Search

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021
ROLL CALL
Alderman O’Brien

| am present, | can hear the proceedings and | am alone.

Alderman Klee

| am here, | can hear the proceedings and at this time, | am all alone.

Alderwoman Kelly

| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Dowd

| am present, | can hear everyone and | am here alone.
Alderman Caron

| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Clemons

lam here, | am by myself and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Lopez

| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Tencza

Present, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderwoman Lu

lam here alone and | can hear you.

Alderman Jette

| am here, | am with my wife, and | can hear the proceedings.
Alderman Schmidt

| am present, alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Laws

| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.
Alderman Cleaver

Present, | am alone and | can hear everyone.

Page 2

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 3

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Present, | am at the hospital with my husband; a nurse or someone could be coming in at any time and |
am using ear phones.

President Wilshire
| am here, | am alone and | can hear everyone.

Susan Loving, City Clerk

You have 15 in attendance.
President Wilshire

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

City Clerk Loving

You're welcome.
President Wilshire

Tonight we are gathered for a presentation on the Mohawk Tannery Site. | am not sure if | should |
recognize the Mayor or Director Cummings; but whoever wants to go.

PRESENTATION

Mohawk Tannery Update

President Wilshire recognized Mayor Jim Donchess and Tim Cummings, Director of Economic
Development on the Mohawk Tannery Update.

Mayor Donchess

Yes, thanks Madam President. Director Cummings is going to give the detailed presentation, but it’s been
awhile since we visited this subject — that is the Mohawk Tannery and therefore | thought I'd give a brief
background of how we go to where we are. The Mohawk Tannery closed in about 1984 leaving behind
some so-called lagoons which are basically just holes dug in the earth filled with tannery waste that was
accumulated over many years and they left, of course, without cleaning it up. Now at various times over
the course of the intervening decades, the EPA suggested that this technically could qualify as a Superfund
Site, but always warned the City against joining the Superfund list and this has been done numerous times
over many years, because they said the pollutants in the lagoons are not the most serious, are not
migrating. Therefore, if we in the Superfund List we would really never get reached because the funds
would never go down far enough in the Superfund List. So they advised staying off the Superfund List.

Now, of course, the City has had Superfund sites in the past; the most significant of which was the Gilson
Road Site which was cleaned up by EPA Region 1 at a cost of many millions of dollars when | was Mayor
before. So the site has just remained dormant, there’s been a few things done, some buildings torn down,
a little bit of cover work has been done. But the lagoons remain. Several years ago, the EPA approached
the City and a private developer and said that for the first time they were interested in getting involved in
possibly working to clean up the site. They indicated that the reason they were interested is that they
thought, and this was critical, a public/private partnership could be arranged. And they thought, especially

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 4

at the time, that the public/private aspect made this a project that they would devote some funds to. What
the meant by a public/private partnership is a partnership in which the EPA and a private developer would
share the cost to do the cleanup.

So we proceeded along that course. Initially there was an EPA Report regarding what was required for a
cleanup. The EPA Report recommended a consolidation of the waste into one area and a covering of the
material. The potential developer was also on board at that time and there was following the EPA’s decision
that it would get involved in that type of cleanup, but would not get involved in a removal because that was
two reasons; a lot more money and they said you are just moving the waste from one place to another.
After the EPA indicated that was its preferred solution then there was an undertaking to determine what the
approximate cost would be. Now that has taken some period of time and they and the developer have
exchanged plans and have arrived at at least an approximate cost.

The City along the way, of course, has encouraged this public/private partnership. Getting this area
cleaned up would be certainly a benefit. It has been clear the public/private partnership arises because the
site would be developed by a private developer into housing or assisted living. There have been various
ideas and plans presented, nothing definite yet to date; possibly some commercial development out near
the Broad Street Parkway and there would be access to the Broad Street Parkway. Along the way the City
has made it very clear that we are very interested in the public/private partnership that if a small amount of
City funds were necessary to sort of close the gap we might be willing to participate. But under no
conditions would we pay for the cleanup, we were most interested in the public/private partnership originally
proposed by the EPA.

That’s pretty much where we are now. They’ve sort of narrowed down the solution, begun to narrow down
the cost and we decided we should come to you now just because we hadn’t reported to you for some time
and we wanted to give you an update on where things stand at the present time. So I’ve given you an
overview but Mr. Cummings has been involved in very detailed discussions over time with the EPA, the
developer. We have had some neighborhood meetings along the way and Director Cummings will fill you
in on the remaining details.

