Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee declines Phase 2 environmental study on Fabian Parkway without agreed future use
Summary
Staff proposed a $25,200 Phase 2 environmental site assessment for Fabian Parkway to test for contamination identified in a 2019 Phase 1; the committee declined to authorize the work without a clear proposed use, citing potential remediation costs and the need for board-level direction.
Roger Fonstock presented background on the Fabian Parkway parcel (former sheriff site) and said a Phase 1 environmental site assessment done in July 2019 identified areas for testing. He told the committee underground storage tanks were remediated and removed in 2023 and that the IEPA issued a “no further remediation” letter that was recorded.
TrueNorth (the Phase 1 contractor) provided a quote of $25,200 to perform a Phase 2 ESA — borings, sampling and testing — that would determine whether additional remediation is required before any change of use. Fonstock said Phase 2 would give a clearer picture for future uses.
Committee members raised concerns about paying for Phase 2 without a defined purpose. “I am obviously not going to support this. That’s $25,000 as a gateway depending on what we find. Remediation is very expensive,” a member said. Several others, including Kim Young and Juvy, agreed that the county should decide a desired future use (sale, solar field, or other) before investing in a Phase 2 study.
Members also flagged potential liabilities and long-term obligations: if contamination is found, county ownership could trigger obligations to address it unless public access is restricted. Michael Wei (KDOT) and other transportation staff explained current operational uses — a 15,000-ton salt dome, gravel stockpile used in emergency response, a debris-handling field and equipment storage — and noted that the site supports county emergency response and could be costly to replace elsewhere.
Given those competing views, the committee expressed consensus not to fund Phase 2 at this time and asked that any future request to pursue testing be accompanied by a proposed use and a plan for who would pay for further work. Roger Fonstock said next steps would be to bring a proposal through committee should a specific purpose and funding plan be presented.
