Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-11-01-01 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, November 1, 2001 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. Commission members present were Luci Snyder, Ron Carter, Edmund Burke, and John Koven, constituting a quorum. Also present were Mayor Brainard, Councilor Wayne Wilson, Les Olds, Steve Engelking, Kevin Foster from CSO, Steve Henshaw with Mr. Renkin from the Village Cleaners, Jim Blanchard from the Department of Community Services, and Stu Hirsch from the Indianapolis Star. Present from SESCO were Gregg Romaine, James Bryan, and David Valinetz. Phyllis Morrissey present as support staff. Kelli Hahn arrived at 7:16 p.m. Discussion of Legal Matters Mr. Roesch asked Gregg Romaine from SESCO to briefly summarize their findings about the environmental study of Parcel #5. Mr. Romaine: On October 15 -17 we conducted an environmental investigation using a direct -push sampling device. We executed ten soil borings to the average depth of eighteen feet below grade, installed three temporary wells, surveyed the groundwater elevations to determine flow and we analyzed the soil and groundwater samples for the presence of chlorinated hydro carbons. Based on that investigation we collected the following facts: The depth to groundwater in and around the existing footprint is approximately 16 feet below grade. Soil borings and groundwater samples collected on the eastern and southern portions indicated no detectable impact of contaminants in that area. The groundwater flow is to the northwest (and PCE is present in the groundwater on the rear of the structure at significant levels, action levels, 1.4 parts per million of tetrachloroethene (PCE). The MCL for that is .005 parts per million.) Based on these facts, SESCO made the following professional recommendations or statements: The area to the east and south of the footprint as investigated is not impacted by the PCE contamination. The contaminant level in the groundwater was significant enough to warrant reporting to IDEM's spill line. The official incident number for that report is #2001 -11 -003. It has been referred to the state cleanup section for investigation. SESCO, in its professional judgement, had some difficult time reconciling some reports that it was trying to rely on in its investigation. We were struggling with the August Mack report that they had found water at 23 feet below grade while we found it almost uniformly throughout the footprint at 16 feet below grade. And then that we had reviewed a Phase I report that noted a dry cleaners was at the site, but did not note that a septic system was involved or a potable groundwater well, the presence of which would have clearly recommended further groundwater investigation. 1 The remedial cost associated with addressing this problem as approximated based on the size of the plume, which we're anticipating is somewhere between 100 x 100 or 80 by 100, is about $600,000, $300,000 in capital costs and $300,000 in 0 M (operation and maintenance) over five years. We're recommending further investigation to delineate the plume. We believe it has moved offsite in a northwesterly fashion. We need to confirm that. We think IDEM will be requesting that of the parties responsible. Mr. Romaine continued: The first proposal SESCO is recommending is to do a further investigation of the groundwater plume on the rear of the facility and offsite. It involves sinking eleven additional borings to the depth, not to exceed forty feet, further quantifying the aquifer there and determining how deep the chlorinated hydrocarbons have penetrated the aquifer, determining further what we believe may be the residual source of the contamination which would be the septic system, doing further investigation on it. And doing further investigation on the potable well that's at the facility. All this would be approximately $28,000. It essentially involves five to six days on site with the drill rig. The second proposal we put together was a risk management with the CRC. The first phase would be putting together a comprehensive sampling plan so that problems such as this wouldn't be encountered later down the line. Specifically, the Sherwin Williams facility and what was once the former dry cleaning operation down there, as well as the Goodyear facility. Additionally, the risk management process would involve recommendations on legal strategy, potentially finding some bridge financing through grants and loans during that litigation on the remedial cleanup. And an overall risk strategy making sure it was cost effectively addressed. Ms. Snyder: For the record, I'd like it clarified, and I want to make sure I'm right: When August Mack did their borings, their report says they found groundwater at twenty -four feet, you found it uniformly at about sixteen. You found a septic system field and they did not find that? Mr. Romaine: They noted the existence of a septic tank. What we are making reference to was a prior Phase One that had been done by a different consulting group. We struggled with how they couldn't have documented more specifically the presence of a septic system and a potable well while the historic dry cleaners had been there. Ms. Snyder: Now did August Mack find the working well? Mr. Romaine: Correct. They had noted that. Ms. Snyder: And you did also. Mr. Romaine: Yes. 2 Mr. Roesch: The Phase One, however, didn't. Mr. Romaine: Correct. Ms. Snyder: A Phase One... for the record, would you tell what is a Phase One? Mr. Romaine: Phase One is essentially a