Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.20.21 Minutes 1 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING MINUTES January 20, 2021 PRESENT: Jason Lasky, Lori Palmeri, Steve Hintz, Susan Panek, Thomas Belter, Archie Stam, Jack Bermingham STAFF: Allen Davis, Executive Director/Community Development Director; Darlene Brandt, Grants Coordinator; Anna Maier, Administrative Assistant Chairperson Palmeri called the meeting to order at 4:01pm. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared present. The minutes and closed session minutes of November 18, 2020 were approved as distributed. (Hintz, Belter) 21-01 Public Hearing: Approve Submittal of a Revised Community Development Block Grant 2020 Action Plan and Amend Citizen Participation Plan Related to CARES Act Funding No one appeared for the public hearing. Motion by Panek to move Res. 21-01. Seconded by Hintz. Ms. Palmeri asked for confirmation that HUD reduced the public comment time from thirty days to five days. Ms. Brandt replied affirmatively. Ms. Palmeri asked why that was. Ms. Brandt replied that HUD lowered the review times so that funding can get out more quickly through the community if there are emergencies or pandemics. Unfortunately that waiver cannot be used for this particular amendment because it is part of this amendment, so the reduced comment period will be on the second and third rounds of funding. Mr. Hintz stated that it was a pretty good list, although some things did not seem to be immediately related to COVID. Some specifically identified COVID activities and others seemed like they could or could not be related to COVID. He asked if the interpretation of federal rules allows for a liberal reading of what is COVID related. Mr. Davis replied that these are related to the pandemic. In the application, they have to show how these projects or programs are related to addressing the pandemic. Rental assistance, for example, 2 is for people who have been unable to work and make rental payments due to COVID. There is a relationship between COVID and the programs. Ms. Brandt stated that all of the applications that staff has received or are considering are to prevent or to prepare for COVID-19 health crisis, so any of the activities being proposed under round one would be eligible. Ms. Palmeri asked if Mr. Hintz was looking at the table of items for round one funding provided. Mr. Hintz replied affirmatively. Ms. Palmeri asked what in particular on the list did not seem COVID related. Mr. Hintz replied that he thought all of them could be related, but he thought that some of them appeared more related than others. The item was called. Motion carried 7-0. 21-02 Approve Revised Land Sale for the Sale of Property along Pioneer Drive and East 7th Avenue to Brooklyn Association of Condominium Owners Motion by Stam to move Res. 21-02. Seconded by Lasky. Mr. Belter asked if there is any reason to believe that there are more tanks to remove beneath the dirt there. Mr. Davis replied that staff worked closely with AECOM to complete phase one and two. He thinks several storage tanks were found to the south, but no more on this particular property. Mr. Lasky asked what they would have to do with RDA being the seller. Mr. Davis replied that there could potentially be more liability and more clean up dollars. DNR is having to monitor for quite a few compounds, so they will have to keep the monitoring wells operating longer than they were anticipating. Mr. Lasky asked for confirmation that RDA is selling the property and owning the environmental liability until it is complete. Mr. Davis replied that he did not recall the timing for the DNR review and any kind of approval for the cleanup. Ms. Brandt stated that RDA can sell the property the way it is as long as they accept it as is. RDA would need to have them grant us an easement where the existing monitoring wells are located 3 until DNR is satisfied with all of the sampling results received and then the easement could be vacated. RDA would have to maintain those monitoring wells and the testing until that time. Mr. Lasky asked if it is currently a condition of the sale that the property is as is. Mr. Davis replied affirmatively, adding that’s why they’re asking for a reduction because they believe they will need to do some additional remediation when they change the parking lot. Ms. Brandt stated that the tank found in the 7th Avenue right of way was unknown. They did not know it was there at the time of demolition until it was unearthed. The same is true for the five underground tanks on 8th Avenue. Mr. Belter asked if phase one is supposed to find the underground tanks by looking through the history of the property. Ms. Brandt replied that phase one does a look at the past uses of the