Workshop on: Economic Tools for Sustainable
         Brownfields Redevelopment
    U.S.-German Bilateral Working Group
                                               Bundesministerium
                                               fiir Bildung
                                               und Forschung
                                                 ' Index
                                                 ^esentations

-------

In 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF) continued an ongoing partnership to gain an
understanding of each other's approach to the cleanup of
chemical contamination in order to protect human health and the
environment.  This partnership has now entered its third phase
with a new focus on providing a variety of tools, approaches,
and technologies that could facilitate streamlined, cost-effective
cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites, or
brownfields.  The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
(ITRC), a key state-led organization, is also a significant partner
in the third phase activities.
One compilation of tools the partnership is developing is the
Site-specific Management Approach and Redevelopment Tools
(SMART) Guidance. The SMART Guidance is a document
specifically designed to support brownfields redevelopment
strategic planning. Additionally, EPA is developing SMARTe, a
web-based  decision support tool for redevelopment of
brownfields.
                                                                 Bundesministerium
                                                                 fur Bildung
                                                                 und Forschung

-------
                                                              Bundesministerium
                                                              fur Bildung
                                                              und Forschung
The SMART Guidance and SMARTe provide a forum for sharing
ideas and experiences in brownfields redevelopment. Combining
best practice examples with easy access to information and
analysis tools will promote successful, long-term brownfields
redevelopment that is environmentally sound and beneficial to
both the local community and the developer.
                                                                   reservations

-------
                            Bundesministerium
                            fur Bildung
                            und Forschung
The SMART Guidance and
SMARTe are being developed and
evaluated through:
* Joint Workshops
* Model Projects
* Beta Projects

-------
Joint workshops on the various components of
brownfields redevelopment bring together recognized
"experts" from Germany and the U.S. These
workshops provide a comprehensive and practical
foundation for the SMART Guidance and SMARTe.
The first of six planned workshops was held in
Charlotte, North Carolina, on November 11 and 12,
2002. This workshop was on Economic Tools for
Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment. This CD
contains abstracts, presentations, and other documents
provided at the workshop.
                                                     Bundesministerium
                                                     fur Bildung
                                                     und Forschung
                                                         index
                                                         resentations

-------
                                                                              Bundesministerium
                                                                              fiir Bildung
                                                                              und Forschung
Presentation Workshops
Acronyms and Glossary
Bilateral Workshop Agenda
Charlotte Workshop Summary
Workshop Contact List
Disclaimer
   credits
                                 Table of Contents
                                        Links
                                        i&,\
                                      Bundesministerium
                                      fiir Bildung
                                      und Forschung
                                                     Financial Tools Summary
Brownfields Act of 2001


Federal Tools


       Local Tools
http://www.epa.gov/ORD/SITE/BLA.html
                                               http://www.bilateral-wg.org/
http://www.bmbf.de/
                             Index
                             resentations

-------
                                                                                                    Bundesministerium
                                                                                                    fiir Bildung
                                                                                                    und Forschung
              The links below will connect you to the specific documents on this CD, presentation and abstract.
Brownflelds Redevelopment in the U.S.
                                  Alvarez
Brownfielcfc^
     Redevelopment in the U.S.
        U.S. Ln> inmim-ni.il Protection Agency

      Office of Brownfiehls Cleanup & Redevelopment

           /M1 iv w. epa.gu v/hrtm nJiL'ld\J
                                                                        November
Criteria for Gauging the Success of
Brownfleld's Redevelopment.

                               Anderson
 Criteria for Gauging the Success of
 Brownfield's Redevelopment

                                                    ^Economic benefits and costs
                                                    ^Economic impacts
                                                    ^Sustainability

-------
                                                                                                       Bundesministerium
                                                                                                       fiir Bildung
                                                                                                       und Forschung
 Brownfields Financing Basics: Making the
 Numbers Add Up.
Brownfields Financing Basics:
    Making the Numbers Add Up
                                        Bartsch
         Presentation by
         Charles Bartsch
      The Northeast-Midwest Institute
   Brownfields 2002 Conference •- Charlotte, NC
Constructing an Effective Brownfields
Redevelopment Program through the use of
Environmental Insurance.
                                          Cornell
                                                                                      AFPA
       I AIG Environmental
            The Market Leader
                                                          Constructing an Effective Brownfields
                                                           Redevelopment Program Through the
                                                           Use of Environmental Insurance
                                                                                  Kenneth B Cornell
                                                                                Executive Vice President
                                                                                  AIG Environmental*

-------
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling
 Challenges for Germany - An Overview.
                                                 Dosch
                                                                                                    ปEPA
B6R - Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning

Supports spatial, urban and housing policy under the (now)
Ministry for Infrastructure. Scientific sections:

I - Spatial Planning and Urban Development,
tl - Building, Housing, Architecture,

Spatial monitoring system, demonstration projects of sustainable
development, Urban 21 Berlin 2000, European integration

                Website: www.bbr.bund.do
                                                                                                                      Bundesministerium
                                                                                                                      fur Bildung
                                                                                                                      und Forschung
                                                                                        • . —>p)W
Redevelopment of a Former Military
Base in Germany.  Difficult and
Expensive: No money left for
sustainability?
                               &EPA
      Economic Tools and Finance for
    Srownfield Redevelopment Workshop

     Rt'dซvc|u((ii,u'nl of n former mJNtafy trfibw \\\ Gurin^uv
    Difficult and ffM,ซ:-Msiv<:. 
-------
                                                                                                         Bundesministerium
                                                                                                         fiir Bildung
                                                                                                         und Forschung
  Funding Instruments Applicable for
  Brownfields Redevelopment - An
  Overview.
                                   Ferber
                            SEPA
Funding Experiences for Brownfield
Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig

                                Gerkens
Funding instruments applicable for
brownfield redevelopment - an Overview
                                                        Dr.-lng. Uwe Ferber,
                                                               PROJEKTGRUPPE STADTtENTWICKLUNG
                                                                 FERBER, GRAUMANN UND PARTNER
                                                                               Leipzig
                                                        ml Waning Gt*nfj>
                                                                    Karstan Gerkens
                                                                  City of Leipzig^ Germany
                                                                Federal and State Urban
                                                               Development Programmes

                                                              Funding Experiences for Brownfield
                                                              Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig

-------
                                                                                                               Bundesministerium
                                                                                                               fiir Bildung
                                                                                                               und Forschung
I know a great Brownfield. Can you

give me  a loan?

                                    Henry
                               SEPA
I know a great Brownfield.  Can you give me
              a loan?
                                                                         Evan Henry
                                                                       Bank of America
                                                                  Environmental Sen/ices Department
                                                          GUnlrnt Worhtnfl Qtollv

-------
                                                                                                            Bundesministerium
                                                                                                            fiir Bildung
                                                                                                            und Forschung
  The State Property Fund North-Rhine
  Westphalia and the Role of State
  Development Agencies.
                                                                                         SEPA
          The U.S. - German
       Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfield
          Redevelopment

         The Slate Property Fund
      CGnmdstucksfonds") in North-Rhine
       Westphalia and the Role of State
          Development Agencies
PPP Development and Finance Strategies.
                                                                        The U.S. - German
                                                                      Bilateral Working Group
                                                                Economic Toots for Sustainable Brownfield
                                                                         Redevelopment
                                                                     PPP development and finance
                                                                           strategies
                                              Ishorst

-------
                                                                                                       Bundesministerium
                                                                                                       fiir Bildung
                                                                                                       und Forschung
The OKAL Site in Titisee-Neustadt, Black
Forest as an Example for Brownfield
Redevelopment in middle-sized
Communities.
                                            Konig
                            iEPA
          German Case Studies
                                                                  The OKAL Site in Titlsee Neustadt
 Workshop Report Duisburg Inner Harbor.
                                            Linne
              ^7         *EPA
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment

             Workshop
    November 11 *iid 12, ?OQ2 - Chnrtotlo, North Carolina

          German Case Studies
     Duisburg - "The Inner Harbor Project"

            Martin Linne
           City of Duisburg

-------
                                                                                               Bundesministerium
                                                                                               fiir Bildung
                                                                                               und Forschung
 Two successful case studies from Portland,
 Oregon will be presented, including North
 Marine Drive and the Yards at Union Station.

                                    MacCourt
US GERMAN BILATERAL WORKING GROUP
 ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABLE
   BROWN FIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

  PORTLAND, OREGON MODEL SITES
                                                              Douglas C. MacCourt, Esq.
                                                                 Ater Wynne LLP
Public Financing of Brownfields
Redevelopment Projects.
                                     Sherman
   U.S. - GERMAN BILATERAL
      WORKING GROUP
                                                             ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR
                                                           SUSTAINABLE BROWNFIELD
                                                               REDEVELOPMENT
                                                      iltitaral Worthing Gimp

-------
                                                                                         Bundesministerium
                                                                                         fiir Bildung
                                                                                         und Forschung
Criteria for Gauging the Success of
Brownfields Redevelopment.
                           Vance
 Criteria for Gauging the Success of
 Brownfield's Redevelopment
  ^Economic benefits and costs

  ^Economic impacts

  ^Sustainability
Trenton's approach to Brownfields
Redevelopment. US Case Study:
Trenton, NJ.

                           Yasenchak
w
    I Kl \ ION'S APPROACH TO BROWN! II.LDS
         REDtVLLOPMtNt
     I^S^yrsr™ fl pMy1
     ^^^^&m

-------
                 Presentations index
 Brownfields Redevelopment in the U.S.    Alvarez
 Criteria for Gauging the Success of Brownfield's Redevelopment.   Anderson
 Brownfields Financing Basics: Making the Numbers Add Up.    Bartsch
 Constructing an Effective Brownfields Redevelopment Program through the use of
 Environmental Insurance.
Cornell
                        END
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling Challenges for Germany - An Overview.      Dosch
 Redevelopment of a Former Military Base in Germany. Difficult and Expensive: No
 money left for sustainability?	Eitel	

 Funding Instruments Applicable for Brownfields Redevelopment - An Overview.   Ferber
 Funding Experiences for Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig        Gerkens
	
 I know a great Brownfield. Can you give me a loan?   Henry


 The State Property Fund North-Rhine Westphalia and the Role of State Development Agencies.
 PPP Development and Finance Strategies.                                             Ishorst
 The OKAL Site in Titisee-Neustadt, Black Forest as an Example for Brownfield Redevelopment in
 middle-sized Communities.                                                             Komg
 Workshop Report Duisburg Inner Harbor.   Linne
Two successful case studies from Portland, Oregon will be presented, including North Marine
Drive and the Yards at Union Station.                                                MacCourt
Public Financing of Brownfields Redevelopment Projects.    Sherman	
 Criteria for Gauging the Success of Brownfields Redevelopment.    Vance
 Trenton's approach to Brownfields Redevelopment. US Case Study: Trenton, NJ.
 Yasenchak

-------
       \,\
   Redevelopment in the U.S.

   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Brownfields Cleanup & Redevelopment
       [www. epa.gov/brownfields]           f \ 11
         ป           ,.   I:

                                         ; ^
Karl Alvarez

                          November 11,

-------
             Ids P
   Buddhist proverb: "even the frog
   does not drink up the pond in which
   he lives."

   Abba Eban: "History teaches us
   that men and nations behave
   wisely once they have exhausted
   all other alternatives."

   Anonymous: "When your only tool
   is a hammer, every problem looks
   like a nail."
11/11/02

-------
                    im
 Current Planning in the
 U.S. results in Large Lot
 Development

  - X-Urban
    Isolated
    Car Dependent
    Unsustainable
    Loss of Agricultural
    Resources
11/11/02

-------
                      im
lJTJJTJJJTjg
 Cities as "centers" for
 commerce and culture
 must absorb traffic flows

    Planning challenges
    Transportation intensive
  - Stress on Air and Water
    resources
    Increasing commutes
  - Housing price differentials
  - Environmental Justice
11/11/02

-------
                                     Growth
Historic patterns of City
design create 'community'

    Human scale
    Pedestrian access
  - Compact
    Greenspace/Parks
  - Diverse Neighborhoods
    Neighborhood Identity
  - "Workable"
11/11/02

-------
i
                         J J
                                            Brownfields Redevelopment
                                            and Smart Growth promote
                                            livable cities

                                              -Multi-modal, multi-use
                                              -Human scale
                                              -Compact Communities
                                              -Greenspace/Parks
                                              -Retains Neighborhoods
                                              ...cities become the destination
                                              where people want to live, work,
                                              and play.
11/11/02

-------
jxJaw Br own-fields
               Brownfields are "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"
            Provision
  under two processes.
Grants will be awarded
              - Competitive grants for assessments,
  revolving loan funds, cleanups, and job training.
  [up to $200 million]

              - Non-competitive grants to states and
  tribes to build program capacity, [up to $50 million]
 11/11/02

-------
                                            /J 8/.I iS
   Brownfields Law Implementation

   One Cleanup Program

   Revitalization Agenda
• Jobs for inner-city residents

• Increases in the number of revitalized
  unproductive & derelict properties.

• Increased tax revenues to cities.

• Increased social and environmental
  knowledge

• Environmental cleanup of contaminated
  properties to appropriate standards.

• Conservation of open rural land
  ("greenfields").

• Increased pollution and transportation
  infrastructure controls.

• Opportunities for business involved in
  brownfields restoration projects.
11/11/02

-------
Measures of Brownfields Success

  National Statistics: [since 1995]

   * $4.6 billion leveraged
      ^ $283 million in cleanup investments
      ^ $4.41 billion in redevelopment/construction

   ^ 3,691 sites assessed with pilot funds
      ^ 1,162 sites assessed with leveraged funds
      ^ 1,563 sites deemed not to require cleanup

   ^ 20.583 jobs created or retained
      ^ 7,545 cleanup jobs
      ^ 12,983 redevelopment jobs

   ^ 15 RLF loans made totaling over $4 million
      ^ over $66 million in leveraged funds

   ^ 63% job placement rate for job training pilots
      ^ $12.37 average starting salary
 11/11/02

-------
     Market Based
     Community Driven
     Partnership Centered
     Environmentally Sound
     Economically Sustainable
11/11/02

-------
                                                         Abstract

                                Brownfields Redevelopment in the United States:
                                                     An Overview
                                                            by
                                                    Karl Alvarez
                                       Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
                                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This presentation will provide an overview of the brownfields program and its contributions to the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated
property across the country. It details how current planning consumes increasing amounts of greenspace and how unsustainable growth adversely
impacts cities and their residents.  Through brownfields cleanup and redevelopment cities become the destination where people want to live,
work, and play. The presentation will also provide information on the United States' new brownfields law and the tools provided to help cities
and towns assess, cleanup, and reuse important property at their core.

-------
Criteria for Gauging the Success of
Brownfield's Redevelopment
 <$>Economic benefits and costs

 Economic impacts
 <$>Sustainability

-------
Economic Benefits and Costs
   Net benefits = Change in the value of outputs
   - change in the cost of inputs
    • Outputs: more open space, cleaner air, reduced
      crime
    • Inputs: resource costs to society (labor, 'external'
      costs)
          7

   Key criterion of success is efficiency, can the
   'winners' fully compensate the 'losers?

-------
Economic Impacts
 Key criterion of success is distribution

       gains, who loses, and by how
   much?
 ^Indicators: jobs creation, changes in
   output or revenue, financial impacts to
   state and local governments

-------
Returning to the calculation of net
benefits
   Change in the value of outputs

       - change in the cost of inputs

                    jobs creation


-------
Brownfields Financing Basics:
      Making the Numbers Add Up
              Presentation by

              Charles Bartsch

        The Northeast-Midwest Institute
    Brownfields 2002 Conference -- Charlotte, NC

-------
        t:NORTHEAST	——;—r- * t.
        i MIDWEST                   Go^8 of Publlc
                               Financing Initiatives
INSTITUTE
       What Can Public Financing Programs Do?
                     *and some examples
Q  Reduce lender's risk
   v' loan guarantees; companion loans; insurance
Q  Reduce borrower's costs
   v' interest-rate reductions or subsidies; due diligence assistance; maintain
      records on institutional controls
Q  Improve the borrower's financial situation
   
-------
:• NORTHEAST               Coping with
-' • '-3f -'Jh.j-yt
         fi^lL     Contamination: Common
                        Local Financing Tools


      Tax increment financing (TIP)
                     4
      Tax abatements
            •

      Locally capitalized revolving loan funds
      (RLFs)

      General obligation bonds

-------
   NORTHEAST                  Examples  of
                           tt/"^-,
   INSTITUTE
MIDWEST              c,_      r  1    __    „
                        "Out of the Box"
                                    Financing
Traverse City, Michigan - blend of environmental and
economic development funding sparks river front mixed use
redevelopment
Stamford, Connecticut- riverwalk supported by marina/boat
slip fees
Huntsville, Alabama - in-town mail stimulates increased
property values, which will be used to pay for additional
community improvements
Wyandotte, Michigan - golf course and park maintenance
supported through greens fees
Old Town, Maine - small town drives state and federal funding
efforts for commercial and recreational reuse
Waukesha, Wisconsin - cleanup, construction, and home
ownership funding lead to a new community
Connecticut dry cleaners fund - grants for brownfields
prevention	'	

-------
         NORTHEAST-
        r MIDWEST             New State and Local
         INSTITUTE                 Financing Ideas:

                            What's on the Horizon?
Local:
• earmarking water, sewer, and waste water charges for brownfield
  cleanup
• earmarking part of existing grant, loan, or loan guarantee
  program funds to site assessment and cleanup projects/activities
• developing a municipal "linked deposit" program targeted to
  brownfield borrowers;
• channeling loan repayments from existing city programs to
  brownfield projects;
• devoting monies raised from fines or fees to a brownfield
  financing poo!
• using small amounts of public funds to "seed" a private, shared-
  risk financing pool devoted to brownfield redevelopment.

