EDA Minutes 12-10-2014 (Special Meeting)MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA)
Wednesday, December 10, 2014,4:45 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Tracy Hinz, Tom Perrault
Absent: Brian Stumpf
Others: Angela Schumann, Wayne Oberg, Ron Hackenmueller, Shibani Bisson (WSB),
Michael Fisher (LHB), Ryan Spencer (WSB), Chris Hartnett (MBJ)
1. Call to Order
Bill Demeules called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
2. Purpose of Meeting
The purpose of the special EDA meeting is to review the work product reports for
environmental analysis, structural analysis, and redevelopment finding analysis for
properties on Block 34.
3. Consideration to review the work product reports for environmental analysis,
structural analysis, and redevelopment finding analysis for properties on Block 34
Angela Schumann introduced the consultants who had prepared the environmental,
structural and redevelopment finding analysis work reports authorized by the EDA. These
reports provide background information and supporting data to facilitate future decisions
related to city and EDA owned properties on Block 34. She suggested that the workshop
format would enable the EDA to more thoroughly consider each report and ask questions
of the consultants.
Chris Hartnett, of Meyer Borgman Johnson, presented an overview of the structural
analysis of the buildings at 100, 112 and 130 East Broadway. The evaluations included
information pertaining to the potential future demolition of each of the buildings, and the
recommendations for mitigation of impact on existing structures at 119 East Yd Street
and the city well facilities.
Hartnett noted that the structural impacts of removing the three buildings on Broadway
are similar. All are assumed to have shallow footings. Soil borings had not been
conducted. Information from Braun Intertech indicated sandy soil. There seemed to be no
moisture concerns. All buildings are in good structural condition.
Hartnett noted that the buildings were vulnerable to direct equipment strike and vibration
due to the close proximity of the buildings to one another. Vibration concerns would be
Special EDA Meeting Minutes: 12/10/14
reduced if foundations were not removed. He recommended that the contractor
implement procedures to protect the adjacent building from being impacted by
demolition techniques. He also recommended that the western portion of 130 East
Broadway be demolished by hand. Hartnett pointed out that these are liability rather than
structural safety issues.
Hartnett indicated that the structures are vulnerable to settlement due to loss of soil
support but noted that Braun Intertech was not overly concerned about settlement from
soil consolidation as a result of vibration. He recommended removing footings with care
and contacting MBJ if in need of an evaluation. He also suggested that a vibration
monitoring program would help mitigate damage or assertions of damage.
Hartnett stated that he didn't have information on the depth of underground water lines
but assumed they are below frost level and that the use of heavy equipment on the sites
would not be a problem. He also noted that the pump houses are sufficiently distant to
avoid damage.
Bill Tapper asked if there would be any special considerations related to demolition of
100 East Broadway. Hartnett noted the importance of protecting the wall but indicated
that it would be appropriate to use heavy equipment. Tapper also asked about the effect
of vibration on 119 East 3rd Street. Hartnett indicated that there may be a risk of cracking
but no risk of structural damage.
Mike Fisher, of LHB Corporation, said that he had evaluated the buildings in terms of
meeting required substandard qualifications for a future tax increment financing district.
He indicated that three of the four buildings evaluated (100, 112, 130 East Broadway)
met qualification requirements for inclusion in a future TIF district.
Fisher pointed out that properties qualified as substandard may be considered for
inclusion in a 26 year Redevelopment TIF district or a 16 year Renewal and Renovation
TIF district. While both types of TIF districts require that 70% of the area be improved,
the percentage of buildings that must qualify as structurally substandard differs in each.
In a Redevelopment TIF district, more than 50% of the buildings must be substandard. In
a Renewal and Renovation TIF district, 20% of the buildings must qualify as structurally
substanda.*-d and 30% of the other buildings must require substantial renovation.
Fisher noted that the key tests for substandard qualification include coverage, structural
condition of the building, code deficiency and distribution. The coverage test requires
that 15% of the area of the parcel be covered by structures. Fifty percent of the buildings
must be in substandard condition.
