Environmental Matters Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm gonna call to order the environmental matters meeting for July 23. For the record, all the members are present. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Move approval of the agenda as written. Second.

Alright. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion carries. And now, the gavel to rules and governance.

Okay. I'd like to call the rules of the city government committee meeting to order. I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

With I don't know if we do that to

the joint meeting. This is a separate one, so you need to amend it now.

Alright. So, I move that we amend the agenda to include o nine twenty five.

Okay. That's a motion. I'll accept it all in faith. Well, we need a second for that. Yeah. Oh, I'll second it. Yeah. One of our members is not here. So all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. I neglected to do the roll call. Note for the record, Alderman Arnett is present, and Alderman Schandelmeier is not present today. Okay. I'm gonna turn it over to Alderman Savage to begin the discussion on o twenty twenty five.

Alright. Thank you. Madam Rules, the government chair. So, yes, we could just start off with staff. It looks like you have a presentation ready for us. I know we do have some questions that may be answered by the presentation. You could just introduce yourselves for the record and then go ahead and get started.

Morning. I'm Allison D'Amenio, engineer department of public works.

And Matt Matt Fleming. I'm the director of the results authority, and I apologize for missing the the primary.

Can I please ask everybody to really speak into the mic and out loud? I'm today a very old man, and so, I need all the help I can get.

My name is Dan Hodlee. I'm a principal with Haley and

Aldrich. Okay. What was the name of the firm?

Haley and Aldrich. Okay.

You can go ahead and get started with the presentation if you like.

Oh, excellent. So as I said, principal with Haley and Aldrich. We have been in here in Annapolis for just over two years, a twenty year resident of Annapolis. Brownfield redevelopment is my ex my field of expertise. I've worked on several brownfield redevelopments through Baltimore, Canton Crossing, Sparrows Point, Fells Point, Domino Sugar.

So very pleased to be able to be a part of this project. Our agenda for this, we'll go over the site background in the phase one, environmental site assessment summary, just for a quick recap. We'll introduce the remedial standards that were applied as we did our phase two site assessment. We'll then give a brief, excuse me, summary of the phase two findings, what we saw out there in soil, groundwater, sediment, surface water. We'll then review some of the planned future use that's been discussed, and then start discussion on the remedial approaches that we might be able to use for a site based on what we saw in the phase two.

We'll then also have a discussion on the EPA brownfield grant opportunities that there are for the site and finish off with costing variables and timeline. And at any point, happy to answer questions.

Mister I got your first name.

Odley.

Odley. Could you back up a minute? You were hired by the city

Correct.

Department of public work to evaluate the property.

Correct. Yes. So to characterize do an phase one starting with a phase one environmental site assessment, that is a desktop, study of a site. And then based on the phase one findings, which there's industrial and there's, you know, there are recognized environmental conditions with the site, we prepared a phase two, environmental site assessment. That's where you actually go out and you start collecting samples and you get empirical data for what the actual quality of the site is.

All that in preparation for taking the site into the Maryland Department of the Environment's voluntary cleanup program, which is a program to provide liability protection and generate the redevelopment of brownfield properties such as the Spa Roadside.

Well, you were that was my where I was going with my question. How does the state MDE, I guess, play into this? Because we were aware that they had come in to evaluate the property. And now we're hearing that your company has also come in. And when do you coordinate or measure up your findings with what MDE has determined?

So the voluntary cleanup program, you have to apply to it. So, there are there are state led cleanups in the brownfield program. However, the voluntary program, would always be using a consultant to take a certain property through the program. So the state I I do know how the MBE has had has coordinated previously with on some of the phase two, the historic phase two operations at Williams Welland Field, but it was never it's never formally been before this point been applied to the voluntary cleanup program. So this is really just the next step of getting it into and through the voluntary program.

Okay. Thank you. Yep.

So Do you have another question? Alderman?

So two things. One, can we get a copy of these PowerPoint slides? Two, I understand if we go to MDE, there's another organization, it's MSE or some or MES something that will actually come out and do an assessment of the cost of the cleanup. Does somebody have any information on that for us?

Typically, the cost of the cleanup is not necessarily a driver in going through the voluntary cleanup program. You, you are you're fully characterizing the site, making sure that they think that you fully characterize the site, and then you're proposing a remedial action plan to address what you found at the site, and then you're giving them a plan on how you're going to implement that so that at the end of it, you've removed all potential human health and ecological risk from reuse of the site. You've heard to MES as in Maryland Environmental Services?

Yes.

Not familiar with them having a role typically in going through the I mean, they provide as a quasi state agency support to, MDE, but, not typically involved in costing or any, or developing independently, like, another cost as to what the remedy would be. It it's usually internal with the consultant assisting the applicant, which in this case would be the city of Annapolis applying to the program to take it through and internally, you know, assessing what the cost for meeting the remedial goals and the remedial requirements of the program are and then weighing those with the benefit from redeveloping the property.

So I I wanna plant the seed before we get into your presentation. I did read the report. I don't pretend to understand all the chemistry, but I did read the report. But it seems to me unless we're doing the ultimate remediation no matter what goes on the site that the level of remediation is to some degree predicated on the intended use of the property. And we can get into that afterwards.

But we heard very interesting information from the director of, the housing authority about future plans, which I knew nothing of. But they don't sound like it would necessarily require a 100% cleanup for the ultimate cleanup. But those are questions that are in my mind, but we should really let you give us your expertise.

Absolutely. And to do and I think we'll get to the the later at the as we talk start talking about costs, can go into that and the different the different goals for the different uses. But just as a quick summary, the city's utilization of the site really goes back to 1910 when it was first utilized as a there's a landfill from 1910 to the mid nineteen thirties that was in the Southwest Corner right down just here on the map in the mid nineteen forties or, I believe, 1940 or 1934, the city built an incinerator that operated for about ten years, and that sat in this portion right here. During that period of time, the resulting ash from the incinerator does appear to have been landfilled directly adjacent to it. As you can see it in aerial photos that there's for quite a period of time, there's a kind of an open barren area over here, which would kinda indicate that.

But then shut down in mid forties, shut down the operation of the incinerator. The next significant use was when it was redeveloped and with the athletic association, and it was at that point that they implemented and constructed Weems Whelan Field. Already had a nice big flat area. So Weems Whelan Field was constructed, and then moving forward to 1970, starting the public works operations on both the East side where the the former garages were here on the East side as well as the garages and the operations over on the West side. Now the West side was looking at historical topos for the area prior to '1 1970.

It does appear, and we have we have lithology cross sections from our borings through here that there is a significant amount of fill material up to, I think, five to seven feet of fill material that was placed to grade the site so that was good for operations. So there was a significant amount of site modification prior to 1970. And then as has been pointed out, I did believe there were some historical significance going back to the civil war that is also back down here in the lower quadrant, general Walton's arm. Well, it wasn't that just for reference.

So a question on on the West side, was there any could you tell if there was any of this generator ash deposit there, is that just general fill?

Good question. No. This nothing in the in in that we saw over here, indicated that it was necessarily incinerator ash. There are there is a distribution of, and we'll get to what the soil quality is. Really, the primary thing that we have out here is a is a distribution of different metals, which are ranging in from naturally occurring potentially deposition.

There's there's always the potential that there's aerial deposition from when the incinerator was operational, but it doesn't appear to it is much more of a structural fill type that would have just been imported to grade out the site and to bring it up to a a desired grade as opposed to the fill material and what we've seen, in prior borings over on the East Side. I believe all it indicates that any ash was maintained on the East Side in proximity to where the incinerator was. But yep. Good question. So we did the we did the phase one.

There are two major findings to the phase one. What is identified, the ASTM standard is a recognized environmental condition. That's the purpose of a of a phase one, and we identified two, one being the former landfill, and the incinerator facility on the site, which could cause impact of the subsurface, and then the second one being historical use as the DPW operations based basically on the that there are former USTs, current USTs, hydraulic lifts, oil water separators, things that could have been sources for oil and grease products that have been released to the subsurface. And that was the premise for the phase two. So not to make this an eye chart, I apologize for the resolution here, but based on the findings of the phase one, we identified multiple sampling locations across the site to be able to make a statement as to the absence or presence of any subsurface impacts associated with those features.

This is all done in coordination with the MDE. We provide we prepare a work plan saying exactly where we're going to sample, exactly what we're going to analyze for, and the rationale behind each and every sample point that gets approved by MDE to make sure that when we do all that and give them the report on it, that they are happy that we didn't basically miss any locations and there are no data gaps. So, these locations are placed and to be representative of different operations. There are several up near the current USTs and the former UST that was taken out over here in the vicinity of this in the area of the incinerator as well as over near oil water separators and at the downgrading inside of some of the operations at DPW. You'll you'll notice no borings really in the in the center of Williams Whelan Field.

That is only due to the fact that there have been multiple rounds of shallow and intermediate soil sampling in Williams Whelan Field, so we did not need to recharacterize that. We just focused on two hot spots where we had the two highest concentration from those prior reports. And then most significantly, kind of as a catchall, we did surface water and sediment sampling along this is the headwaters of Spah Creek that runs along the southern boundary and underneath the there's the bridge. So we did a total of five sampling points along there so that and and also have down gradient groundwater monitoring wells. Should there have been anything released from the site that would have gone into the subsurface and into the groundwater, groundwater flow is going to go from the North to the Southeast, and these are basically kind of a catchall to make sure that we would see any impacts from anything that might have been released over time.

So we have groundwater, sediment, and surface water all on the on the downgradient side. Overall, the findings of the phase two, were very much, were very good, and did not identify any significant releases, reproduct, sources for vapor, chlorinated solvents, anything of that nature. It's mostly, metals associated potentially with the operation of the incinerator and, semi volatile compounds, which are most commonly associated with oil and waste oil and grease that would have been associated with the operation of vehicle maintenance and, operations of DPW over the fifty years that it operated at the site.

I have a question for you before you get too far in the results. Just to clarify, the triangles are where you did the soil samples surface soil samples. Is that right?

Correct. Yes.

And then, what are the dark circle? Presumably, the oil borings and the dark circles, then you have the crosshair circles.

Those are wells. So it says m w. And

What are they? Wells?

Wells.

Okay.

Yep. Permanent groundwater wells. Yeah. Drilled down and installed to the top of groundwater, so they will identify any petroleum, any El Naples light lightweight, oil that would be on top of the groundwater. Yep.

So the the empty circles are the wells, and then the solid circles are the sediment Or circles?

Either sediment or soil borings.

Yeah. And how far down did you do soil borings?

So soil borings in the in areas where fill and waste was expected always went until we were into native soil Okay. So that we could get a cross section and we could see exactly what the thickness of any anthropogenic fill was. So and actually, it's a good point. These three where all of a sudden, this doesn't wanna work. There we go.

The the three, tangents that we have here are we have done lithology cross sections so we can see the actual cross section of how much waste and how much and at what point we get down to native. Basically, they they show exactly what we had intended, that waste starts to be, seen right here at the top of right below where the former incinerator was and and kind of goes all along this face. It also kind of matches what the topography of the site is that they placed most of their waste in their ash in this area. Similarly, on the other side, this shows that the significant amount of structural fill is all in this north area and tapers out before you get to the end here in the soil boring at the end of it. So but it typically range between total for the soil borings was to 15 to 20 or I think a couple might have gone to 25 feet.

So Yep.

Does that imply in terms of remediation? We wouldn't have to go down Oh, no. 15 or 25 feet.

Nope. When we get into the remedial strategies

Okay.

I'll let But you there it we don't have to take all that out. That it's it it absolutely, we'll get to that point. So very quickly, remedial standards are all the findings that we get, we apply, we we correlate to the Maryland Department of the Environment's residential cleanup standards most most significantly. That is based on the most conservative potential reuse of the site. If it's gonna be potentially residential, you have to clean up to a higher standard if it's residential than if it was commercial or if it was industrial.

We also apply them based with all the metals and to the anticipated typical concentrations. This is where you can have arsenic, for example, is a naturally occurring metal, but it can be naturally occurring above the residential cleanup standard. So you can have a site that has never been touched before yet wouldn't meet the residential cleanup standard just because of the arsenic levels in it. So you try to really figure out from a risk perspective how significant of an issue is it when you have concentrations of these ranges of metals. So that groundwater MDE standards, sediment, also residential cleanup standards, but sediment and surface water, our phase two does recommend at the end of it.