President Wilshire
Thank you Mayor. Director Cummings, good evening.

Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development

Yes thank you Madam President, for the record Tim Cummings, Director of Economic Development. |
appreciate you making the opportunity this evening as I’d like to give you a brief overview as to where we
stand with the Mohawk Tannery Project. So | have a few goals that I’d like to accomplish this evening.
First, |am hoping to just provide some general background and history. | am not sure whom on this Board
is actually familiar with this subject matter and as it has been a new Board since probably the last time we
discussed this, | thought it would be good just to give an overall update on the subject matter.

The update though is going to be really just confined to the last 2 or 3 three years relative to the efforts not
anything of past history. And then lastly | want to assess the appetite relative to a TIF as this is something
that had been discussed previously and | am just looking to get some direction and some feedback on the
idea of using this type of tool for this specific project.

So one of the things | thought | would do and | promise | am not going to share my screen for too long as |
know members don’t like to have screen share up. But | thought it would be wise just to quickly show my
screen if | could and orientate everyone into where we are exactly talking about within the City of Nashua.
So what you have up in front of you is a map that shows where my cursor is going down, that’s the Broad
Street Parkway right there. This is Fairmount Street right here; | give this to you just so you have some sort
of orientation. So over the next hour or so you are going to hear me talk about differing land areas and |
just thought you'd like to have this type of context. So right here, this is what we refer to as the City

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 5

property that’s “City Right of Way”; this is up along the Broad Street Parkway. This blue is the Fimbel Door
site and then just to the south of it you have the Mohawk Tannery, Site 1, Parcel 1 and the Mohawk
Tannery Parcel 2 or what is referred to as the southern site. Here’s the Nashua River along here. The
Fimbel Door is technically its own separate site and that’s just something folks should know from a context
perspective. It is its own separate site from an environmental remediation standpoint as it is a “capped
brown field”. And then this lower green area is actually the Mohawk Tannery. It gets a little confusing as
time goes on as | start to explain the project. Again, over here is the Turnpike. So | just want folks to have
that type of orientation as | begin to make my comments this evening.

lam going to stop sharing my screen and just the Memo | previously provided is just some good context; |
won't read that Memo but rather just add some additional details that hopefully will add some sufficient
background. So as the Mayor said previously, just a few moments ago, the site is known as the former
Mohawk Tannery Site also known as Granite State Leathers. It operated at the property between Fairmount
and Warsaw where it produced tan hides for leather between 1924 and 1984. The Mohawk Tannery Site
consists of two continuous parcels of approximately 15 acres each. The Tannery waste that was also part
of the disposal operation was mainly in the northern parcel not in the southern parcel of this site. Chester
Realty Trust is the current owner of the Mohawk Tannery Site. EPA and Chester Realty have a settlement
agreement for the site. It has been represented that the land area is under a Purchase & Sale Agreement
with the purchaser Blaylock Holdings, LLC. It is also my understanding the Blaylock Holdings, LLC. It is
also my understanding that Blaylock Holdings has a Purchase & Sale Agreement also executed to acquire
Fimbel Door from the current owner. Finally, Blaylock Holdings has expressed an interest in wanting to
acquire some of the right-of-way that abuts the Broad Street Parkway.

So | say that all to you to give you some context. Now | am going to talk a little bit about the environmental
situation at the site. The tannery produced sludge and acidic residue, much of which was disposed of in
two lagoons and other areas on the site. The sludge in the soils in the areas are contaminated with heavy
metals and semi-volatile organic compounds including among other substances Dioxins, 4-Methylphenol
Arsenic, Antimony, Cadmium, Manganese, Pentachlorophenol and Benzo(a)pyrene . Studies have also
shown that ACM is found in some of the areas in the surface and within the subsurface of the soil. EPA
and NH DES have been involved with many response activities at the Mohawk Tannery Site since in or
around about the summer of 1999. EPA and NH DES have provided that Blaylock has provided all the
available information relative to the existing contamination on the site and the adjacent properties. EPA
proposed the site for the National Priorities List in May of 2000 but it was never listed, it was withheld from
moving forward. The EPA performed an Engineering Evaluating Cost Analysis which was referred to as an
EE/CA in 2002 for the site. EPA completed an amendment to the 2002 EE/CA in 2018 at which time it
issued an Administrative Record for the EE/CA. The EPA then issued an Action Memorandum in
September of 2019 for removal to address the site for removal of the environment hazards.