-------
        NORTHEAST
        MIDWEST           New State and Local
        INSTITUTE               Financing Ideas:
                        What's on the Horizon?
State:
  Connecticut's dry cleaning fund - from 1 percent
  surtax on cleaning services
            ^\
            . V

  Michigan -targeting unclaimed bottle deposit revenue
  for cleanup and redevelopment
                                       ,•
  Wisconsin and Ohio - using EPA CWSRF monies for
  water-related brownfield projects

-------
    NORTHEAST
E MIDWEST
  : INSTITUTE
Project Examples
                            River's Edge - Traverse City, Michigan
                   A former iron foundry site along the Boardman River
                 turned into a successful, mixed-use urban infill project
                      Financial incentives included direct and indirect
                      financing and tax credits, such as: (a) State
                      Coastal Management funds used to assess the
                      environmental contamination and future uses of
                      the property, (b) a state site reclamation grant, (c)
                      a downtown development authority (DDA) public
                      infrastructure TIP, and (iv) the single business tax
                      credit associated with the brownfields
                      redevelopment authority.
                                                 *

                      River's Edge redevelopment involved over $50
                      million in private investment. The site is built on
                      more than 300,000 sq ft, with a value of .nearly
                      $100 million. Mixed-uses include a street-level
                      retail shops, second ffoor office space and high
                      rise residential units.  Much of the parking is
                      hidden below the buildings, giving the surface
                      back to the people to  stroll, shop, Jive, work and
                      play.

-------
NORTHEAST
MIDWEST
INSTITUTE
Riverwalk

Stamford, Connecticut


• Brownfieid site used to "open
up" Long Island Sound to the
public
              •%
* Maintenance supported by
marina/boat slip fees from
adjoining brownfield
development
                          Project Examples
                    1 lii'  "   - -i- -11 ;ซ•:-. 4'iTtj *zVj3
                   -t " **" li  .;.     vW ,V-

-------
            NORTHEAST
            MIDWEST
          r INSTITUTE
    Parkway Place Mall
    Huntsville, Alabama

$60 million in-town mall, replacing a
largely abandoned "brownfield mall"
Huntsvilie and Madison County
contributed $6 million for a parking
garage and street improvements
Special TIF-like taxing district
created around the mall, to take
advantage of anticipated rise in
property values
* $10 million generated will be used to
rebuild an adjacent high school
*other proceeds will be used recover
developer subsidies
Project Examples
                  •- " -•?

-------
           NORTHEAST
           MIDWEST
           INSTITUTE
             •
Project Examples
Wyandotte, Mi-Chemical Site on Detroit River
  This project involved transforming a defunct, 84 acre chemical
  manufacturing plant along the Detroit River into a public
  recreation area and a nine-hole golf course.

  Today, the redeveloped property includes a park with a
  riverfront walkway and observation decks, picnic areas, jogging
  trails, and a rowing ciub, in addition to the nine-hole public golf
  course. User fees have allowed the golf course to be self-
  supporting and pay for maintenance of the park. The nine-hole,
  par 36 golf course cost approximately $5.2 million in public
  funds-supported primarily from Wyandotte's tax increment
  finance district and the issuance of tax increment bonds.

-------
          NORTHEAST
          MIDWEST
          INSTITUTE
    •;     ,      '. , ^ff'Vv
V.   Project Examples
        •%'ซ*
   Old Town, ME - Marsh Island Cany
The successful transformation of the underutilized contaminated
site to a revitalized waterfront park and commercial property was
a partnership between the proactive city government of Old
Town, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's CME
DEP) Voluntary Response Action Program (VRAP), and the
U.S. EPA Brownfields Program, with additional support of the
private sector.

The redevelopment was made possible by several additional
grants from federal and state agencies. They include a $400,000
Enhancement Grant from ME DOT for the park and walkways; a
$400,000 Community Development Block Grant for
infrastructure around the commercial buildings, a $24,500 from
the National Trails Recreation Act for trails, walkways, and river
stabilization, and $8,000 from ME Forest Service for tree
planting
                                                                            15

-------
*~ If* '-^^jy^
             I NORTHEAST
              MIDWEST
              INSTITUTE
                             Project  Examples
Phoenix Heights - Waukesha, Wisconsin
   n  69 energy-efficient homes
      completed, many for moderate
      income families
   *ซ  $13.5 million project, including
      $3.13 million in public funds, for
      * $1.87 million in state funds for cleanup
      * $415.000 in CDBG for construction
      * $575,000 in state and HOME funds for
      buyer assistance
   ซ  $405,000 in annual property
      taxes generated

-------
        NORTHEAST"
        MIDWEST     Project Examples
        INSTITUTE
Connecticut Dry Cleaner Remediation Fund
 Brownfield prevention
 program
 Provides up to $50,000
 in grants for soil and
 groundwater cleanup,
 pollution prevention

-------
                                       I''*?R8B*,:** '"''- -<•' i        >

              MIDWEST                        WฃปK  Qit^.
              INSTITUTE                       WCDdlW
                www^nemw.org/brownflelds.htm
•  Federal Legislative Proposals to Promote Brownfield Cleanup and
   Redevelopment - what's happening in Congress
•  State of the States - profiles of state VCPs, including new information on financing
   incentives, economic benefits, eligible contaminants, cleanup standards, and
   institutional controls
•  Guide to Federal Brownfield Programs - detailed information on programs
   throughout the federal government that can promote and support brownfield
   cleanup and redevelopment
•  Financing options for brownfield cleanup and redevelopment
•  Contacts in state and federal brownfield programs
•  Link to EPA brownfield home page
•  Links to brownfield databases and organizations

-------
                           U.S.-German Bilateral Working Group
      &EPA
          Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment
                    U.S.-German Bilateral Workshop Agenda  -
                   The Charlotte Convention Center, Room AB
              November 11  and 12, 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Monday, November 11, 2002
12:00 - 12:30        Welcome, Introduction of Participants
12:30-1:15
Annette Gatchett, EPA
Karl Alvarez, EPA
                                                              Dr. Fabian Dosch,
                                                              Federal Agency of Building
                                                              and Housing
1:15-1:40
Introduction Key Notes

U.S. Situation
•   Land Management / Site Recycling
         -  Status and Challenges
Germany
•   Land Use, Land Management, Site Recycling
         -  Overview about the German Situation

U.S. Introductory Presentation

Brief Overview of Brownfield Economics
•   Primary Economic Factors Affecting Brownfield      Evan Henry,
   Redevelopment                             Bank of America
•   Three Types of Risk to the Brownfields Transaction
   and Common Financing Requirements to Minimize Risk

-------
1:40-2:00
Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment
            U.S.-German Bilateral Workshop Agenda
        Overview of National Brownfields Financing Tools
        (as applied with examples of success and failure)
2:00-2:15
        •  Tax-based tools
        •  Market-based tools
        •  Public/private investment tools
        •  U.S. urban economic policies empowerment zones
        •  Community development corporations

        Questions and Answers
                                                                   Charlie Bartsch, Northeast-
                                                                   Midwest Institute
2:15-2:30
2:30-3:15
        Break

        German Introductory Presentation
        Funding instruments applicable for brownfield
        redevelopment - an Overview

        •  German urban economic development policies
        •  National finance instruments
                  -  Federal Level
                  -  State Level
        •  European funding initiatives (e.g. Urban II, European
           Structural Funds)
                                                                   Dr. Uwe Ferber,
                                                                   Projektgruppe
                                                                   Stadt+Entwicklung
3:15-3:30
        Questions and Answers

-------
3:30-4:30
4:30-4:45

4:45-5:00

5:00-6:00
             Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment
                         U.S.-German Bilateral Workshop Agenda
U.S. Panel Presentation

•   Public Finance Tools
          -  Bonds
          -  Tax Credits
•   Private Capital Tools
          -  Debt
          -  Equity
          -  Risk Management/Insurance

Questions and Answers

Break

German Panel Presentation
Specific Discussions:
•   Federal and State Urban Development
   Programs - Funding Experiences for Brownfield
   Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig
•   PPP development and finance strategies
•   The State Property Fund ("Grundstucksfonds") in
   North-Rhine Westphalia and the Role of State
   Development Agencies
   ("Landesentwicklungsgesellschaften - LEG")
Doug MacCourt, Ater
Wynne LLP (Moderator)

Ann Sherman, Ater Wynne LLP

Ken Cornell,
Vice President, AIG
Environmental

Evan Henry, Bank of America
Karsten Gerkens,
Head of Redevelopment
Agency, City of Leipzig
                                                                  Ralph Ishorst
                                                                  West German Real Estate
                                                                  Bank
6:00-6:15
Questions and Answers

-------
            Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment
                        U.S.-German Bilateral Workshop Agenda
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
8:30-10:00
10:00-10:30

10:30-11:00

11:00-12:30
12:30-1:00
U.S. Case Studies
                    Trenton, New Jersey
                     Portland, Oregon
Questions and Answers
Break
German Case Studies
                     Duisburg Innenhafen
                     Model Project from Baden-Wuerttemberg
Questions and Answers
                                             Leah Yasenchak,
                                             City of Trenton

                                             Doug MacCourt,
                                             Ater Wynne LLP
Martin Linne,
City of Duisburg
                                             Michael Konig,
                                             Dr. Eisele Group
1:00-2:00
Lunch Break

-------
2:00-3:00
3:00-3:15

3:15-5:15
Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment
            U.S.-German Bilateral Workshop Agenda

      Joint Panel Discussion - Financing Public
      Infrastructure Towards Sustainable Brownfields
      Redevelopment
      U.S.
      •   Mechanism and project example of funding
         sustainable uses (e.g. new EPA and HUD laws,
         U.S. DOT policy to access public financing, and
         examples of projects linking land use planning,
         air/water quality and public infrastructure)

      Germany
      •   Approaching Sustainability on Brownfields - a
         Current Example from German Urban Development

      Question and Answer

      Roundtable Discussion - Group Design Exercise

      Real site (U.S./German)

      Only essential, predevelopment facts (former use,
      contamination, what a planner needs)

      Comparison real end and findings of the groups
                                                                  Colin Vance, EPA
                                                                  Lisa Peoples, HUD
                                                                  Chris Forinash, EPA
                                                                  Jan Eitel,
                                                                  GIU - Innovation, Enterprise
                                                                  Support and Land Management
                                                                   Ann Vega
                                                                   (U.S. Facilitator)

                                                                   Stephan Tomerius
                                                                   (German Facilitator)

-------
            Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment
                       U.S.-German Bilateral Workshop Agenda

5:15-5:30          Conclusion                                  Annette Gatchett, EPA

                  Suggested format for reporting conclusions in panel
                  discussion at Brownfields 2002

   Brownfields 2002 Conference
   Presentation of workshop results on Wednesday, November 13, 2002, Panel Session, 1:00 -2:30 p.m.

-------
                                       The Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001:
                                              How Communities Can Benefit

                                                      by Charles Bartsch
                                                  Northeast-Midwest Institute
On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act into law - nearly eight years after
the first brownfield bill was introduced into Congress. The new law will promote greater interest in brownfield site reuse in a couple of ways (see
summary on the last page).  As noted below, it will set the stage for new state-community-private partnerships that can resolve thorny liability
issues that impede site reuse. A key aspect is that the act clarifies the state-federal relationship regarding cleanup finality.

       The new law will also help cities, communities, and private sector players overcome one of the most significant hurdles they face when
trying to acquire and redevelop contaminated property - the lack of capital to carry out essential early- stage activities, notably, site assessment,
remediation planning, and the actual cleanup itself.

-------
The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act authorizes $200 million per year (thru fiscal 2006) for grants to states, local
governments, and tribes, as well as entities such as quasi-public redevelopment agencies and authorities. This money to be used for:


              Site assessment grants - typically, up to $200,000 per site, but EPA has discretion to bump this to $350,000 under some
              circumstances


              Grants for cleanup - both to make direct remediation grants of up to $200,000, to governments or non-profits, or to capitalize
              cleanup revolving loan funds (RLFs), up to $1 million per applicant.


              The new law will also make it easier for recipients to run their revolving loan funds; they will no longer have to meet national
contingency plan and on-site coordinator requirements that stymie existing loan fund operators.


 Even though the direct cleanup grants will require a 20 percent match, this is a significant step forward in EPA's brownfields effort, since this
 will be the first time that the agency will be allowed to make direct grants for cleanup.  Criteria for funding awards will also allow a wider range
 of activities, including "non-economic" uses that will help improve community quality of life. Applications will be judged on factors that
 include the extent to which the money will  be used to protect human health and the environment; spur redevelopment and create jobs; preserve
 open space and parks; represent a "fair" distribution between urban and rural areas; and involve the local community.

        The new law opens up the program  in two potentially significant ways. First, it permits sites with - and stipulates that 25percent of what
 Congress appropriates for the program (up to $50 million) may be used for sites with petroleum contamination. This will help brownfield reuse
 proponents better address the realities of the reuse process, where a variety of contaminants are the norm; it will also be useful in small towns
 where the predominant type of brownfield is the abandoned gas station. Also, grant recipients will now be able to use a portion of the site
 assessment or cleanup grants to pay insurance premiums that provide coverage (such as for cleanup cost over-runs) for these sites. This should
 help prospective site reusers secure private  financing more readily, because it will provide a way to better quantify and  manage risk.

-------
The Brownfield Revitalization Act also significantly increases EPA's support of state response programs.  This will be critical, given the
enhanced state role in deciding site cleanup finality, which includes strict limits on federal enforcement and cost recovery.  The new authorizes
$50 million per year (thru fiscal 2006) for grants to states and tribes to establish and enhance state voluntary cleanup and other response programs
- more than triple the pre-enactment level. States can use these funds to help them fulfill their new obligations under the act, and give state
officials resources to expand program efforts, such as establishing their own state-wide cleanup RLFs.


The Bush Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget requested a total of $200 million for EPA's brownfield program:


              $50 million (full funding) to enhance state voluntary cleanup or other response  programs


$150 million for balance of program ($50 million shy of full funding), which includes $120.5 million  for grant programs  and $29.5 million for
new staffing and other program costs (which makes the 25 percent petroleum project set aside about $30 million)

-------
It will be up to key members of Congress to decide how strongly they will push for full funding of the newly authorized brownfield programs; at
this time, it appears likely that Congress will comply with the President's wishes and provide $200 million for next fiscal year


             In addition to funding, the new law will encourage more public-private partnerships with a common goal of site cleanup and reuse,
because it clarifies vexing liability issues that deterred site acquisition and redevelopment.  Specifically, the Brownfield Revitalization Act:


                           Exempts from Superfund liability contiguous property owners - those who did not contribute to the contamination
                           and who provide cooperation and access for the cleanup;


                           Clarifies the innocent landowner defense to Superfund liability, making it easier to use via a "checklist" to
                           determine whether or not it applies; and


                           Exempts from Superfund liability prospective purchasers - those who did not know about the contamination at the
                           time of acquisition, who are not responsible for contamination at the site, and who do not impede its cleanup (the
                           law includes windfall lien provisions for sites where the government pays for cleanup, thus enhancing the fair
                           market value of the property).

-------
The latter is probably the most important provision in the new law. Liability protection for prospective purchasers, available for persons who
acquire property after January  11, 2002, will remove a significant barrier to private sector participation in brownfield projects, and allow new
owners to quantify their risk much more precisely. This should give local officials a good marketing tool to promote site redevelopment -
especially as it is linked with property assessment resources and technical assistance efforts.

       The act also clarifies the state-federal relationship regarding cleanup finality.  Sites addressed thru a state's voluntary response program
are protected from EPA enforcement and cost recovery actions under CERCLA, except in the case of only a few statutorily defined  "reopeners" -
situations in which EPA can come back with an enforcement action.  These situations include: sites where contamination has migrated across
state lines or onto federal property; if releases of threat of releases present an imminent and substantial endangerment; if new information shows
that a cleanup is no longer protective; or if a state requests intervention.  At the same  time, states will need to maintain a "public record of sites"
addressed through the program, and update it annually. In addition, citizens may request a state to conduct an assessment at a specific site, and a
state must "appropriately" respond.