We did have some identifications of metals and some, semi volatiles associated with oil and grease that we would do what is termed a screening level ecological risk assessment. There was one additional level of assessment just to determine if it is a low, medium, or high risk for ecological. And so MDE has agreed that that would be a good next step for ecological assessment. Surface water, basically the same. We would use the EPA regional screening levels for the next assessment of surface water.

Okay. So so you say that again. So you said the the sediment the surface sediment as far as your your, oil sand the the samples from the surface, those you're saying have some level of contamination. It's the lower contamination that and you're recommending another report to meet MDE standards?

Only with regards to ecological risk.

So Okay.

Typically, there's two different, risk assessments. There's human health risk assessment and then there's ecological risk assessment. Based on the very low concentrations and the distribution of them in soil and groundwater, there's no real need for a human health risk assessment because the corrective measures would eliminate any pathway either because there's a building on it or has a cap on it. So there's that eliminates the risk pathway for anything that we found in soils. With the stream, we would just need to quantify what if there's any ecological risk based on the, on what we've seen there.

So, at this point, we would just recommend the ecological risk assessment as a next step for, site assessment.

But can you go into a bit more detail as far as what you're referring to as far as ecological assessment? So the effect of the of the materials on the overall ecosystem? Is it having a human focus, or is it just on the ecosystem itself?

So you would take the analytical data, the concentrations that have been identified in those media, surface water Mhmm. And sediment. They're put into a model, a risk model, and that generate that will assess in a cumulative fashion because sometimes it's not just one compound. If you have four different compounds all affecting an organism, that has a a larger effect on it. What the model does is quantify that and then can say whether or not there is a any significant risk to, different ecological receptors.

Those can be everything from invertebrates, to larger mammals and anything that you may have. And so the the output from a screening level ecological risk assessment is to basically say, based on the findings, you have x amount of risk for those potential receptors. There's nothing significant in what we've found that indicates that there's going to be any significant risk to the ecology. It is just the way to quantify it and to make sure that it's not that's not part of a scope of a phase two. It's just something that if you were to see it, you're going to like, depending on the on the, the results, if everything was nondetect, we would not recommend that you do a slura, but there are some detections.

They're very marginal, they're very low exceedances, and so a way to quantify that and be able to statistically state that there is no ecological risk would be to do the screening level risk assessment.

But is that what's driving that? Is that the is that a general requirement or were are any of the particular contaminants driving that your recommendation?

There's no particular it's not based on any particular contaminant or it's it's really to have be able to state, you know, statistically valid if the question was raised as to is there any risk to the ecology from the site. Would be something you could reference and say based on the, you know, and it it all follows an EPA protocol. It's an EPA model that's used to assess the risk that you've taken it through that model and you've, you know, specifically quantified it and shown that there is, you know, a low to zero risk to receptors.

Okay. Yeah. Can you please what what are we talking about ecology? Are we talking about plant life or things like that? We're not talking about people because I consider myself part of the ecology. Right. I think that's

Correct. So it's it it it's everything other than people. So it is organisms. It is biota. It is flora fauna.

Those squirrels?

Anything that would potentially uptake chemicals that are there. So it's the it's the it's the chain. You'd have a macroinvertebrate and then the fish eats that and then and what so typically you look at apex at the end of it, osprey for something and what so and all of that is factored into a screening level ecological risk assessment.

Yep. Thank you.

And that's based on your current levels and area of contamination. Right? It's not based on post remediation impacts, or is it both Yes.

It's based on the findings of the phase two, which is, you know, a snapshot of what the quality of the sediment in the surface water is that time that we collected that. And and so, yeah, it it yeah. It's based on current conditions.

So you'd be using that to try to help inform what might be needed as far as remediation from the ecosystem level?

So if we were to run a ecological risk assessment and we determined that there was any, you know, medium or high risk, then there would need to be a a decision made as to how to minimalize that risk which could be, other capping mechanisms, and some additional remedial action. But I will say that we are very low on the exceedances. There's a couple, compounds from semi volatile benzoypyrene, and benzoyanthropine, and things that we see that are exceedances, they have very low standards. So you very often see exceedances of these compounds. It is very common.

And, you know, if I had to, I I would say it is very low probability that ecological risk is going to show any significant risk associated with it. It's really a best practice to make sure that the question arise that, you know, it was fully assessed.

Okay. And is that currently in your going to be in your in the proposal, in the grant proposal to be funded by the grant? The

we do have currently have a proposal in with DPW to it we're it it's paused at this point in time as as decisions are made. The screening level would is not reimbursable under the Brownfield EPA Brownfield grant that because it would not be considered a remedial action. So it is a characterization. So that cost is not a significant cost. I think this slur is about $30,000 to run the model, generate the report, to provide the report back.

So it's a smaller cost. It's but it's a characterization cost. It's not a remediation cost. And the EPA Brownfield grant is for remedial costs only.

Okay. So presumably you'd be able to do it relatively quickly if it's Yeah. Running a model?

So as I was saying, Spa Road, findings, we do have exceedances of, some metals and some volatile organic compounds, both in the vicinity of the landfill incinerator on the Western side of Spa Road and also, in in the vicinity of some of the current and former USTs. We do see some exceedances of the groundwater standards as well. However, those are mostly associated with concentrations of manganese, which is a naturally occurring metal, and we do not see them in the dissolved concentrations, so it's not they're also ubiquitous across the site which makes sure they're not related to one source. They're all very manageable through common remedial practices.

Yep. Can you remind me again what UST stands for?

I'm sorry. Underground storage tank.

Okay. Thank you.

Can you go back a second to that last one? So and you're you were talking about the West Side. It's typical for I'm paraphrasing, I think, typical public worksites from the SPOCs and underground storage, piece of petroleum. Mhmm. Carbons. Okay. Nothing.

So these are these are things that would be have been associated with the operation of of the DPW operations, you know, everything from maintenance, cleaning. If you go into any significant parking lot, you will find these similar SVOCs just having they're in they're in asphalt. But they're also anytime you have vehicles stored oil dripping onto the you're going to have some some concentration of these compounds. And the concentrations that we're seeing are in line with what we would see there, not from a spill, not from, you know, 55 gallon drum being tipped over or bad maintenance or bad practices, just, you know, fifty years of operations.

Of an old facility that probably didn't have all the controls that

Yeah.

Would today. Yeah.

So this is unfortunate. Sorry that it's not. These are all metals. These are all concentrations of metals with marginal exceedances of the standards that I just was talking about as well as the typical anticipated concentrations. The most significant thing is that down in the southwest corner you can see that there's slightly more concentrations and compounds in the vicinity of the right, these three boxes here.

This is still this is right in the area of the former landfill and then adjacent to the incinerator. We do see slightly more compounds there, but there's still nothing that would require active remediation or anything other than a a engineered cap or some sort of remedy to keep them in place and just remove the pathway so that they're not that they wouldn't be in contact thermal contact with future users.

So why do you think on the top left, the box for SP 100 Mhmm. It seems to have more than some of the surrounding, and it's kind of on the upstream uphill, presumably?

The end it's a good eye. It's it's same in surface water. And when we get to the surface water, we've seen that there is the potential. So if you follow the trace of Spah Creek as it goes all the way back towards Chincup and Round up here. There are there's residential properties on either side that back up to Spa Creek. And then when it gets Chincup and Round, there are several businesses and industries that are up there. We see the same thing in surface water quality. This is most probably an upgradient impact coming onto the site, coming down from those

properties. It's uphill. It's not runoff.

Yeah. So this is the highest point of of Spotted Creek right there. So Okay.

But just the point of my colleagues, like, kinda shows you just the general level of contamination and urban runoff.

Exactly. It is it is coming off parking lots and and roadways, and it's just Yeah. Hitting Spot Crate and coming down towards our property.

So the yellows are presumably a little bit moderate levels?

They are those are just those are exceedances of the ATC.

Okay.

The typical concentrations. Again, everything is within an order of magnitude. There's nothing that is, you know, a 100 times or a thousand times. And also most importantly, none of these concentrations are considered hazardous. So when we get to looking at remedial costs, these are exceedances of the cleanup standards but they would not if we were to excavate that soil, it does not meet a hazardous concentration.

It would not have and and cost wise, would not have to be disposed of as hazardous material. It is it would just be a tip it it can't be reused as clean fill somewhere, but it can go at a much more reasonable cost to a receiving facility for any potential redevelopment of the site. So

This is the yes. Alderman Wright?

So I really like to fully understand the implications of that statement because in thinking about some of the potential development, if it's not hazardous, does that mean that the soils can be hauled away and disposed of normally, or do we have to have special trucks and take it to special places?

It there will be a limitation in the in the through the VCP. It cannot be used on another site on residential properties, but it does not there's several iterations of soil quality. It can't be used on a residential property, but it can be used in DOT projects per se. So if we were hypothetical, there's a development plan. That developed plan is going to generate a 100,000 cubic yards of soil and we need to take that soil off-site.

We often it it can go to a, either a landfill and it can be used as landfill cap material or it could go to a DOT site and it can go to beneficial reuse at another site for a relatively low transportation and disposal cost as opposed to hazardous which would have to be go off specifically to a hazardous waste receiving facility and would be typically four to five times the cost. But nothing in the phase two indicates that that any area of the site would have that restriction to it or generate that kind of cost. It's you're typically looking at, for soil coming off from a site from this, a 100 to a $130, ton for T and D. And we'll get to when we look at the cost, that's that's the big variable. That's what kinda changes, what the cost would be to redevelop the site, but that's also exactly the cost that a $4,000,000 EPA brownfield grant can mitigate the cost of.

So, there's a lot of interaction there between coming up with the right development plan and how it can be dovetailed and integrated with the remedial strategy so that there's no impact to the development costs of the site. And at the end of it, you have a redeveloped site.

So I want to make absolutely sure because I think what I'm hearing to me sounds like good news. When you say it's not hazardous, that means if I walked over there I wouldn't be exposing myself. If it's not hazardous, that means hauling the materials away. It can't be reused for residential, but as you said, it could go to a landfill. I mean, that I'm is am I feeling the assurance that that will reduce the cost of remediation?

I it is significantly less than if you had areas that were hazardous. Yes. We redevelop sites frequently, and we will precharacterize anything that's going to be excavated. We will so that when it comes time to excavate it, it's live loaded into trucks and it's already preapproved and it goes somewhere and everybody knows exactly what the cost will be. Sometimes there are there are areas that, you know, you may have few thousand yards that are hazardous and it can be segregated out, and you make sure that only you're only paying for hazardous removal of something like that.

But in this based on the findings of the phase two, which is 28 to 30 soil drawings across a large parcel, nothing has indicated that there is, or there are hazardous conditions that anything that would have to go off as hazardous waste. So, that's again why I would say that, you know, everything that we found is very manageable through a soil management plan that the MD would approve, a health and safety plan that we would implement during the redevelopment of the site, and then working with a developer to plan it and quantify how much below grade they're going to want to go. It would, I'm sure, come out as a cut site. It would generate soil at some level. But if we work with them to figure out how much is going to be generated and what that cost would be then we can mitigate those costs with the EPA grant.

Thank you. Reassured.

So I do have a question, but if you go back to the metals soil findings.

Yeah,

this one. So you said none of them are hazardous levels, but I'm wondering what level or substances requiring mitigation. Like, if they're not hazardous, do these just this slide, these metals, are they driving a requirement for remediation?

They are from the fact that so if you have MDE is going to say it's it's it's all risk based. What is the risk to a future occupant of this site? And if it's residential, then, you know, what's the risk to all age groups to a child, to an adult, and, you know, in a residential setting? So they're going to want to eliminate the potential pathway of everything from dermal to inhalation to ingestion of soil that has an arsenic level at x. There are many ways to do that, and the simplest of which is to put an engineered cap on it with clean fill in in landscaped areas.

And then parking lot becomes a cap that in and of itself is a cap because you no longer have access. There's no pathway for that thermal contact or inhalation as well as the footprint of a building that the building becomes your remedial corrective action. Mhmm. So it's not an acute hazard, and there's a lot of a lot of terms, and hazardous waste oftentimes comes down as as almost more of a DOT classification and what's hazardous to transport and hazardous to dispose of. But it is that and and there's generally a 20 times rule where you as long as you're with below 20 times of the the hazardous concentration, you can you can you can be comfortable that nothing when you classify it for hazardous waste is going to come back as hazardous waste.