EPA issued an Administrative Record on this in 2019 for that removal action. In September of 2019 the
Removal Action called for the removal of approximately 56,000 cubic yards of contaminated sludge, soil
and other hazardous material, easement and the removal calls for it to be consolidated and encapsulated in
an imperviable cap in and around the area of the Mohawk Tannery Site where approximately 68,150 cubic
yards of contaminated sludge overlaying soil is also present. Then the Blaylock has represented that they
would like to consolidate additional environmental hazards which was on the Fimbel Door Site and also the
environmental hazard that is in the right-of-way of the City, which is mainly asbestos, into this consolidated
cap site. My understanding is for this to occur, the EPA costed out the project to be somewhere between
$8 and $14 million dollars on their preferred alternative, which is, again, keeping the environmental hazards
on-site but encapsulated. My understanding is that through this public/private partnership that price could
be lowered. It has been represented that it could be represented significantly to something like $8 to $10
million dollars at which point the private developer would undertake this with assistance from the EPA and
the City of Nashua.

So the EPA recently updated their most recent public document on February 12, | believe that was the
Administrative Record that was produced previously in 2019. There was a public comment period which is
one of the reasons why | wanted to get this Memo to you, so you had the opportunity, if you so desired to

Board of Aldermen Page 3
November 9, 2016

From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Re: Notification of Entry into Contract with a 3 Party Supplier for Electricity Supply

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE MULTI-
YEAR CONTRACT TO CONSTELLATION NewENERGY, INC.
MOTION CARRIED

PERIOD FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATIVE TO ITEMS EXPECTED TO BE ACTED
UPON THIS EVENING

Mr. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne Drive
Ordinance O-16-11 Reduced Taxation for Charter Schools has lingered “on the table” for about 6 months.
Let us examine the facts.

Two charter schools are located in Nashua: the Academy for Science and Design (ASD) and the

MicroSociety Academy.

>» ASD (grades 6-12) has 525 students, of whom 263 reside in Nashua.
>» MicroSociety (grades K-8) has 151 students, of whom 96 reside in Nashua.

A total of 464 students resident within Nashua attend charter schools in the region, within and outside
Nashua. This data is tabulated on the Nashua Board of Education website, under “budgets.”

The students who reside within Nashua and attend the two charter schools located in Nashua must be
provided with bus transportation provided by the Nashua School District, by state law

Now let us examine the cost savings.

The tuition cost to taxpayers for a student K-12 in the Nashua School District is $13,000 per year. The cost
for a student attending a charter school is $5,600 a year. Thus the savings in tuition cost per student who
attend a Charter School is $7,400 per student. This totals to a savings of $3.4 million for the 464 Nashua
students who attend charter schools, offloaded from the Nashua School District

The cost to transport students resident in Nashua to the two Charter Schools in Nashua is about $160,000
according to the Nashua School District business office.

Thus the cost savings to the Nashua taxpayers is $3.2 million, for students attending charter schools who
otherwise would be attending the Nashua School District

The loss of tax revenues under O-16-11 is $80,000 for ASD and $65,000 for the MicroSociety, for a
combined loss of $145,000. This figure, missing from the financial analysis section of this ordinance, was
provided by alderman Dowd.

Thus the net cost savings is over $3 million.

What do we get for these savings?

According to the comprehensive School Digger rankings (www.school digger.com) the Academy for Science
and Design is consistently the top performing high school in New Hampshire. Furthermore, it is ranked

among the top 50 high schools in the entire United States. Consider that the ASD must accept, by law,
special education students with an IEP.

FINANCE COMMITTEE

MARCH 2, 2022
7:00 Aldermanic Chamber and Zoom

Join Zoom Meeting: https://usO2web.zoom.us/j/87364695 187? pwd=LzhIZIZNaQovNIk4WIVIWHo1 OFZJUTO9
Meeting ID: 873 6469 5187 Passcode: 369058

By telephone: 1-929-205-6099 Meeting ID: 873 6469 5187 Passcode: 369058

lf there is a problem with the audio, please dial 603-589-3329 to advise.

