-14-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Memorandum, TCAAP Review Page Two February 14,2000 e A follow up meeting was set for February 7, 2000 during which time all of the same participants, including the EP A, would be involved. Follow Up Meetin!!: At the meeting on February 7th, the EPA claimed that, if the City removed any of the soil that was considered to be contaminated, it would be remedial action, and a proper report, follow up testing and disposal would need to be followed. The indication from those present at the meeting was that a consultant would need to be hired by the City to follow the proper reporting and testing procedures of the EP A. If the City chose to follow these procedures, this would satisfy the EP A and they would sign off on the transfer of the title of the property to the City. The EP A would place no restrictions on the property. The only note on the title to the property would be the indication as noted above. The downside to the process through the EP A is that it would require additional time, costs and delays in obtaining fee title to the property. The EA and the EBS would not be able to be processed until such time as the EP A had received all the necessary documents from the consultants to satisfy them that there was no longer a problem on the property. Although, during the course of conversation, the EP A thought that they may be able to process this within 2 - 4 weeks of receipt, this did not include the timeframe in which a report would have to be put . together, a testing plan developed and followed, and the analysis processed and then all of this information turned over to the EPA. Based on the recent schedule of the State's testing procedures, this could be a 2 - 3 month additional timeframe added to the 60 day EA and EBS timeframe. The other option that was discussed during the course of the meeting was eliminating that portion of the property that contained the elevated lead levels. The City could try to cut out that portion of the property, or actually have it legally described as two (2) separate parcels, one of which could be immediately conveyed to the City. The other property would not be transferred to the City of Arden Hills, and would remain in the possession of the DOA and would be their responsibility for clean up. If the City chose to follow this option, it would have to deal with the MPCA to gain concurrence on the transfer of the title of the property. Because MPCA would have no reason to believe that there is further contamination on any of the other parts of the property, full concurrence for transfer of title would be given. The downside to this option is that there would be a piece of property that would be differentiated in some fashion (i.e., fenced and/or legally described) that would be immediately adjacent to the City property. From an appearance standpoint, it would be quite obvious that this property was different than the rest of the property that the City obtained. This may cause questions or concerns about why the City didn't take or want this piece. The DOA would at some point want to transfer the title of this property to the City. .