-------
Small Business Liability Protection and Brownfield Revitalization Act


H.R. 2869 - Summary of Key Brownfield Provisions,
as passed by Congress and
Signed by President Bush on January 11
(incorporates provisions of S.350)


Title II — Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration

Sub-title A - Funding
                    $200 million per year (thru '06) for grants to states, local governments, and tribes, as well as entities such as
                    quasi-public redevelopment agencies and authorities
                 •   Money to be used for (1) site assessment grants - typically, up to $200,000, but EPA has discretion to bump
                    this to $350,000 under some circumstances); and (2) grants for cleanup - both for direct remediation grants,
                    up to $200,000, to governments or non-profits (requires 20 percent match), as well as capital for RLFs, up to
                    $1 million (with less burdensome requirements)
                 •   Funding criteria include the extent to which the money will be used to protect human health and the
                    environment; spur redevelopment and create jobs; preseve open  space and parks; represent a "fair"
                    distribution beween urban and rural areas; and involve the local community
                 •   Up to $50 million (25% of appropriation if less than $200 million) may be used for sites with petroleum
                    contamination
                 •   Insurance premiums are now an eligible use of funds
                 •   Authorizes EPA to operate a brownfield program that includes training, research, and technical assistance
                    activities

-------
                     Sub-title B - Liability Clarifications: Provides Superfund liability relief to:


                     Contiguous property owners, who provide cooperation and access for the cleanup
                 •    Prospective purchasers, who are not responsible for contamination at the site, and who do not impede its cleanup
                     (bill includes windfall lien provisions for sites where the government pays for cleanup, thus enhancing the fair
                     market value of the property)
                 •    Innocent landowners

Sub-title C - State Response Programs
                 •    Authorizes $50 million per year (thru '06) for grants to states and tribes to establish and enhance state
                     VCPs/response programs
                 •    States must maintain a "public record of sites" addressed through their programs, and update it annually

                 •    Provides for deferral of listing sites on NPL list if a state is taking action
                 •    Establishes finality - sites addressed thru state programs are protected from EPA enforcement and cost recovery actions
                     under CERCL A - except....
                 •    In the case of re-openers - situations in which EPA can come back with an enforcement action, are preserved in
                     specifically defined situations, including:
                        *migration of contamiantion across state lines or onto federal property, if releases or threat of releases present an
                        imminent and substantial endangerment; new
                        information shows that a cleanup  is no longer protective; or a state requests
                        intervention
                 •    EPA must consult with the state on re-opener situations
                 •    Citizens may request a state to conduct an assessment at a specific site, and a state must "appropriately" respond

-------
U.S.-German Bilateral Working Group

Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfields Redevelopment

Workshop Notes
November 11 & 12, 2002

Charlotte, North Carolina


Monday, November 11, 2002


Annette Gatchet, EPA
Ms. Gatchett welcomed everyone to the workshop, outlined the purpose of and agenda for the workshop, and
reviewed logistical issues with the participants.
Karl Alvarez, EPA
Current planning in the U.S. results in large-lot development, which is X-Urban, isolated, car dependent,
unsustainable, and results in a loss of agricultural resources. Cities as "centers" for commerce and culture must
absorb traffic flows which creates planning challenges, is transportation intensive, stresses air and water resources,
increases commutes, promotes housing price differentials, and exacerbates environmental justice issues.

-------
Historic patterns of city design create 'communities' that
incorporate the following features:
           Human scale
           Pedestrian access
           Compact
           Greenspace/parks
           Diverse neighborhoods
           Neighborhood identity
           "Workable"

Brownfields redevelopment and Smart Growth promote livable cities, which are:

           Multi-modal, multi-use
           Human scale
           Compact communities
           Greenspace/parks
           Retains neighborhoods
In these cases, cities become the destination where people want to live, work, and
play.

-------
The new U.S. Brownfields law defines brownfields 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." The law
provides for grants to be awarded under two processes:

1. Competitive grants for assessments, revolving loan funds (RLF), cleanups, and job training (up to $200 million).

2.Non-competitive grants to states and tribes to build program capacity (up to $50 million).

Benefits of the new law include:

            Jobs for inner-city residents
            Increase in the number of revitalized unproductive and derelict properties
            Increased tax revenues to cities
            Increased social and environmental knowledge
            Environmental cleanup of contaminated properties to appropriate standards
            Conservation of open rural land ("greenfields")
            Increased pollution and transportation infrastructure controls
            Opportunities for business involved in brownfields restoration projects

-------
Measures of brownfields success (national statistics since 1995):

            $4.6 billion leveraged: $283 million in cleanup investments and $4.41 billion in
redevelopment/construction.
            3,691 sites assessed with pilot funds: 1,162 sites assessed with leveraged funds and 1,563 sites deemed
not to require cleanup
            20,583 jobs created or retained: 7,545 cleanup jobs and 12,983 redevelopment jobs
            15 RLF loans made totaling over $4 million; over $66 million in leveraged funds
            63% job placement rate for job training pilots; $12.37 average  starting hourly wage

In summary, the new brownfields legislation is:

            Market-based
            Community-driven
            Partnership-centered
            Environmentally-sound
            Economically-sustainable

-------
Dr. Fabian Dosch, BBR Bonn
The current land consumption rate in Germany is 47,000 hectares each year. This rate is 1.5 times larger than the
area of Munich. The concern regarding this land consumption is the impact to the economy, ecology, and social
aspects of Germany.
Currently, estimates of derelict land are broken down in the following manner:

Commerce/Industry - 48%
Military - 41%
Remaining land - 10%

Land reuses are currently charted at the following:

Nature - 14%
Housing - 22%
Commerce -  59%

-------
Best practices and the National Strategy dictate that Germany and the European Union (EU) concentrate efforts on
revitalization of cities, reduction of land consumption, and focus on internal redevelopment towards existing
infrastructure.
Indicators used for this effort include tracking the increase in employment opportunities, 100% occupancy rate in
dwellings in inner city locations, and the successful redevelopment of remaining derelict land.
Economic tools to reduce land consumption include:


           Land tax reform

           Abolition instrument fostering land consumption

           Increase urban redevelopment grants

           Regrouping housing subsidies from new housing starts to existing housing


Evan Henry, Bank of America
Matrix of brownfields versus greenfield development:

Condition
Cost to cure
Financial impact
Brownfield
Contamination
Cleanup
Property value
Greenfield
Unstable soils
Grading & compaction
Property value

-------
There are increased consequences to uncertainty in the brownfield marketplace including:

            Technical
            Legal
            Timing
Possibility of unknown problems increase uncertainty and the result is to narrow the range of economic
viability.
The role of government in the U.S. is to reduce the unknowns to increase the range of economic viability
through the use of technical assistance, grants and liability relief as well as subsidizing the restoration of
economically less viable sites.
Limitations to the role of government in the U.S.:

            Cannot use public funds to enrich the private sector
            Cannot use public funds to help polluter restore brownfield
            U.S. funds are set up to "find" not "fund" brownfields
            Government brownfield programs are aimed at working around the liability issue
            Arguably a change in liability scheme would stimulate private redevelopment of brownfields
more than government assistance approach

-------
Private financing includes:
•   Debt
•   Equity
•   Insurance

Insurance is not a financing mechanism but should be considered a risk reduction mechanism.
     Risks
                                          Debt
                                          Direct liability
                                          Repayment
                                          Collateral value
                                     Equity
                                     Loss of investment
                                     Direct liability
      Rewards
Repaid fixed amounts
Gain is proportional to success of
the project

-------
 Charlie Bartsch, Northeast-Midwest Institute

 The goals of public financing initiatives include:

 •   Reducing lender's risk
 •   Reducing borrower's cost
 •   Improving borrower's financial situation
 •   Providing comfort to lenders or investors
 •   Providing resources directly to users

 Common local financing tools include:

 •   Tax increment financing (TIP)
 •   Tax abatements
 •   Locally capitalized RLFs
 •   General obligation funds


New local financing ideas include:

•   Earmarking water, sewer, and wastewater charges for brownfield cleanup
•   Earmarking part of existing grant, loan, or loan guarantee program funds to site assessment and cleanup projects
•   Developing a municipal "linked deposit" program targeted to brownfield borrowers
•   Channeling loan repayments from existing city programs to brownfield projects
•   Devoting monies raised from fines or fees to a brownfield financing pool
•   Using small amounts of public funds to "seed" a private, shared-risk financing pool devoted to brownfield redevelopment

New local financing ideas include:

•   Connecticut's dry cleaning fund - from 1 percent surtax on cleaning services
•   Michigan - targeting unclaimed bottle deposit revenue for cleanup and redevelopment
•   Wisconsin and Ohio - using EPA CWSRF monies for water-related brownfield projects

The web site for the Northeast-Midwest Institute also provides a variety of resources related to brownfields redevelopment.

-------
 Uwe Ferber, Germany, Ferber, Graumann und Partner

 German urban and economic development policy principle: "Preservation of equivalent living conditions.

 Funding:
Privately driven
Public/Private driven
Public driven
Self developing
Potential development
Reserve sites
Public/Private - Urban renewal and economic regeneration policies with a mix of tax based tools and direct, public co-funding. For example, tax deductions
    on historic (heritage) building retention and reuse.

Public - 50% to 75% direct funding for eligible projects:

•   Federal economic regeneration fund
•   Urban renewal programs
•   Employment initiatives
•   Contaminated lands program
•   Minimizing public funding by maximizing private funding
•   Enhance private investment
•   Mix of instruments in project practice depending on drivers and type of redevelopment

-------
Problems: Transparency of funding and cash flow, EU competition policy and bank policies. In addition, most brownfields in Germany are privately
    owned.

Discussions took place of other avenues for funding brownfield cleanup and reuse that included:

•   Future of insurance models
•   Benchmarks for performance (indicators)
•   England is using a National Lottery to fund brownfield cleanup activities

-------
Ann Sherman, Ater Wynne, Portland, Oregon

Tax Exempt bonds - Income tax exempt from federal/state taxes. Interest rate is much less on these types of bonds.

Tax exempt bonds (offered by State and Local governments):

1.   Tax exemption
a.  Must be used for Government purpose
b.   501(c) 3 (not-for-profit organization)
c.  Private activity
•   Exempt facility (airports, docks and wharves, mass commuting facility, facilities for furnishing water, sewage disposal, facility for solid waste disposal
   and includes large investment for infrastructure)
ii. Small issuer manufacturing facility bonds
iii. Multifamily housing bonds for affordable housing

2.   Types of Issuers include cities, counties, special districts, tribes, state bond act.

3.   Security and sources of repayment for bonds need to be identified (property taxes, revenues, limited tax, TIFs, local improvement district [LID],
   certification of participation [COP], lease purchase of obligation [using lease revenues to pay back debt])

Taxable Bonds:

1.   Taxable tails - little pieces  of taxable bonds issued with tax exempt bonds
2.   State tax exemption
3.   Tax Credits
a.  Low income housing tax credits
b.  New market tax credits (tax credit for any redevelopment in low income areas)
c.  Other Federal and State subsidies

Types of projects bonds are used for include: open space projects, parks, housing, golf courses, assisted living facilities, hospital, convention center, library
   and mixed use projects.

Tax credits used  in conjunction with tax exempt or taxable bonds may also be a strategy.
Market disclosure issues include:

•   Public offerings of municipal debt
•   SEC 15c2-12 continuing disclosure requirements

-------
Ken Cornell, AIG Environmental

Brownfield reuse should take into consideration stakeholder concerns and include community support. Concerns regarding liability for newly found
    contamination and conditions on site are exacerbated or created during remediation and third party claims.

People should evaluate a risk management program. This approach will help participants:

•   Minimize risks
•   Assess, quantify, and control costs
•   Provide protection from escalating costs
•   Assurance against unknown legal liability
•   Thorough cleanup will be completed quickly and economically
Evan Henry, Bank of America

Bankers analyze risk. Applicant should try to reduce risk to lender.

-------
    BundKinlriisteriiim
                 AIG Environmental
                        The Market Leader
                 The Greatest Risk Is Not Taking One.
Constructing an Effective Brownfields
  Redevelopment Program Through the
  Use of Environmental Insurance
                                  Kenneth B. Cornell
 r,  .... ..  .                      Executive Vice President
 Bilateral Working Group
                                  AIG Environmentalฎ

-------
   Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                    &EPA
  Address Stakeholders' Concerns
                        Nurture community
                        support

                        Set the stage
                        for thoughtful
                        redevelopment

                        Protect everyone
                        involved
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                     &EPA
   Sources of Potential Liability
  Newfound
  contaminants

  Conditions
  exacerbated or
  created during
  remediation

  Third-party claims
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    BundKinlriisteriiim
   Successful Cleanup Becomes Reality

•  Help sellers and buyers minimize or transfer
  risks
•  Assess, quantify and control cost
•  Provide protection from
  escalating costs
•  Assurance against unknown
  legal liability
•  Thorough clean-up will be
  completed quickly and economically
 Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                     &EPA
   Environmental Insurance Circa 1992
 • Pay a lot get a Little
 • Poor Reception
 • Fuzzy Picture
 • Few Channels
 • NoAdd-On's
 • Waiting List
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Buratesmlnislsrliin*
 Environmental Insurance 2002
                                            &EPA
Sleek
Cable Ready
Compatible with other
components
Clear & Crisp
Value = Price
Immediate Delivery
Reliable
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                           &EPA
             Known And Unknown
                                            Unknown
                   Site Boundaries
         Cleanup Cost Cap
                              Pollution Legal
                              Liability Select
Known
            Known But
            ot Actionabl
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                         &EPA
       Cleanup Cost Cap Program
 Self-Insured
 Retention
Bilat
ing Group
                    Cost
                  Overrun
                  Coverage
                  Buffer Layer
            Expected
              Cost
                               Limit of
                               Liability
                                             8

-------
                                              EPA
                Case Study #1
 Se//er Concerned About Clean-up Cost Overruns

 •  Brownfield Site
       • 40-acre former industrial site close to downtown
 •  Future Plan
       • Modern shopping and business district
 •  Concern
       • Contamination could escalate during cleanup
 •  Seller funded a fixed amount for cleanup and
   transferred liability for cost overruns
 •  Developer insured against unknown contamination
   and third-party lawsuits
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                 EPA
                 Case Study #2
        Fearful Of Unknown Contamination
 •  Brownfield Site — 50,000 square foot abandoned facility
 •  Future Plan — Manufacture heavy equipment, employing
   over 300 people
 •  Concern — Negative publicity about leaking underground
   storage tank
 •  Seller — Doesn't want any future liability
 •  Buyer — Able to satisfy seller concerns and lender
   requirements
       • Cap cleanup costs and transfer liability of unknown
        contamination
       • Third-party protection ensures future profitability

Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                 EPA
                   Case Study #3:
 Assurances Required That Clean-up Adheres to regulations

•  Brownfield Site — A few blocks from a well-known state
   university
•  Future Plan — Medical center and pharmacy with
   adjacent medical offices
•  Concern — Property saturated with oil, gasoline, solvents
   and metals
•  Seller — Negotiate environmental insurance as part of the
   deal to attract investors
•  Buyer — Cleanup plan adheres to federal and state
   regulations
         - Costs are capped to ensure completion
Bilateral Working Group

-------
Integration of presentations by Jose Perez

                          USEPA
         Technical Information Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio
                        26 west M.L. King drive
                        Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
Disclaimer
The views expressed in these Proceedings are those
of the individual authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Scientists
in EPA's Office of Research and Development have
prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have
been reviewed in accordance with EPA's peer and
administrative review policies  and approved for
presentation and publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
   jnd Farschiinq
                                                       &EPA
BBR - Federal Office for Building and Regional  Planning

Supports spatial, urban and housing policy under the (new)
Ministry for Infrastructure. Scientific sections:

I  - Spatial Planning and Urban Development,
II - Building, Housing, Architecture.

Spatial monitoring system, demonstration projects of sustainable
development, Urban 21  Berlin 2000, European integration

                              Website: www.bbr.bund.de
 | ^H    Bimelesamt
^^^^     fur Bauwesen und
         Raiimordnung

                                                               IU-
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools      A
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            1

-------
   'lir
   .ind First him*)
ฃEPA
      Land Consumption & Site Recycling
     Challenges for Germany - an overview
1. Monitoring land consumption - facts and trends
2. Derelict land and site recycling - scale and volume
3. Challenges for sustainable land management
 Dr. Fabian Dosch, BBR, Bonn
 November 11th, 2002, Charlotte NC Workshop "Economic
 Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment"
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment1 Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002           2

-------
    Hiir Bid ling
                     &EPA
  Green but fragmented! - land use in Germany
Infrastructure
   irfS^feif^
     - vj> '*r P •'v* -  "* .'1>'^ •'. \
   A-
            II
-""Source: CORINE, BBR  ^

-------
    Ilir (Jiklung
    jnd tarsi hung
&EPA
  "Once the size of Munich every year"
                                 1,290,000m2 every day
                                 ...about 50%, almost 650,000 m2 are
                                 sealed.

