Council approves $42,000 phase 2 environmental study for former Rite Aid site

The City Council voted to approve a phase 2 environmental site assessment for a former Rite Aid property, authorizing an expedited testing contract estimated at about $42,000. The vote followed a 40‑minute discussion about cost, liability exposure and scheduling.

Council packet materials and a staff presentation said the assessment is intended to demonstrate due diligence and preserve the city’s ability to claim the innocent purchaser defense if contamination is later discovered. “The importance of the phase 2 environmental site assessment is it allows us to show due diligence,” a staff member said, “and lets us use that innocent purchaser defense in the future.”

Council members said the city has to weigh the immediate cost of testing against potential future liability. One council member criticized the price as excessive, calling it “well into rip off territory.” Others said the expense is similar to buying insurance: costly now but protective if contamination or a third‑party incident leads to large cleanup bills or insurance claims.

Staff told the council the parcel was a service station for many years with above‑ground petroleum storage and some underground heating‑oil tanks. When Rite Aid acquired the site, the company completed a phase 1 and a partial phase 2 assessment but did not test every potential storage location. The staff presentation said the planned phase 2 will sample the areas that were not tested previously so “between the two of them, every known storage point where there could have been a spill will have been tested.”

Staff said typical phase 2 costs the city has seen range from about $20,000 to the mid‑$20,000s, depending on the number of tests; the higher $42,000 estimate reflects expedited scheduling and a larger number of sample locations. Council members asked whether the testing could be delayed to avoid expedited fees and whether the seller would grant a longer closing schedule. Staff said an owner extension had been granted to the end of an unspecified period, but timing remains tight because of lab processing and report turnaround.

Council members also asked how test results would affect the purchase. Staff said a contaminated result could prompt a phase 3 investigation and negotiations with the property owner or prior owners and their insurers; in some circumstances the city could walk away from the purchase. When asked what outcome would make the city decline the purchase, one council member summarized simply: “Ground contamination.”

After discussion, Council member Val moved to approve the phase 2 environmental site assessment and Council member Phil seconded. The council voted to approve the assessment. The motion record does not contain a roll‑call tally connected to names in the available transcript.

The council’s packet included maps and prior assessment excerpts showing where testing was previously performed; staff said the company hired for the expanded phase 2 provided a site map showing areas that were not tested in earlier work. The council briefly discussed construction‑related risks — for example, digging for foundations or utility work that could expose soil — and how unresolved contamination discovered during later work could trigger expensive remediation and higher insurance costs.

The meeting ended with staff noting they would follow up on schedule options and testing logistics. A council member said they would send an additional communication on an unrelated SWOT analysis with the Economic Development Council.