Astoria lays groundwork to attract developer

By the time developer Art DeMuro of Venerable Properties in Portland stepped up to the table to do business with the city of Astoria, Ore., the main course was nearly finished.

On the city’s plate was a major hurdle: 16 acres of abandoned riverfront property contaminated with toxic chemicals that needed to be cleaned up and redeveloped. The city envisioned the site, a lumber mill since the 1870s, as a mixed-use redevelopment with homes and commercial space.

When DeMuro became involved, the city had gained ownership of the land. A $1.4 million cleanup project was finished. A Prospective Purchaser’s Agreement (PPA), which limited the new owner to the liability of any contamination that occurred after acquiring ownership, was nearly completed. And, after a year of research, the city had a solid vision for the property. The city now was looking for someone with whom it could work to give the property new life.

DeMuro, whose company is known for its work in historical redevelopment, had never worked with contaminated land. But this was riverfront property where the community already had done the groundwork. “So it wasn’t as intimidating,” he says.

DeMuro admits he’s never had a professional relationship quite like what he found in Astoria. “Typically a city is an impediment,” he says of other projects. “You’re trying to find ways around a city’s restrictions.”

If there are lessons to be learned from Mill Pond Village, they are lessons of perseverance and cooperation. Lessons of a city that wasn’t afraid to dig in and get the cleanup process rolling, even before a developer stepped forward.

From the city’s perspective, it was time to start thinking like a developer, says Paul Benoit, Astoria’s city manager. And from a developer’s perspective, this project wasn’t attractive. Here you have a town that hasn’t seen any population growth in nearly 100 years. Why put up more housing? And on a brownfield, at that?

That’s why the city had to step up and make this project appealing, says Benoit, formerly Astoria’s community development director and the man who spearheaded this effort.

“We were dogged and perseverant, and flipped over every stone,” Benoit says.

Mill Pond Village sits along the Columbia River off of Highway 30, at the east entrance into Astoria. The city, where the Pacific Ocean and the Columbia River meet, has a history rich in logging and fishing. The development, modeled after a fishing village, is on the site where the Clatsop Mill Company operated from 1870 to 1955. In 1955, the Astoria Plywood Cooperative took over, going out of business in 1989.

That year, a visit by the Small Business Administration (SBA) alerted Benoit that the co-op had defaulted on a $3 million SBA loan. Soon after he learned the co-op was more than $5 million in debt. “It was real clear to me the mess that was going to be left behind,” he says looking back.

And what a mess it was. The SBA, not wanting to sell a piece of contaminated land, stripped the mill of anything useful, like metal, roofing materials, etc., leaving behind a dilapidated building. The property stood out among the new development around it. “It looked like the town dump,” Benoit says.

Benoit began working with the property’s lien holders, asking if they would assign their liens to the city. Weyerhaeuser, PacifiCorp and Liberty Northwest Insurance handed over their liens; however, it took a year to work out deals with the other two lien holders: the SBA and Clatsop County.

While working out the liens, the city started remediation in 1993, partnering with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The city and state split the cost of the $1.4 million cleanup.

For the state, $700,000 was used out of its orphan site account, a special state fund approved by the Legislature to pay for the clean up of contaminated property where no known, willing or able party can pay for it. In this case, there was no owner the EPA or DEQ could go to, says Alan Kiphut, Land Quality administrator for DEQ. In these situations, the sites must be high priorities. Since the orphan account was formed in the early 1990s, DEQ has used money on about 50 sites, Kiphut says.

For its share, the city approached ShoreBank Enterprise Pacific, a regional conservation development fund that facilitates environmental and economic development in rural communities. ShoreBank authorized a $750,000 loan that was secured by the property.

During this time, the city also was collecting public opinion at community forums. Many people spoke of attracting industry and family wage jobs to replace what was lost. However, after a year of talking about where the city was headed, the community arrived at a consensus that a mixed-use site was in the city’s best interest, Benoit says.

With its vision of a development that would celebrate the city’s history, the city put together a full-color brochure and advertised from Seattle to Portland for a private developer. Only two responded, including DeMuro’s Venerable Properties.

Venerable Properties bought the site for $700,000. The sale was assisted with the PPA, one of the first PPAs in the state and a major incentive for the developer, Kiphut says.

The city was able to orient him to the project, educating him about the PPA process and making concessions along the way to get the project started, DeMuro says. DeMuro also spent about $300,000 on brownfields-related costs. Remediation included restoring the south bank of a small pond that’s on the property, including a weir where the pond flows into the Columbia River. A 2-foot soil cap was needed in some hot spots. And groundwater monitoring was to take place for 10 years; however, after one test DEQ determined the water had returned to non-hazardous levels.