review of the site from a site reconnaissance process, where you walk the site and indicate the presence of any environmental hazards that may be there, any receptors that may be high risk. And then a paper review of the historic records, regulatory record data bases and a professional recommendation whether further environmental investigation should be conducted on the site. Ms. Snyder: So if you have a little strip center there, and there is a beauty shop, and they use chemicals, you would say, "That's a red flag." Or if you have a little strip center there and there's no business in there that uses chemicals, but you do a records check and you find out before the strip center was built, there was a gas station there, that would be a red flag, and in your Phase One you would then recommend a Phase Two. Mr. Romaine: I'm not sure what I'm saying yes to. Ms. Snyder: I'm saying if you find a chemical generating or using business or you find that there has been one there previously, those two kinds of things would raise a red flag and induce you to move to a Phase Two. Mr. Romaine: I think what I can safely say is that in this particular instance, the presence of the Village Dry Cleaners and a septic tank would have clearly pushed an environmental professional to recommend further investigation. Mr. Roesch: We have these two proposals together. We have two potential legal actions: Huffer property and Sherwin Williams. We have identified something that is on the site of the Sitzmark building. We have reason to believe from the study that water flow goes to the piece of property next door which we own at the present time, the Bicycle Shop and Muldoon's. It is my feeling that we need to proceed quickly because of the pending litigation, our filing with IDEM. I think we need to approve both of these contracts and do this very quickly so we begin the recovery of funds from whatever sources are necessary. Mr. Haas: You might want to consider accepting these proposals on the condition that SESCO is prepared to enter into a contract on acceptable terms. There are things that are not covered by this proposal that should be covered by a contract, [such as] liability insurance. Mr. Steve Henshaw: I'm working with Mr. Renken on the Village Cleaners property. We received a letter from Mr. Haas, that requested the submittal of a work plan to essentially characterize the site, conduct the due diligence activity and we provided that to Mr. Haas today. So my only point is, recognize that you have a proposal and then you have another 3 one from SESCO. I just want you to be aware of that. It talks about drilling, boring, selecting plume groundwater samples, sampling the groundwater well, conducting due diligence activities, site operation history. Mr. Haas: I presume your proposal was to the Village Cleaners. Mr. Henshaw: That's correct. That was pertaining to one of the two proposals. Mr. Haas: What Mr. Henshaw brought to me this evening is a workplan to conduct the due diligence activities with respect to the environmental matters on the site, much like SESCO who would be conducting on our behalf. Perhaps the point is that these services would be duplicative. That may be true. However, Mr. Henshaw would be working for the Village Cleaners. SESCO would be working for us. Mr. Haas continued: The second thing is, the letter I sent actually required the plan for cleanup to be completed, as opposed to the plan for due diligence. Mr. Henshaw: That includes both. One page was due diligence, one page was investigation. Mr. Haas: Yes, but the letter I sent required the plan be completed for the cleanup, as opposed to for the investigation. Mr. Henshaw: You couldn't do a cleanup until you did the investigation. Mr. Haas: I understand that. But the time frame that Mr. Renken had was until tomorrow to submit a plan for the cleanup. Mr. Roesch: I don't see how that directly affects what we're doing here. Mr. Henshaw: My question would be: does the plan that SESCO has, is that going to be for remediation. The answer is no. It's going to be used for designing a remedial action plan, but it's going to be a proposal for an investigation just like the proposal you have in front of you. So, Mr. Haas, it [inaudible] and it will be doing due diligence to identify if there are any other responsible parties. So we're in good faith here to work with you and that's why I'm here, to build that relationship and good will. Mr. Haas: Presumably your activities can be conducted simultaneously. Mr. Romaine: I would recommend splitting samples with Mr. Henshaw. [To Mr. Henshaw] this may be news to you, but this is now an IDEM incident and cleanup will be directed by IDEM. So the investigation may change a little bit as well. Since I'm still acting as a consultant for the CRC, I'd recommend the CRC do the investigation, split samples with Mr. Henshaw, let him have his own data, and the only other point I would make, is that an accepted proposal? 4 Mr. Henshaw: The only problem we have, is we're trying to use his store's insurance to assist us in the investigation and defense of any claims. As such, if you guys want to spend the money to do that, that's fine. Where I get concerned is if you're going to try to then tender those dollars back to us, then that may be an issue on Mr. Renken's monetary ability to refund his money. I don't mean to present any counsel to you but normally costs incurred voluntarily triggering action are not recoverable, paid for by insurance companies. Mr. Roesch: This needs to be negotiated by the attorneys. My feeling is we need somebody to represent us now because of the reporting to IDEM. I don't want to delay. I don't want to argue the merits. Sharing sounds like a good thing to do. Mr. Burke moved the CRC accept the proposals from SESCO, subject to an acceptable contract. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. It was agreed that the samples will be shared by SESCO with Mr. Henshaw and he will also be given a copy of the latest findings. Mr. Carter asked when Mr. Haas received the material from Mr. Henshaw. Mr. Haas replied he received it after tonight's executive session [approximately 6:45 p.m.]. Pending Property Sale Mr. Haas will continue negotiations with Mr. Shapiro. Pending Bids Mr. Olds distributed a copy of the bid results for the streetscape work and the reflecting pond. He reported the low bid was from Smock Fansler. The bid for the streetscape work was for three areas: AMLI and by the Ryland and the Kestner property. CSO's estimate was $246,400. The total bid by Smock Fansler for all three was $213,900. It is CSO's recommendation that the contract be awarded to Smock Fansler. Mr. Roesch: We are obligated to do this under the project agreement and those items are listed in our cash flow at the estimated price. Mr. Olds noted they eliminated the planting of live flowers from the streetscape. Mr. Burke requested confirmation that Smock Fansler is meeting all the specifications. Mr. Olds confirmed that, noting that there may be some issues with tree species later, but noted they are a competent Carmel contractor and have a good reputation. Mr. Koven asked who would be inspecting the project. Mr. Olds said his contract only took CSO through the bidding. Normally, under their original contract, the City would take care of the inspection. He noted he had asked Ms. Weese, City Engineer, and she told him her department did not have the staff or the time to do it so it's up to the Commission to hire someone to do onsite inspections. 5 Discussion followed. Mayor Brainard noted there could be a conflict at some point if the City Engineer wanted something different than the CRC wants in terms of change orders. He said he could direct Ms. Weese to do it, noting the City has a lot of projects going on. Mr. Koven said it would not be prudent for the CRC to pay someone else to do it versus a City employee. Mayor Brainard: We might have to pay somebody else to do it. Generally, on a road project, an outside firm is our inspector. It was estimated the cost for inspecting this project would be $4,000 $5,000. General agreement that the members wanted the City to do the inspection. Mr. Roesch asked that this be discussed further at the next meeting. Mr. Burke moved the CRC accept the Smock Fansler bid. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. Reflecting Pond Bid Discussion Mr. Olds reported three bids were received on the reflecting pond, with quite a large spread between them, Smock Fansler, Eden Enterprises, and AMLI Residential. Eden Enterprises' base bid for the total package was $1,491,200. CSO's estimate, with contingency was $1,742,100. Mr. Olds: We do have a problem. Eden Enterprises came to see us the next day, saying they made a terrible mistake on their bid. They missed $200,000 and they were withdrawing their bid. The issue here is that the contractor did submit a bid bond for the project, for 10 The issue at play here is that if the CRC so desires they can enforce the bid bond and collect 10% of the bid of $1,060,000 or more if we took all the alternates. Mr. Roesch: What amount do we have in our projected cash flows [for this project]? $1,329,000 Mr. Olds: In terms of the reflecting pond, part of the reason we took the bids, is this work is not to start until 2002. It needs to be completed by the first of July [AMLI requirements] with the understanding that we would award the contract in January. A second option is that we can reject all the bids. We can go back and redesign, take out a few things that we discovered during the bidding that were somewhat expensive, and rebid it. There would not be enough time to do it by the November 14 meeting, but we could have bids in the December meeting. Mr. Haas: If we had bids in the December meeting, would we be able to meet the requirements of AMLI? 6 Mr. Olds: We weren't planning to start until after January 1 anyway. Mr. Roesch: We would have time to meet the altered project agreement? Mr. Olds said yes. Mayor Brainard asked if there was a risk that the bids would be higher. Mr. Olds: Eden Enterprises has indicated to us they would be rebidding and their new bid would be about a million three [with the changes]. If we do that, there's a chance the rest of the bidders will say, "Hey, it's just a game they're playing and we're not going to bid again because Eden's going to get it and we would end up with one bid only." However, if we make some cost effective changes and we broadcast that to the whole community, hopefully people will come back and take another shot at it. In response to a question from Mr. Roesch, Mr. Olds said the cost to rebid would be minimal, $2,000 $3,000. Discussion continued at length. Mr. Carter asked if there were any restroom facilities for use at the skating rink. Mr. Olds said no. After further discussion, Mr. Burke moved the CRC reject all bids and authorize rebidding the project. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. Adjournment There being no other business before the Commission, Mr. Burke moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was approved and the meeting adjourned. z:\redevcomm\2001 Nov 1 Mtg min.doc 7