property, but there’s no way to know if, for example, any of the underground tanks from a gas station in the area were removed unless those old permits are somewhere out there. A lot of those were done without appropriate permits, so sometimes it not a known item until they start digging into the ground. Mr. Davis added that sometimes they are concreted or asphalted over and they can’t find it until they remove the concrete, which was the case in this particular location. Mr. Belter replied that it was a hopeful question. Hopefully this is the only tank that is there. Ms. Panek asked if they can ever come back to RDA for another reduction if they find more on the property. Ms. Brandt replied that it’s a possibility, but they probably wouldn’t find anything until they start parking lot improvements, which could be three to five years down the road. They would just be using the concrete asphalt area from the previous parking lot. They may have to do a little digging on the north side into the old railroad and Decades property, but she doesn’t anticipate anything up there other than the normal urban fill and those types of issues there. It’s always a possibility, but they will already own the property by that time, so she’s not sure. Ms. Palmeri asked for confirmation that the PAHs are not the same as PFAS. Ms. Brant replied affirmatively. The item was called. Motion carried 7-0. Listing of RDA Properties Mr. Belter stated that he liked the scattergram that showed where everything was. 4 Mr. Davis replied that the dots were almost all downtown until they started looking at blighted properties in neighborhoods. Otherwise it was mostly the redevelopment areas on Jefferson and the South Shore around 43 East 7th and Pioneer. As a reminder, to actually acquire any scattered sites, they have to go through a blighting process where they have to do an investigation, have a public hearing, and make a determination that it’s blighted before acquiring it. Ms. Panek asked how many properties RDA has owned and sold. Mr. Davis replied that staff could come up with that list as well. It would likely be larger than this list because it would include all the properties from the Marion Road redevelopment. All but maybe the little pocket park that’s contaminated is the only RDA owned property, which will be turned over to the Parks Department. As time has gone by, RDA has sold several parcels off for other developments and will be selling more properties on Jefferson, Sawyer, and Oshkosh Avenue. Otherwise RDA has been marketing individual lots. The RDA still functions as the land bank for redevelopment in the downtown, so that’s why they’re holding on to the Pioneer properties, which is probably ten or twelve properties staff are doing the RFP for right now. Ms. Panek replied that the reason she was asking is because sometimes she thinks that people do not understand the magnitude of what RDA does and this shows what RDA still has to offer. She is just wanting to say that RDA should celebrate that. Mr. Davis replied that they would be happy to compile what RDA has sold. The life cycle is acquisition, sometimes demolition, remediation, and then sale to a private entity, either residential or commercial. Staff could easily come up with that list for the next meeting and it would be a good thing to publicize as Ms. Panek suggested. Ms. Panek replied that she was not suggesting that staff come up with the entire list, but it is pretty neat to know that RDA does so much. Ms. Palmeri asked if the majority of these listings are potential infill development. Mr. Davis replied that he would say 99% of them are. Sometimes RDA ends up with unbuildable portions like the railroad right of way because it was inherited from the City. He doesn’t know if they will ever be able to sell long skinny strips of land to anyone except the adjoining property owners. Ms. Palmeri asked if they have a sense of how much value could be attributable to tax that’s off the rolls currently. Mr. Davis replied that staff could probably have the Assessor do some sort of calculation based on square footage, zoning, and condition. He thinks it is possible to do that, he just hasn’t asked in the past. 5 Executive Director’s Report Mr. Davis provided updates to the RDA. Mr. Belter made a motion for the Redevelopment Authority to convene into Closed Session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(G) of the Wisconsin State Statutes to discuss the purchase a community garden proposal for 1210 Oregon Street and the purchase of 548 Otter Avenue in the City of Oshkosh. Seconded by Panek. Motion carried 7-0. There was no further discussion. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:32 pm. (Stam, Belter) Respectfully Submitted, Allen Davis Executive Director