DeMuro, Benoit and Kiphut all agree this project, which won a 2001 Phoenix Award for EPA Region 10, was successful because of the level of cooperation between the city, state and developer. Benoit learned that building relationships is critical in brownfields redevelopment. Establishing that redevelopment vision also was important. It took a year to gain the community’s consensus. For a private developer, that time translates into money lost, he says.

Cities should also be willing to view the project through the developer’s eyes. That may be hard for government agencies because they’re often in regulatory mode, Benoit says.

Today, Mill Pond Village has 200 residential lots and four commercial or mixed-use lots. At the time of the interview, only 13 lots–12 residential and one commercial–were still for sale. However, DeMuro expected all contracts on those lots to be completed by the end of the year.

While Mill Pond Village has given the city a significant boost in its tax rolls, more importantly, it’s given the people there a sense of community pride. “It has had as much an impact on the psychology of the town as the financial impact,” Benoit says.

About this newsletter.
To help raise awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of redevelopment, Building on Brownfields brings you news and information on brownfields in EPA Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The newsletter is funded by the EPA through Washington state’s Department of Ecology, and is a cooperative effort between the four states and the EPA.

For past issues of the newsletter, go to www.buildingonbrownfields.com.

One Oregon developer turns a coastal wasteland into an environmentally sensitive neighborhood

By Kelly Brown Tomas

“My husband, Mel, grew up outside Astoria,” Alice Iverson says. “When he was young, he spent summers working as a fisherman along the Columbia River. He lived in a bunkhouse very near this property.” Although not all residents of Mill Pond Village, a community in Astoria, Oregon, share the Iversons’ link to the land’s past, they all seem drawn to the new development for the intimacy and romance it exudes. But the place wasn’t always this captivating.

Abandoned since the 1970s, the former site of a plywood mill and lumberyard revealed a host of challenges when Venerable Properties manager Art DeMuro first walked the acreage in the mid-1990s. Haunted by the odor and toxic chemicals left behind, the site hardly seemed a smart investment.

Undeterred, Astoria’s Community Development Department and its Portland-based developer collaborated on a vision to revitalize this portion of the waterfront. The plan called for a mixed-use neighborhood that would blend with Astoria’s fishing-village heritage. With help from the Environmental Quality, the city worked diligently with Venerable Properties to make the area viable once again.

Although enthusiasm for the project grew slowly, most of the lots have sold. And the location and vistas have newcomers and visitors scrambling for the resells. Housing options on the community’s 16 acres including waterfront cottages, single-family homes, commercial properties, a senior living facility, and retail spaces with residential components above. Prospective home builders may choose their own architects or contractors, but they must abide by guidelines from the city and homeowners association.

In order to maintain the fishing-village style, cottage features such as porches are mandatory. A walk along Mill Pond Lane confirms the commitment to the elements of fish-camp design–from clapboard exteriors to hues reminiscent of weather-beaten ships. Green-building guidelines protect ecologically sensitive areas, and many building materials are wholly or partially made from recycled materials. “The subdivision has a green reputation now,” Art says.

Surrounding a 3.7-acre pond and bordering Columbia River, Mill Pond Village boasts plenty of outdoor space, including five professionally landscaped public parks with gravel walkways and wooden benches for enjoying panoramic views or watching river traffic. Arbors provide shaded gathering areas for cookouts.

“Most of the people living here are ambassadors for the development,” said real estate broker Jennie Hillard. “People truly look out for each other.”

Locals embrace the convenience Mill Pond affords. The community is only a bike, walk, or ride from Astoria’s hospital, grocery store, restaurants, and shops. That’s attractive to young professionals, second homeowners, and retirees such as Judy Ronis.

“I’ve used only six gallons of gas in the two months I’ve lived here,” she says. “You can walk everywhere.” Or, if resident prefer, the can climb aboard the historic trolley, which stops along the river.

Dubbed “little San Francisco” for its steep roads and Victorian homes, Astoria already has appeal. With Mill Pond Village offering a new way of living in this area, the town appears even better.

Managing risk in innovation

By Linda Andersen

Astoria, Oregon hardly seems like a good spot for an upscale housing development. The town of 10,000 where the Pacific Ocean meets the Columbia River had seen better days when the logging and fishing industries thrived. Add to that a Brownfields site where a sawmill once stood and you’re talking about the kind of risk that would send many developers running.