                                 Land consumption per year (47.000
                                 ha) is 1,5 times larger than the area
                                 within the city borders of Munich
                                 (43,000 ha).        ^  •JM^:
                                                        HL
15m2/ sec. growth of built-up area
....about 9 m2 of it being building land
....6 m2 of it being housing /3m2 enterprises
  Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
  and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11 -12, 2002              4

-------
   iir Olid ling
   jnd FIII sch iing
             >>EPA
Result: loss of fertile soil and open  space
     Daily land use changes (ha)
  Increase
         Agriculture  WaterS Forests   Urban
                                  1960-1997

                                  1997 2001
Land consumption:
more in eastern and
northern Germany and old-
industrialized regions than
in booming regions
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR, Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment1 Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002              5

-------
  BII Diet-Tiro is teiiun>-
  HUT
                                                       v>EPA
Land use 2001: 85% open space,  12% urban fabric
        Land use 2001
                  Water
                   2%
Forests
 30%
Agriculture
   53%
                  Other
                   2%  '
                   Urban
                   fabric
                    12%
                                 Buildings and
                                 surroundings
                                     7%

                                  Traffic area
                                     5%
                                  Recreation,
                                  sports and
                                    parks
                                     1%
Settlement areas cover 12,3 %: buildings 7 %, traffic area 5 %
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002              6

-------
      tor B Idling
                                                           x>EPA
   Land consumption by housing and recreational areas
Recreation
  6,8%
 Traffic
 39,0%
        Storage
         1,7%
Settlement areas 2001
                                    and
housing
52,5%
Recreation
 15.9%
                                             Storage
                                              5.9%
Building and
 housing
 60,6%
                                    ^m Traffic
                                        17,6%              Land consumption 1997-2001
Trend: more building & recreational areas, traffic less important
   Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
   and Finance Tor BrownTield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002               7

-------
   nr
   jndFarschwg
&EPA
Urban  sprawl: sealing also of floodplains...
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             8

-------
                                                              &EPA
Settlements on the wrong  spots?- Extreme floodings 2002
   Mi
  29.JUI.
We-tterOnl ine.de
27.Hug,
Damages on the infrastructure: up to 25bn €
                                 PI
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002

-------
  tor B idling

  .ind fnrsehurxj
                                              c/EPA
Land  consumption - increase of prosperity?
 180





 160





 140





 120
      %, 1960=100
 100
Settlement area
         Population
                           Employees
  1960    1970    1980    1990   2000

  Data for the old Laender. Source: BBR 2001




In the last 50 years, the settlement area

has grown much quicker than the

population and is still growing more

rapidly than the occupation
                                   Living space m2 /inh
                                               ca. 1950
                                            2001
                                                      ..     ,         f
                                         Land consumption = increase of
                                           ,. .,   ,        ..    I0
                                         individual prosperity ...!?
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools

and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             10

-------
  •liir
fift
&EPA
Suburbanization driven by building land prices
                                           CBD  Suburbia   Fringe
                                                   06'
                                        Above: land consumption
                                        m2/inhabitant from core
                                        cities to urban fringes
3-D image: prizes for housing land 2000
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002            11
        I

-------
   BiWung
v>EPA
Employment shifts towards suburbia
1990-98:

Blue: less employees

Red: more employees
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment' Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            12

-------
  BV n de-skiing ter iu m
x>EPA
Effect 1: Vacancies, esp.  in eastern Germany
                                                               \
                M'M'.f l''tji*ฃ:'W- ^

                ฉ Umland Leipzig. F. Dosch
Greenfield development versus inner-city vacancy

Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             13

-------
                                                                   oEPA
Effect 2:  Decrease  in  settlement densities
210U
    Inhabitants per km2 urban fabric
1900
1700
1993           1997            2001

  	West     -^— Qst
                                              Additional urban fabric
                                              per inhabitant
                                                    Zunah TIC tier 3+trd(Lnigi- und VerkBh rafts eh*
                                                    ic Elnwoftrvcr I*97 bis 2001 in m3
                                                           ซ. ป•• ic
                                                       bsunter 2C
                                                      ,'Jt.jt jnter *L
                                                    | ^0 Us untor SH
                                                    • KH:>4
-------
   "Br
   und hirsshurxi
                                    &EPA
 Land consumption - ...but what are the problems?
Economically  CฐStly infrastructure    Costly vacancy
                    ..traffic generating
                     "*
                  Source: kompletlbau-frank
                                      Source Bosch
 Ecolooicallv   Contaminated sites     Loss of soil
                    Source:fnlopnsitiv.rx)m
                    Land dissection
 Socially
                  Source: BPS
                  Vacancy
                                                           Source: WFG Unna
Functional separation    Ecological footprint
                            .1,,—
                                                                     ijq

                  Source: Dosch
                                      Source: Dosch
                                                           Source: H,B(sj|l-SUfluiiij. kuimn.
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools       ฃ
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002                15

-------
*Jj
   ซ r B W un y
 Causes for land consumption=challenges for action?
  Suburbanization is driven
  • by increasing prosperity and demands for living space,
  • unfavorable concepts for settlement structure,
  • increasing division of labor,
  * land consuming subsidies & cheap building land prizes,
  • the shifting of the employment towards suburbia.

   E   challenges for action
                                                             I  ^_
 Land Consumption & SitG Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools     m^
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            16

-------
   tor IJfldiinij
Persistent trends in  settlement development 2020
       Settlement and transport area 20Q1
                              •
        ;•**
               **
            •
            Ji '—j., h
                     7OI1 n *

          >•ซ•*>?••
         IU lolmll
         3D In taxt l~
                            •V.1-.K*  Ul
Selllumont Jtid transport area 2020 - Trend

       '  >ป
       •y
, •ฃ-'
                                                      "  *

                                                          -

                                                           ""*

                                                                 M
                                              iMaซvwปnvMfiai M v estimation of trends
    : i

    i^i
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR, Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002               17

-------
   111 rR Idling
SEPA
 European dimensions of urban sprawl: alpine area
 Austria 1971-1991
 Source: UBA Vienna
\x MOIAND: MonttojingLand Use/Covef Change Dynamics
    Changes
                                           Land consumption 1971-1991
                                     Grenoble 1948-1997
                                     Source: SAI JRC Italy

 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002              18

-------
  fur
x>EPA
                                 •a
Land consumption  higher in the US?
Urban sprawl
In the 1990s:

more in the
NE (old-
industrial.)
than in the
SW.
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            19

-------
 II  Derelict land in Germany: estimations of areas

   Commerce & industry       •  BBR = ca.   44,000 ha within
                                built-up areas
                              •  UBA = ca. 127,000 ha
                              *  > 400,000 ha (2000), 80% in
                                the hinterland & countryside
                              •  Railway land:  next 15 years ->
*  Trafflc                       closure of 3,000 objects, real
                                estate 6.5bn €
Other origins: vacant housing areas, old harbor sites, mining areas,
abandoned fairgrounds, etc.

                                                             I
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
 and Finance for Brownfieid Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nlov 11-12, 2002            20

-------
    fur B Winy
er
 II   Derelict land  compared to commercial demand
 140,000
 120,000
 100,000
  80,000
  60,000
  40,000
  20,000
      0
         Land consumption .  .,            Total potential
                     Available sites
           by commerce
            10,000 ha       26,500 ha        128.000 ha
Availability of commercial land for re-use almost three times higher
than annual demand (breakdown of demand)
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             21

-------
  •lir BiWung
&EPA
Derelict land: definitions
USA / EPA brownfields: abandoned or under-utilized properties
where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or
perceived environmental contamination {USCM conference)

UK NLUD: derelict sites and other previously developed land
and buildings that may be available for redevelopment

German "Brachflachen": broader definition includes sites where
no contamination is suspected

     A common objective dominates the brownfield issue:
               sustainable urban development
                                                           I
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            22

-------
iii
    liirB Idling
&EPA
 Derelict  land: definitions
 Definition  of recycling with the indicator on brownfield

 redevelopment for "Cities of the Future", Germany


 ,,Re-usable** derelict* commercial and conversion building land in m2 in 1997, 2000, 2003 in total and re-use*** of
 derelict areas in 2000 and 2003 investigated in 1997.
           - differentiated according to the following types of uses: trade, housing: (optional)
           - differentiated according to location criteria (interior zone, white land; hinterland municipalities)

 * derelict land: former industrial and military building land > 1 ha (< 1 ha for information only), which in the long term-
 for at least 1 year - will not be used neither for industrial nor for residential purposes (=stock) and which should be
 subsequently used (for buildings).
 ** re-usable: development facilities and existing building law, capture necessary if building permission would be
 possible.
 *** re-use: areas on which a subsequent use has been  started (building notice). Only really re-used areas are
 ascertained (partial use)
 Trade (type of use); including agricultural areas in the interior zone, including derelict land in transport areas, railway
 and mail territories if intended to be re-used; without derelict agricultural areas. Derelict residential areas can be
 optionally captured and separately identified.


 Data quality largely depends on definitions, mapping and

 timeliness.

 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch,  BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Tools
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002                 23

-------
  •liir Bid ling
                     &EPA
Derelict land  in Germany: types & origins
BBR building land survey 2000:

48% formerly commercial land,

41% military areas
   Military
                          Transport
                          and others
                          Co mm ere &

                          and industry
& BBR Bonn 2000 Source BBR-Survey on Building Land ?fiGC
                                        Closure/reduction of military locations
         ^ฑr
         ซ• —-ฃ/Sr-.-'T
           f:~~^f-<   ^

      ^sฃป * ป4i* •*•"

   -rni:-J.  — -^
  ___ ( ป—*  k*           —^ v
   J '-^ _     ^*         •-
  —> *      JL^  —* %-ซ.
   X^""  '"v * — -""1HLZT)

"^4**2s-C7"^r~^    j-  *^Si*S
  1  '  g*           "**A '"
  • .' V" ซ.   : M^t^- ! •—
<  ><1:ฑ.-   -^y  	      sx,
          • "U*1 ~      •
    •i,
    ^iSB4zr/^ B

      -^r ---*.••-	/'
         ซ*ซi M   _ A
             ••-~
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR, Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Srownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             24

-------
  Sin tJevnin i B ter iu n*
  •iirBiWiinD
  jn-dforeehun^
                                                 &EPA
Lack of knowledge - obstacles with site recycling...

 • potential waste deposits, unfavorable locations, new uses do
 not suit old facilities,

 • competing environmental provisions (noise and air pollution
 emissions on neighborhoods), clean-up regulations of the Federal
 Soil Protection Act (BBodSchG),

 • competition with favorably priced greenland in urban fringes
  bad image
                                                     Rarmnd
  • lacking knowledge: register for
industrial and commercial building
        land only seldom available
                                                      Nutplnmod
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            25 ~!J

-------
   •lir
&EPA
Recycling: share in building land  mobilization
Decreasing demand for building land
Demand per inhabitant in m1
2,0-
1,5-

1,0-

0,5-
0,0-
w<
fa PPF

\ 1
\,

*-* ^^^~^^-_
^
Survey 1995 Survey 1997 Survey 2000
Owl WOO Sowrw BDR Stirwcv on Binding Larv^ 2DOO







Si/e of
corrimunfly
ml 000
MiaMwni
10 -<; 20
20 •< 50
50 -e 100
100--: 200
200 ^ 500
West
East
Total
Dereict land
and nuiilsry
brownlields
%
10.G
30,9
29,2
30,5
61.1
41,6
26,2
46,2
32.7
                          Rising share of recycling sites in the mobilization
                          of industrial and commercial building land shown
                          by time series and in larger cities
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002              26

-------
*f*
fur RiWiing
iin-d For stilling
oEPA
 Recycling  of derelict  land: follow-up  uses
 BBR Survey 2000:

 Nature 14%,
 Housing 22 %,
 Commerce 59 %
        ,--
               59%
                   Commerce
                   and indjsiry
                    Larrl 3&50
                                  22,8%
                               22,7%
                                                    D Retail

                                                    • Commerce

                                                    O Leisure&green

                                                    D Mixed

                                                    • Housing
                                               DIFU2001:

                                               > 70%
                                               commerce,
                                               housing and
                                               mixed uses
 Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Tools
 and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002            27

-------
    Bitdunj]
Recycling of derelict land in Germany: best practice
• A quarter of the former industrial
brownfield converted into a mixed
area: Essen Weststadt 1988-1999
* Nordhorn: former Povel
textile factory converted
into a mixed area to
supplement city centre
1986-1997
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002              28

-------
   liir Bildiinfl
 Recycling of derelict land Germany: best practice 2

* Tubingen Franzosenviertel
1991-98: a quarter of military
brownfield converted an built up
with SME and housing
* Cologne-Kalk: former chemical
plant re-used for many
purposes:
- Cologne Science Center
- Urban Entertainment Center...

• Bonn Plittersdorf: former
American village to be re-used
by a big retail centre ... under
protests of neighbors...
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002              29

-------
  (lir
&EPA
Site  recycling funded  by Interreg II  C  / III B

The EU Community Initiative INTERREG is designed to strengthen
economic and social cohesion throughout the EU, by fostering a balanced
development of the continent through cross-border, transnational and
interregional cooperation
Project examples IIC/ III B

CADSES: PROSIDE Promoting Sustainable Inner-Urban Development
RECULA - Restructuring Cultural Landscapes

Alpine Space: TUSEC-IP - ,,Technique of Urban Soil Evaluation in City
Regions - Implementation in Planning Procedures"

Baltic Sea: ENSURE - Exchange Network for Sustainable Urban
Revitalization Experience; WUD -Waterfront Urban Development;
CONVERNET, MECIPS

Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Too s     f
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina. Nov 11-12, 2002             30

-------
  'Or B Idling
&EPA
   Challenges for sustainable land management

 National strategy on sustainability (April 2002)

 • professed political target to revitalize the (medieval) inner cities

 * reduction of land consumption from 129 ha (2001) to 30 ha (2020)

 * internal development before external development with a ratio 3 : 1

 * dispersal of settlement growth by decentralized concentration


 Coalition agreement of the German parliament (10/2002)...

 "We will further develop urban policy to implement the national
 sustainability strategy, particularly to reduce land consumption. This
 includes the revitalization of city centres and the stabilization of urban
 living, the new  use of conversion sites and vacant housings as well as the
 reconstruction  of infrastructure, (pp.58, livable cities)"
                                                                     _^
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group. "Economic Too s      ฃ
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina. Nov 11-12, 2002             31

-------
   .11 id FIII si h 111 KJ
                                                                4>EPA
Legal  regulations for the reutilization of land


FEDERAL BUILDING CODE [Baugesetzbuch - BauGB]

Section 1a: Consideration for Environmental Concerns
(1) ..Land shall be used sparingly and with due consideration; the extent to which it is
sealed by development shall be kept to a minimum...
Section 164b (2): financial assistance ... for the reutilization of land, in particular
derelict industrial sites, conversion land
Section 165: Urban development measures ... return derelict land to productive use

Federal Regional Planning Act (Raumordnungsgesetz (ROG))
ง 1 ..land use possibilities shall be kept open  in the long term..
ง2 (8) ...Natural resources, particularly water  and soil, shall be used sparingly and
carefully;
ง2 (2)3 The re-use of derelict settlement areas shall be given priority over the use of
open spaces.

Building regulations (Laender) with special regulations
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch,  BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002              32

-------
  •far R ild ling
  und Fgrschung
                        &EPA
Objectives to  reduce land consumption
Quantitative objective^
economical use of land
Qualitative objective =
careful use of land
 'Reduction of growth of settlement in
 'new' areas

 'Mobilization of building land instead
 of new designation

 •Exploitation of existing potentials
 (land recycling, use of building law)

 'Compact buildings

 •Extension of already existing
 building substance

 •Land management
•Consideration of soil qualities
 (especially productive function,
 biotope function, archiving function,
 cultural function)

•Selection of location: protection of
 high-quality soils

•Avoiding of unrequired sealing

•Redevelopment of areas under
 pressure

' Desealing, if possible
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002              33

-------
  B LI rnJe-snun is tenure
  HIII BiWung
  and Forat hui i^
                      &EPA
Planning levels & initiatives for recycling
   European level
                regional level
 city wide strategies
 knowledge by land registers
     - legally binding plan
     • P-P-P
     • image campaign
    •ESDP; INTERREG ill B
    •Objective 2
    Revitalizing areas facing structural difficulties
    Urban II , Konver II
      regional land use management
             European funds
local  level
            object level
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             34

-------
  •fur
                P/EPA
"Success indicators" for sustainable  land use

 Cities of the Future: 5 Strategies of economical
 land management 1997-2002,11 indicators, e.g.
         Reduction of the growth of
         built-up settlement area

         Re-use of vacant urban land
         and unoccupied buildings

         Reduction of land sealing
r |  ' % ซ*tj*Hi -

r~T  \ ซ.-+ปป —- — — —.- -?-.*ซ-. -
|	^  - *— 	 **"' .TT " "^~J **"

Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfteld Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002              35

-------
   J110 hlfBdiKI.il
                                                              &EPA
Are success indicators successful?
  Reduction of the growth of built-up areas: is achieved
  Ratio internal development / external development > 3 :  1
  Increase in employment, stabilization of inhabitants
  Mobilization of available building land reserves
  Almost 100% of dwellings in inner-city locations
  Successful redevelopment of derelict land in some cities
                                                            "_  _    	 . . _


                Investigation in 49 German cities to test the possible future
                implementation of indicators in Federal Building Act
                                                                      I
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12. 2002             36

-------
  lit i 6 3d ung
Regional land use  management: pooling
                                      Building land
                                        potential
                            Growth
                         management

    Demand for
    building land
                                        Actors
                                      /     \

                                Regional
                             compensations
Control of
 success
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany. F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            37

-------
  •ur Bitdiing
  ,u
&EPA
Economic tools to reduce land consumption

 * land tax reform (land value & land use tax)

 • abolition of instruments fostering land consumption

 * increase of urban development grants
 • regrouping of house building subsidies from new buildings to
 the existing stock (home-ownership subsidies)
 SITE RECYCLING:
 e.g. start-up grants,
 • special funding program by the Laender, the Federal and the
 European level

 * tax reduction regulations and increased depreciations for
 investments in brownfields
 • pooling solutions for clean-up risks

Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Chariotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002            38

-------
   and hirst harvg
                                                             x>EPA
Visions 2050:  ...overshooting?
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch. BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002             39

-------
                           #
                           r
  jnd ForsKhiinq
?/E!PA
Challenges with site recycling... - conclusions

 1. Land consumption continues. In contrast to urban sprawl, the
   amount of non-competitive brownfields accelerates

 2. Well known obstacles could be overcome by local and
   moreover regional land use and site recycling management;
   indicators on brownfield redevelopment may contribute.

 3. Brownfields are competitive against greenfields only by means
   of economical instruments. Proposals are well-known.
 4. As revitalization of city centers  is a professed political target,
   new initiatives are foreseeable.  Demographic trends raise the
   chances for a modernization of already built-up areas.

                                   TW*. lor ปour
Land Consumption & Site Recycling in Germany, F. Dosch, BBR. Bilateral Working Group, "Economic Tools
and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Charlotte. North Carolina, Nov 11-12, 2002           40

-------
                                                        &EPA
             Economic Tools and Finance for

         Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop


           Redevelopment of a former military base in Germany.
         Difficult and expensive: no money left for sustainability?

