09-14-1998 EDA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO To: Rick Jopke, Community Development Director From: Kevin Carroll,Economic Development Coordinator Subject: Mermaid Hotel—DTED Redevelopment Grant—Environmental Issue(s) Date: September 8, 1998 This Memo will summarize my discussion with you earlier today regarding the matter(s)referred to above. After you have reveiwed it, I intend to provide copies of this Memo to Dave Maroney, John Seibert and the Halls so that they can review the portions of the Memo that are potentially applicable to them. As you know, a point system will be used to determine the recipients of the$1.5 million that will be awarded to metro-area projects in October or November of this year as part of the first phase of the DTED Redevelopment Grant program. Up to 20 of the possible 100 [maximum] points will relate to the environment: a maximum of 15 points for"redevelopment in connection with contamination remediation needs" and a maximum of 5 points for"multi jurisdictional projects that take into account....environmental impact." DTED is not interested in speculation regarding these environmental issues. Specific, objective data must be submitted to qualify for points. Accordingly, I contacted three well-known and reputable environmental consultants last month to request written proposals regarding the projected cost of various levels of environmental site assessment ["ESA")work. Generally speaking, the low"bidder" was Peer Environmental&Engineering Resources,Inc. [hereinafter"Peer'']. Examples: — Cost projections for a Phase I ESA for the Rent-All site ranged from$1750.00 to $2795.00, with Peer being the lowest. — Cost projections for a Phase I and Phase II ESA for the Rent-All site ranged from $3900.00 to $5300.00, with Peer being the lowest. — Cost projections for a Phase I ESA for all of the parcels in the"Project Area" (including Rent-All, Mermaid,Lambert and Mnsic Off 10)ranged from$2300.00 to $12,381.13, with Peer being the lowest. In fairness, it should be noted that the consultant who (generally) submitted the highest figures used an assessment standard that was"consistent with the MPCA Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Program Guidance Documents,"while the other two consultants used the "ASTM. standard. I have been told that the MPCA standard is more comprehensive and/or requires more work(primarily historical research). However, a contact person at DTED informed me that for purposes of the DTED Redevelopment Grant, D11.1.) does not particularly care which standard is employed, as long as the analysis shows whether or not there is a contamination problem and, if so, how the developer(or the grant applicant) proposes to address the