Some builders are the first to push the envelope, to take risk and try something new.

Others are the last to try something new. In fact, homebuilders in general have a reputation for being the last kids on the block to step out on a limb.

Why? Because they’re already involved in one of the riskiest businesses in the industry. And despite all the potential benefits of innovation–faster, better, cheaper, improved sales–the risks of the untested are high when you’re talking about the kind of money involved in residential development.

How can a builder minimize the inherent risks in innovation? We talked with two developers who took risks to find out how they not only survived, but also thrived. Although the type of risks differed, in the end they both weighed the risk against the reward and the reward won.

Seeing potential in Brownfields

Art DeMuro, Venerable Properties, Portland, Ore., saw potential, not a contaminated Brownfields in Astoria, Ore. “I had loved Astoria for a long time,” he says. “When I walked the Brownfields site I was impressed by 16 acres with substantial frontage on the Columbia. It provided an interesting challenge.”

Challenge may be an understatement. The site with a small pond sat vacant for several years, contaminated with toxic chemicals before the city purchased it. After negotiating with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to pay for half of the clean-up costs, it issued a request for qualifications. Along came Venerable Properties, who agreed to purchase and develop the eyesore.

The largest risk to developing a Brownfields is uncertainty and delay, so the more investigation you do up front the better according to Deborah Schmall, partner with the law firm Farella, Braun and Martel, San Francisco. “There always will be some level of uncertainty,” she says. “But if the developer gives himself enough time we can reduce the level of uncertainty before construction, to the level most clients would think is manageable.”

DeMuro was careful. After the city and DEQ cleaned up the site, DeMuro spend about $200,000 as well in clean up before buying the property for $700,000. Remediation included restoring the south bank of the pond, building a weir where the pond flows into the Columbia River and adding a two-foot soil cap to hot spots. Venerable Properties agreed to not excavate certain areas and establish restrictions precluding any recreational use of the pond.

DeMuro hired an environmental consultant for technical assistance, but the greatest hedge against risk by far was gaining the prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) with the City and DEQ. The PPA limited Venerable Properties’ liability exposure to contamination that occurred after acquiring ownership. “That made all the difference. There’s no way we would have done it without it,” DeMuro says.

To date, Venerable Properties is in the third phase of the project with more than 40 percent of the homes sold. However, developers should carefully pencil out cleanup costs to make sure the market for the project will support them. “Assess their impact on your purchase price,” says Schmall, “because you’ll have to disclose the contamination and figure its effect on your selling price.”

She advises following a checklist when considering Brownfields development. “The first step is to assess the environmental situation and do a Phase 1 assessment, which requires checking government records, completing a site history and getting photographs, but doing no sampling. Depending upon the finding, you may need to do Phase II to determine contamination and at what levels.”

DeMuro encourages others looking a Brownfields to take advantage of available incentives. “Getting the PPA was critical,” he says. “Try to acquire a parcel that is handed to you clean, or at least has a high level of cleanliness. Reduce the list of remaining remediation you’ll have to do.” In this case, he says, the partnership between Venerable Properties, the city and the state was key. “The city and DEQ were completely committed to making sure we weren’t buying into a can of worms,” he says.

Attorney Schmall says cleanup costs vary greatly with a project of medium complexity costing between $5,000 and $7,000. “Phase II can easily reach $30,000 to $40,000. You don’t want to skimp on the cost of an environmental consultant. That is penny wise but pound foolish.”

Despite the risks, DeMuro says the Brownfields project is the most rewarding project he’s ever completed. “We’ve done lots of building in Portland, but it’s a thriving community. This is a major project in Astoria, proportionally it really contributed to the renaissance of the city.”

As land becomes more scarce and cities encourage close-in development, Brownfields present a growing opportunity to builders. By doing one’s homework, builders and developers can minimize the risks associated with them.

Going green on a large scale

It’s one thing to increase the amount of insulation in the attic or install compact fluorescent lighting to appeal to the environmental green buyer. But how about creating a housing development that is green inside and out? Now that’s risky business. Yet that’s what Rancho Mission Viejo did in creating Terramor Village at Ladera Ranch in southern Orange County, Calif.

Terramor Village is one of the most aggressively eco-friendly housing developments in the country. It employs new site planning concepts to minimize auto traffic, uses ecological best practices and offers homes that are energy efficient and outfitted with environmentally safe products. Every home has a 110-volt outlet for charging the neighborhood electric vehicle, and home buyers have the option of purchases a photovoltaic package to provide the home’s electricity–not exactly mainstream offerings in housing developments.