                 Model housing Petrisberg in Trier, Germany


                       November 11th and 12th 2002
                        Charlotte, North Carolina


                  Jan Eitel, managing director EGP GmbH
                           J.Eitel@giu.de
Bilateral Working Group

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                        &EPA
 Situation of Trier in the Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany
                                                               Trier
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                          &EPA
 Impressions of Trier - Porta Nigra
                                                                 Trier
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                         &EPA
 Impressions of Trier- the cathedral
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                           &EPA
 Impressions of Trier - Basilika
                                                                 Trier
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                          &EPA
 Impressions of Trier- historic city center
                                                                Trier
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                         &EPA
 Impressions of Trier - market center
                                                                Trier
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                         &EPA
 City map of Trier - Location of Petrisberg
                                                                Trier
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
                                                                              SEPA
   The Petrisberg Development Company
                                                             EGP
Stock holders
City of Trier 35%
GIU 25% (project
development company)
Sparkasse (savings
bank) 20%
Trier city works 10%
Drees & Sommer 10%
(project development
company)
                                 GP
Entwicklungs-
gesellschaft
Petrisberg
(Petrisberg
Development Company)
Development
- Science park
- Business park
- Housing
- Management

Capital Stock
€/$ 1 Million
Tasks for derelict area recycling of Petrisberq
- Acquisition of sites for conversion
- Processing soil/removal or securing of contamination
- Development/civil engineering
- Structural engineering (new construction/conversion)
- Restructuring
- Marketing
   - Housing lots
   - Commercial lots
   - Rental office and commercial space
- Site marketing
   - Themes and contents
   - Image and address building
- Contact to industry and science
- Economic assistance
  Bilateral Working Group
      Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
      November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
                               Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                            &EPA
 Petrisberg - Barracks circa 1900
                                                           Petrisberg
                                                                         Petrisberg circa 1900
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
 Petrisberg - current conditions
                                                                                   &EPA
                                                      Petrisberg
 • Due to the reunification of Germany,
   French forces were withdrawn and the
   military site in Trier was given up in 1996.

 • Suddenly the area in the area of the
   Belvedere Krone (crown) and the
   Belvedere storage facility, used militarily
   for decades, was available for civilian use.

 • The area possesses highly attractive
   landscape and exposed location.
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
 Petrisberg - current conditions
                                                                                     &EPA
                                                       Petrisberg
   First plans for a science park in Trier
   initiated in the early 90s.

   Plans were then transferred to the
   freed-up conversion sites.

   Housing sites next to the science
   park

   Integrated into the concept of the
   state landscape exposition

   Realization of an attractive open area
   concept with  nearby recreation and
   leisure-oriented use

Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                          &EPA
 Petrisberg - current conditions
                                                          Petrisberg
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                          &EPA
 Petrisberg - current conditions
                                                          Petrisberg
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                       &EPA
 Framework development plan for Petrisberg in Trier - EGP
                                                        Petrisberg
                                  ii
                                   SB- ---.
                                                                   Systemptan Kfz-Erschlie^ung
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                             &EPA
 Landscape exposition
                                                  Petrisberg
          LANDESGARTENSCHAU TRIER  2004 -DIE KULTURGARTENSCHAU
                    h-i-i'A:
                   X

                                              wisseiischaftspark
                                                      '
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                      &EPA
 Master plan
                                                       Petrisberg
 In 2001, in a multiple
 commissioning process, four
 architectural firms were asked
 to work up a high-quality urban
 development and architectural
 concept for the Petrisberg
 science park. From this
 competition, the Saarbrucken
 firm Hepp & Zenner Architects
 and City Planners was chosen
 as the first prize winner.
                                                 ?-l
                                                 i^
                                                nio
                       -i?-nTi vn x-
                         ,     v^-
                                                           1
                                                                   —,->
                                                                   n ^
                                 } 1
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
 Science park (in the so-called Belvedere crown and storage facility area)
                                                                                &EPA
                                                    Petrisberg
  User profile

  • start-ups
  • young enterprises
  • established enterprises
  • high-quality service enterprises in
    general
  • research institutions and university
    research institutes
                         Areas for profile raising


                         Information + communications
                         technology

                         • Leisure / Tourism / Spa

                         • Construction and housing

                         • Design

                         • Life Science / Public Health Service
 Goal-oriented selection and acquisition of future renters and investors to reach a
 synergistic mix of uses and yield a "creative environment".
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
         Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
    Science park (in the so-called Belvedere crown and storage facility area)
                                                                                      &EPA
                                                      Petrisberg
The group of existing buildings set a positive urban development accent for later marketability.
Preservation and renovation of barracks buildings costs less than demolition and new construction.
   Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                            &EPA
 Model
                                                            Petrisberg
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                            &EPA
 Model
                                                            Petrisberg
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                            &EPA
 Model
                                                            Petrisberg
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                          &EPA
 Working/Living on the Waterfront
                                                          Petrisberg

                                                        ,. •  :
                          '
 .......       -                     .     .
      . :                    . -        ...
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                             &EPA
 Info box
                                                            Petrisberg
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                       &EPA
 Aerial view
                                      The project -Model housing
          sports   housing   retention vineyards  model housing water  landscape exposition
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
                                                                                       SEPA
 Project approach
                                     The project - Model housing
  Planning workgroup/Design advisory
  council

   - organizes

   - guides

   - decides
                  State representative
              Trier city representative
               Representative of EGP
                         Chief planner
                                 State (ExWoSt)l   City
                                                                  ExWoSt
                                                                  Experimenteller Wohn- und Stadtebau
                                                                  (Experimental Housing and City Development)

                                                                  Objectives:
                                                                  • Increase planning and project quality
                                                                  • Support faster, more flexible solutions to
                                                                   planning tasks
                                                                  • Labor savings for planning administration
                                                                  • Relief for public budgets
                                                                  • Realization of public right to "good",
                                                                   affordable results
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                    &EPA
 Architectural culture
                                          The project - Model housing
   Sustainability
    Identity

    Regionality

    History

    Beauty
    Functionality
- economic
- ecological
- energy-efficient
- originality
- individuality
- Polar opposite to rootless
 world architecture
- dialog
- historical topography
- prestige
- intrinsic value instead of
 cost-producing external
 value
- Privacy
- Flexibility
                                                                      economic
ecological
social
            building culture
                                                      Quality is produced through complexity
Bilateral Working Group
       Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
       November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
                            Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                      &EPA
German single-family housing - current situation
                                    The project - Model housing
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                       &EPA
New examples
                                     The project - Model housing
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
                                                                         xvEPA

 Objective                                                 The project - Model housing
 • city development solution appropriate to the special situation between city and
  nature in Petrisberg.
 • innovative / model building - creation of architectural building culture
 • avoidance of migration of affluent and opinion-leading segment of the population
  from the city to surroundings
 • the process should be taken beyond the establishment of the model housing and
  be transferred as a model to the other housing construction sites in Petrisberg.
 • unusual public-private-partnership  project
 • minimal public investment- maximum private follow-up investment
           •=>  no large private investor who  sells complete buildings constructed according to
              the rules for optimizing profit.
           •=>  instead, intensive assistance  and guidance of individual builders by experts over
              the entire building process
Bilateral Work in a GrOUD        Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop        Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH
LJIICIICICII vvuirviny vjiuup        November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
                                                                                  SEPA
     General procedure
                                                                       Process
                  He who wants to innovate must violate usual procedures...
Workshop
  Design
Advisory
  Council
 participates
Informational
   events
    Bilateral Working Group
                                 Architect
Builder
Team-
building
Forum
                                  Design
                                 Advisory
                                  Council
                                  participates
  Concept
development
Allocation of
building lots
                                                      Design
                                                     Advisory
                                                      Council
                                                      participates
                  Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
                  November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
                                               Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                     &EPA
 Procedure for architects                                                              Process

  • EU-wide application procedure
  • Architects apply with existing portfolio (reference projects)
  • The design council chooses a pool of architects

  • Builder + architect form a team
    (find each other independently or during informational events)
  • Builder + architect develop a concept together
  • Design council check based on a catalog of criteria/checklist
  • Entry into the land registry only after the approval of the design council
Bilateral Workino GrOUD          Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop          Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH
u
-------
                                                                                  SEPA
    Procedure for architects
                                                     Process
                 Selection by design
                  council based on
                  catalog of criteria
EU-wide open
 application
  procedure
for architects
                                                 Design council
                                                checks based on
                                                catalog of criteria
Pool of architects
                                                          Design council
                                                         checks based on
                                                         catalog of criteria
                                                 Concept revision
                                                                                     Entry in
                                                                                   land registry
                             Concept
   Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
                                                                              SEPA
 Process - building process for model housing
                                                    Process
             Beginning of i
             construction I   Finishin9
            State garden
            show events on
            the subject of
            model housing
  Transfer of the
experiences gained
 to the remaining
   building sites
                            Communication between builders and public
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                 &EPA
 Workshop
                                                       Process
 Participants (approximately 40 people)

 • Main moderator Prof. T. Sieverts
 • Secondary moderator Ms. A. Skoupil
 • Representative of the state of Rhineland-
  Palatinate
 • Representatives of the city of Trier
   - head of the building department
   - head of the city planning office, and others
 • Representative of the state landscape exposition
 • Director of the EGP
 • Representative of GIU (shareholder)
 • Representative of Drees + Sommer (shareholder)
 • Representative of the Rhineland-Palatinate
  chamber of architects
 • Interested architects from the Trier area
 • Representative of the chamber of craftsmen
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                   &EPA
 Workshop
                                                        Process
 Objective
 • Creating an unmistakable profile of the
  plan area
 • City development requirements
 • Definition of "model housing"
 • Definition of design quality
 • Requirements for energy saving and
  housing technology.
 • Definition of a procedure acceptable to
  all participants for selection of criteria
  and allocation of building sites.
Bilateral Working Group
                  Procedure
                   Expert lectures - introduction of the topics
                   Objectives
                   Site visit
                   Working on the topics in two workgroups -
                   city development and design.
                   Plenary intermediate results
                   Processing of the intermediate results by
                   the entire group
                   Definition of the results
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
                                                                                 SEPA
 The information event, Nov. 23- 24,  2002                                           Process
  • Potential builders will be informed
   -> about the state of the planning process
   -> about the application and allocation process for building lots
  • Ambitious architecture offices present their work
   -> make contact with potential builders
  • Presentation of the suggested development plan worked out during the workshop
   -> convey an idea to potential builders
   -> inform interested architects
  • Expert lectures covering, for example
   -> architectural building culture
   -> energy-efficient building
   -> ecological building
  • Media-effective visit  of the finance minister of Rhineland-Pfalz
  • Prize awarding for the children's drawing competition - "My Dream house"
Bilateral Work in a GrOUD          Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop          Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH
LJIICIICICII vvuirviny vjiuup          November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                       &EPA
 Suggested development plan from the city of Trier
                                                 Criteria and draft
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                      &EPA
 Suggested development plan from the workshop



                            .

                                                Criteria and draft
                                                                                 -* *• -
                                                                                   t  '•*.
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop

November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesinlriisteniim
 from the workshop
 Suggested development plan
                     v
                       ^mm
                           'A ^r *1-
                                                                              &EPA
Criteria and draft
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
    Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                                   &EPA
 Building typologies
                                               Criteria and draft
          "stacked" maisonette types
                                      D
             Loft living on the waterfront
             • narrow (minimum 5 meters), deep building lots
             • two-sided development
             • high flexibility through different development stages
              (first along the water strip - later in the southeast)
             • working + living / multi-generation living possible

             Multi-story residential building along the Magistrate
             • "stacked" maisonette types - living quality of row housing
             • underground garage
             • smaller, private open areas facing the valley
             • property developer model possible

             "Living in the Park"/ free living
             • in a cluster around a semi-public, town square-like living
              path / restricted traffic street zoned for play
             • characterized by green area structure, play streets and
              footpaths
             • living without fences / common free areas
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
       Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
 Target groups
  The discriminating builder:
  • Exclusivity
  • Design
  • Flexibility
  • Mixture of uses
  • High-quality open areas,
    public and private
                * V 4
                    •


                                                                                        &EPA
                                                  Criteria and draft
                    Along the waterfront:
                    • desire for the house that grows with you
                    • binding, future oriented
                    • bound to the area
                    • living + working
                    • interest in city living

                    Along the Magistrale
                    • flexible "global worker"
                    • temporary residence
                    • desire for small, private open area
                                                     Individualized living in the park
                                                     • affluent families
                                                     • bound to the area
                                                     • desire for living in green areas in limited but existing
                                                      community
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
                                                                          SEPA
  Architectural and city development design
                                         Criteria and draft
 few stipulations:
• Volume
• Edges
• Building lines
• Building limits
• Levels
                Good architecture cannot be
                defined by
                • Building form,
                • Roof form,
                • Material
                • and color selection
Coordination of the draft designs with the design council
• This can create a certain homogeneity while allowing freedom of design.
• Harmonization of neighboring buildings.
• "Bundling" of builders with similar design ideas.
 Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
      Bumtesmlnislsrliin*
                                                                               &EPA
 Energy
                                            Criteria and draft
                              Energy-efficient building is state-of-the-art in
                              Germany.

                              The German energy saving ordinance places high requirements on
                              the energy consumption of buildings:
                              The maximum allowable values for primary energy consumption
                              in residential buildings are between approximately 75 and 152
                              kilowatt hours/ma depending on the compactness of the building
                              and the type of water  heater.
Needless to say, innovative, model housing will exceed these already strict consumption
regulations.

An energy consultation by an expert is therefore mandatory for all builders.

Community solutions for heating and energy supply should be made possible.

The positioning of the buildings according to city development plans allow energy savings through
passive solar energy use.
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
                                                                                 &EPA


 Who profits?                                                                     Summary

• WIN      The builder
           few restrictions placed by the development plan and expert advice during the
           creation process result in high-quality architecture, in high-quality surroundings ->
                      Increase in living quality and value

• WIN      The architect
           few building restrictions create the possibility for image-building projects that attract
           especially great attention during the state landscape exposition -> Advertisement

           The state landscape exposition
           a further highlight for the landscape exposition will be created with the integral approach
           - living in / at the park. -> Advertisement / larger audience is being attracted

           The city of Trier
           The high-income, opinion leader segment of the city acquires an attractive alternative for
           living in the surroundings. The  city is enriched by an additional object of prestige ->
           socially sustainable /Advertisement

           The EGP - Petrisberg development company
           Petrisberg will be developed into a  high-quality address for the housing market sector as
           well -> Advertisement/ Increase in value
Bilateral Workina GrOUD          Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop          Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH
              "    "          November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina

-------
 Who profits?
                                                             &EPA
                                        Summary
WIN   Last but not least, the public wins through the mostly privately financed
      sustainability and architectural building culture in a park-like surrounding.
                            Thus, we have a

win  - win - win  - win - win  - win - situation
                 Thank you for your attention!
                                               contact: j.eitel@giu.de
Bilateral Working Group
Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
November 11th and 12th 2002, Charlotte, North Carolina
Jan Eitel, EGP GmbH

-------
                   Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment Workshop
                                      November 11th and  12th 2002
                                         Charlotte, North Carolina

Jan Eitel, Managing Director of EGP GmbH

           Redevelopment of a former military base in Germany.
           Difficult and expensive: no money left for sustainability?


  In 2004, the Rhineland-Pfalz State Garden Show will take place at the Petrisberg in Trier. At the same time, the
  Petrisberg Research Park will be developed by a new foundation (EGP Entwicklungsgesellschaft Petrisberg GmbH -
  ["Petrisberg Foundation for Development Ltd."]).

  This innovative and qualitative conversion of the area also should provide the impulse for development of four
  residential areas. These residential areas will satisfy the demand for exclusive, large-area and individual single-family
  home building sites. The goal, however, also is to integrate model, sustainable housing concepts. Such worthy
  attempts usually fail because of a lack of private homeowners willing to finance them, economic pressures, and a
  lack of understanding of the aspects of sustainability.

  In Trier,  a model has been developed that promises to stimulate private involvement and private independent
  financing. The GIU and the EGP, in cooperation with the City of Trier and the State of Rhineland-Pfalz, have
  developed a "model housing" method that involves various investors, planners and users. The Petrisberg Derelict
  Area Project should be presented as exemplary, and along with the "model housing" cluster, a goal-oriented process
  for enticing investment in sustainable projects will be demonstrated.

