HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-15-20 Public Comment - C. Dayton - Idaho Pole Tomorrow's vote on Resolution 5145From:Chandler
To:Jeanne & Paul Wesley-Wiese
Cc:Amy Kelley Hoitsma; Agenda; Chris Nixon; reno walsh; Dillon Gruber; Vickie Backus
Subject:Re: Tomorrow"s vote on Resolution 5145
Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 8:44:17 AM
Can you cut and paste from this excellent letter to send to commission now Jeanne?
Chandler Dayton
On Sep 15, 2020, at 8:15 AM, Jeanne & Paul Wesley-Wiese<lazarusstudio@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Amy for taking the time it must have cost you to present the above tothe Bozeman City 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 towhy a TIF District for Idaho Log and Pole
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 Finedescribed 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 outabout it shortly before the meeting only because Chandler Dayton 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 unanswered
questions. It was my understanding from David Fine that there would be LOTS of
opportunity for public imput before any formal action so I am rather surprised theCommission 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 pastcivic leaders of this community, particularly regarding traffic flow, and a healthy
layer of DIOXINS and a whole soup of hydro-carbon based chemicals buried notfar below the surface, I would ask the commission to not just give pause, but to do
a thorough research and understand the history and problems that this not fullyremediated SUPER FUND site poses. Based on my personal experience with the
City and a constant change in personnel, I am not convinced that the current civicleaders have all the facts and will make an informed decision protecting this
community from liability, not just financially, but the health, safety and wellbeingof it's citizens.
One last thought is that the M-2 Zoning no longer reflects the direction ofdevelopment in this area 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 Resolution 5145: Adopting Findings of Blight and Establishing the
Necessity of Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of the Pole Yard Area.
My comments are attached and also copied in the message below.
Thank you.
Amy Kelley Hoitsma406-581-1513
aok@mcn.netaokworks.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