“From the beginning we took a risk management approach. We started with the market, not an altruistic goal of changing the world,” says Steve Kellenberg, EDAW Consultant, Los Angles, who served on Terramor’s master planning team.

That market, however, was only revealed after conducting some solid research. Research firm American Lives’ findings uncovered an untapped market niche that they named the ‘cultural creatives’ Research showed this group of people value arts and culture, the environment, a sense of community and neighborhood, their home as a nest, and nature. “The research was critical in making the decision to ‘go green,’ and we took steps to consistently analyze and measure our research prior to the grand opening at Terramor,” says Paul Johnson, senior vice president, Rancho Mission Viejo.

Kellenberg says a lot of homes were being built for traditionalists in southern Orange County, but there was a dearth of homes for the culturally creative person. “It’s Economics 101. If you have a demand of 26 to 30 percent of the market, if you offer the supply, you’ll be rewarded. It really was the least risky thing because it was in response to the market.”

The next issue was getting builders willing to take the risk of using new materials and a new approach to meet a series of environmental requirements covering the home’s site and landscape design, water and energy use, materials, indoor air quality and innovation.

It helped that the company had worked in the past with groups of builders with mutual success. “These builders had experienced or seen the incredible success in our past villages. We selected builders ready to take on the challenge with us, confident that it would be a win/win for everyone,” Johnson said.

Still some builders were worried about complying with the green development standards. “The cost in time required to change logistics and subcontractor practices and retrain people was a concern,” Kellenberg says.

To increase comfort levels, the company held a builder workshop. “After they got over their initial shock, we listened,” Kellenberg says. “We knew we were pushing the envelope, but we eliminated those things that were ‘over the top’ such as using gray water for landscaping. On the other hand, Kellenberg said they were surprised by the receptivity to photovoltaics. “The economics are so that you can achieve a positive cash flow from day one. This will be the largest photvoltaic community in the country.” William Lyon Homes had offered environmental features in the homes in the past, says Brian Doyle, director of sales and marketing, Newport Beach, Calif., but had never put them together as a package. “After looking at what other builders were doing around the country, we expanded our options program. We allowed people to choose more environmentally safe products, such as flooring or paint, or install more efficient heating and cooling systems, or more efficient windows,” he says.

Participating homebuilders gave input into Terramor’s environmental goals and were given flexibility in how to meet them. For instance by adjusting architectural guidelines, builders were able to reallocate the money saved to green building items. “The goal was that there would not be a net increase in costs to the builder,” Kellenberg says. His research showed consumers would pay up to $4 per square foot more for a healthier home.

Communication and the sharing of information between builders also helped reduce builders’ risks at Terramor, according to Doyle and he credits Rancho Viejo with creating that open environment. “They and we wanted this village to have success. It wasn’t about one of us having success over the other.” Apparently that thinking paid off William Lyon Homes has sold 96 of the 109 homes it built at Terramor in little over a year.

Johnson believes there are always risks associated with developing new communities, but his company tends to look at calculated risk as an opportunity.

Doyle advises others to “do your homework,” when trying something new. “In concept it may sound great and easy, but it’s not always so,” he says.

Kellenberg also supports risk-taking with a caution. “Know when enough is enough; don’t gild the lily,” he says. “Identify a threshold of distinction that gives you a perceivable difference to the buyer. That’s where art and science meet.”

Making projects add up

Public Management Magazine–Special Section

By Danielle Miller Wagner

Most local government managers would agree that economic growth and housing development are worthy of their time and resource investments. The ways in which these local government and community priorities are achieved, however, vary dramatically depending on available and competing demands for resources, past practices, creativity and cooperation among stakeholders, and other factors.

One often-overlooked tool in the manager’s toolbox is the used or blighted property that sits idle or underused. These properties, called brownfields, are officially defined as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant” (Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 9601(39). 2003).

Despite the legal definition, brownfields can actually make endeavors like housing construction and job creation more doable and less expensive for local governments, all the while revitalizing neighborhoods through eliminating blighted properties. Don’t buy it? Read on for real-life examples of how local governments have made the brownfields equation work for them.

Job creation, housing development, and commercial and retail opportunities fuel the engine of economic development. A multitude of federal and state resources, combined with local government ingenuity, can be used to spur brownfields cleanup and redevelopment in support of economic development goals.