-------
       Brownfields Financing:
Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse
                by
          Charles Bartsch
     Northeast-Midwest Institute

-------
                          Brownfields Financing:
                  Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


      Why are federal financing tools needed to support financing efforts for
brownfield projects?  A key lesson from the success stories in place is that public-
sector financial assistance is often needed to make brownfield projects economically
viable. Many brownfield projects do not work without some kind of involvement by
the. public sector. Site remediation and preparation costs make many sites
economically uncompetitive, at least  initially. Many of them have trouble putting a
complete financing package together - especially the capital needed for 3 specific
activities:  (1) carrying out an early stage site assessment; (2) defining a site
remediation plan (necessary if the owner wants to take the site through a VCP in
order to get some finality on liability concerns, or to be able to use institutional
controls; and  (3) performing the actual cleanup itself.
      The site reuser's challenge is dealing with these financing gaps and situations
that make brownfield sites economically uncompetitive - at least initially - and  pull
together the technical and financial resources that can help them reverse financial
course,  have  a chance to take hold so they can realize the full competitive advantage
of their location and situation. This clearly can be done,  if the more than 10,000
successful site reuses around the country prove anything.
      For decades, federal development and finance mechanisms have been used to
stimulate economic activity in certain geographic areas or industries, or under certain
types of situations, when private capital markets chose not to participate.  Brownfield
projects at contaminated sites represent a logical extension of the mission of many of

-------
                        Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


the programs that federal agencies currently operate. The chart at the end offers a
laundry list of federal programs that could prove most useful to brownfield projects.
Several of these merit detailed consideration.
      Several of HUD's programs offer communities considerable potential
resources and the most flexibility. Community Development Block Grants are
provided to cities of all size.  How those funds are spent is a local decision, within
broad HUD guidelines.  HUD's Section 108 loan guarantee program is linked to the
block grant program. Section 108 was authorized to help cities finance site
clearance, property acquisition, infrastructure, rehabilitation, or related  activities too
large for single-year block grant funding. This can include removal of toxic
contaminants as part of these site preparation activities.
      Entitlement cities and counties may leverage up to 5 times their annual grant
for large,  capital intensive  projects — typically, economic development projects
needing considerable up-front cash for site preparation — the typical brownfield.
Cities have up to 20 years to repay these HUD-backed bans. Most cities use the
income generated from the sale or development of the site to pay off the debt.  Both
programs have great potential to support brownfield-type projects.
      Block grant funds can also be lent to private companies for economic
development projects under some circumstances.  Coping with contamination has
been defined as an eligible activity, and specifically put into law in 1997 as part of
appropriations language.  Since  then more than 50 cities have used CDBG
resources directly for brownfield purposes. Cities ranging in size from Chicago to
Somerville, Massachusetts A have used CDBG to clean up targeted city sites. Other
cities have used CBDG to capitalize local RLFs for brownfield purposes.
Youngstown, Ohio is using CDBG to pay for first year loan costs incurred by a new
manufacturing plant attracted to a brownfield  site. Dallas used $155,000 in CDBG to

-------
                        Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


directly pay for cleanup at its McCommas Bluff site. And Wisconsin has been
reserving $2.5 million of state CDBG allocation for its small cities to provide them with
resources to pay for site assessments - meeting a key need.
      More and more cities are targeting Section 108 to brownfield projects.  For
example, Detroit has used it to pay for infrastructure improvements. Chicago has
used it to cover the costs of cleaning and assembling small parcels into 25- and 50-
acre tracts for new industrial development. Denver is using 108 for short-term
construction loans on downtown projects, with the developers repaying the notes
upon sale of the properties.  Mid-sized cities such as Yonkers, New York have used
108 proceeds to create a brownfield revolving loan fund.
      When considering use of HUD resources, though, communities need to do a
reality check. First, funding allocations within cities are local decisions, out of the
reach of HUD as long as they meet basic eligibility criteria. In many areas, groups
such as community development and service organizations have been recipients of
block grant support for many years, and they are concerned about the impact of any
new activity on their own bottom-line. This may make it difficult for new activities,
such as brownfield initiatives, to work their way into the local priority setting process.
Moreover, block grant resources have simply not kept pace with demand, even in this
time of surplus. The overall  level of funding has been pretty constant  over the past
five or so years - even as the number of entitlement cities eligible to share in that pot
grows, often by 5 percent a year.
      In terms of Section 108 — the program's requirement that cities pledge their
future entitlement grants as collateral — even if the chance of default  is highly remote
— causes political problems at the local level. Rightly or wrongly, state and local
officials' concern about the political fallout of a failed project - as remote  as that
prospect  may be - discourages use of the program.  This is unfortunate,  since the

-------
                        Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


108 program gets about $1 billiion in new authority from Congress each year- and it
never gets applications for near that amount.  In fact, Section 10S's track record
suggests that a well-conceptualized project based on solid market analysis has every
likelihood of paying back the guarantee with no cost to the city or state.  Thus,
convincing mayors and city councils that it can work becomes the brownfield
challenge.
      Also with regards to Section 108 — small cities with less than 50,000 are not
eligible on their own to apply. They must apply through their state or an urban
county.  To date, Glen Cove,  New York is the  only small city to gain access to this
program. At this time, the states of Washington, California, and Connecticut are
expjoring greater use of Section 108 for small  town brownfield projects, perhaps by
setting up financing pools.


      Low-income housing tax credits are a federal tool with good local  potential
to support brownfield  projects. There is growing interest in reusing brownfield
properties for residential purposes, an interest which will be further fueled as state
voluntary cleanup programs become more established, and the impacts of recent
lender liability and cleanup expensing incentive provisions are absorbed by the
market.
      Low-income housing tax credits can play an important role in attracting capital
for housing on brownfield sites.  One of the first success stories is found in Trenton,
New Jersey, where the Circle F project was developed on a contaminated
manufacturing site that dated to 1886. Trenton officials selected a long-time local
non-profit developer undertake the housing project. The developer fronted the
$500,000 for site cleanup and preparation, and applied for and received an allocation
of $8 million in federal low-income housing tax credits through the state of

-------
                        Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


New Jersey. These credits attracted a private lender, who helped finance the project,
and assumed the role of a limited partner in the project in  order to get the benefit of
the tax credits. In the case of Circle F, the credits were linked to brownfield
considerations without undermining the bank's profitability.
      One of the newest federal financing tools is HDD's Brownfield Economic
Development Initiative, or BEDI; Congress provided $25 million for BEDI in fiscal
2000.  These funds were awarded competitively, and in August HUD announced this
year's 22 winners, which include:  Buffalo, which will use $240,000 in BEDI funds and
a $3 million Section 108 for site preparation and remediation at the Union Ship Canal
commercial and office project; and Phillipsburg, New Jersey, which will use a
$500,000 BEDI and $2.5 million Section 108 to acquire and redevelop 100 acres of
the 385 acre former Ingersoll Rand site into a modern industrial park, doing soil
remediation as part of site preparation work that will include road, rail, and utility
upgrading.
      BEDI has important potential to support brownfield projects.  These grants are
intended to improve the viability of projects financed with HUD's Section  108 loan
guarantee program.  BEDI can be used for any activity also eligible under CDBG.
But BEDI grants must be used in conjunction with new Section  108 loan  guarantees,
with at least a dollar-per-dollar ratio — they will not be granted independently. This is
proving to be a stumbling block for cities that have reached their limit on  Section 108
— either in real dollar terms, or because of local political and  community pressures.
And again — small  cities are, in practice, largely shut out of the BEDI process.
      The Economic Development Administration provides grants to  communities
to support public works activities.  EDA has emerged as one of EPA's strongest
inter-agency partners.  During the past 3 years, EDA has made brownfield
redevelopment one of its program funding priorities, spending nearly 20 percent of its

-------
                        Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


project resources on brownfield-related activities.  EDA's public works program
supports industrial development activities. EDA's economic adjustment and defense
economic adjustment programs can capitalize locally run revolving loan funds to
enhance business development activities in distressed areas.
      In 1999, EPA's 61brownfield related projects included: $923,000 in public
works funding to renovate an old factory  into a multi-tenant facility, in Uniontown,
Pennsylvania; $7.3 million in public works funding for a port expansion in New Iberia,
Louisiana; and$1.3 million in defense adjustment funding for utility system
improvements at the former Memphis depot site.
      Some communities have made creative use of Department of Transportation
funds for brownfield purposes,  although it was only 2 years ago that the agency
acknowledged that its programs could even play a brownfields role.  As a growing
number of case studies show, transportation projects can be connected with
brownfield projects in 3 ways:  (1) situations in which the brownfield site itself may be
a transportation facilities  itself,  in need of upgrading - this most commonly includes
roads and  rail yards; (2) sites where infrastructure improvements are needed to make
them more marketable - typically by expanding access for vehicles, freight, or
passengers; and (3) when part of the transportation solution is also part of the
environmental solution, where  roads, parking lots, and other transportation structures
can be used as caps to limit exposure.
      Most federal loan assistance is delivered by the Small Business
Administration, either directly or through local economic development agencies or
community-based  corporations. And while SBA retains much of the broad decision
making authority, specific projects are locally determined and driven. SBA can prove
especially  helpful to new  or small firms that usually lack access to affordable capital
from conventional  sources ~ the types of companies that likely to be  attracted to
cheap space in  less-than-tony  places in distressed areas.

-------
                        Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse


      But as with the HUD programs, it is necessary to temper these descriptions
with a reality check.  First, EDA resources can work well in brownfield situations, but
in practice it can be very difficult to get EDA to provide revolving loan fund resources
to communities that have ever received them before - even if "before" was 10 or 15
years ago, and for vastly different purposes.  A key reason is that national need for
and interest in EDA programs far outstrips available resources.


      At DOT, the culture and mindset of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations
that direct much of the program spending has proven to be a barrier in many places.
Many MPO officials simply do not want to consider brownfield-related activities. In
addition, the MPO process - with its long time frames and often lengthy reviews -
does not fit well with the quicker time-frames of many brownfield reuse opportunities.
      A reality check is also needed for SBA. To date, SBA programs have not
directly addressed brownfield scenarios; in fact, some bank officials and local
economic developers have complained that SBA tends to be more conservative with
respect to contamination and liability concerns than private lenders themselves. SBA
generally only looks at clean deals.


      Finally, two other  programs merit a quick mention. First, if a  brownfield project
can somehow be linked  to water or water quality, it may be able to tap into programs
of the Army Corps of Engineers or use a  state clean water revolving fund to help pay
for remediation. The former can help with site planning and remediation, although
some communities may be constrained by the Corps' matching requirements.  In the
latter, EPA  allows states to use their RLF for brownfield mitigation to correct or
prevent water quality problems - including those stemming from petroleum
contamination.

-------
                       Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse

      Clearly, a number of federal program resources are available to communities
wanting to promote brownfield reuse. But it is important to stress that private
financing  must play a bigger role if more extensive brownfield reuse is to be achieved.
The public sector can provide critical seed money, plug some crucial capital holes,
and help balance the economic scale between greenfields and brownfields. But the
public sector can not do it all alone.  Private investment must be sought and
leveraged.

                                CHART 1:
       Federal Financial Assistance Programs Applicable to Brownfield
                         Redevelopment Activities

Loans
EDA's Title IX (capital for local revolving loan funds)
HUD funds for locally determined CDBG loans and  "floats"
EPA capitalized brownfield revolving loan funds
SBA's microloans
SBA's Section 504 development company debentures
EPA capitalized clean water revolving loan funds (priorities set/ programs run by each
state)

Loan guarantees
HDD's Section 108 loan guarantees
SBA's Section 7(a) and Low-Doc programs

-------
                       Brownfields Financing:
               Federal Tools to Support Project Reuse

Grants
HDD's Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
HDD's Community Development Block Grants (for projects locally determined)
EPA assessment pilot grants
EDA Title I (public works) and Title IX (economic adjustment)
DOT (various system construction and rehabilitation programs)
DOT'S transportation and community system preservation (TCSP) grant
Army Corps of Engineers (cost-shared services)

Equity capital
SBA's Small Business Investment Companies

Tax incentives and tax-exempt financing
Targeted expensing of cleanup costs (through 12/31/01)
Historic rehabilitation tax credits
Low-income housing tax credits
Industrial development bonds

Tax-advantaged zones
HDD/DSDA Empowerment Zones (various incentives)
HDD/DSDA Enterprise Communities (various incentives)

-------
   BundKinlriisteriiim
 Funding instruments applicable for
 brownfield redevelopment - an Overview
  Dr.-lng. Uwe Ferber,
           PROJEKTGRUPPE STADT+ENTWICKLUNG •
              FERBER, GRAUMANN UNO PARTNER *.V
                                 Leipzig
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                             EPA
 Why?
    German urban and economic development
     policy principle:

     ..Preservation of equivalent living conditions"
     (German Constitution, Art. 72 Par. 2 No 3)
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 How?
                                               &EPA
Market led tools
Tax-based tools
Public-funding tools
Private-driven projects
PPP-projects
Public-d riven-projects
                 European level
                 Federal level
                 State level
                 Local level
Bilateral Working Group

-------
      Buratesmlnislsrliin*
 Typology  for funding
                                                                         &EPA
               Land Value
               (after reclamation)
                  A:
                  private- driven / B:
                  projects    /  public- private
                               partnership
                   'self- developing sites'
                                  'potential development sites'
                                        'reserve sites'

                                    C:
                                    public-driven
                                     projects
                                                   Reclamation Costs
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                                  &EPA
 Private-driven projects
_k Balancing brownfield projects by the change of use
   '   and generation of planning gains, (new offers of
       inshurence models)
 lousing estate in Dortmund

Bilateral Working Group
oppmg mall in Ubernausen

-------
    BundKinlriisteriiim
 Bilateral discussion Input
 Kienzle Site Dr. Eisele
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                                            &EPA
 Public-private-partnership
         Integrated in general urban reneval and economic
         regeneration policies with a mix of tax based tools and
         direct public co-funding
         e.g. Tax deductions for the renovation of industrial heritage buildings and
         for investments in Urban Reneval Zones
         (Europe: Enterprise zones e.g. in GB, F)
 Discothek in a former briket works
Future individual housing area in Leipzig
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                               &EPA
Bilateral discussion Input
 Case studies: Saarbrucken, Duisburg, Leipzig
 Saarterrassen Saarbrucken
Harbour Duisburg
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                                    &EPA
 Public driven  projects
 European Union:
 •  EU-Programms (ERDF, KONVER, URBAN), 50 - 75% direct
   funding for eligible projects e.g. Brownfield program in Saxony
Conversion: Olympic village in Berlin
Starter building in Leipzig
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Buratesmlnislsrliin*
                                                          &EPA
 Public driven  projects - Federal and state level:

 •   Federal economic regeneration fund (GA)

 •   Urban reneval programms

 •   Employment initiatives

 •   ,,Grundstucksfonds  Nordrhein-Westfalen"                   	
    ~  ,    .  ,   , ,   ,                         ler fordert das Land die
 •   Contaminated land  programms             Lmnutzung des ehemaligen
                                           [ndustrieeelandes Hoesch/
                                           ^armschfeger in Dortmund.
                                           INacn den Planen der Stadt
                                          ^Dtstehen
                                           filer neue
                                           Gerwerbe-
                                           flachen.
                                         ,1
                                       .
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Bilateral discussion input
                                                &EPA
 .Grundstucksfonds NRW"
    30.000.000 -,
    25.000.000 -
    20.000.000 -
    15.000.000 -
    10.000.000 -
    5.000.000 -
        o 4^
  ANKA UFE
	VERKA UFE
  BESTAND
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                        EPA
 Summary
   Several funding instruments are available
   General Goal: Minimising public by maximising private funding
   Enhancing private investment: e.g. Urban reneval schemes: 1:5,

   Mix of instruments in project practice depending on drivers and
   types of redevelopment

   Problems: Transparency of funding and cash-flow, EU-
   Competition policy, Bank policies (see HVB-Group)
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                             EPA
 German-American Workshop discussion
 topics?	
   Transparency in approach to funding
   ,,Trust building" in funding institutions
   Future of insurence models
   Benchmarks for performance
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                             Abstract
Dr.-lng. Uwe Ferber, Funding instruments for brownfield redevelopment

The use of funding instruments in Germany depends on different types, backgrounds and drivers for the individual
brownfield redevelopment project. The main influence is by project costs and benefits.

Private projects, public-private partnerships and public projects at the European, federal, and state level - are presented in
relation to marked-led tools, tax-based tools and direct public funding. The use of these instruments is illustrated by the
case studies. Based on the experiences in Germany, general problems are identified and proposals are made for the
discussion in the Bilateral Working Group.