And we are well below anything that would be meet the 20 times rule in the concentrations of metals and semi volatiles, is really all that we found at the site. Okay. So it's that rationale that lets me say that there are very manageable corrective actions like gaps, like, placing and managing it just with the soil management plan. We track where all the soil goes. We know exactly what the concentration is, where it's gonna be received, what its end use is, that it's not going to a residential place, that it's not being used somewhere for, you know, residential fill, but that it's it's a a much lower cost to manage the soil that way, and it meets the the voluntary cleanup program's goals.

So it sounds like, and I'm not saying this to minimize the risk, but it sounds like you're saying that there isn't any kind of acute risk as far as, like, a hazardous substance. If somebody starts to play in it, they're gonna immediately come down, with cancer or or get ill. Right? But it's over time

Mhmm.

If somebody's living on the property, and around these soils, could potentially develop some kind of illness or

Exactly. And that's how they when they run a human health risk assessment, for residential, you're looking at a, you know, I think it's eighteen hours of exposure every day for twenty years or something. I mean, that's the worst case scenario. Yeah. And then for our commercial or industrial, it's just for a an adult worker for eight hours or so it's temporarily, it's much shorter and it's a much lower risk.

So you don't have to the standards are lower for those end uses. And we're already associating and relating these to the most stringent residential standards and still not seeing any areas that seem like they would present any kind of a hazard, hazardous waste scenario.

So just one last follow-up on that. So are you saying So it sounds like there is there. Well, is there any specific substance and level that is triggering or is it just kind of the cumulative general, you know, variety level of substances that is driving the need to do the risk assessment and reduction? Or is there some a few like bromine

It's the overall it's the suite of compounds that we've identified, the metals and the semi volatiles that are within one time of what the residential cleanup standard is. So Okay. It's the absence of seeing any one compound at, you know, a 100 or a thousand times the cleanup which would potentially then be somewhere where you might have hazardous conditions in the subsurface. Barring and not seeing anything that has that is where we can really have a confidence level to say that we can, regardless of what the development plan might be, whether whatever use, whether it's commercial, residential, office, recreational, there are industry standard remedial strategies that we can implement and integrate with any of those developments to eliminate the risk, meet the voluntary cleanup program, and be compensated for through the EPA Brownfield grant program.

Mhmm. So Alderman? Trying to think backwards from the ultimate development of the property. I think I heard you say that streets are would be considered a cap for this. Mhmm. Structured parking, two levels of structure parking. Is there kind of a laundry list of things that we could be looking at that would be likely to go here on the site that would take care in and of themselves would take care of remediation?

Yeah. So all those features and that that hardscape on top of the that, you know, eliminate any any any pathway to the soil are features. When you get into adjacent landscaped areas, that's where we typically they're a standard cross section where you usually typically have a minimum of two feet of clean material between over top. You have a geotextile with about 18 inches of a clean fill material and six inch of the topsoil that you then vegetate, and and you you need to maintain that. Mhmm.

Because there is some maintenance of caps when we when we when we, remediate a site under this. And then and and then the just the proper implementation of a soil management plan during, development where we would precharacterize, make sure that we are disposing of all of any generated soil appropriately. We track man thousands of manifests from, trucks, and those are all submitted to MDE at the end of as part of our completion report for the voluntary cleanup program. And that is that is the remedial strategy for the site. Nothing nothing out here that would really no groundwater contamination that would need a pump and treat system or an ongoing remediation system, groundwater capture, anything of that nature.

It's really just these, you know, surface remedies and an O and M plan to make sure that they stay in good condition moving forward.

Thank you. Yep.

Let's see.

So same here. We do so this is these are VOCs and, these are petroleum related compounds. Basically, we have and we do have two areas. There was a former UST up on the in this north corner. We do still see some residual TPH, the total petroleum hydrocarbons and some related rolling compounds there.

But, again, nothing that would require, specific excavation. Likewise, in the southern point right here, and this is gonna be where cheap flow of storm water, Paul, kinda comes down to this, so it's not really any surprise that there's a slightly higher level and more compounds associated with oil and grease at this southern, low point of the DPW operations that were on the West Side.

Is that in the stormwater

facility? This is in soil. So this is in these are soil concentrations.

Yeah. But is it in this soil from that storm water cell that's being

That no. It's actually just above the storm water pond. We have set we collected a sediment sample from the storm water retention pond. So we do have a we had we did characterize both surface water and sediment in the storm water Okay. Pond. Yep.

Yeah.

Why is this not going forward?

Oh,

I'm sorry. For some reason

It frees up.

I mean, did it for the first six slides. Maybe here we go. Try it another way. Uh-oh. There we go. I'm sorry. We got it now. Alright. Brown water, as we were just talking about. Again, we do we do see manganese.

Everything that I've already talked about with, manganese, we do have both filtered and unfiltered samples, that just, the the much lower concentrations if not nondetect in the filtered samples, meaning that there are no dissolved concentrations in the groundwater indicative of any kind of a source or release of manganese. There are certain areas where we do see benzoyl pyrene and some of the semi volatiles that, again, are associated with oil and grease and petroleum products. Nothing that rises to the level of active remediation or anything that the VCP would make us actively, remediate.

Nothing's highlighted on that because

So these are I mean, these compounds, there there's, there's probably a 150 different compounds that are analyzed. These compounds are in are marginal exceedances of the MD standard. They just are are are not a significant enough exceedance that would require or that the MDE would require active remediation of. Mostly because at the end of all of this, you're not gonna be putting a drinking water well in here. So it provides potable water.

If you go through the voluntary cleanup program, when you get your certificate of completion, it has land use restrictions on it. The first one would be that, there is no groundwater for potable, no groundwater use at the property, which isn't an issue because it's already in the city, system. Here again, so it this is basically just sediment in the surface water, everything I was discussing about the screening level ecological risk assessment. There are some exceedances, and we would plan to do what's called a slura for ecological risk assessment. And these are the, again, the metals and the VOCs that we had identified in both the sediment samples.

This is this is the where we see in sediment, we see some additional, from upstream impacts coming down Spa Road, and then we see the same thing here in the surface water. We actually see a significant amount of metals coming down from upgrading of Spot Creek and from the residential Yeah. Areas.

Like, Spot Creek Conservancy should take note You know, it's presumably upstream systems would help.

They're not at it. I mean, every tributary is going to be mean, we're going to see this is

I know. My my point is

storm water impacts. Yeah.

That we should it's a good reason and a good justification to focus on some of our restoration activities as far as form of our management improvements. But to clarify, these are all surface sediment samples

as opposed to These are sediment and and co located with where we collected surface water samples.

Surface

water, yes. So actual water from flowing water from the tributary to Spock Creek.

Right. But the other one is sediment.

Sediment.

Is all water. That's sediment. But how is that just surface sediment? Or is it

Yeah. So it is collected from the top three to four inches of sediment that's in the in the in the trace of, like, under under spot rate, basically. Yep.

So

those are the phase two findings.

Do you see any levels there that, like, are resulting that are abnormal as far as that might be a result from the incineration incinerator use, or is that just kinda typical for

What we what we would look for for that is, like, radiance where we have an enter and we have a really high, what and first of all, we saw no dioxins, furans, PCBs, or other very problematic compounds that you typically see and can see in combustion coal residue or other ash deposits. The what's helping a lot there is that the incinerator was out of operation prior to 1950. So a lot of those compounds are not common and would not be have been in in around prior to 1950 when they were really developed. So the the the age of the both the landfill and the operation incinerator definitely have a positive impact. I'm not saying it's much more inert material that would have been going through the incinerator, but there would have been metals.

So and that's why we do, I think, see some of the metals as are potentially from aerial distribution and and, you know, you know, if you're running the incinerator, you're going to have, you know, smoke from it going down around it. But and would also kind of speak to that they are fairly ubiquitous across the site. What we don't see is a is a strong gradient where we have one really high concentration and then it slowly decreases away from the concentration, which would look at some sort of point source or something that might be much more of a hazardous scenario. They're really just all across the board and we see them in every area. Okay.

Yep.

So

the Maryland Voluntary Cleanup Program regulatory process, we submitted an application, we have submitted the phase two, we have received comments back on our application and the phase two, no significant comments on the phase two, the findings of the phase two, or any data gaps that they feel like we didn't, like, if we hadn't done sediment, they would come back and say, you need to go do sediment, or if we hadn't analyzed for BOCs or something like that. No comments, and and and they're in concurrence that, you know, the only thing left would really be to do the slur or the ecological assessment. Really, the only comments and the only reason why it's not fully approved at this point is that there is a little disconnect in the legal description of one of the parcels. So when you look in SDAT, it does not match what we have it SDAT doesn't match what the actual parcel is. We're forming a survey as right now to rectify that and make sure that the SDAT description is is in line with what MDE sees when they go into their files.

And once that's corrected, we'll

have

the full we'll be approved and we'll be in the program.

And this is an application for to be in the program?

The voluntary cleanup program.

And what does that mean for us, to be in that program?

So this most significant thing is that it it provides you with a a state approved remedial action plan that will say, you know, so for to reuse the site for x purpose, you are going to, remediate all soil, groundwater, and any concentrations so that it is safe, from a human health perspective and ecological risk perspective to use it for that purpose. There's a liability protection to the city for that, so that buys the city with protection. Should there be questions raised about the appropriateness of any reuse of the site, it would have the certificate of completion from the state saying that it was fully characterized, it was remediated, risk was eliminated through the pathway eliminations, and the city did everything in accordance with common practice for site remediation. That's probably the biggest. The other part is that the EPA, all of every state voluntary cleanup program is pretty much predicated on the EPA's requirement for states to have these programs.

And so the EPA Brownfields grant program very much likes to see you going through one of the state VCP sites and that they will use that and that's positive points for you as you go into your Brownfield grant application process that you're going to have a quantifiable and, you know, a very scripted remedial action plan that you can say, you know, we will meet these requirements, here's the timeline, here's so it puts you in very good standing with the grant program as well.

Okay. And what you said you had to make, I guess, let them know our intended purpose, but what kind of assumptions were made as far as the intended purpose of the property, the remediation?

Great. Look. The anticipated future uses, and this is preliminary. There's a lot of discussion. I mean, there's and then there are a lot of options.

Big from a very big perspective is that if on the East side there were either commercial or or municipal offices, on the East Side of Spar Road. Of note is that the Weems Whalen Field, parcel, the plan is to have that subdivided, and that would go into and to expedite the, to expedite the reestablishment of Williams Wayland Field. It can be its own participant in the voluntary cleanup program, and the remediation and the remedial strategy for that is really just to build a new field and to that will be its cap. An ash a turf field with proper stormwater management incorporated into it becomes the remedial action for the site and and then the end result of getting Williamsville And Field back into, operation with the new field, and that satisfies the voluntary cleanup program. I think the goal would be to take that, and that would stay under ownership of the city and go on a slightly faster track than the remainder of the site which we would would have several options for obviously for redevelopment.

The important thing to think is that whatever the development plan is, the soil management, the capping, the soil management, the capping, and the land use restrictions are still gonna be your remedial strategy. It doesn't change if it wants it's not like if you want it to be residential, you're gonna have to put in some big remedial system. It'll it'll still be some distribution of those remedies whether it's residential, commercial, recreational, what have you. So just something to keep in mind. The so the variables and so here are some of the remedial options.

Some questions before you get

into Oh, yeah.

Sure. Alderwoman. The license?

Yeah. You talking about Williams Wayland. You said it has to be subdivided and then it's

treated away from Lot 1 into Lot 2. Right?

Could

And not sub subdividing of Williams Wayland itself.

No. No. Williams Wayland Field in its entirety would become its own own parcel so that it can be its own participant in the voluntary cleanup program and have a more direct linear route to a certificate of completion, though which would expedite its answer.

Alderman Fin, listen. The subdivision is provided in the documents, and it shows the subdivision that we are doing for this prop for this property. It shows the the portion that will stay as Williams Welland and the lot one, which will be the front that will be conveyed.

Okay. But we're not talking about subdividing

No. There's no additional subdivision. The subdivision is to allow Williams Williams Willing to beat its individual parcel. I

just wanted to be clear about that.