Fisher explained that the cost of bringing a building into compliance with current code
standards is its code deficiency. He suggested that it might be better to just replace the
building once the cost to make it code compliant hits the 15% threshold established by
2
Special EDA Meeting Minutes: 12/10/14
state statute. He also noted that structures must be reasonably distributed within the
district.
Fisher summarized that the qualification process includes a curbside assessment, a review
of GIS information and building permits, a building inspection, documentation of
substandard items, and determination of a replacement value for each building.
Fisher noted that LHB had prepared letters of findings for the buildings. He suggested
that doing so reserves the right to include substandard buildings as part of a -future TIF
district. He suggested that the EDA consider only removing buildings as needed in order
to keep options open as TIF districts must be established within three years from the date
of building demolition.
Ryan Spencer reported that WSB had completed the Phase 1 environmental site
assessment of the properties and outlined proposed next steps in preparation for
demolition. He noted that the hazmat surveys had identified regulated wastes and
materials and pointed to procedures for handling these during demolition. He indicated
that WSB had also prepared bid documents related to contracting for demolition and
would be involved in oversight onsite during building demolition.
Spencer noted some vermiculite insulation around windowsills but found no asbestos or
lead issues at 100 East Broadway. He indicated that there is some asbestos that needs to
be managed at 112 East Broadway and there is evidence of asbestos in the flat tar roof at
130 East Broadway. He stated he was only able to make general notes and assumptions
about 119 East Yd Street as it is still occupied. Spencer pointed out that hazmat survey
findings are valid indefinitely as long as nothing changes.
Spencer identified three Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs).
The first REC relates to evidence that 100 East Broadway used to be a Phillips 66 station
prior to 1984. There is no documentation of underground tank removal or hydrolic hoist
removal.
The second REC relates to evidence that 130 East Broadway used to be Monticello Gas
and Water Works at the turn of the century. Coal was likely heated at high temperatures
to make natural gas for street lighting and other services.
The third REC relates to evidence that a now closed fuel tank leak at the previous TDS
Telecom site has the potential to impact adjoining property to the south (Red's Mobil
service). The leak had been investigated in 2004 and determined not to pose a threat to
hurnan health and the environment. Spencer noted that there are active underground
storage tanks at the service station but no documented releases. Spencer recommended
future environmental soil borings to check for contamination. He also recommended that
an environmental professional screen and manage the soil at these sites.
Special EDA Meeting Minutes: 12/10/14
Tapper asked if TDS would be responsible for contamination if it were found at their
previous site. Spencer agreed that TDS would still be considered the responsible party if
the source of the contaminant could be proven. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
could review the matter and make that determination.
Spencer noted that all identified regulated waste should be removed prior to demolition.
He also pointed out that the state should be contacted about the municipal well located at
130 East Broadway as there is no record of it being sealed.
Angela Schumann asked for confirmation that, if the EDA were to proceed with
demolition of 100 East Broadway at this time, no immediate remediation action would be
required related to the remaining properties until future demolition plans took shape.
Spencer indicated that would be the case as hazmat studies have been completed and the
buildings are unoccupied.
Spencer added that sidewalks typically need be removed when this close to buildings if
footings are to be removed. Shibani Bisson indicated that the sidewalk along TH 25
would be removed because the road would be widened for a turn lane. The 100 East
Broadway building will be primarily used for roadway.
Wayne Oberg asked how long a soil borings report was considered valid. Spencer said
that, although soil borings reports do not expire, the state likes to see data within three
years.
Tapper asked about the potential contamination of the wells. Spencer said that the extent
of contamination would depend on whether wells had been capped, the well depth and
the aquifer involved.
Tracy Hinz asked if WSB would help the City address issues that citizens may be
concerned about. Bisson noted there would be weekly meetings and updates for the
public at council meetings as well as communication through social media.
3. Adlournment
BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:48 PM.
TRACY HINZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0.
Recorder: Kerry Bum
Approved: Feb 2015
Attest:
E r sentative
4