Stadium District (formerly Producers Coop)

[Bellaboo]

I think the low cost of living thing is overblown. It’s cheap because it’s not desirable, no?

Not sure about that, I've ran into several people who have recently moved here from California to retire. The one across the street paid $425 k for his shack.

[BoulderSooner]

I think the low cost of living thing is overblown. It’s cheap because it’s not desirable, no?

not at all .

[Pete]

Producer's Copp has filed an application to demo that building that was damaged in the fire.

[Pete]

[Mott]

How things change, after the BN and ATSF RR merger, got to work in ‘north yard’, the old FRISCO/BN, and we spotted Producers. I think that was the office, where we got our switch lists. Enjoyed working with them, and the crews that would load or unload the rail cars we spotted. Every year they would have an employees catered lunch in one of the old tin cottonseed barns, and if we were there that day, they’d invite the switch crew to join.

[yukong]

Sooner Investments has been involved for a few years now.

They did University Town Center in Norman, Spring Creek in Edmond and Sooner Rose in MWC among others.

At one point, they were pretty far along with some big box retail tenants at the southern edge of this property, but it all fell apart for some reason and now it seems they are back to square one.

There is always the possibility that the soccer stadium lands here which would help kick things off.

And the environmental issues have not yet been delineated much less remediated. The current owners have been reluctant to do extensive assessment of the environmental concerns, most likely due to the fact that it is a complete unknown. This whole area was an oil field and refinery area back in the early 20th Century as was much of lower downtown. It is believed that there are possibly several underground oil or other storage tanks in this area. There were possibly multiple sludge pits on the site at one time. In fact, when ODOT built the Boulevard, there were serious environmental issues that required remedial action. The underground utility corridors had to be essentially lined and sealed to prevent them from providing a pathway for contaminated ground water to migrate to other areas. The environmental issues killed the Funk deal. And the environmental issues have apparently killed the Sooner Investment deal. The unknown cost of environmental remediation makes any deal a major gamble investment wise.

[Pete]

^

Really appreciate the excellent information.

[yukong]

^

Really appreciate the excellent information.

The big problem is the Co-op owners asking price does not take into consideration the environmental remediation costs. It is my understanding that this is what killed the Funk and Sooner deals. The numbers just couldn't be made to work. If you have to pay premium prices (price for environmentally clean property) and then have an unknown price tag for remediation, then it becomes too big of a gamble. The Co-op has obviously done nothing to remediate the environmental issues themselves, therefore it will likely sit for quite a while more. Because of the environmental issues, nothing can proceed until remediation. There are two separate remediation standards. Commercial/Industrial and residential. They have vastly different thresholds. Residential remediation standards are quite a bit more expensive as they require substantially higher cleanup. Honestly, if the site is as contaminated as some fear, it may not be feasible for residential. It may just cost too much to make it work. Hopefully, there is a section or sections of the site that would work for residential, but no one knows. Most likely any residential development will have to incorporate vapor intrusion mitigation systems like the development across from the civic center.

[David]

Is Superfund grant money at all a possibility for this site, or are the costs prohibitive even with that factored in?

[yukong]

Is Superfund grant money at all a possibility for this site, or are the costs prohibitive even with that factored in?

Superfund is not “grant money.” It’s taxpayer money going to pay for cleanup. Plus It most likely would not score high enough to qualify for the National Priorities List (NPL). That is the starting point for Super Fund. If it did go SF, the government would then sue the owners to claw back the money.

And even if it did qualify for SF, the NPL backlog is several years, likely 5-10 years. Which would be bad for redevelopment. And the fact that there is an identifiable owner will also go against it ever making the NPL. Plus, the state is on the hook for a percentage of the cleanup cost up front if it goes SF. It won’t happen. The owners have too much capital to ever get off that hook. Plus my guess is the state would oppose it.

Honestly, until the current owners either remediate the property to at least minimum commercial Contamination levels, or they drop their price to a point that makes a potential buyer willing to risk the purchase, it will sit vacant.

Another complicating factor is there are not many lenders who will loan money to a developer without some prior release from the EPA and the State affirming they won’t go after the lender if the lender has to foreclose. Banks don’t like environmental liability. And if no thorough evaluations are conducted, no one can later claim “we didn’t know.”

If you start seeing drilling equipment on the site, then you will know they are starting testing. The first thing that will happen will be drilling and setting test wells to test ground water. Also boring for soil samples. Bit surface testing and depth testing. Those will be good signs.