Yep. It generally the it would follow the the fenced area that already demarks Williams Welland Field, and then that becomes yeah.

Thank you,

Alderman. So, Hernan, First of all, can we go back to the previous slide where we have the NERF? Nerd. Nerd. I'm trying to think about timing here. I'm trying to think about how this could affect C and I and all the other things. So I'm trying to get a sense of the implication here, but this is a process that is already underway. Right? This is separate from the The grant. Correct. From the resiliency authority?

It is it is its own process to go through. We the city could go through the voluntary cleanup process regardless of of securing getting a grant or or anything. The owner the transfer of ownership, it comes in with the Brownfield grant because the city is the responsible party for the impacts that are out there. It was the city's landfill. It was the city's incinerator.

No real way around that. And if you're the responsible party, then you're not eligible for the EPA Brownfield grant. So that is what would what would necessitate the the owner the ownership transfer for the period of time that it would be remediated and developed prior to returning to the city.

So whenever you see in a flowchart arrows going back and forth, that's thirty days and then you do something and then thirty days more. Is there a sense of the time to get to the COC in this chart?

Yes. So the so once approved, we take the we take the the findings of phase two and then rewrite a remedial action plan. And we're going to specify that a soil management plan would be established for the site that would be implemented during any redevelopment activities, and we would provide any potential redevelopment plans to the MDE to say we footprints of buildings will be in this area and will generate x amount of soil to be properly managed. Landscaped and and parking areas will be in these areas, and those will be constructed in accordance with these required cross sections that we would include in the remedial action plan. And then the the timeline is integrated completely with the redevelopment of the site.

So as the site is redeveloped, we're tracking all this so that when the foundations of the buildings and the and the landscape areas are established and the and the parking areas are established, even before the building is fully constructed, we can start submitting our completion report because the area is now capped. So the area now has all the engineered controls in it to eliminate the risk. So we can even get our certificate of completion before the end of the development and the the finishing of the building, say, there's another twelve months of construction once the you're up out of the ground with any buildings, you know, we we've often gotten our certificate of completion before the development is even complete.

So that this brings up a very important point. We talked about it previous meetings, but developing a plan is one thing. Developing the property, which I equate with construction, is a different thing. I'm getting the implication that construction can go on during the remediation.

The construction is the remediation. Is it what is probably the best way to think about it because the construction of the building and the building is the cap and the cap is the remedial strategy. Okay.

Yep. Alright.

And and the soil that you're generating while you're what to to facilitate that construction is being properly disposed of and being tracked in in this in accordance with your remedial action plan. So the it it's a very nice occurrence when, you know, you're you're improving the site, and by improving the site, you're remediating the site. And that and and, you know, it's it's really the perfect outcome for the brownfield program. That's what they're trying to do is revitalize properties through that. So yep. So the construction is the remediation.

Alright. So and I wanna talk about time and particularly as it relates to the CNI, but what is NERF and what is COC?

NFRD, no further requirements determination. Okay. Not applicable to this scenario. If you had a situation, where you weren't going to have that you had such low concentrations and such low risks that they weren't going to really have you do anything. So we're

not going down that path. We're going down

that not going yeah. MD it's gonna be a remedial action plan, and and they and they give them the plan, give them our soil management plan, tell them how we're gonna manage everything, and then implement it, and then report back to them that we've done everything we said we're going to do, and then you we would get the certificate of completion. They both have the exact same liability protections, and they both offer the applicant the same benefits.

And COC is

Certificate of completion.

Meaning completion of the remediation.

Completion. Yes. Completion of the remedial action plan, and it's it's your it's your, clean bill of health letter that you get at the end, and that's what, and it and when it travels, it is recorded with the title of the property so that if at any time you sell the property, it's recorded that there's that the the property went through the went through the program. It's got the certificate of completion. Any land use restrictions, like the groundwater restriction, would also travel with the property. That comes into play much more with developers and flipping properties and things like that, not so much of an issue for the city. But yeah. So

So the just to make sure, the part of the remedial action is actually also the construction. The construction is what puts down the cap. And Yes. On things like lawns and so forth that are they're not concrete or or buildings, are there remedial actions for play areas and park areas and so forth?

There are. So in areas not covered by structures or or asphalt or hard surfaces, there would be we there are approved cross sections of what your an earthen cap would be in those areas. So you you put down a geotextile marker fabric, and then you put certified clean fill down, and you have a at the end of it, you have two feet of clean material so that so that there's no real pathway for a child playing in a playground to come into contact with any impacted soil underneath it. I mean, for one scenario, just to, yeah. There are are typical construction diagrams even for the root balls of landscape trees.

You you dig, and you also put a a clean buffer of soil around root balls, utility corridors. Those are all things that we would include in our remedial action plan and coordinate with the design and the the design of the any redevelopment and submit and be approved by MDE. Yep.

So the remedial action plan is the plan for future actions. How long is it gonna take, or have you already developed the remedial action plan?

Oh, we have not developed the remedial action plan at this until we get our final approval onto the VCP.

Which is back up there at

the start. Right. Which there are a couple things couple of there's the SDAT, and then there's also we got a very nice letter from the EPA today. So the city is no longer there was a stormwater. It's all resolved, but it was brought up in the review. So we've we've we I would anticipate within the next couple weeks, we have our final approval into the VCP. Yep. So

if you go forward a couple of slides, this one. So oh, let's see. Is there a reason for the split as far as far as one size residential, one size commercial offices? Is that being driven at all by the remediation, anticipated remediation, or is it just as far as our intended potential use?

It's it it it is not tied to site conditions or remedial approaches in any way. We would we would use the same controls that we've been talking about if it was flipped, if it was commercial on the other side and residential on this side. That's that's much more a what's the best use of the property.

But okay.

So you could you have

But the cost are not flexibility the

of how you could reuse the property, and it would not change how the remedy would look.

So Or the cost presumably at least significantly?

So if we we've we've talked most about of these already with soil management plan capping. One thing to keep in mind, they we would probably we would recommend vapor barriers under occupied buildings. It is a very small additional cost to the overall construction per square foot of a building, but and it provide they'd be passive. This would not be an active system. We do not have any significant, volatiles or anything that would potentially cause a vapor intrusion issue in any.

It's just a best management practice to have a a vapor barrier in in occupied buildings, at a very low cost and very high reward. The land use restrictions, the groundwater use, there's a excavation notification in in any land use. So you have to provide thirty days if you're going to dig, especially through a capped area, which is also why they put that marker fabric. So a hundred years down the road, somebody's digging and they pull up orange marker fabric. They should hopefully stop and say, wonder why this fabric's in the ground.

It it's you know, but you have a notification, outside of emergency utility repairs. You have to provide thirty days notification and you have to maintain these areas of caps. So that's an annual inspection for cap maintenance.

So I have a question though. A couple of questions. So as far as, going back to the anticipated use, the split, with residential one side office on the other, so that's not being driven by the remediation per se, sounds like. But what I guess, what assumptions why did the city pick that orientation? That might be a question for planning and zoning as far as residential on West on the West Side as far as the East Side. Like, is there any particular reason?

Currently, we're utilizing the C and I plan.

Sorry?

We're currently utilizing this the initial C and I plan. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you didn't use anyone's here. Thank you. So,

this is a conceptual use. Recreation Recreational is self evident. It's where recreational land is now. The, city is currently using the property on the East Side. There is a storage or a fuel location there as well. The East Side sets up quite nicely for a residential property with parking in the rear not visible from the street. It allows for Westside. That property to be I'm sorry. The West Side. Thank you.

To be used for the in combination with the C and I redevelopment. The keeping a civic or institutional public space aligned with a recreational makes some sense from a land use standpoint and, because they're complementary uses.

So in the West Side, you're yeah. It sounds like you're you're saying that you're proposing that because of the adjacent use recreational uses?

Well, on the East Side, with the the commercial slash office spaces, sets up nicely to to complement the recreational use of the property, particularly if it's civic governmental space.

So

All is on on that or something else?

No. On this. Will we will we later on in this meeting be talking about this? Director Maddox Evans told us at the last meeting about structured parking on both sides and office space on both sides potentially and then housing and I'm trying to get clear where the c and I it sounds like the c and I goes now on the Salt Dome side. Is that what the thinking?

Well, it you know, it's it's it's not yet determined, candidly, and and we don't have an actual plan yet where it's a bit premature. What's focused here is on a basic land use scenario to set up how to approach the remediation strategy. But the the city council has acknowledged that the Spa Road site generally would be available for use as part of the C And I redevelopment, and those plans will come together over preceding months, as a city, the housing authority, and the housing authority selected developer work to do to do the optimum planning for the site. But what we would like to see at this point is reservation of the, East Side for civic governmental space until the city makes determinations about how much space it needs and what's the best, allocation of that that land use. How much square footage, what what types of land uses are embedded in that.

But it's conceivable that part of that might also be part of the the C and I development itself, the actual housing component. But, though, we're not there yet. Well, I I guess I have a little bit

of banks anxiousness about that, and I am trying to think ahead. So commercial could be office, but it could also be daycare. It'd also be dock in the box. It'd also be mini mart. I mean, this is gonna be a food desert area there. So it it I I mean, I know it's a catch 22. It almost feels like you need to know what you're gonna do before you need to know what you have to do kind of thing. So we on the council, at least I haven't really had out of a fully flesh general concept. So I'm trying to figure out the lay of

the land here. And and no one has a fully fleshed concept. We're not working with the concept. We don't have a plan. We don't have it's not detailed.

The even the the term commercial is meant to differentiate it from residential. It's not meant to signal that a day care center is the optimal approach. What's the principle from the city standpoint that is that this area have a use that aligns with the city's mission of a office space in an efficient way. And until the time is we figure out how much we need, how much square footage, and what's the best arrangement of that, We can't be more detailed than that. And there's already a commercial element to this property on the side of the road with the Right. Fuel station. So

But my takeaway from mister Hobley's presentation is whatever the mix is, the the remediation has to happen and the construction of buildings and roads and so forth is part of the remediation.

Very much so. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. So and I'm glad to hear this personally. Think that plan is only on the same page. I do agree. I that was why I'm concerned I expressed the last environmental matters or economic matters that I do wanna see is preserve the right to be able to civically preserve the the East Side or West, but in this case, the East Side for for some kind of civic use.

And and I and no offense to to HACA, but I don't include HACA in that. I mean, city government itself, because I do think, again, it it could might need, to be used for some kind of transit connection. But as far as HACA, and I'm certainly open to allowing HACA as far as the C and I to use one side or the other, and in this case, the West Side. But to that end and to Alderman Arnett's point as far as food desert, as I've said to you yesterday, I think, director Kubrick, what I would like to look at in the future, and I know this is down the road, but it's potentially relaxing parking requirements to allow the hacker developer to add more density, more amenities on the existing property as far as, you know, more because that will allow them to put in more space for community grocery stores, other types of uses. Because, again, if the farther you know, Armin Arnett, we've had a conversation too.

If you think back to some of the transit data we've seen, 80% of people who use our buses don't have any cars. 90% have one car. Most people who who use them are lower income as well. And so, my point is, for a development that's gonna include affordable housing, we should probably not hold them to a very strict excessive parking requirement in order to give them flexibility to have you know, do even if it's more adding potentially more density with their development. But it sounds like we are that's kinda way down the road.

But Yeah. That's that's far removed from where we are today, and this is a step precedent to that because Right. Those discussions never form can't be operationalized until we get through this stage here. But I I would be encouraged. I I would encourage the the city council to think about the possibility that that through the cooperative planning and conceptual development of of these C and I sites, there may be opportunities to make changes to the zoning code to bring about the best optimum development.

The C and I is truly a city building moment for the city. The plan development techniques that are already in the code provide flexibility and discretion for the city council, but flexibility for the developer. So right within our code, we have the ability to make some changes, and and insist on certain standards, And it may be that, code changes with respect parking, for instance

Yeah.

Makes sense too, particularly if they allow for an overall better design of a of a project.

Right.

So we wanna make sure that the the the city's code is equipped to guide the development and the the optimum conceptual development of of of of the C and I property.

Okay. And and getting off of that, but related Mhmm. So is I understand, Alderman, we we will get back to I'm getting back to the presentation. But as far as the development cap, the development is essentially you're saying that the remediation, that the cap. That is the remediation and the cap of the the pollution.

