HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-20 Public Comment - J & P Wesley-Wiese - Tomorrow's vote on Resolution 5145From:Jeanne & Paul Wesley-Wiese
To:Amy Kelley Hoitsma
Cc:Agenda; Chandler; Chris Nixon; reno walsh; Dillon Gruber; Vickie Backus
Subject:Re: Tomorrow"s vote on Resolution 5145
Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:15:33 AM
Thank you Amy for taking the time it must have cost you to present the above to the BozemanCity Commission. If the Commissioner's read this reply I would like to add my voice and my
concern regarding the issues pointed out above as to why a TIF District for Idaho Log andPole
is questionable to say the least. I was wondering after the remote meeting on it, why there didn't seem to be a Board made up
of citizens as all the other TIF's are. The way David Fine described it, the City would be the 'board' . Also, I don't feel like there has been much chance for input from the community
regarding this issue. I found out about it shortly before the meeting only because ChandlerDayton posted it on FB. There were many questions left unanswered as time ran out at that
meeting. Maybe it is me, but I have not seen a followup post for people to post unansweredquestions.
It was my understanding from David Fine that there would be LOTS of opportunity for publicimput before any formal action so I am rather surprised the Commission is voting on it
tonight!!! Didn't get that memo in the meeting. Considering all the issues this development poses that have been raised by past civic leaders of
this community, particularly regarding traffic flow, and a healthy layer of DIOXINS and awhole soup of hydro-carbon based chemicals buried not far below the surface, I would ask the
commission to not just give pause, but to do a thorough research and understand the historyand problems that this not fully remediated SUPER FUND site poses. Based on my personal
experience with the City and a constant change in personnel, I am not convinced that thecurrent civic leaders have all the facts and will make an informed decision protecting this
community from liability, not just financially, but the health, safety and wellbeing of it'scitizens.
One last thought is that the M-2 Zoning no longer reflects the direction of development in thisarea of town.
Jeanne Wesley-Wiese
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 5:46 PM Amy Kelley Hoitsma <aok@mcn.net> wrote:Dear Commissioners:
Please accept my comments regarding the scheduled vote tomorrow on Resolution5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of Rehabilitationand Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area.
My comments are attached and also copied in the message below.
Thank you.
Amy Kelley Hoitsma
406-581-1513aok@mcn.net
aokworks.com
TO: Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Amy Kelley Hoitsma
RE: Consideration of the creation of an Urban Renewal District (URD) at the Pole
Yard area in northeast Bozeman
DATE: 14 September 2020
Honorable Commissioners:
I understand that at tomorrow night’s regular Commission meeting you will be
considering Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the
Necessity of Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area. This is the
first step in the creation of an Urban Renewal District (URD) at the Pole Yard area
in northeast Bozeman.
For the reasons detailed below, I believe it is premature to create a URD for
this site and therefore request that the Commission put a halt to the
commencement of this process by rejecting the “Findings of Blight.”
According to the City’s website with background information pertaining to the
Idaho Pole site and considerations about its development:
“The City is not interested in redevelopment here unless it is safe to do
so. At minimum, a determination by MDEQ and EPA would be required
after review of any proposed development. The City's responsibility would
then be to ensure the proposed development complies with all local
zoning and building codes. In addition, the City and potential developer
need to coordinate with EPA and MDEQ to ensure compliance with the
Superfund remedy including the ICs outlined above, and if needed, the
developer will need to submit a soil management plan to EPA and MDEQ
for approval. The developer will also need approval from other state and
federal agencies, as needed, depending on the nature and location of
development.
Additionally, the UAO requires Idaho Pole Co. to provide a copy of this UAO
to all prospective owners or successors before a controlling interest in
assets, property rights, or stock is transferred to the prospective owner or
successor. If a developer wants to change a component of the remedy,
such as digging up and removing waste, EPA and MDEQ would need to
be involved and a remedy change considered, and signed, possibly
including public input.”
