Special Bd. of Aldermen — 10/26/15 Page 20
Street Parkway or wherever, some pile of asbestos that also needs to be moved. So the proposal, as the
neighbors understand it, has not been to clean up the lagoons, it has been to add more to them and then cap
what is going on. There is a separate chamber that they are describing behind the two lagoons, but they also
had a plan to pile stuff higher on the secant wall if | understand correct.
Mr. Millan-Ramos Correct.
Alderman Lopez
So that is definitely where the bone of contention is for the neighbors in my understanding. For this
development to happen, the City basically needs to move its garbage over to the tannery project, pile it even
higher using some new innovative strategies, rather than full removal which is apparently cost prohibitive, but it
isn’t entirely clear as to why. Because there are a lot variable in place here that we should be working to
understand over the next couple of months before we make any final decisions.
President McCarthy
Alderman Lopez, the questions | had asked before were based specifically on that, to cap the lagoons in place
and what would the cost be of not moving anything to the lagoons, but if we are going to dig it up to remove it
from the site.
Alderman Lopez
And | understood that to be the case, but | wanted to reframe so that number one, the neighbors understood
that some progressive step had been taken and for the Board of Aldermen who haven't all gone to every single
meeting or been as intricately involved in this, they may not have been aware that the genesis of the
neighbor’s that were outraged basically was because the presentation wasn’t to their best interests. It wasn’t
cleaning up the site next to them, it was encapsulating it with more stuff. So | think with that understanding,
moving forward becomes possible because you kind of understand where everybody is coming from.
President McCarthy
When we had set this meeting up, | had specifically not invited the developer per se, because | wanted to talk
about the waste on the site at this meeting and the cost of the alternatives. He is more than willing to come at
some point and give us a presentation on the proposed development itself and what we would and wouldn’t get
out of it.
Alderman Lopez
| think that’s fair and probably wise, because at the last two meetings the combination of the environmental
issue and the development issue became very contentious and | mean it is a really awkward spot for a
developer to be put in to be asked “so are you going to pay for this, are you going to clean it up”. We even had
a developer looking at an adjacent property asked if he would be kicking money in which is very difficult for a
developer. So | think it was wise to separate the two meetings. | am just saying that as we progress with this
we should have a clear understand because frankly this wouldn’t be the first developer who suggested a water
front be put in. We want to make sure we know what we are doing before we get into any agreements.
President McCarthy
As | said before, | think the issue is if the only alternative we will accept is removing the two lagoons from the
tannery site, then the development deal is off the table and we just go simply to the NPL. If we are willing to
talk about a capping solution then the question is which capping solution is it and we have some play there
with what we can and can’t do to remove some material and make the solution more acceptable.