-------
H,ir B
                                    DA
                                 \XCl rt
          Karsten Gerkens
       City of Leipzig, Germany
    Federal and State Urban
  Development Programmes

Funding Experiences for Brownfield
Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig

-------
      Line Raraclwg
4>EPA
 The Peaceful Revolution
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                             November 11, 2002

-------
      Sunfcsniiiiisteriurr
      iur P tfl unij
      mie For sen urtg
  Building Types in Leipzig
v/EPA
                     "Gruenderzeit"
  AIL-as with
  "GruendeiT'&it' buildings
   Large areas with
   muhi-siorey prefabs
                     Multi-storey prefabs
 J  L U_i;_l] J „ D O
aa^cjfaoa^rtn
a a c UBJ13I u „ c u
ant
i q', tfa
LL tiloi
        1
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipzia                               November 11. 2002

-------
     mi a
                                 ,s5tS7s,
                                &   \
                                W!
 Revitalisation of the City
               &EPA
            1990
2000
             Unrefurbished
Refurbished
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipzia                           November 11. 2002

-------
                                                            r/EPA
 State Aid for Urban Renewal 1990-2000
 (in DM million)
   Redevelopment areas
                          Subsidies:
                          Housing construction
                          Urban development
                          Tax:
                                                      2,739
                                                              3,378
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                          November 11, 2002

-------
        Ifllinp
      iina Parser) iing
                                      Wv S
                                      -.-q
&EPA
  Park on a Former Railway Station
                                                A disused railway station
                                                is converted into a park
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelooment in the Citv of Leiozia                             November 11. 2002

-------
     •hirB ild ling

     iind
  Park on a  Former  Railway Station
&EPA
                                                                        	
                                                                    >- T*
                                                                      I ^MK > I! 11 I I
                                                                    '  I-.^H

Bilateral Working Group

Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for

Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipiia                            November 11,2002

-------
                                                                    &EPA
  Lost Industrial Jobs

                                 Industrial Jobs
                    100000
                     80000
                    , 60000i
                    . 40000
                      20000
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelooment in the Citv of Leiozia                             November 11. 2002

-------
      lur Staling
      und farsehmig
                                    &EPA
  Decline of east German Industry
             Arbeit aut
 Politiker
 zerstorei
MitteJstantf
 in Leipzig
                                                  Arbeitsplatz
                                                 sicherung dun
                                                 LVVB - AuftraD
           R KOMMUNE,
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelooment in the Citv of Leiozia                             November 11. 2002

-------
      Buntesministenuin
      *ซIM>ng
      uitd Fwsetiimg
  Plagwitz in 1992
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                                November 11,2002

-------
      lira Parser) ung
r/EPA
  Plagwitz in 2000
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                              November 11, 2002

-------
     jnfl Farseftung
?,EPA
  From Crane Factory to Manual Trades Center
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brnwnfield Rer/eve/onmenf in the Citv of Leinzin                          November 11

-------
      BuruJMrniniBteriiinv
      •filr picjung
      untf Farschui'g
     I
  Nuclei for New Work
&EPA
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipzig                                November 11,2002

-------
      •liir
  EXPO 2000
>>EPA
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten GerkGns (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipzig                              November 11, 2002

-------
     •liir
     mid Forsctiung
EPA
  EXPO Park (prior to redevelopment)
    -. .
                .    *
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield RedeveloDment in the Citv of Leiozia                           November 11. 2002

-------
     BurnJesnmitBteriuir
     •fair R •
-------
     liir (ludunp
     ill!a farsutiking
SEPA
  From a sewer to an waterway
                                      r
       New and refurbished
       bridges, new footpaths
       and cycle tracks
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                            November 11, 2002

-------
     LHiaForaclwg
    i
 Reasons for Moving Away
            25,000
           50,000
           25,000
Migration to
western  Germany
Migration to
the surroundings
Population
decline
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipziq                        November 11,2002

-------
     •flir flu
     und fai settling
                                                    vปEPA
  Urban Development Plan
                                                 Aim categories:
                                                   Consolidated district
                                                   Preservation district
                                                   Priority restructuring district
                                                   Restructuring district

                                                   Area of investigation
                                                   Borough
               •A!
VT^J     A-
   —  •ซ. 
C-i^
~?x \
Sud V '
Irf
t 1
A

• * i
City of L
Urban development
Revised: Dec
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelooment in the Citv of Leioiia                           November 11.2002

-------
                                                                      r/EPA
  Visions for East  Leipzig
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                             November 11,2002

-------
       •liir P
       uita Farsuhung
             oEPA
  Unified  Activities
          Youth / So-
          cial Services
                                                                      [ICity of Leipzig
                                                                    Councel schemes in
                                                                    East Leipzig
                                                                     7 Key funding areas
                                                                    Schemes in areas:
O Business and employment
Q Transport
O Youth, social services, healthcare
* The arts, schools
  Green and open spaces /urban
  regeneration

  "Social City1' programme
  district
          Borough
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                                   November 11, 2002

-------
      B unite an inistenum
                                                                        SEPA
  The New  Funding  Areas
          ,     "   =...    •

         , y '   "r -?' " '"H f         ' ''"
       . •*!'           vV;     -V'
       . •*

        -
                      '     '
           ,
    :  •           * *'•
  - >'• dK,. -4,  ฃ*••ฃ
                                                                   IUHBMI
-1
                                                                   LJlfl V ilt".iirt3-V ii-JJIfe?
                                                                   FBWS
Bilateral Working Group

Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for

Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                               November 11, 2002

-------
                                                                      SEPA
  Better Quality  in Public Space






1


iiiiiijl 14
'"UK!
• • In •
1 1 1
'
                                     .*••-* B*uf)rufid ftlkjefc mutQm • aซง

                                     dtr Nvthhartcfttali lซm.p0r>T all
           3FT  -'SI
              lo
                                       M*nซซrtMซ wwrrt.  i  • .11 . ri*n u.iuln
                                       PI .I i  HI .or
                                                     bit JOซUVhr

         This site was made available
         by the owner to the local re-
         sidents as a green space un-
         der a scheme financed by
         public money.

                   mrfff.
CWIITOI jปซ>.ปซป>5Htfi ma dm
k/i
\<
o






Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                              November 11, 2002

-------
     Hiir P Hd unp
     11110 Far sehjug
  Fresh Opportunities through Demolition
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipziq                           November 11, 2002

-------
     Ilir ft *rf ung
     jnfl Farschung
  Planting Vacant  Sites with Greenery
r/EPA
ซ
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                            November 11, 2002

-------
    Mr fl
    mi a
                        ^                   wEPA

Goals for URBAN

                    • \ •    •**-.
* Business and jobs

 • Sustainable urban development
 .:'  "••    -  •
 •   Identification
    "
  -*•**'"

    Equal opportunities       ;jj
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                     November 11, 2002

-------
                                                                                             4>EPA
  Advisory Committee for  Integrated Borough Development
     If-  W*il Leipurj Forum

             I

        Prog? am mo s.tt>*nng
        URBAN working party
         Proje ct de
                                   Nc-tAork of
                                  IJR BAN II cities
                                                   European
                                                   Union
                                                German gowmnwnl
                                              j BM r.'BW. BMWi. BMFSFJ' i
            '  Free-State of ฃjปc.ny
             Regional Administration
                Office Leipzig
                                                               Social City network
                                                     I
  Advisory Committee for Integrated
        Borough Development
   t

Contact centre

   I
                                   Administration
                                  Mayor of Leipzig
                 City cC'iineH
                 Courtcillors
Stakeholder*' f
     tiws:
  pubiic, business,
 social work bodies.
JS5OCUlions, academia
                                                                                         'jDneral public
                                                                                        Local ttakehold en
                           marking parties



                          Ea5t Leipzig Forum   ^




                         Borough management

                              4

                         Local institutions board
                           in &ast Leipzig
                                                                                        Project dev
       Ministry of Transport. Conslructionarif) Housinci; BMWi = Msiistry of Trade, Induary and Technotogjr BMFSFJ = Maiislry of the Family. Ssiiior Citiwns, Wcrnen and Youth

Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelooment in the Citv of Leiozia                                        November 11. 2002

-------
      MI a
  New Industry  in Leipzig  : BMW
                                   >>EPA
                   BMW Wer'
                   BMW Plar
                   MuflCfWV Api*;
                   ซ**v-
- Zeniralgebaucie
0)  0)
E  E
                            O
                        o  o
                        Q
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Fee/era/ and Sfafe Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                             November 11,2002

-------
      Btintk-smmlataiuiP
      Hlir P i# ling
      jifld f 01 sell IIP, g
v>EPA
  New Industry in Leipzig  : PORSCHE
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brown field Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                            November11,2002

-------
      jnfl
  City Marketing
xvEPA
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes -Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City ofLeipzia                              November 11, 2002

-------
     tor PI idling
     urd farschnrg
  Migration has been stopped
    30000

    25000
    20000  -
    ?5000

    fOOOO

     5000
             1993   1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000  2001
                              Arriving
Moving
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                           November 11, 2002

-------
      Hit Bridling
      iina harschung
                 a EPA
  Our Advantages
                             "V
                             f   ECCKOHTESKLEWFS
     Assessment of the urban surroundings
Study of an agency ordered
by the French car producer
"RENAULT"
                                                                    ECCKOHTBSKUIWES
                                         Assessment of the quality of life for families
                                                               59k
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfiotd Redevelopment in the Citv of Leiozia                             November 11. 2002
                              I

-------
     Hilr 5'dung
     und FarschJiig
6EPA
  New Infrastructure  : Airport
                   Der Neue Flughafen Leipzig/Halle
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                           November 11, 2002

-------
     Hlir P ltd urip
  Individual Family Housing in the City
oEPA
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the City of Leipzig                            November 11, 2002

-------
      B unSfrvn mis win ir
      "Ilir Rifling
      mid Farseliung
                                                             xvEPA
  Individual Family Housing in the City
       ง^
Sites for Town Houses:

    35 Sites

    52OOOO m*

    2300
                                 B *
                                                        * >;r
                                                                        .
                                                           •ป  jl
                                                                  ::v  •• T
                                                                   •~s
                                                                        -

                                                                     f
                                                                     ,- !'•
                                                                      i: •
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Gormany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes ~ Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leipzig                             November 11, 2002

-------
 Art Project "stadtfca/ten"
                                                               &EPA
      flodihallen
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leiozia                          November 11,2002

-------
       •liir Rfldiinrj

r/EPA
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Brownfield Redevelopment in the Citv of Leiozia                                  November 11. 2002

-------
       Hid Farsehung
&EPA
Bilateral Working Group
Karsten Gerkens (Germany): Federal and State Urban Development Programmes - Funding Experiences for
Rmwnfi(*tf1 PpfYpi/p/nnmpnf in th& Citv of/ p/n7/ri                                                OH7

-------
Dipl. Ing. Karsten Gerkens
Head of the
Office for Urban Regeneration and Residential Development
of Leipzig City Council
Federal and State Urban Development Programmes
Funding Experiences for Brownfield Redevelopment
in the City of Leipzig
Brownfield Redevelopment in Leipzig
             I            Previous development
             1.1          The situation in eastern Germany
             1.2          The housing market
             1.3          The development of old industrial areas

             II           New demands
             11.1          The shrinking city
             II.2          Urban redevelopment

             III           Cooperation
             111.1         Development

-------
"Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment" Workshop

November 11 and 12, 2002
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
I            Previous development
1.1          The situation in eastern Germany
The development of brownfield sites in eastern Germany is an issue of particular significance. In the late 1980s, the housing stock
was in a lamentable state. Of the 258,000 dwellings in the city, around 25,000 were actually in danger of collapse, while all in all
196,000 homes had to be refurbished. The maintenance of the housing stock had been badly neglected for decades starting with
World War I, during World War II and in particular during the 40 years of the DDR (East Germany/German Democratic Republic). In
East German times, entire areas of housing dating back to the late 19th century were demolished and partly replaced with buildings
made from prefabricated slabs: "new homes for the new people". The city began to dissolve.
The situation was equally bleak in manufacturing industry. For decades it was largely restricted to 19th-century factories using
obsolete machinery, and the products were not competitive on the world market. Moreover, industry frequently ignored environmental
concerns such as pollution of the air and the soil, as well as layers of chemical foam  on rivers and lakes.
The political situation was doubtless the main factor leading to the changes which took place in eastern Germany. Yet the hopeless
conditions in people's living environment also spurred on protest. It was no coincidence that the dramatic changes in eastern
Germany began with the Peaceful Revolution in Leipzig.

-------
1.2          The housing market

Preserving the late-19th-century building stock was the first, most pressing aim following German reunification. Nowadays following a
decade of refurbishment, the initial situation has been reversed. Whereas 74 per cent of the housing stock in 1990 needed
refurbishment and 26 per cent was in order, nowadays 74 per cent has been refurbished leaving 26 per cent still in need of
modernisation.

This development has been aided by massive state support. Over €300 million was invested in redevelopment districts. Tax relief
and high rents prompted high investment in rented accommodation. Housing construction support was available throughout the city.
However,  it was almost impossible to steer the use of subsidies into certain areas and this approach proved to be the equivalent of
blanket support for reconstruction.

By contrast, funding under urban development support was much easier to control. Leipzig City Council decided on the districts to
benefit and also the aims involved.
Urban development support is basically a revolving fund. It assumes that investing public money in roads, footpaths and squares as
well as helping owners to repair and modernise their buildings will make the district concerned more attractive and push up the land
value. Following the completion of redevelopment, the increase in land value caused by redevelopment is supposed to be paid back
to the state. At least, that's the theory: so far in Germany there are only very few districts where the state has 'settled up' with the
owners.

Until 1994, the focus was on maintaining the status quo. Subsequently, attention was increasingly switched to changing local ground
values. The development of brownfield sites was a key problem. But rather than developing inner-city brownfield sites with a view to
new construction projects, instead it was felt to be more important to convert brownfield sites into green areas. The creation of these
new green spaces was relatively inexpensive and initiated numerous modernisation projects nearby which didn't need public financial
support. For example, the transformation of the  brownfield site Eilenburg Station into Eilenburg Park completely changed the local
ground values and  opened up new opportunities for the surrounding buildings.

-------
1.3          The development of old industrial areas

German reunification and the switch to hard currency suddenly made products from eastern Germany unaffordable to customers in
Eastern Europe. Yet their quality was often insufficient for them to be sold in Western Europe. Moreover, the cessation of eastern
Germany's isolation meant that companies there were suddenly hit by the crisis which had long afflicted the West European coal,
steel and heavy machinery industries.

As a result, 60,000 industrial jobs in Leipzig rapidly disappeared. Furthermore, the previous East German economic structure
comprising enormous 'combines' was abolished. The impact of these changes was especially felt in west Leipzig, where huge areas
suddenly became brownfield sites more or less overnight.

The counterstrategy focused on small and medium-size enterprise and the establishment of new businesses. In the first few projects,
some old factory buildings formerly used by the combines were transformed into business centres.  This created better conditions for
the manual trades and service sector. Nevertheless, huge areas were left with no real function.

Individual sites were amalgamated through urban development schemes, which also financed demolition and improvement. Funding
from organisations  such as the European Union led to the erection of new facilities such as the Business Innovation Centre, other
business centres and a youth technology centre. Like redevelopment, urban development schemes assume that the project costs
can be refinanced by the transformation of a brownfield site into a development zone. To enable this, the land prices are frozen at the
beginning of the scheme.

The transformation of the old  industrial districts into an area of thriving start-up businesses is still in progress. Considerable support
was provided by Expo 2000, which brought the conversion of these areas to broad public attention. One key measure was the
conversion of a brownfield site, the old loading station, to create suitable surroundings for the new development.  The enhancement of
an old canal  also helped to improve the district, which has since become  a popular housing area thanks to the usage of lofts.

This pattern  of development is to be elsewhere in west Leipzig, which still contains a large proportion of old  industrial brownfield sites.
Many of them featuring huge opportunities such as Lindenau Port are eminently suitable for mixed  use. The key  is to make the
distinctive quality of each site usable - in this case its water location. Development projects at Lindenau Port are currently being
carried out in international cooperation with Birmingham City Council and British Waterways.

-------
II           New demands
11.1          The shrinking city

Like all towns and cities in eastern Germany, Leipzig was affected by serious migration. The reasons were initially the social gap
between eastern and western Germany and the lack of jobs in the east. Migration continued in the mid-1990s with considerable
numbers of people moving to homes of their own in the nearby countryside. This was especially attractive because home ownership
in inner cities in East Germany was virtually unknown. As a result, Leipzig lost 100,000 inhabitants, nearly a quarter of the
population.

This population decline reduced demand for housing construction and also cut lower turnover for retail and business. As result, the
situation for housing which had not yet been modernised became critical. Oversupply depressed rents, making profitable
refurbishment almost impossible.  Furthermore, oversupply gave tenants enormous choice, meaning that areas of dense housing or
loud traffic were avoided. This led to the urban structure in dense central districts crumbling; the city was 'rotting at the core'.

This situation was carefully analysed through the housing construction and urban regeneration development plan.  Market forces
mean that only limited counteraction can be taken. Nevertheless, as investment declines, the public sector must take action to
formulate at least the framework conditions.
This is now being done by the housing construction and urban regeneration development plan. The plan states which urban districts
are to be regarded as consolidated,  lays down where restructuring needs to be carried out, and also lists the areas where
restructuring has been deemed hopeless. For the first time, something is appearing in German planning which is already well-known
in the USA - a type of redlining. The difference is that the areas concerned are being designated not by banks but rather by the city
council. We assume that the falling land prices in the districts concerned will create the conditions necessary for restructuring.

-------
11.2         Urban redevelopment

The seemingly negative framework conditions actually represent an enormous opportunity for the city. Numerous vacant and
brownfield sites as well as the demolition of dilapidated housing stock have created a chance to tackle structural problems and to use
the current situation as a basis for the construction of the city of the future characterised by more greenery, less density and more
individuality.

Below the level of the urban development plan, the long-term development possibilities of disadvantaged districts in east and west
Leipzig are formulated by conceptual borough plans. In the next step, these conceptual plans are underpinned by concrete planned
measures which outline the medium-term action framework, specify priority projects, and are given financial backing. These plans of
measures are being extensively used  in east Leipzig - for example to transform a traditional shopping street into the edge of a park.

At present, the redevelopment activities are not yet sustained by the free market. Following highly speculative deals during the days
of high tax depreciation, the market has since had to return to normal investment behaviour. Local ground values are regaining their
old levels.

In some cases, however, these local ground values must first of all be created. The public sector is involved in this  process. In order
to cope with urban redevelopment, the entire system of public subsidies has been reorganised by Leipzig City Council. In the first
stage of urban regeneration, we designated relatively large redevelopment zones in the belt of late-19th-century housing surrounding
the city centre. Wherever the problems could be largely solved within the zones themselves, we have succeeded. This is the case in
9 out of 13 redevelopment zones, where population growth has been achieved. However, in those zones subject to serious structural
problems affecting various areas simultaneously, the public funding measures previously available geared mainly to building work
were not sufficient.
In order to prepare for the new system of subsidies, under the housing construction and urban  regeneration development plan the
entire district of Leipzig was analysed  and requirements identified using uniform criteria. The findings indicated that efforts needed to
be concentrated on east Leipzig, west Leipzig, the boroughs of Leutzsch and Schonefeld, and the WK 7 and WK8 districts in Leipzig-
Grunau.