[Urbanized]

https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/over...fields-program

[yukong]

https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/over...fields-program

Under the Brownfields Program, private owners are only able to receive low interest loans. They cannot obtain grants. Grants are only available to governmental or quasi-governmental entities and in some cases nonprofits. Then, loans are only available if money is available to lend. The state and OKC both have Brownfield programs. But they have a very finite amount of money to loan and if it is all loaned out then Brownfields isn’t an option.

To qualify, the owners will have to conduct at least a phase 1 investigation and maybe a phase 2 before getting consideration. I’m not sure if they have done either. From all appearances it doesn’t seem they have. So, at this point Brownfields isnt really isn’t an option.

[David]

Ahhh, okay. I wasn't sure how all that worked so I was making a guess at the grant money part.

[yukong]

Ahhh, okay. I wasn't sure how all that worked so I was making a guess at the grant money part.

No worries. It is a somewhat complicated mess. But bottom line...loans only to private developers or owners. Grants only to governmental entities, quasi-governmental entities and non-profits.

So the Co-op can only get a loan if OKC or the State have money to loan. They may or may not. I do not know that situation.

[Dob Hooligan]

I'm starting to think I remember that the contamination issue has been written about a bit over the last few years. Seem like the Oklahoman mentioned it in a story on the site. I recall thinking at the time that the perfect "set up" is for the City to buy the property for the stadium, soft sell the risk, and then be on the hook for the multi X cost of remediation that will come to light.

[Pete]

Remember, the Energy ownership had the Coop site under contract with the intention of buying the whole thing with the stadium as an anchor.

They backed out no doubt due to the contamination issue that combined with a high land price resulting in their inability to make the numbers work.

But, if the Coop ground isn't able to work a deal for this MAPS project, it's hard to see how they could ever pull together a large mixed-use project.

[yukong]

Remember, the Energy ownership had the Coop site under contract with the intention of buying the whole thing with the stadium as an anchor.

They backed out no doubt due to the contamination issue that combined with a high land price resulting in their inability to make the numbers work.

But, if the Coop ground isn't able to work a deal for this MAPS project, it's hard to see how they could ever pull together a large mixed-use project.

The Coop needs to remediate the property or drop the price to make up for the projected remediation costs. The problem is, those costs could actually be higher than what the property is worth. That is pure speculation, but it is a possibility. But that situation is not an unheard of occurrence. There are many sites around the country where the cleanup cost is higher than the value of the property once cleaned.

Thus the dilemma.

[Richard at Remax]

I'm sure they've explored it but the EPA has a federal Brownfields Program to help clean them up. Might have a cap in funds though

[yukong]

I'm sure they've explored it but the EPA has a federal Brownfields Program to help clean them up. Might have a cap in funds though

As has been previously stated…the Coop site is owned by a private, for profit entity. Under the law, Brownfields grants are only available to governmental entities or nonprofit entities. The Coop cannot obtain a grant for cleanup. The only thing they can obtain is a low interest loan. But that money will not come directly from the EPA. That authority has been granted to the State DEQ Brownfields program or the OKC Brownfields program. But that is only an option if the State or the City have money to loan. And the Coop will then have to mortgage the property to the City or State which will have to be repaid before it could then be sold. Brownfields may not be a viable option. Brownfield grants are out of the question.

[catch22]

Yikes. Sounds like they want a price that factors in a clean, ready-to-build site; but without doing anything to get it that way. A classic case of an unrealistic seller.

[yukong]

Yikes. Sounds like they want a price that factors in a clean, ready-to-build site; but without doing anything to get it that way. A classic case of an unrealistic seller.

Thus the collapse of the Funk and the Sooner Investment deals. They just couldn't get the money to work.

[Bunty]

Not sure about that, I've ran into several people who have recently moved here from California to retire. The one across the street paid $425 k for his shack.

Maybe some retired people feel they gotten too old for mountains and beaches.

[Bellaboo]

Maybe some retired people feel they gotten too old for mountains and beaches.

I think it was a matter of cashing out, then living on easy street ? I know he was a retired scientist and she was a professional musician.

[Anonymous.]

The city needs to buy this land. They should have originally bought it before it was even demolished.

Clean it up through whatever grants etc. Then RFP it out while attempting to land a corporate anchor tenant through the business incentive programs that the city and state have. Gifting the land for a major corporate relocation is pretty big when you also add in all of the other existing incentive programs.

[oklip955]

Yup this was what I've been thinking. They sell it to the city for a cheaper price. City does the remediation and then sells it back as an economic incentive deal of some kind.