But presumably, as a part of that, at some point, we need to have somewhat solid plans as far as the development. Right? Because it sounds like we still have some uncertainty, but I guess this is enough, you think, to be able to proceed with some of the grant applications as far as this Yes. Level of generality?

Yeah. And if that so, moving forward to the EPA

Okay.

Brownfield grant. So Williamsville and Field goes on its own path, transferred the remainder of the property so that it becomes available, it becomes eligible for EPA Brownfield grant funding. In our experience, and we we have we did almost 20 of these last year at an 87% success rate with EPA Brownfield grants, which is pretty good compared to a national of 33%. We would put in for the maximum amount available of $4,000,000, And it that 4,000,000 would be, if awarded, would be able to be used for medias remedial costs such as soil disposal, construction of the capped areas, the vapor barriers, everything that we've talked about, everything that is a capital cost for that initial development of the property. So we've we've, you know and that 4,000,000 is the cap.

That's that that's the highest that the Brownfield grant program goes up to. I'll just also note that this I this is the last year that there are Brownfield grants available at that high level. They're still being supported, I believe, by the infrastructure bill, the federal infrastructure bill from back in the day or during, COVID. So they, this is a great opportunity to take advantage of it before it goes away in in this cycle. Typically, they ask for the notice of funding opportunities in September, and then the applications are due in mid November.

It would then be be awarded in, is in May of the following year, with the funds being available in, I believe, October 2026. Would be a general timeline.

Again, October?

I'm sorry?

Could you just repeat that? I didn't hear it.

So, applications go in in mid November. Awards are, identified in May the following year, which be 2026, and then the funds become available typically in October of that next year, so October 2026.

Okay. October 2026 potential award. Okay. Do you have an estimated cost of the remediation based on what you've is that coming up?

So it's likely planned this. So costing variables in the timeline. The biggest driver and the biggest variable as we look at cost is what the in in the final design looks like. The volume of soil that is needed for excavation for whatever the final selected design is is gonna be your number one cost. If it's, you know, 1,000 cubic yards or if it's 60,000 cubic yards, you're you're having to manage that soil, You're having to pay transportation and disposal for that soil to an approved facility in accordance with your remedial action plan.

So, what comes into play here, obviously, are whether or not you say you have parking garages or you have low grade parking under some of the commercial or the the the office buildings, you're generating more soil, it's more cut, that's gonna increase your cost. So not that they can't those costs would obviously then be mitigated with the Brownfield grant money, but that's that's how you you kind of manage your costs as far as there's then also the cost for capped areas outside of the hardscaped areas. But, you know so integrating and being having environmental very integrated with the design is incredibly helpful in these projects. So when we work with developers, we oftentimes some sites where you have more problem areas and you have higher you know, you stay away from those and try not to generate soil from those. It this is a fairly uniform distribution, so it's really just working with the with the developer to see exactly predict what the what the volume of cut would be from the site.

We can work with the inverts of whether they go to to two levels below grade or one level below grade with more surface parking and how you distribute and meet the goals that way. So that when we go to implement this, we they give us the the the grading design and the footprints for the foundations, and we would go out and we would collect in in preparation. We'll precharacterize any soil that's gonna be cut and excavated. We would do soil borings on a more frequent enough basis so that we can take the analytical from that, submit that to a waste receiving facility, have it all already pre characterized. And then when it comes time to construct, we're excavating live loading into trucks and the trucks go straight to the approved receiving facility, and it's all it's all predetermined.

That's typically how we would go with that.

Do you have any kind of engineer's estimate as far as do you have to request a specific amount in the grant application Is that the amount of money you're looking for to pay for the RFP or the remediation itself?

It's it's based on what you're I mean, it is based in gen like, if this was just if you're just going to do recreational where you're just going to do plantings and there was not a significant soil generation or something like that, you would you would, you know, you would not have very good chances of getting the most reimbursement or the the most grant money. So but in a redevelopment where there is gonna be, you know, a significant amount of soil management required, that does justify the the amount of the brown brownfield grant. If that's

Well, have have you both I'm getting to is, like, have you do you have to supply an actual amount when you submit the grant request or amount to cover x amount of remediation?

You do. You it is it you you have a, based on what on on on site characterization, knowledge of the site, knowledge of the impact of the site, what the phase two, that's all factored into and justification for why you asked for the amount you do. We've we've done some costing and, you know, we know typically what it costs to put in a cap per acre per square foot, what cost per cubic yard of disposal is. And so we can we can quantify, and we can and, you know, we can justify a $4,000,000 grant, we feel, for this. So it's not always awarded.

I mean, we could put in for 4,000,000, and they may approve for 2,000,000 based on other applications. So but we would feel, you know, it'd be very reasonable for us to put in at the $4,000,000 level.

But what's your estimate per side for the East and for the West?

Per side?

Yeah.

Again, that would be dependent on the final design.

So I know. But but what's

the actual number I

know it's gonna have

because you said, know, you anticipate you think it'll fit within the $4,000,000 grant, what is the actual amount that you're gonna tell them you think is gonna cost to remediate the entire site that you're looking for them to cover? Is it just 4,000,000 on or is it I more than

mean, we're we would ask for 4,000,000. The final hard remediation costs, we cannot say without the design and without knowing the volume of soil that would need to be removed. Every every ton of soil that comes off in addition changes your so it's a little bit of the chicken and the egg where without the final design, we wouldn't be able to give a final cost. We I think we have worked some preliminary numbers with with capping. I don't think they included any significant below grade parking volume, so that's going to come into play.

So, I mean, I can't say whether the the the remedial total remedial cost is under 4,000,000 because if we put in five stories of Blowberry Park or something, which we won't, but it wouldn't you know, that would be over $4,000,000.

But what are you gonna tell the federal government as far as what you're looking how what you're looking for them to cover with the $4,000,000 grant?

So, typically, I mean, they it is they're they have lots of municipalities that come within them with fairly general redevelopment plans that there is going to be some some some types of buildings with a and they and and and they are going to they need to treat soil or they're going to need to dispose of soil off-site. And so it there it's not a formulaic. We don't have to tell them exactly how much soil we're going to take off. We don't have to tell them exactly what the footprint of the buildings are gonna be. It is mostly conceptual.

So and which may not provide a lot of comfort that that then gets accepted, but that's that is the process for the grant program.

Okay. Alright. So I get I guess because what I'm getting at is I would like to just understand in my own head as far as what the potential pull to remediation cost might be versus how much this grant is gonna cover. Like, are we gonna have a delta of $2,000,000 $6,000,000 to do the complete cleanup, so we're gonna have to find another 2,000,000 to do the cleanup? Or do we expect, based on the assumption we have as far as potential redevelopment, is this $4,000,000 gonna be enough, or is it gonna cost 10,000,000? That's what I'm trying to get an understanding of big picture funding.

I can just say, again, it's speculative at this point because there's no if you told me you were going to go exactly 12 feet down into the soil and we're going to generate an exact amount of soil, I could give you an exact remediation cost. But without that, I I can't. We our initial numbers did come out somewhere between 3 and $6,000,000 of looking at casts. Now that included Weems Whale and Field, which would be separate. So if you back that out, we were at about 3,500,000.0, give or take.

And if capping all the areas and putting in some distribution of buildings, it did not include below grade parking. So if we'd start to go in the design, the final design has a significant amount of below grade parking and therefore generates a significant amount of soil that needs to be disposed of, the cost would come up.

Okay. Alright. Yeah. That's helpful. Thank you. And and as far as, like, ownership and how this ties in and the restrictions or requirements on the federal grant if we were to get the federal grant, when can that come back to the city as far as ownership? Does it have to be fully remediated first before it comes back to the city as far as ownership?

At what point does it the EPA, the grant money would not affect the grant would not affect the timeline for the transfer of it back to the city as long as so there I believe there's a four year when period for the implement for the grant to of the grant money in which time the the remediation and the redevelopment of the property would have to occur. So is the question or or does the city ever get the property back?

Well, we kind of because the the remediation is going to be happen with the development, so we need to be at some point, we need to solidify what actual development's going to happen on the property because that

we're

to remediate it. Right? And we have a lot of balls in the air as far as we don't even know yet if how far C and I is gonna go. We don't know yet as far as, you know, the feasibility study for, putting in transit, like, like a trolley facility as far as trolley barn there. We don't know yet what our plans our plans are for each use. Right? They could be C and I could happen and, you know, either of them could happen in three three years, five years, seven years. We don't know. But it seems like it seems like we have to solidify that. Like, what period of time do we I guess we have to solidify those at some point so we can actually say, look, we have a plan to do x development.

That's gonna be the remediation. But, again, like, do we have to wait until that can we get the money from the federal government and then or sorry. Resolence authority get the money from federal government and then give give that property back to the city at that point and they would still do the remediation with the money as far as during the development process or do we have to wait until the development is 100% done and remediated until it comes back?

Okay.

So you'll need to go you'll need to have the grant, we'll need to be closed Closer,

please. I can't hear you.

I need this microphone. You will need to be you'll need to close out the grant, which means the remediation will need to be completed. As Dan spoke about earlier, you could still be under development where you're constructing the buildings, but the remediation portion that's tied to the development would need to be completed

Right.

And the closeout of the grant completed for the property transfer. And based off the grant timing, we're estimating that to be seven years. If it's executed prior to that, I believe there's language placed into the document now to allow the property to revert back sooner.

Right. Okay. So under that hypothetically or potentially, you could say, if we have, you know so if we're moving along with some development plan for one side or the other, we kinda do if we have C and I that finds the money it needs, and we can proceed around on the the West Side As far as transportation improvements or city facility improvements, if we have a plan in the next year or two years, we can move forward with that on independently as far as I mean, it could the the part that I still am trying to figure out in my head is if we do separate proposals, it would be under ownership of the resilience authority, but the cities or HAC is gonna have interest to develop it while it's owned by another entity as a part of the remediation. I'm still not presumably, I guess, that would mean that the parties involved, be it, I don't know if we come from the resilience authority or the hack or the city through the resilience authority, would submit a development application, grading permit site design plan, so on and so forth. Right?

That's those those that's the kind of process. I'm not quite sure how it's gonna work while it's under ownership of somebody else. Is that if you understand what I'm asking?

Alderman Savage, thank you for your question. And and we did provide we had a chance, and again, I apologize for missing the earlier meeting. So we did have a chance to send you some of your comments about some of the uncertainty to sit down with our legal counsel. We asked who used to be the legal counsel for MDE as a department of natural research. She has some familiarity with this program.

And that our role here, you know, in some of the language that we provided in Ashley earlier today, you know, clearly lays out our role specific to the Brownsville grant, the requirements as we develop the remediation plan in terms of this is what's gonna be covered under the Brownsville grant and our role to that. And then as the terms and conditions of that grant are met, that would turn back then immediately turn back to the city or or transfer back to the city. So in your question about would we undertake the development, you know, this is something we'd work with a consultant on, is there aspects that we could we would do with the the Brownfield Fund funding, you know, that would not be development, you know, as part of, you know, the the the natural spaces that we'd wanna look at doing the soil remediation plan, soil removal, that type of stuff. And there are components whether it's commercial or residential that are a part of a development envelope that we can include in as a part of remediation that we would cover under that grant to make the site ready for that. And then at that point, once those terms and conditions are met, that would transfer back to the city.

That makes sense. There's some language in there that she provided that might help provide some of that clarity.

Yeah. No. I understand. But I guess at that point, if the development proposal is intended to move forward, the applicant, which would, I guess, in this case, be the developer, which would be either HACA or the city, I guess, presumably, have to come to some kind of agreement with Resilience Authority that you're gonna allow us to submit application. We submit an application to ourselves, but, you know, we do that anyway currently, right, to do that development.

I guess that's gonna require potential future agreement down the road.

Yeah. And I think, you know, in in the the grant application would be identifying those spaces that would be remediated through redevelopment and would be remediated as part of soil treatment, etcetera, that we would cover through the grant. And I think whether or not that decision in terms of who's gonna develop it, what's it's gonna be, etcetera, you know, I think, you know, we could close out the grant application in terms of total cost as far as what can be covered through the EPA grant. That we follow that logic. But I think a lot of that kinda comes out through the application process as we start kinda developing those pieces.

Mhmm. Okay. The house authority, did you have a comment you wanted to make?