ROLL CALL

PUBLIC COMMENT

COMMUNICATIONS

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Property Record Card Scanning Project Change Order #1 in the amount not to exceed $31,000 funded from
53142 Consulting Services/General Fund (Admin. Services)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Salt Change Order #1 in the amount not to exceed $75,000 funded from 61514 Salt/General Fund (Street
Department)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: 2022 Paving Program in the amount not to exceed $4,562,802.50 funded from 54210 Construction
Services/Bond/ Wastewater Fund (Engineering Department)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Pedestrian Infrastructure Conditions Assessment in the amount not to exceed $42,500 funded from 55699 Other
Contracted Services/Bond (Engineering Department)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Evaluation and Preliminary Design of Class A Biosolids Management Upgrade in the amount not to exceed
$199,886.60 funded from 53107 Architect & Engineering Services/Wastewater Fund (Wastewater Department)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Digester Coating in the amount not to exceed $339,500 funded from 54210 Construction Services/Wastewater
Fund (Wastewater Department)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Phase II Pump Station Upgrade Construction Change Order #1 in the amount not to exceed $139,313.15
funded from 54210 Construction Services/SRF Loan (Wastewater Department)

From: Kelly Parkinson, Purchasing Manager
Re: Landfill Engineering Services Contract Change Order #1 in the amount not to exceed $66,000 funded from
53107 Architect & Engineering Services/Solid Waste Fund (Solid Waste Department)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

NEW BUSINESS —- RESOLUTIONS

NEW BUSINESS —- ORDINANCES

RECORD OF EXPENDITURES

GENERAL DISCUSSION

PUBLIC COMMENT

REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN

ADJOURNMENT

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 6

weigh in on this amendment. The amendment basically made it explicit which | think everyone understood
to be implicit from the 2019 document which was to consolidate all the hazardous waste material that was
in and along the various sites into the Mohawk Tannery Site. Because of the way the EPA is organized,
they were only looking at the site very specifically at the “Mohawk Tannery Site” and environmental
remediation that would be necessary. So this made it explicit that it would actually be more than just the
Mohawk Tannery Site as the current plan suggests.

To move this project forward, the private sector developer, Blaylock Holdings, has represented that they
would take on the remediation. They have entered into an agreement with the EPA where the EPA is
provided something like $6 million dollars in assistance so they can do the environmental remediation. My
understanding and some recent communication has just come into my office. On Friday we got an update
from Blaylock Holdings, | haven’t had a change yet to review it. But it has always been discussed
previously that there would be something like 50,000 square feet of commercial activity on the site, in terms
of retail or other type of uses and then somewhere around 250 to 300 units of apartments. That was
essentially the broad stroke uses that they would like to envision on the 30-ish acres. My understanding is
that is still the current thought process or something to that degree or in that realm. And then the question
has always come up because, just the idea of the cost for the cleanup being somewhere between $8 to $10
million dollars and | question whether that is even a truly flushed out figure. But going with that number and
understanding the EPA is willing to commit somewhere around $6 million dollars, there’s a gap and using
the high end, and just saying $10; there’s a gap that needs to be filled.

We had always previously represented that the City would be interested in some sort of small participation
through a TIF and | am looking just to get some direction tonight to make sure that | am still in good stead
to continue to represent that. There are more questions than probably answers at this point; | want to make
that really clear for everyone. This is an on-going conversation, when | originally started down this path
most recently with the Memo just a couple of weeks ago, it was really just to get the ball started to let this
Board know that coming over the next months or even a year, somewhere in '21, somewhere in '22 this
conversation was going to progress and get more substantial and substantive. | thought that that this would
just be a good time to start the conversation so | could continue representing what the wishes may be of
the Board of Aldermen and the Administration and try to progress the project if that was still something that
this body desired. So I'll leave my comments there. | am hoping to open it up to a little bit of a Q&A and,
again, just remind folks that there may be a lot of questions that | don’t have answers to yet but we are
working through that.

| guess one other comment | would like to make is | Know some members of this body have reached out to
me and asked me specific questions. | have held off on responding to some of those questions because |
don’t have those answers. Particularly, | just want to just say Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu reached out to me
to ask me specifically who would be responsible for the difference in the cleanup costs and that’s the exact
question that | want to have tonight, | want to have a discussion on tonight is how do we want to frame that
conversation? What is the expectations? Who is going to be the responsible parties? And | think that’s a
bigger conversation than any 1, 2 or 3 people and it is predicated on this body providing some feedback to
me. So, thank you, Madam Chair.

