| Ms. Besaw indicated that since the MEDC could not provide support, |
|
| instead of putting forward the full non-environmental costs, they would do |
|
| a proportional share - what the local taxes would have covered had the |
|
| MEDC supported with State taxes. That ended up to be a 47% cost |
|
| share. The total reimbursable costs for non-environmental was $138,388, |
|
| and the environmental was $164,905. They wanted to get feedback on |
|
| the changes they had submitted. They tried to include everything that |
|
| was requested at the last meeting, and they hoped to get approval of the |
|
| Brownfield Plan to be able to move forward to City Council. |
|
| Ms. Morita asked Mr. Wackerman what would happen if the applicant was |
|
| determined not to be the innocent purchaser. Mr. Wackerman responded |
|
| that there were two parcels on which the investigations were done, and the |
|
| issue of the underground storage tanks only referred to the first parcel, |
|
| although the parcels had been combined. He thought that the issue |
|
| would go back to when the initial assessment was done. If the applicant |
|
| was deemed not to be an innocent landowner on the gas station parcel, |
|
| Mr. Wackerman did not think it changed the protection on the original |
|
| dealership parcel. Ms. Morita asked if it changed the parameters of the |
|
| Plan and what the BRA could or could not approve. Mr. Wackerman |
|
| explained that someone had to be an innocent landowner to be eligible |
|
| for brownfield incentives. Ms. Morita asked if it would be better for the |
|
| BRA to have that determination first so they would know what they were |
|
| considering. The applicant said the operations would be stopped next |
|
| month, and testing would be done to make a determination. She would |
|
| like to prevent contemplation of something that might not come to fruition. |
|
| Mr. Wackerman said that the applicant was attempting to establish |
|
| whether or not there had been contribution, and if there had been none, |
|
| then the applicant would not void the innocent landowner position. He |
|
| asked Ms. Besaw if a baseline had been done around the tanks. Ms. |
|
| Besaw said that it had, but it was from a couple of years ago - at the time |
|
| of purchase. Mr. Wackerman said that the additional sampling could |
|
| indicate higher concentrations than in the original baseline, in which case |
|
| the assumption would be contribution. The other scenario would be |
|
| similar concentrations within a reasonable percentage, in which case the |
|
| owner would still maintain the innocent landowner position. In the event |
|
| the applicant lost the innocent landowner position, the MDEQ would not |
|
| allow expenses associated with the gas station parcel. The BRA had |
|
| discretion to do some things that the State might not do. The BRA would |
|
| have to decide whether to be consistent with the MDEQ or not. The way |
|