Yes. I just wanted to provide. Hello? Okay. I just wanted to provide some, insight on as to your question on the timing, because the timing of when necessary, let's say, legal documents with regards to the overall development on the various parcels of land involved in the overall c and I project.

That type of work will we're looking at being finalized earliest 2027, maybe 2028. So with regards to land transfers at all with relation to the overall residential and commercial development. So it's not a factor right now. In order to even get to that point where we're clear on what the city is able to contribute to the overall C and I as far as our road is considered, we need this work done because we really don't know the extent of the entire site or part of the site or we don't know without the environmental work to begin, and that will inform the extent of the redevelopment and a number of the things that I mentioned last time before the rules committee. The extent of the residential, the extent of the commercial, the types of commercial use, types of open space, green space, types of parking schemes.

So all of that as well as transportation. So but we can't get started without knowing the assessment of whether this is even feasible. And so this is the crucial beginning point of us being able to move from conceptual to that nitty gritty planning in which we get very specific, in which we will come to you several times over to get various approvals for various aspects, whether they be zoning approvals, density approvals, transportation related public works, or infrastructure. They'll there will be a number of approvals related to the overall project that will come to you over the years. But the starting point with regards to the Spiro piece is the environmental.

So we need to know what we're working with and the extent and whether this is feasible, And that is the importance of this part. And, also, with regards to the framing of CNI, CNI is not a separate project. It it is the project. So part of if from HUD's perspective, I'll give you from a HUD's vantage point. Part of the c and I work is the resiliency work.

That's part of this, and it will be many other types of work. C and I is just a broad descriptive for all of the development in slash environmental slash residential slash commercial work that goes into this overall project, which it will include when we file our implementation application for C and I. We will include all of this work that is being performed to show HUD that we are engaged in a neighborhood redevelopment project, and this is an aspect of it. So I I just wanted to help with the framing because it's not a separate project from this project. This is sort of the beginning stages of us, even qualifying to compete for a c and I because this will show HUD all of the local corrective actions we're doing and all of the legwork we're doing to get this site ready for commercial, mixed use, residential, etcetera.

Also, you know, with reference to we are using the basis of your resolutions, the 1924, the Esports c and

I

transformation plan, and also the r 2022 with with regards to Spar Road as the basis for the work that we're doing now. So this actually is an extension of what you have started as a council as far as all of the exploratory work that goes into trying to figure out whether or not this could be incorporated. This particular piece of land could be incorporated in our overall choice neighborhood or especially with how things are going with the administration, a choice neighborhood like project because, you know, even c and I funding, it's not certain. But our transformation plan indicates that we are pursuing a CNI and or CNI like project in terms of the scope and the, the scope of the overall neighborhood redevelop, redevelopment task that we're gonna take on with this overall project. So that's that's all I wanted to

Okay.

State with regards to that.

Thank you. That is helpful. And, Alderman Arnett?

Yeah. So I just wanna get a little bit clarification and then ask a couple of questions. But I thought C and I was basically a competition for $50,000,000. It's not the whole redevelopment of East Port Terrace Harbor House.

It's Yes. It is.

It is. So what I thought the redevelopment of East Port Terrace Harbor House was much more like 250 or more thousand dollars. It's not just 50,000 million.

No. We anticipated at the at the beginning stages that this may be an overhaul 300 to $400,000,000 project Right. Encompassing Eastport Terrace, Harbor House locations, and Sparrow. Right. And so it's it's all of it.

So it's not and all of it will be happening in different stages. So, for example, depending on the type of work that needs to be done with regards to remediation, if we believe remediation is feasible, the staging of that will dictate, at what point or what phase. This will be, let's say, at least a three to four phased different phased project. So let's say we may not be able to get to significant construction on spiral till phase three, for example, or phase two. But we don't know any of that information yet because we don't know what needs to be done there.

It's ambitious for us to think it will happen in phase one. But for purposes of our application to HUD, we outline the phases and what we think we will be engaged in in each phase. So HUD has an idea of when to expect what. And so that type of information we would be looking for within the next year or so as far as when do we think this would be viable. Is it in five years? In seven? So that's where we'll place it.

Right.

And that's where where we'll we'll stage the ask as far as the HUD funding related to that.

So I agree it's ambitious to think phase one, but thinking about logistics, it really would be good if we could do it in phase one because that would help you relocating people here. And so then you can get over to the East Barataria Harbors so

Correct.

Again, I I wanna reassure the same question I asked you at the rules meeting. The timing of this, it's it's all over the place. But I wanna I don't know if you can reassure anything, but I'm hoping that our timing for the remediation is not gonna be a problem for the redevelopment of Eastport Terrace and Harbor House. Seems like you have lots of latitude in how you phase things. So

Well, these projects take five to ten years

Right.

To come to fruition. So from our standpoint, we just know what need to know at what stage or what what year do we think Thank you. This would be viable if it will be viable, and then we could put it into our overall plan.

Well, so I have a question for a consultant again. Mhmm. So is it going to be a problem for the grant if the remediation or the the development or the remediation is gonna be potentially not until ten years down the road. Is there a certain time you have to use this federal money up by to do the actual remediation?

I mean, think, believe the target is four years. Four years. We So just to clarify, if there was a development plan today, we could prepare a remedial action plan in accordance with a development plan and have that, you know, in short order and and take the next step. So we have the findings. We've characterized the site.

We know the risks associated with the site. We know the concentrations. We know what, you know, everything that MDE will want to factor into approving or not approving a remedial action plan with the one potential addition of completing the ecological risk assessment. But with that, we would be able to submit and we would be able to write a remedial action plan saying, here's the development plan for whatever portion of the site it's going to have. This is the layout.

This is the buildings. These are the parking areas, recreational areas, whatever it might be, and this is how we are going to implement and how we are going to implement and track the remedial action, I e, the capping, the the removal of soil, and and have that. So we have all the data that we need to take that step of writing a remedial action plan now.

Right.

But it but, yeah, it sounds like you're saying that we we do need to use that federal money up. But, again, so does that essentially mean we have to complete the remediation within that four

years? Five years?

I think there is an allowance for extensions. And once I mean, you know, you have to show progress towards the remediation, but there are many projects that do go beyond that four year period. But they I mean, the as it's written, it's a four year period.

But I guess I mean, but we may not even get started with any of it for four years as far as even groundwork for four, five, six, seven years. So, I mean, I guess so my so it comes down to one of the questions I was thinking earlier. Do we need to reframe this and plan for doing the remediation first as far as separate from development? Just plan on doing a remediation based on a certain level of assumptions. We'll assume, I don't know, one level of underground parking, intermediation to that level.

And I know that require filling in the site, which would cost extra money, but it would allow us to ensure that we use this federal money and not have to worry about rushing along or what are losing it at some point if we if our development plans get gets get pushed out or delayed. And I'm wondering how much is that gonna cost a significant amount more of money, or is it

something we Generally, should

we just wouldn't know where to excavate would be the that would be the challenge. Like, you could cap the whole site, and you could you could either take off you could install earthen caps across the site. You are then going to have to go through those caps when it comes time to develop, and then you're going to have to, you know, it's definitely gonna be more an additional cost than establishing a development plan and then integrating it and doing it in one fell swoop. But you and without a development plan, that I mean, that's the mission of the EPA Brownfield grant is to have a development plan to then so that it and that that the one you said, so it would diminish the opportunity and I think the viability of the site for getting But the

it just seems like that's a potential fatal flaw here, because I'm assuming that, in most cases, when people submit grant applications for Brownfield, that they have a pretty solid plan in mind, because we don't have

to Yes, solve a a conceptual design idea for the site.

Yeah. We are we have a lot of unknowns as far as when and if we're even going be able to get to the point of developing. That's my concern. That that gives us a four year timeline to do something to get the remediation completed. Do you

Just to point out that the grant wouldn't start until October '26. So from today, it's five years. Right? Which I think I think that's actually a reasonable time frame. I I don't Obviously, that's not something for us to neglect, but it's five years from today. Yeah. Just need to keep that in mind.

Yeah. And I think that's a good point, and and I think you're right. But I I think it's just it's a it's a key factor to get out there because we have to frame all of our development plans, I think, on developing those properties first. Whatever it's gonna be, because we don't wanna lose that federal money. So even with the hacker, we're gonna have to look at that first to get that remediated and whatever we wanna put there. Just because otherwise, we're gonna have to figure out a I mean, how confident are you that the how many unknowns are there as far as Hakka that what's the chance of this not going anywhere? And I kinda need a frank

So assessment of that.

Would be very glad to redevelop Sparrow, have it included first in the first phase. We would be ecstatic about that. And so we just need to know what is what is the what? What is it that we need to do as far as the ability to include that in the first phase? And so, so we would be more than than glad to do that.

We we have conceptual plans. We have conceptual site plans for Sparrow Road, for Eastport Terrace Harbor House. We have those things. We will need more information to move it to actual specific, very detailed plans, and that's based upon the information that we need from this, this assessment. So we've already mapped out many other issues related to the overall redevelopment, types of units, you know, income ranges, types of housing, you know, different different styles of housing, home ownership possibilities.

We we have all of those things mapped out, with regards to what we can do. It depends on environmental constraints and funding.

What kind of funding do you have now currently lined up committed?

We have $1,000,000 dedication from the city. We have 1,000,000 dedication from the state that's matching, and we have a developer that can self fund a project, which is significant. And so to the point that state funding isn't as crucial. Mhmm. We will be still applying for tax credits, but we went through a very extensive solicitation process to find the types of developers that could do large scale projects

Yeah.

And fund them and bring the equity that's needed to perform them, and we did. And so from funding is always a issue, but it's we are confident that the redevelopment can be accomplished. As we perform each phase, we know we will we will acquire more funding because people will see what's being, accomplished. And so we we have these things, and they're not in not just HACA and the developer. All of the actions that I'm talking about have been done in conjunction and in partnership with your staff with the planning and zoning department because this is not a HACA project.

You know, this project has three developer, HACA, the city, and our private development park.

Okay.

So that's how this project should be viewed as a three party developer project. And so, really, nothing we have done has been in isolation from the planning and zoning department and other departments. So they are as educated on what the overall plans are as as we are because we we create them in tandem. In fact, the city staff participated in our selection of the of the developers, and and we did that purposefully. Okay.

And so, so we're we're ready to go. So if things are great and, there's better news than we anticipate with regards to Sparrow that we will be more than happy to, move the, redevelopment of that, particular site along. Okay.

Alright. Well, thank you. And I just I'm gonna try to get things moving a little bit here. I see you're out of oh, you're out? We will get to that, but I need to get to public works city manager. So okay. Thank you. You can in get touch with us after the

meeting.

So your questions are very valid and important to consider, but what we're looking at here with o 2025 is whether to vote on this legislation to whether to transfer ownership of the property to the Resilience Authority in order to do this project. That money will go away at this level this year. We're not likely in this administration to see any additional funds, I think, for Brownfield redevelopment projects. So we shouldn't get too bogged down on what are the specifics of the redevelopment. We have plenty of environmental characterizations of the site to apply for the grant, and the conceptual potential development is sufficient to apply for this grant.

So we have what we need in hand to apply for this grant, which is an opportunity right now, a deadline we do not want to miss. We want to go forward. With all of the planning that's been involved with this project, I really don't see a danger of the city not going forward with it. I think that would be pretty far fetched at this point and that we would not do it within the next five years, have a concrete plan and be ready to move forward and start doing the work within that time period. So I just urge you to focus on what we're here to vote on which is the legislation involving the transfer. The rest of the details for this project will develop quickly thereafter and already in progress with MDE.

Yeah. You know, agree. But I think getting all this background helps give I believe help give us a lot of comfort and understanding as far as the big picture. But what it's gonna come down to is whether or not we need to take action today on this. Right? Because, personally, there's a lot to mull over that we we just got some new amendments today. It's already almost 05:30. We have new amendments to review. So my question to staff is going to be, do you feel like we have to make a decision today? And if so, why?

Because, ideally, I would wanna wait until even if we have to schedule a special meeting in the September, I'm fine with that. Can this wait until September for us? Because we have stuff to go over. I would like to have time to go over the amendments with my colleagues, with staff, and figure out what we may need to propose, and so that would be doing the committee meeting. Again, September, we get that approved, get that on the agenda for the first meeting in September.