President Wilshire
Thank you. Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Yeah, earlier you said that you were trying to do this briefing so that we would be able to participate in
public comment. | believe that is closed as of Saturday, not that the Alderman can’t comment whenever
they want, but | just figured | would share that with everybody.

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 7

President Wilshire
OK, anyone have any questions for Director Cummings? Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons

OK, thank you, Madam President. That Mohawk Tannery Site has been unfortunately linked to my family
for years. And | suspect that it has to do with some of the negative health effects that a lot of my family has
had over the years just by the fact that a lot of them grew up there, lived in that neighborhood in either little
Florida or Fairmount Heights. Just being around that, | think, there’s a lot of people in that neighborhood
that have issues with their health; cancer, different things like that. So | definitely want to see the site
cleaned up. | am hesitant, however, to use — it’s one of those things where you want to have the site
cleaned up but you also regret the fact that the people that made the mess aren't the ones paying,
especially where it hits a lot of people right at home.

The other thing that | question is whether or not it would make sense to actually build more homes in that
area given the fact that there is such a significant, in my opinion, there are significant health risks to just
living there. And | don’t know that we could guarantee and these are the things that | would want to see, is
what kind of guarantees are in place that stuff, whatever they bury there, is going to remain buried and
what is the action plan if in the future it starts to leak or something like that. What are the measures 100
years from now when it starts to leak and then what is built around there? Do people have to move in order
for us to be able to go into a site like that and prevent it from leaking in the future? These are answers that
| don’t think that we can truly answer and unfortunately until we can get some solid answers on stuff like
that, | would certainly not be in favor of putting more houses in an area like that. To me, | am all for
cleaning it up but we have to be responsible in the way that we do it and we have to make sure that we
have a plan for the future and | mean years and years and years down the road that there is money set
aside, you know, that there’s a clear defined plan of what to do if something was to go wrong with the site
after it has been capped. So | would need to see those types of details in order to support anything really
to that site.

Director Cummings

Thank you for that feedback. | think that those are really good points.

Mayor Donchess

And Alderman Clemons, that’s one thing that we have been talking with the EPA about and DES from the
State. Who is going to monitor this? Who is responsible if there is the type of situation you described, of
some leakage. It’s downhill to the river and uphill to the neighborhood so if there is leakage it is very likely
it would be not towards the neighborhood but towards the river. They say that this is all pretty dormant and
maybe they are right but still there needs to be a monitoring and plan. We’ve made it clear that the City
does not wish to take over that responsibility and that it needs to be either DES or the EPA.

President Wilshire
Is there something they can do when they cap these lagoons like they do when the cap asbestos? | mean

they have monitoring wells and stuff like that. Is there something they can do there with that; the same kind
of process?

Director Cummings

That’s my understanding is there would be active monitoring occurring and annual inspections and my
understanding is an active management plan. My understanding is part of the EPA and DES regulations
will make that explicitly clear; the maintenance of it and the ongoing assurance that we are getting what is

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 8

outlined in the regulations is still something that | want to learn more about so | don’t misrepresent anything
to this body. | have my concerns, no doubt but it is definitely something that | know the EPA, DES and
Blaylock is very well aware of.

President Wilshire
Thank you. Alderman Tencza?
Alderman Tencza

Thank you, Madam President. Director Cummings, just asking a question about the TIF. | assume that the
idea is to establish a TIF to support a bond to make up for the City’s contribution to this project. Is that how
it works similar to the Performing Arts Center.

Director Cummings

Yes, if may? Yes, in theory that’s how it would work. No negotiations have occurred, nothing like that has
happened it’s been all very high level in terms of what tools would be available at the Federal Level, even
at the State Level, the question was asked and then at the local level. And obviously the readily tool that
we have available is the TIF and | think that is something that we had 2 or 3 years ago suggested would be
something we would be willing to entertain and that’s something we had a small appetite for. But we also
made it very clear that this was a public/private partnership where we had every expectation that it would
be the Federal Government, the EPA, the Developer and the City itself participating if we were to go this
route. That is what was represented to me and to the Mayor and to others on City staff when this
conversation started some 36 months ago or thereabouts.