Creating Housing Opportunities in Astoria, Oregon

At the time it was closed and abandoned in 1989, the Clatsop Lumber Mill in Astoria, Oregon, had operated as a plywood mill for more than 100 years and employed 217 people. Along with many other mills in the Pacific Northwest, this plywood mill suffered because of dwindling forest resources, regional environmental concerns, and global competition. The mill’s location along the banks of the Columbia River and at the entrance to the city’s downtown made the highly visible abandoned site an eyesore as passersby entered the city.

With assistance from a statewide program to assist economically distressed communities suffering from mill closures, the city established a community planning process that resulted in the Gateway Master Plan, an urban infill scheme to revitalize the mill site and its surroundings. During the planning process, a citizens’ advisory committee appointed by the mayor determined that the best reuse for the mill site would be as a residential neighborhood with a village-like atmosphere.

This decision meant that the site cleanup had to support residential uses by achieving the most stringent and expensive cleanup requirements. According to City Manager Dan Bartlett, “There was a very strong sentiment that we did not want our future options for site redevelopment to be limited by a shortsighted economic decision to leave higher levels of contamination on-site.”
Turning an abandoned mill site with unknown contamination into a residential neighborhood was neither an easy task nor a clear path for city officials, but this did not deter former Astoria Community Development Director Paul Benoit, who spearheaded the day-to-day effort and persevered despite many obstacles.

Some of the challenges included the approximately $5 million in debt that had been incurred by the cooperative of local residents who owned and previously worked at the mill. In addition, demolition and assessment activities uncovered buried and leaking capacitors, many tons of PCB-contaminated soils and debris, and contaminated sediments in the millpond.

The good news, however, was that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was looking to provide financial and technical support to jurisdictions in Oregon addressing brownfields. In 1995, the DEQ offered to undertake the cleanup of the mill site on the conditions that the city reimburse DEQ for half of the estimated $1.4 million in cleanup costs, and that the city take possession of the site. Further good news was the city’s receipt in 1997 of a portion of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant to conduct assessments to determine the level and extent of contamination at the site.

Given the challenge of repaying DEQ for half of the remediation costs, Astoria officials approached commercial banks and lenders, which required a guarantee from the city’s general fund. For this reason, Astoria instead approached ShoreBank Enterprise Pacific, a regional nonprofit conservation development fund that facilitates environmental and economic development in rural communities. ShoreBank authorized a loan of $750,000 that was secured by the contaminated real estate.

Following full remediation of the site, the city and DEQ signed a prospective-purchaser agreement affirming that the state will not hold the city or other future owners liable for past contamination at the site, as long as the institutional and engineering controls are upheld. With this agreement in place, the city took ownership of the property and then sold it to a developer selected through a design competition. Proceeds from the sale went to repay ShoreBank Enterprises Pacific.

Today, the developer, Venerable Properties, has completed Phases 1 and 2 of the 16-acre residential and mixed-use neighborhood, and Phase 3 is under construction. Eighty-two residential lots—plus apartment units, commercial and retail properties, and parks and paths—will complete the project. Leveraging the property sale, the city obtained a state highway fund grant to pay for construction of sidewalks and street improvements and to improve access to the property.

According to Bartlett, creating residential reuse from a former brownfields site has proved to be a wise economic decision, as the new neighborhood property values will exceed the highest values of the plywood mill, and the new development is a much more desirable neighbor to the surrounding sections of the city.

Success with this project has led a number of city leaders, residents, and business leaders to recognize that addressing brownfields is a viable way to get property back into productive use. This realization has contributed to the current partnership with Pacific Corp to tackle the cleanup and redevelopment of an old gasification power-plant site, for which the city has just been awarded a $200,000 brownfields assessment grant from the EPA. According to Bartlett, “Success breeds success!”

Redeveloping Retail in Portage, Michigan

Once an economic engine in the midwestern city of Portage, the abandoned Portage Steel Fabricating plant and the adjacent Precision Machine manufacturing facility ceased operations in 1989 and 1988, respectively. Located in the geographic center of the city, at the intersection of two major roadways, the area was originally envisioned by the community as a commercial destination in the Portage Comprehensive Master Plan (1981), long before these facilities were closed.

During the subsequent city-center area plan (1982) and master plan update (1996) processes, local government officials, working with residents, further identified a need for commercial development at this prime location. In addition, the population of the surrounding neighborhoods was growing because of expanding residential development, which was generating a need for additional retail uses.

As a result of these important location and market factors, city officials considered the probability of a successful commercial redevelopment project to be very good, even with the added expenses of environmental remediation.