I mean, again, there's no I haven't heard any kind of opposition as far as I think everybody's on the same page as far as wanting to try to get this grant money. But I think working through some of the details of legislation So as far as moving forward with putting together that patient, go ahead go forward, I would say. I don't I don't think I've heard from anybody any concerns in that regard. But can you wait until, as far as this legislation, until getting that approved at the first meeting in September? Does somebody have the answer to that?

Properties.

Don't

Well,

there's always time, and we can always add time to to decision making, but there are a lot of eyes on this project and and on this decision making process, including developers who are capitalizing and waiting for these decision making, steps to conclude so that they can move forward. So what executive director Maddox Evans has described is is real. There's a a developer that is developing a financing package and negotiating a memorandum of understanding that are waiting for these types of decisions to be made. We would ask you as a standing committee to move this to the full committee, or full council so that you can hear it and and make a a decision, because we're we're dealing with a private developer here. And so the the working relationship has to has to demonstrate that we're moving forward, and I don't know that much is gained from postponing.

You've even signaled to the staff that you'd like them to to continue with the application. So we we did ask that the standing committees conclude their work and allow the the staff to move forward and allow the development process to move forward with the assurance that we're all working together and to remove the doubt that will necessarily, attach itself to a two month delay.

I mean, personally, I'm not comfortable with that unless I hear a very concrete reason as far as this can't wait until first meeting is September. I I know the application is due in October, November?

November.

November. So again, I don't see why you can't work in tandem. I don't I understand the desire but that's not where I am. Alderman Ornette?

Thank you. So I have to admit today, in particular your presentation, thank you for that, has been has filled in a lot of blanks and has really been pretty reassuring to me. I'm relieved to hear we're not in a big hazard zone. I'm frustrated. I mean, the administration could have come to us before now.

I mean, I I'm feeling the bums rush to make a vote on Monday night, And we're just now starting to get a sense of what's going on. I'm not directing this to you certainly for your presentation. But, again, I think what Alderman Savage and I believe Alderman Finlayson, we want this to be a success. We want the c and I to be a success. We wanna get the site remediated and put into productive use.

But I will just say for myself, I feel a fiduciary responsibility to my constituents and the constituents of the city writ large that we know what the hell we're doing. And and I get it. There's a lot of moving parts and a lot of things that are uncertainty because you can't know a until p falls into place. But, I agree with Alderman Savage that we'll we'll see how we go today with, looking at the amendments, including the one we just got from the resiliency authority. But and I'm perfectly willing to meet even in August, to make this move along.

But what I'm gonna wanna hear from Matt or somebody is what is the real crunch? Where are you in terms of already developing? I can't believe you're not already thinking about developing the grant application. And, you know, where what is the latitude we get here at the eleventh hour to be thinking through some of these things? I'd actually like to hear from mister Rogers about anything that would help us in terms of a decision making it.

I'd like to hear from mister Clemens about the kinds of thinking that could go into the legislation we actually have heard. We've gotten some gratuitous legal advice, and I appreciate that. But we're still grasping to try to figure out where the heck we are. And I think the ask for me and I think for Alderman Savage was, you know, what is the what is the time frame? What is the urgency? Is Monday the drop dead date? Does the money go away if we don't do something on Monday? Or just what? Because this was just dropped on us. And with a lot of no information, a huge lack of information that we're starting to get now.

So, I think we're trying to figure out, where we're going, where you are, and how the pieces all fall into place. And and we'll look to Matt to tell us from the resiliency authority.

If I could just address one piece, and and then, Matt, you wanna jump in. The in terms of the time frame, in order to be eligible to apply for the grant, the the actual transfer itself needs to be completed, which means that the entire process of, of affecting that transfer, having that recorded, and all of that would have to be completely done

By.

By the time that that grant got application got submitted. So they would have to they'd have to own it, free and clear. And so in some sense, because there is some uncertainty about how long it takes to actually get, to get the land records themselves processed, I think that's part of why you're seeing a little bit of urgency on our side is to make sure that there's enough time, particularly given the August recess and stuff like that, to make sure that there is enough time to actually get through that entire process so that they are in fact eligible to submit the grant in the first place. So it's not just that we've agreed. It has to have been effectuated.

So we need to hear from miss Leonard because we did hear, at a previous meeting about doing the, sub the subdivision into Lot 1 and Lot 2, where that is, how much time that's gonna take because, again, we don't even have the parcel set up. So it feels to me but thank you, director. You for your input.

Before miss miss Leonard, I I would need to

I'll wait. Okay. Alright. So

what is the specific question, Alderman?

The question is we're we're doing we're cleaning up something with SDAP, but we're also doing a lot subdivision to Lot 1 and Lot 2, which is Weems Whalen, and there's something else in the Northwest quadrant that also has to be cleared up. And that's in process. So you're you're working that.

That in order to clear all of that up, we do and, again, Ashley Leonard, assistant city attorney. In order to get the new tax ID numbers for all the different parcels, you have to have a recorded deed. It takes, on average, about a month to get a deed processed through the city, two different levels of the county, and then into land records. So we that's there is some urgency in that because you can't rush that process. We will submit the deed. You can hand walk the deed around, but they're only gonna process it as fast as they want to, and we have to go to four different governmental entities to get a deed processed.

And you can't do that until the ordinance is passed?

Well, we yes. Because we you need the ordinance passed to authorize the sale. We'd have to sign the deed, and then I would have to take the signed deed. It has to go to our finance camp counter, which I can expedite a little bit. But then it has to go to two different Anne Arundel County departments, and then it goes over to the courthouse at land records.

So

And so that takes about even if I'm hand walking it and I can hand walk it, I can get it through the first three steps in about a day or so. But that last step, getting land records to actually process the deed through, could take up to a month. Sometimes it takes less, sometimes it takes more, and that's sort of unknown.

Right. So best case. And that means until that's done, the grant application can't be submitted.

That is my understanding. That, yes, we're going to need to show them generally when when I've I've never done a grant with EPA, but when I've done other grants and you're talking about ownership, they wanna see a recorded deed, not just a signed deed.

So the linchpin here is passage of the ordinance with calling for this lot subdivision, and then it also Yeah. Authorizes the transfer over to

And then we could have the closing. We could get the deed signed. And as soon as we're ready to go, I can start hand walking it around.

So if we approve that on Monday, you can get going. If we approve it in September, you can't get going. And that really does. And, I mean, I'm I'm worried like

Well, I

would I'd probably be running at that point. And then, you know Yeah. And then and then and then again, like I said, I I know how to get deeds through the first three steps pretty quickly. But the courthouse of land records has its own process and its own timetable.

I get it. And then after this is done I mean, simultaneously, the Resiliency Authority can be working on I'm assuming you're already thinking about the application, but you cannot apply with the lot subdivision until we've done that.

Yes. Correct. Right. We need all that done.

And the deadline for application is in November?

That is my understanding. Yep.

Yeah. So if we're we pass it on Monday, you work through August and probably into September. We get that done, then the app and is there any extra jimmies if you get the grant in early? Like, if we had it already and you could submit it in mid September, is that a good thing, bad thing, necessary, not necessary?

No. Discernible benefit. They they they all get reviewed under the same point system

Same time. Generally. Yeah. So the deadline really is some date in November.

Yeah. Correct. Alright. Do we know what the

to the VSP,

you know, that part of the program is to me, that's the big point system in terms of getting this into the grant, which is fairly imminent.

Correct.

Yeah. Yep.

So the real urgency, I think, getting the the authority to do the slot subdivision.

Which means o 2025.

Correct. Yeah.

You know, I think my concerns have been the same as my. Today, we got more information, thank you, miss Berkeley, than we've had up until this point when there was thank the when there was crucial information that we just learned about as far as the timeline. And I think we're all sympathetic. We wanna get this done. We're supportive, but we've been kept in the dark.

So, you know, forgive us for trying to shed some light on a decision that we have to make. And, you know, I don't know you can't point fingers, but we've needed this type of information. But we still have amendments now that we haven't begun to discuss two hours into our meeting. And, you know, and maybe I'm the last minute Jane. If we approve this in September, September as you mentioned, there's still two months to get it through the process.

Miss Leonard just outlined the process for getting it on the MSTAC. So there still seems to be time. Now, if you guys feel you can give us the information that we need in the short timeline that we have, I'm sure we would be willing to support it. But we can't do that unless we're comfortable with what we have in front. So who's gonna go next?

Yeah. So and that and that, I think, just to I agree entirely, and I think the point is, I think somebody's Frank, the phrase is where it was was used that there's somebody's gonna be running staff's gonna be running to get this done. And I get it. But at this point, somebody's gonna be running, either staff in September or council now. And I know it it's and I do really appreciate the presentation.

It's very good information. As my colleagues said, it would have been more timely, I think, prior to introduction. But we also have to think about constituents. Right? What is expected and fair to constituents? Are they going to want us to try to get this done in a very timely manner for Monday, potentially with the perception of being rushed through? Because we are gonna have to rush through amendments. You know, we we do rely on our committees to narrow down amendments, and I don't know if we're gonna have time. I I'd have to completely revisit mine in light of this all the information we've gotten tonight. So it's probably not even worth talking through mine.

I'm gonna have to spend time over the next few days on top of preparing for Monday's meeting and everything else on the agenda. It's a lot to ask of us too. So

We do have another meeting following this well, a continuation of the rules committee because we have legislation that has time sensitive that we have to get.

Yeah. So and we so let's take a pause on that. We do have public testimony that we are committed to allowing. So if we could get public to line up perhaps and provide, three minutes, testimony, we may is

it Mister chair, may I ask? Because the mister Fleming has some amendment, and I don't know whether the comments would I had nowhere to be. Raise questions about the amendments or whether anyone else has seen these. I don't know whether it'd be

And I can just just capsize real quick. I I think those amendments, you know, we're offering those based on some of the comments we heard at the last kind of two meetings we've heard. And it's really just specifically kind of narrowing in our our roles. I think there were some questions that you personally had about our role on this site and future plans, etcetera, to really try to clarify the resilience authority roles specific to this site related to the Brownfield program, that our role, we would transfer this back as soon as the terms and condition of the grant is met. You know, in terms of, you know, working with the city as the implementing partner for things that covered outside the grant, you know, just really some of the things that were raised in the last two meetings.

We try to clarify in some of those amendments. I think they do some of them, councilman Savage, align with your amendment in terms of, you know, the transfer of the project. Again, it was just really reflecting, I think, what we heard and then getting some advice from our counsel in terms of addressing some of your concerns.

Well, if I might add, and I I did a cursory review of them at the end of the meeting, and there were two questions, probably others, if I had read it more closely. Several of the whereas in your amendment are simply expounding on the fact.

Recitals, yeah.

Exactly. But on the, I guess, it's the six whereas where you talk about, you've entered in a memorandum of understanding. We have with the Resilience Authority which we couldn't attest to because we didn't know anything. We weren't familiar with that. So, you know, timeline, when did that

Yeah. Sure. So so that so you, in essence, in part created the Resilience Authority to help work with the city, go after funding, provide a vehicle to support resilient infrastructure that were outside the the the balance of what the city could do. So, you know, this opportunity came up, you know, so there was an opportunity here. We learned that the resilience by the structure related to specific to this Brownsville grant.

At the same time, we have an umbrella MOU that currently exists with the city that describes how we work together on projects. So something like Cars Beach, that kind of falls under that MOU. We work under that with the specific we call it project pass agreement, etcetera. So it kinda relate you know, specific specific projects describes what was envisioned with setting up the resilience, sorry, related to our role and the city's expectations for those projects. One of the questions that we heard come up was, you know, how do we know what what role, you know, the activities that the the Brazilian started.

They're gonna go off and do something different. We have an existing MOU, so we were just providing that as some context as, you know, this continues to show that we are working in close coordination and partnership. And there's a vehicle in place that describes that how we'd work together on this specific project and for this specific grant.

So that agreement came into play when we were in the process of creating the

Surely after, after the resource started to create it, as we started entering into specific projects and working together, we worked on an MOU with the city as well as we have a separate MOU with the county and how we work together on a specific project.

Madam chair, we can resend that to you. We can resend that memorandum to council so that you have it. Can Sorry. We can resend that memorandum to you so that you have it. I don't think it's Yeah.

But I misunderstood. I thought auto mistrust Lord.

No. No. It is it about that?

It's about the MOU.