| can’t begin to speak to how big the TIF will be. | can’t begin to speak to how we would structure it. Those
are all things that we would need to figure out. | am just looking to find out is this something we want to
actually continue talking about and have on the table for discussion. What | know is | need to ask for a lot
of additional information from Blaylock Holdings. | have asked for some of this information previously but for
me to able to make a recommendation to you and to the Mayor, | need some due diligence and some data
to provide that. For instance, sources and uses, how is this deal actually going to be structured financially?
What is the return on equity that one would be projecting? What’s the RR? These standard real estate
type of calculations | think | have a responsibility to do so that | can represent to you but for this type of tool,
this project wouldn’t move forward. And that’s really what | need to make sure | can do so everyone has a
comfort level in providing the type of financial support that may be necessary.

Alderman Tencza

Just as a follow-up Madam President, if | may. And | think you understand it is tough for us to take a
position on a TIF without really knowing what level of bonding would be necessary and what the, well |
guess what the return to the City would be. My feelings on the issue, and | appreciate you bringing this
forward to us and having this conversation, | think that’s an important piece of property for the City to make
active again. | think they are called the secant walls that the EPA is proposing, actually does a better job of
containing the sludge then is being contained right now. So | am optimistic about this project and | am
hoping we can have more information before we make any final decisions on it. Thanks.

Director Cummings
Agree.
Alderman O’Brien

Thank you, Madam President. Director Cummings, you mentioned that they are going to remove the
lagoons and try to make it into one. We are talking about two different sites. | don’t want to say

Special Board of Aldermen 03-15-2021 Page 9

“unfortunately” but | had many dealings with that area over in my previous career, traversed it. As you
know, the topography in some places there’s some pretty good valleys going down to the river and stuff like
that. Would removal of the top soil that is contaminated, would that be used to smooth out the topography
that is currently, naturally there right now? Would that be in turn, in such a way, become a buildable area
with that base underneath.

Director Cummings

| don’t know Alderman O’Brien whether the top soil or not, or where that top soil is that you’re talking about.
| think anything that has contaminated soil has been represented to be part of the encapsulated area. So |
think everything, as | understand it, everything in the site is “contaminated” and again | am going to define
the site, the project site is Mohawk Tannery, Fimbel Door and partially some of the City’s right-of-way which
has asbestos on it, would all get consolidated into a certain area and get capped. My understanding is this
capped area is significant, 2 to 2 ’ acres would all get consolidated in one area with the theory being you’d
have some usable land to develop.

Alderman O’Brien
Follow-up if | may Madam President?
President Wilshire
Alderman O’Brien.
Alderman O’Brien

| don’t know, someday if you want we’ll go for a walk through it. But from what | remember there are a
couple of valley and stuff like that. But | would like to share Alderman Tencza’s anticipation. Right now if
we don’t do anything with this, it is not going to go away. The thing is we have a good history with the old
Sylvester Facility that is off of Gilson Road. That was something that we did receive the Superfund help
with. But there’s been no leakage, as a matter of fact, the area is greatly improved and so | think the EPA
does have a way in dealing with a lot of this. It would be probably great to see this area come back,
particularly for the health of the neighborhood as mentioned by Alderman Clemons. Thank you.

President Wilshire
Alderman Dowd?
Alderman Dowd

Yes. A couple of things. A few of us attended the EPA briefings back in the day and they provided how
they would encapsulate all of this material. They've done it several places and it was a fairly safe way of
encapsulating it. They basically build a damn around the area and pour the material in and it can’t leak out.
| understand that the EPA would be monitoring it and it would become their responsibility. And then they
cap it. | think that perhaps it might be a good idea to get that briefing one more time because we have a lot
of new people who haven't seen it.

The other thing is that this whole project won’t go anywhere if we don’t allow the developer to develop the
property after they encapsulate the material because otherwise why would he spend that money? My other
concern is, and | don’t know if we have ever considered it, | know we keep talking about it is going to tie
into the Broad Street Parkway or Veteran’s Parkway if we get that far. But have we thought about is it
going to be a stop sign, a traffic light? Have we done a traffic study as to what we think the number of cars
would be? That will have to be done at some point, probably not right this minute, that would have to be
done at some point because | think from the discussions we had, including the Tamposi piece that there
could be a lot of traffic coming out that area and it might have to be a traffic light. Well, who is paying for it?