The primary question I have for the City Commission is: Is it not putting the cart
before the horse for the City to create a URD, which in the City’s own words
“incentivizes private development,” when the greater implications and
potential impacts (including financial) of such development have not yet
been determined or thoroughly discussed?
Because this discussion (with public notice and participation) has not yet taken
place, I believe the answer is: No, the City should NOT approve the creation of a
URD until the above-stated series of actions have been completed (i.e. a
determination by MDEQ and EPA that redevelopment of this area is safe, and
coordination with EPA and MDEQ to ensure compliance with the Superfund
remedy).
QUESTIONS ABOUT AREA INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND FUNDING
In theory, a URD makes funds available to be reinvested in public infrastructure.
However, in this area considerable expenses would need to be incurred before
any development could commence. This raises all sorts of questions:
What would be the connector route from Rouse to the E. Main
interstate access and how would that be financed?
How/where will the railroad crossing occur? At the exiting L Street
crossing? At Rouse? It would seem unlikely that the railroad would
allow an additional crossing to be created within such a small area, so
that would necessitate an expensive over or underpass. Who would pay
for this?
Would there need to be a new on/off ramp to I-90? Where would that
be located? How would that be paid for?
One of the “recorded land use restrictions” listed in the FAQ for
redevelopment of the Idaho Pole Superfund Site (posted on the City
website) is “No use of groundwater within the Controlled Groundwater
Area (CGA) for any purpose.” The CGA covers almost the entire “blight
study area.” How would this area get water, and how would that be paid
for?
CONCERN ABOUT PCP CONTAMINATION
The primary concern to the neighborhood is the existence of soils
contaminated by pentachlorophenol (PCP) at this site. Currently they are
“contained” by a covering of 12” of topsoil. Any development in this area has the
potential of disturbing this “remediation” and exposing the neighborhood to the
PCPs currently contained.
According to the CDC website:
§ Pentachlorophenol (PCP) is a man-made chemical that is used as a
pesticide and wood preservative.
§ Since 1984, PCP is no longer available to the general public, though it is
still used as a wood preservative for railroad ties and telephone poles.
§ Some studies have found PCP may cause certain health problems.
§ PCP dust and fumes can be inhaled. It can also be absorbed though the
skin and ingested, if hands are not washed well before eating.
§ If inhaled, it can cause coughing, dizziness, headache, difficulty
breathing, and sore throat. If absorbed, it can cause redness, blisters, or
chloracne (chloracne is a condition of acne-like bumps on the face, neck
and arms that can occur with high exposure to chlorine compounds). If
ingested, it can cause stomach cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting,
weakness, and unconsciousness.
§ CDC studies found a 77% higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)
among workers exposed to PCP.
§ The EPA has listed PCP as a “probable” cancer-causing agent. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers it “possibly”
cancer-causing.
EPA 5-YEAR REVIEW
According to the EPA’s FAQ for redevelopment of the Idaho Pole Superfund Site:
“Regulatory agency roles and ICs (“institutional controls” aka land use
restrictions) will remain the same for areas partially deleted. EPA will
continue with five-year reviews. EPA has conducted four five-year reviews
at the site to ensure that the remedies put in place protect public health
and the environment. The fourth five-year review (PDF) was completed in
September 2015 and the fifth five-year review is due in 2020.”
When will that fifth 5-year review be completed? When is it scheduled to
begin? Is it currently underway?
IN CONCLUSION
Development of the Idaho Pole site and surrounding area will be complicated
and expensive due to the lack of infrastructure and the obstacles created by its
location between the interstate and the railroad. The site still contains
contaminated soil, which is of great concern to the neighborhood. The City
reiterates that concern in all of the documents you’ve shared with the public.
I think it is inappropriate to create a URD for this area at this time, because it
starts the ball rolling toward development when critical questions have not yet
been answered: how can development be done safely and how will needed
infrastructure it be paid for?
As I said in my first statement: I believe this vote it is putting the cart before the
horse.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the City Commission deny
Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the Necessity of
Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area.
Yours very sincerely,
Amy Kelley Hoitsma