The MOU thing.

I thought it was an MOU. I understand the general MOU understanding we have. I thought it was an MOU specific to this project, and that's why I was saying, yeah, haven't seen that.

Yeah. Understood. Yeah. So it was basically it was it was within the MOU, there's a requirement for like, it's an essence of project task agreement that describes that. So we would do a project task agreement related to this specific project. Again, so there was kind

of that level of transparency of how we work together. Okay. Speaking of transparency, how I mean, we're talking about this arm's length. I mean, are we really kidding anybody about the arm's length transfer? And and and speaking of sale, and we've seen discussion about calling a transfer rather than a sale, I think we need to get into the details of that.

I understand that we can't as the perpetrators, we can't get help from the federal government to clean up our mess. So we have to go to you. But and that's I'm not meaning have to. I think we need to go to you. But I, you know, I just wonder who we're kidding, but maybe we are.

I mean, I I can just speak to the fact that we have we work with all the regions of EPA as specifically connections in Region 1 with the EPA who we had conversations to this about the the the mechanics of it, so to speak. We would say responsible party. But as a responsible party, this as long as you are not identified as the owner and it's a nonresponsible party that is the owner, then you are eligible for the the the property is eligible for the Brownfield grant. So, they don't like that to be really highly, like, touted. This happens fairly often, but we had the EPA administrators tell us very distinctly that this, you know, this is definitely a common mechanism.

Okay. So we're kosher.

And that was run by EPA. I think it was, like, when we got about, like, in mid June or something.

Mhmm. And to make sure, resiliency authority is a is a is a appropriate entity. So it was it all passed the sniff test.

I'd like to go to the public comment. We we did make amendments.

Yeah. I just got the public comment in the hallway.

Okay. If so I know we've lost most of the public, but is there anybody who would like to provide testimony, please? And just state your name address for the record. You turn your mic on. Oh, isn't it on? It's on. No?

Right. Right. Green.

Push. I got it. Okay. Thank you. Real quick comment and you can't say this. I'm an old man and have no filters. I've been following this now for a couple of weeks. This your concern is my concern. This has been presented to you backwards. Everything I heard today raises and answers a bunch of questions which have been raised because you never got this information before.

So I want to see those amendments. I am like you. I don't have an issue with the whole concept if it's clear as to what the role of the authority is, but that's not been clear. The amendments make it clear, at least the amendments I proposed and that Alderman Savage proposed. So I don't have issues except yours.

One of which is why this didn't occur six months ago, eight months ago, a month ago, why it's being presented now with such a rush. When anything's presented to me with a rush, I worry about it. You all are worried about it for good reason because it's being pushed as do it today, do it Monday irrespective of what it says. The two things I'd like to see further is I'd like to see what MDE has said in response to the stage two. And I've issued a PIA request to MDE as well as to the city to get that information what they presented what MDE sent to them.

I haven't seen that. Wouldn't you like to see what MDE said about all this? I agree it seems like a thorough report but you know, I'd like to see what they said about these levels which are now being told can be capped. But if you put as he said, you put two floors of parking underneath, that's an enormous greater expense. I think it's a great plan. I like the plans. They sound good. But again, I've I've said my piece. If if you all gonna delay it'll give me time to look at more of this and spend more time on it, but a lot of clarity came out today that my view was you weren't being told and you should have been told right away.

Thank you, mister Clemens. Is there any additional testimony from the public?

Hi. I'm Theresa Sutherland. I am the treasurer of the Resilience Authority, and a board member. And talking about the timing of amendments in the bill, the authority has to submit the application by the November. If it takes a month once you've submitted the deed to get it recorded, that means the deed has to be submitted by the October.

That means the October is the latest the council could pass the ordinance on third reader. If the amendments are substantive, which I believe they are since they're changing the terms and conditions of the conveyance, then the city council has to amend the bill and pass it on second reader by the September. So as you consider the timing of this, if those amendments are substantive and it seems to me changing the terms and conditions under which the transfer will take place as well as what parcels get conveyed and whether the fuel pumps are part of that, then that means you have to pass those amendments by the second meeting in September. I just wanna put that out there as you consider the timing of your actions.

So May I Thank

thank you for your testimony,

Alderman. So thank thank you, And I agree. I think that timing but that does say that we don't have to rush this through Monday night. We can work on the amendments, and we can get this passed in the first council meeting in September, which also well, I mean, I wish we could do the subdivision differently so that it's not dependent upon an ordinance. And that's one of the questions I wanted to ask. We've done lots of subdivisions without ordinances before. Why is it dependent upon having an ordinance passed?

I don't think the subdivision was I don't think the subdivision is

Pardon me?

I don't think the subdivision is what's driving the ordinance. It's the transfer of the property. The subdivision is to move Weemswell Enfield out so that you can continue for the Brownfield grant. It's to separate out Weemswell Enfield and create that lot one. If you wanted to keep Weemswell Enfield

This is exactly

part of the process, we wouldn't have to do the subdivision. We would transfer everything in its entirety. 932 and 935 could be transferred to the resilience of Florida and go under the Brownfield grant, but we would lose control control of Williams Welland Field at that time.

No. I think you're missing my question. I think it is a question to miss Leonard. I I understand the timing that it takes to get this lot subdivision done, and I do not want to hold that up. But my question is, why do we have to do the lot subdivision by using an ordinance as the vehicle? Is there something in code that says we can't divide the lot unless we have an ordinance?

Actually, let her no. We don't need an ordinance for the subdivision, but you can't finalize the deed and the descriptions of the property in the deed until the subdivision occurs. So you if you could go ahead with the subdivision, but there's really no point in doing the subdivision if you're not going to proceed further. And we need the okay to that you're going to sell the property so that we can we're doing them parallel. We're gonna do the subdivision, but we need we need the subdivision to occur so we can put the correct information in the deed, which is connected to the ordinance.

So it's all running on a parallel course. We could subdivide it. We don't need a deed or resolution to do that, but the whole point of the subdivision is for purposes of the description and the deed and the ordinance.

I can I guess that confuses me more than helps me? I mean, it would seem to me like we could say to you whether we're remediating or not, we would like to subdivide for whatever reason, and the office of law could start that work. That seems to me the real urgency for action on Monday. The rest of these things, as miss Sutherland just gave us, there's room. There's timing.

I don't like to put it to the last minute. I would really like to have had this behind us already, but we really are going to be discussing for the next hour or two amendments that are going to have to then get transferred to all of our other colleagues by Monday evening. I I just I think that's unrealistic and unreasonable request. But if it if it doesn't require the ordinance to do the lot subdivision, suppose we're just doing the lot subdivision on a whim. You have the authority to do that, right, without an ordinance?

It would not be the office of law. Would be Department of Planning and Zoning.

Right. So

if they say we'd like to do this lot lot subdivision and the the administration okays it, why is the ordinance stopping that from going forward?

It is not stopping that, but we still we still need approval to do the deed so that we make sure that what we're subdividing matches with what you're approving in the deed ordinance. So if if we don't have a final approval on what you're approving in the deed ordinance, that's sort of driving how we're gonna do the subdivision because the two have to match. So if the we don't need the approval to do the subdivision, but we need them to match and we need them to run on parallel courses so that they don't get off kilter with one another.

I'm not convinced, but we'll discuss it in in the committee. I just I think it's an artificial pressure to do something. Suppose director Jakubiak had decided to that it's good planning to divide it into three parcels. Couldn't he just come to the office of law? Presumably, it would have to go through the city manager, but say, we want three parcels here instead of one, and it would just be processed. It wouldn't come to the council for an ordinance. Correct. Yeah. So it just be

I mean, I do think that you are sort of underestimating the amount of time it takes to transfer I a agree with Respectfully, I do think you're underestimating how much time it takes. And considering there's really finite people in the city who know how to handle land transfers.

I I accept that totally. Frankly, I think you could have started this lot lot subdivision process three, four months ago. Once we knew that this was the general concept for doing this

It it is in process. We are running them parallel, but we can't stop and pause one to let another one finish. We don't have enough. In my professional opinion, we do not have enough time to do the subdivision, wait for that to finish, and then do the transfer. We will not make And then do what? And then do the deed and the transfer and the ordinance. If you are going to do it one at a time, we will not get it done by the November, especially not in an election year when your agendas are full. There's a million other things that are being asked for. It just we don't have time. In my professional opinion, we don't have time or resources to do the whole subdivision, wait till that's done and recorded, and then do the next step. But that that's my professional opinion.

But that's not what we're asking. We're not asking you to to stop one before you start the other. There's no way to run these concurrently. I mean, you're saying

We are. That's what we're trying to do now.

But you're not saying that. You're telling us you just said, I you don't have time to run one process Yeah. And then start the next process?

In my opinion, we need this the deed to be approved as soon as possible. We're going to have to go through a purchase and sale agreement possibly. We're going to have to go through a formal closing because EPA is gonna expect to have all the formal paperwork. We're going to have to find a closing company potentially to do all that. We're going to have to finalize the deed.

We're going to have to record that. All of that takes time, and a lot of it includes other governments who will not be rushing this through. So I I feel like, in my opinion, waiting until September to approve it is too long. Now if we weren't if we were meeting next month, I could say maybe we we could delay it into next month. But waiting a full month at this point, I just don't feel like professionally we have a full month to wait.

But we know what needs to be done. I don't understand why we couldn't be putting those pieces in place. Like, this put in in line.

We are putting the pieces in place, but there's

That's not what you're saying.

There is still once you pull the trigger, there are still a lot of other things to do. But you know what they all are. Yes. But I can't I can't control how fast they will go. But you can get a a company that's gonna do the deed. You can get you can line up all of those people. Yes. But You have

a whole month before we

talk again. Presuming that you guys are, what, promising that in September you are going to pass it and not chase your minds. And legally, from a legal perspective, there's only so much city taxpayer money you can put towards resources and with an approval that is not guaranteed at this point.

Well,

we didn't have the deed. You don't have the deed for us to approve now anyway.

I I have the I have a draft of the deed. It's include it was should be uploaded with the ordinance. I mean, it needs to be modified because we keep doing amendments. But

Yeah. I mean, I mean, I think there's a guarantee that we're gonna pass it. Again, I don't see the council say no to this at all. It's a matter of what type of amendments we wanna get included in this. I mean, I'm actually and as far as the substantive amendments, just back go back to that for a sec, that I don't think is going be a delay because it's a determination of the council whether or not we Correct.

Is It your would have to be a motion and approved by the council. And, again, I don't see us doing that, especially on simply whereas clauses. But I do that said, I do looking at the resilience authority amendments, I'm a quick look. I'm I'm generally, I think I'm good with these. I think they reflect a number of things that I was looking to propose anyway.

But again, the question comes down to what's the best course for public transparency as well as ourselves. I generally as I think we said, I don't like that the the feeling of being rushed, but I do understand. I'm trying to also respect, staff's input. And, you know, we have we can either move to postpone and push it to September, the September, come to the first meeting of of the council in September, or we can try to rush through these amendments, in this this evening, at least on some of them, or we can, take action and just send it back to the council for Monday. So I don't know if there's any preference from the committee on that end.

Those are kind of the options I see at the moment.

Actually, in in the thing, miss Leonard, you can really help us. I don't know if you've looked at the savage amendments because all of the whereas clauses are being you know, they they're different versions of whereas clauses, but, really, the essence of the ordinate the ordinance is the changes that are in the one through nine. Now it used to be one through six. So have you had an opportunity to look at these?

I believe so. Yes.

So I don't committee, I I think it's time to start talking about the guts of this. And I think the real guts of this is the changes that are actually the ordinance, not the whereas is. So there's a change to item two. There's a I can't even tell. I guess a new item three, but it's changing the list from

you are on on the amendment. I'm on

the savage. Savage amendments on page four or five of the savage amendments. And Well, if I could jump

in real quick, Artem, just did the results authority see these when you draft before you draft the jurors? So you presumably incorporated some of the okay.

We're three hours into the meeting, we're getting to the meet.

Uh-huh. Well, is that Yeah. Is that what we wanna do? I I know you have other business. The environmental matters does not.

Rules committee does have other business.

We have other business and so forth. But I would really like to go over these if we're comfortable with these. Whereas clauses are nice, but if the committees are comfortable with these things on page nine, it's conceivable that we can make a recommendation Well, let me for a vote on Monday.