After the site had sat idle for more than 10 years, city officials sought out opportunities for public/private partnerships to redevelop it. Local developer Plaza Corp Realty Advisors approached the city about building a 105,400-square-foot, $11 million retail center at the site. According to City Manager Michael Stampfler, partnership was the main ingredient in this city’s first and successful foray into brownfields redevelopment. “We were thrilled to have a private sector partner willing to make investments towards breathing new life into the City Centre area,” says Stampfler.

Knowing that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality had a program to revitalize contaminated properties, city officials, in cooperation with the developer, applied for a site reclamation grant to conduct assessment and cleanup of the property. The $300,000 awarded to the city through this program was used to cover approximately 60 percent of the costs of soil and groundwater remediation, as well as demolition and remediation of dilapidated buildings containing lead and asbestos.

To further assist the developers, city leaders formed a brownfield redevelopment authority composed of Portage residents. Their charge was to review and make recommendations to the city council about the project. To make the project work financially, the brownfield redevelopment authority recommended that the council approve a brownfields redevelopment plan.

Approval of the plan enabled the developer to apply for a state of Michigan single-business tax credit. Through this credit, Plaza Corp was allowed to receive an amount equal to 10 percent of eligible investments in demolition, construction, and site improvements. As part of the brownfields redevelopment plan, the city made water and sewer service available to the area surrounding the site and also upgraded adjacent roadways to improve site access.

According to Jeffrey Erickson, director for planning and development services, “We could not have undertaken a project of this magnitude without a public/private partnership. Each party brought their strengths to the table, and together we created a project that worked for the city, its residents, and the developer.”

Consistent with various community comprehensive-planning efforts, the project has attracted desirable, new private investment. To date, construction is complete on the first four out of five phases of construction, and 80 percent of the available retail space has been leased.

The impact on the community has been significant. A once-unproductive property and eyesore is now a useful asset that provides convenient shopping, dining, and other goods and services not previously offered here. According to City Manager Stampfler, “The redevelopment of this area has increased the stability of our commercial sector and has added more than 125 jobs in the five short years since construction began. This project was really a win-win.”

Tools and Resources That Make Brownfields Deals Work

As any real estate expert will tell you, three of the most important things needed for a successful real estate transaction are location, location, and location. Both of these examples illustrate that brownfields located on premium real estate—such as at the gateway to the city, at a scenic viewpoint, or in the center city close to housing and office space—make a brownfields transaction feasible for all parties involved.

In both cases, the local government’s investments consisted of technical expertise; work with community residents to get input and buy-in; general coordination with all stakeholders, including the state, the developer, and lenders; and limited financial investments.

For projects without the potential for significant returns on investment, such as those involving a less desirable location or a nonrevenue-generating use, like a public recreation area, plenty of opportunities remain for local governments to participate successfully in brownfields redevelopment.

While not every funding or incentive program that will help has the brownfields moniker in its title, many state and federal programs can be used to make the brownfields equation work. See boxes to right for highlights of several of these tools and resources.

Future Prospects

Given the rapid pace of development within the United States and the shortage of greenfields, or previously unused properties, a large percentage of all future development projects will by necessity take place on previously used and potentially contaminated sites.
Many brownfields developers, as well as traditional developers without brownfields experience, are embracing this new reality. Similarly, local governments are finding creative ways to eliminate the blight caused by brownfields while achieving their other community priorities.

Partnerships between local government officials and private developers are becoming the norm in brownfields revitalization projects. According to midwestern brownfields developer Larry Kilduff of the Kilduff Company, “Without exception, political will on the part of local government officials is the ultimate determinant of success.” He adds, “Public/private partnerships in which both parties take the time to understand each other’s strengths and limitations, and to support each other every step of the way, have helped even the most difficult projects to come to fruition.”
Despite stagnant budgets, many Given recent increases in available state brownfields programs have evolved to become smarter and more user-friendly. Likewise, the federal brownfields law has clarified some of the liability issues previously hindering brownfields redevelopment, and federal agencies have launched new initiatives and funding opportunities.

Finally, given the innovation and spirit of collaboration that accompany so many brownfields projects, brownfields remain a positive force contributing to environmental and economic progress at the local level.

For more information on brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, visit www.icma.org and www.BrownfieldSource.org, ICMA’s brownfields Web resource.

Danielle Miller Wagner is program director of brownfields programs, International City/County Management Association (ICMA), Washington, D.C. (dwagner@icma.org). Julie Pearson, project manager, ICMA, contributed to the Astoria example.

Reprinted with permission from the September 2004 issue of Public Management (PM) magazine, published by the International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C.