These findings were taken into account when  drawing up the new system of subsidies. In particular, large sections  of east and west
Leipzig have been awarded ERDF and URBAN funding. The redevelopment zones within the areas are being altered and positioned
wherever the tool  of Special Urban Development Law is needed in order to achieve the transformation of the  urban structure.  Hence
these urban  areas contain different overlapping support districts. We believe this will enable us to meet the complex demands
existing in these urban areas.

-------
The new programme entitled Urban Redevelopment East plays a key role in this scenario, which developed from discussion with the
housing sector. We assume that the necessary reduction in density and in particular the creation of new housing opportunities hinge
on the implementation of model projects. Completed examples are needed to stimulate the market.

In order to meet these demands, it must be possible for model projects to receive support throughout the area covered by the urban
development plan. We also want to initiate subsidy competitions to enable the implementation of committed examples.

Simultaneously, newly developed instruments are being used which help us to remove dilapidated housing stock, brownfield sites
and other wasteland. Agreements have been signed with building owners which grant permission for their buildings to be demolished.
The owners retain the right to build on these areas;  we organise the planting of greenery or other usage and shoulder the
maintenance work, thus helping to create jobs for the unemployed.

We also run a district service which, staffed by local unemployed, lays out and tends newly created public areas. The activities of
these district services are partly determined by the local residents. Unemployed people are involved in these demolition, greenery
and construction projects under the guidance of professional firms. As well as cutting costs, this close involvement with the  primary
labour market has led to subsequent employment in 18 per cent of cases.

The most important step in organising urban redevelopment is changing the views and the previous approach to the development of
the city. A major role is played by the European Union's subsidy philosophy. The programmes are based on combining resources
and funding from different subsidy programmes, and take an integrated view of district development. It is becoming increasingly
apparent that restructuring disadvantaged districts greatly depends on coordinating different policies. Construction policy, the arts
policy, labour market policy and economic development policy all need to be coordinated so that they can jointly take effect.

Another change possible is the closer involvement of stakeholders. Associations and professional chambers are increasingly feeling
jointly responsible for the development of districts and are contributing material and personnel resources. Work on the various
aspects of urban redevelopment are discussed by 'civilian' forces in these areas through the Advisory Committee for Integrated
Programmes.

Another area in which the public is becoming increasingly interested is home ownership. This is supported and encouraged by
Leipzig City Council. Special assistance is granted for the purchase of owner-occupied housing by groups of people.  The aim here is
to revitalise as many vacant old buildings as possible. The key word is 'homesteading' - an approach which enabled  the first steps of
revitalisation to get off the ground in places such as New York City. The new owners are given support by architects and consultants
as they draw up their plans and during construction  work.

-------
IMCooperation
III. 1 Development

Leipzig is a city full of opportunity. It is the only city in eastern Germany where following the phase of migration a stable trend of
immigration has been recorded. Enormous efforts have been expended to fundamentally improve the public infrastructure. The
intercontinental airport, the widening of local motorways, and major projects such as the city-centre tunnel designed to greatly
improve rail links are all location factors which are greatly appreciated by industry. For example, Porsche and BMW have both
chosen to invest in Leipzig. The city is being made increasingly attractive by lower land prices, low rents and a diverse range of high
quality housing and business premises. The Renault study showed that Leipzig can complete with other German cities and is in
many respects near the top of the table. The city's diversity and the local opportunities for children are for instance rated more highly
than in many cities in western Germany. The city marketing slogan "The freedom of Leipzig" is not an empty saying but a genuine
opportunity.

Leipzig has applied to host the 2012 Olympics. Assuming Leipzig is chosen by the German Olympic Committee, the city has a good
chance of actually staging the games. Arguments in favour of Leipzig include the fact that there is plenty of land still available which
would enable the games to be organised within a compact  area. Here, too, enormous opportunities are afforded by brownfield sites.
For example, old port facilities could be transformed into a  magnificent backdrop for the Olympic village, simultaneously closing a
development gap between the old and  new city. Moreover, this instance of urban repair would create fundamentally new qualities.

Yet not everything needs to be on an Olympic scale. As an urban redeveloper we're seeking partners for smaller projects such as the
construction of detached and terraced houses on inner-city brownfield sites. Suitable areas are being made available by the city
council. The first tranche comprises 35 sites with room for 2,340 dwellings. The state supports private ownership in this area; Leipzig
City Council reduces land prices, provides assistance in finding users, and also improves the surroundings.

We are seeking pioneers wiling to seize the opportunities provided by this new market and to set new trends. These areas harbour
the possibility of developing a new type of housing estate which exploits and reinforces the qualities of the European city but with less
density, and which represents an alternative to land-eating suburbanisation. Brownfield sites are the key.

-------
Moreover, brownfield sites also enable the development of new commercial premises. Old industrial areas, previously in the suburbs
but following urban expansion now almost in the city centre, are an opportunity to develop intelligent production, research and mixed
usage in an urban setting.

This direction of development is not the mainstream. We are trying to draw attention to these opportunities with PR activities. For
example, campaigns in which Leipzig artists have decorated vacant sites have received awards from Eurocities, the organisation of
European cities.

During EXPO (2000), the millennium field was something of a sensation. This cornfield on an inner-city site with a size of 23,900
square metres (257,000 square feet) in an urban setting underlined the unique opportunities of this situation. We are now developing
a future energy park on this site, which will be home to related businesses.

As you can see, brownfield sites are the key!

-------
                                             EPA
 I know a great Brownfield.  Can you give me
                    a loan?
                    Evan Henry
                  Bank of America
           Environmental Services Department
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                            &EPA
 Brownfields as a Site Preparation Cost
                    Brownfield
                     Example
                  Greenfield
                  Example
 Condition
Contamination
Unstable Soils
 Cost to Cure
  Clean Up
 Grading and
 Compaction
 Financial Impact
Property Value
Property Value
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                              EPA

 What makes Brownfields different?


 •  Liability for cleanup
   - US environmental laws impose the risk of not
     being able to stop the "site preparation" related to
     cleaning up once the developer has taken
     ownership
 •  Increased  consequences of uncertainty
   - Technical uncertainty (How big is the problem and
     can it be fixed?)
   - Legal uncertainty (How much do I have to do even
     if the project does not go forward?)
   - Timing uncertainty (Will this take forever?)
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                         EPA
 Consequence of Uncertainty
   Known and quantified problems can define
   where the overall project is in the range of
   economic viability ("tan" to "brown" to "black")
   Possibility of unknown problems increase
   uncertainty - result is to narrow the range of
   economic viability
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                          EPA
What is the role of government in the US
system of private deveIopment?	

•  Reduce the unknowns to widen the range of
   economic viability
   - Technical Assistance
   - Assessment Grants
   - Liability Relief
•  Subsidize the restoration of the economically
   less viable sites
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Limitations to the role of Government in the US
 system

 •  Cannot use public funds to enrich the private sector
 •  Cannot use public funds to help a polluter restore a
   Brownfield
 •  US laws are set up to "find", not "fund" Brownfields
 •  Government brownfield programs are aimed at
   working around the liability situation. Arguably, a
   change in the liability scheme would stimulate  private
   redevelopment of brownfields more than government
   assistance approach
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                       EPA
What about Private Financing?

  Three categories
   -DEBT
   - EQUITY
   - INSURANCE
  Insurance is not financing - it is a risk
  management mechanism that can reduce the
  uncertainty of financing with either debt or
  equity
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Debt versus Equity
                                                   &EPA
                        Debt
                       Equity
       Risks
> Repayment
> Collateral Value
> Direct Liability
> Loss of
  Investment
> Direct Liability
       Rewards
> Repaid fixed
  amount (no
  share in
  "upside")
>Gain is
  proportional to
  success of
  project (share
  in "upside")
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                         EPA
 Summary Point of View
   US emphasis on private sector brownfield
   redevelopment
   Fixing actual contamination conditions are
   complicated by the US legal liability system
   Government actions aim at tempering the
   impacts of the US liability system (reduction
   in uncertainty)
   Lending is a not a key player in early stage
   financing of brownfields  redevelopment
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                 Abstract


                                 I know a great Brownfield. Can you give me a loan?


                                                  Evan Henry



                                                Bank of America



                                       Environmental Services Department
The environmental conditions that make a Brownfield can be thought of as an added site preparation cost. However, in contrast
to fixed costing of engineering aspects, the legal uncertainty related to environmental liability, especially as imposed by the US
system,  increases the overall uncertainty for financiers of Brownfields redevelopment. The role of government is discussed
relative to the reduction of uncertainty to stimulate private investment in Brownfields, the cornerstone of Brownfields
redevelopment approach in the US.  Private financing may be enhanced by understanding the relationship of debt and equity as
well as how insurance can be a factor. Government stimulation of investment may be more effective with a focus on equity
investment.

-------
   bmb+f            \*/               &EPA
              The U.S. - German
           Bilateral Working Group
 Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfield
               Redevelopment

             The State Property Fund
         ("Grundstucksfonds") in North-Rhine
          Westphalia and the Role of State
              Development Agencies
Bilateral Working Group           Ralph lshorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             %ฃ/                &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Deindustrilisation
   - With the closure of many coal-mines in the
     70's the deindustrilisation began.
   -The deindustrilisation began specific in the
     Ruhr-Area.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f            \ฃJ                &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Deindustrilisation
   - The former owners had first no interest to
     develop the sites.
   - For the cities these sites were very
     important for their own development,
     because they had a good and central
     position.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃJ                 &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Problem
    - But they didn't want to buy these sites because
       • of the price
       • they didn't had the man-power to handle these
        sites
       • They thought it's a job to be handled by the
        government in Dusseldorf
Bilateral Working Group            Ralph lshorst
                    Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             %ฃ/                &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Solution
   - So the ,,State Property Fund Ruhr" was
     established on the first Ruhr-Area-
     Conference in 1979
Bilateral Working Group          Raiph |shorst
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
  bmb+f            \ฃJ               &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 • Function of the fund
   - The fund started in 1980 to buy the first
     sites and spent about 11.5 Mio. $.
   -The fund is managed since the beginning by
     the LEG NRW (State Development Agency
     of Noth-Rhine Westphalia).
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Area of the fund
                 NIEOERLANQE
Bilateral Working Group
               B E L G I E N
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Function of the fund
   - Between 1980 and 1987 the LEG had to do
     the following things for the fund:
      • Building up a cost-benefit analysis for the
        development of the site
      • Building up a time table for the development
Bilateral Working Group           Ralph lshorst
                    Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Function of the fund
   -After the decision on buying the site by the
     State Department for Towndevelopment the
     LEG had to discuss the final price with the
     former owner and had to buy the  site.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             %ฃ/                &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Function of the fund
   -After buying the site the LEG then had to
     organize the demolition of the buildings an
     the cleaning of the sites.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+F
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Function of the fund
    - In the responsibility of the cities was the planning of
      the development plan. Also they have been put
      under an obligation to buy the infrastructue surface
      for 5 $ per squaremeter and for 4 $ per
      squaremeter for public green surface. For parts like
      slagheap they have to pay 1 $ per squaremeter.
      They also had to do the marketing for the sites.
Bilateral Working Group            Ralph lshorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f               \^/                    &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Budget of the State Property Fund 1980-1987
          70,00
          60,00
        ซ? 50,00
        m
        = 40,00
        - 30,00
        .E 20,00
          10,00
                 Budget of the State Property Fund
                80   81  82  83  84  85   86  87
                            Year
Bilateral Working Group
                          Ralph Ishorst
                       Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃJ                &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Function of the fund
   - In 1987 the guidelines for the meanwhile 2
     Funds, the second one is for the rest of
     North-Rhine Westphalia, changed. LEG was
     allowed to
      • Planning and realization of infrastructure
      • Create the Development and a Marketing plan
Bilateral Working Group          Raiph |shorst
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             %ฃ/                 &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Function of the fund
   - From this time the funds started to sell sites
     for about 20 Mio. $  each year.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Development of the Funds in squaremeters
Bilateral Working Group
                 Development of the funds
                                        Acquisition
                                       •Sale
                                       • Stock
& &
                      <$>
                      Year
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f                \^/                    &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
    New use of Fund sites
                  New use of the fund sites
                4%
      42%
                            54%
D Industry and Business
 pares
• Infrastructure, green and
 leisure use
D Housing

Bilateral Working Group
                           Ralph Ishorst
                        Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
  bmb+f             \ฃJ               &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 • Function of the fund
   - Because of missing money in the budget of
     the State of North-Rhine Westphalia in the
     90's the financing of the funds changed. So
     they received also money from our major
     government in Berlin and from the
     European Union from Brussels.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f                \^/                    &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Budget of the State Property Fund 1980-1987
V)
6
       160,00
       140,00
       120,00
       100,00
       80,00
       60,00
       40,00
       20,00
              Budget of the State Property Fund
                     Year
Bilateral Working Group
• Other Programs
D EU-Programs
• ZIM
D Town Renewal Program
D Steel-Program
D Revenue
n Budget
                           Ralph Ishorst
                       Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Disteln
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Disteln
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                   &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Disteln
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002
",

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Disteln
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Scherlebeck
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Scherlebeck
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
    Herten Scherlebeck
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
     Herten Scherlebeck
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
    Zeche Waltrop


Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
    Zeche Waltrop
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
    Zeche Waltrop
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Coal-Mine
    Zeche Waltrop
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Chemical
     processing plant
     in Herne
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Chemical
     processing plant
     in Herne
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                   &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Chemical
     processing plant
     in Herne
Bilateral Working Group
"— ^
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \^/                  &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia
   Examples
    - Former Chemical
     processing plant
     in Herne
Bilateral Working Group
                        Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f            %ฃ/                &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Summery
   -The funds play an important role in the
     economical change in Northrine-Westphalia
   -They also play an important role in the
     ecological development of brownflields
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f            %ฃ/               &EPA
 The State Property Fund in North-Rhine Westpalia

 •  Summery
   - The time for the development is too long.
   - The financial situation changes from year to
     year.
   - They have many sites with no economical
     use.
Bilateral Working Group           Raiph |shorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
Abstract:

The State Property Fund Northrine-Westphalia

As a result of deindustrailization, the State of Northrine Westphalia opened this fund in 1979.
You will receive an overview of the history of the fund. Guideline changes and their effects on the fund are explained. After a view on some
projects, I will show the actual problems with the fund. This will end in a final discussion on the pros and cons for the fund.

PPP Development and Finance Strategies

Compared with the state property fund, the Westdeutsche Landesbank (WestLB) started PPPdevelopments in the early 1980's in Northrine
Westphalia. In 1984, WestLB founded a company in Hilden (near Dusseldorf) to develop old industrial sites in Hilden. Until now, this company
has developed about 380.000 square meters and currently is developing about 250.000 square meters.  I will show how the financing of these
projects work and which differences we can offer in a public-private partnership. A short explanation of the calculation of risk-management will be
given. Finally, I will show a new project that we will realize in 2003.
Contact Information:

Ralph Ishorst
WestGkA Managementgesellschaft fur kommunale Anlagen mbH
Volklinger Str. 4

40219 Dusseldorf
Phone: 0049 211 90101550
Fax: 0049 211 90101599
Mobile: 00491708505839
Email: r.ishorst@westgka.de

-------
  bmb+f            s/y              &EPA
             The U.S. - German
          Bilateral Working Group
 Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfield
              Redevelopment
        PPP development and finance
                 strategies
Bilateral Working Group         n 1 i T i
                   Ralph Isnorst
                Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
    - Since the late 80's developments in the form of a
      Public-Private Partnership started. Reasons for this
      are:
       •  The cities don't have enough money to finance the
         projects
       •  They also don't have the people to work on these projects.
Bilateral Working Group            „ , , T ,
                        Ralph Isnorst
                    Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃ/                 &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - So this kind of work is good for 2 or more
     partners:
      • Public: The project will be done, and they can
        earn part of the profit
      • Private: They can manage the project
        professionally and get money out of their work
        and also out of the profit
Bilateral Working Group
                     Ralph
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+F
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - For the cities it is important to develop sites
     for their own future development. The sites
     they can develop are:
      • former agricultural  sites
      • former industrial sites and
      • former military sites
Bilateral Working Group          „ , , T ,
                     Ralph Isnorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
  bmb+F
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 • Public-Private Partnership
   - They must buy the sites before the
     development starts, because then they are
     inexpensive. But for the cities comes now
     the problem, because they don't have the
     money for the site and the development.
Bilateral Working Group          „ , , T ,
                    Ralph Isnorst
                Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f            \ฃJ                &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - In this case private companies like us can
     help the cities with their development
     problems.
Bilateral Working Group          n 1 i T i
                    Ralph Isnorst
                 Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
    - It starts with a cost-benefit analysis for the project.
      In this analysis we calculate the complete costs and
      the revenue of the project. Costs for planning and
      infrastructural building are easy to calculate. But
      costs for pulling down buildings and cleaning the
      sites have a higher risk in the calculation.
Bilateral Working Group           „ , , T ,
                       Ralph Isnorst
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
  bmb+F
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 • Public-Private Partnership
   - So we work here together with Partners like
     AIG Engineering Group Ltd.- Germany.
     They explore the site and give us calculated
     costs, which they guarantee (Cleanup Cost
     Cap). So the  risk for the partnership will be
     calculable.
Bilateral Working Group          „ , , T ,
                    Ralph Isnorst
                 Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f            \ฃJ                &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - We can also insure the risk of unknown
     contaminations. This insurance is important
     for the future marketing of the site.
Bilateral Working Group          n 1 i T i
                    Ralph Isnorst
                 Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+F
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - When the partners agree to the cost-benefit
     analysis the partnership  can be founded in
     two ways:
      • Foundation of a PPP-company or
      • Working together with a PPP-contract
Bilateral Working Group           „ , , T ,
                     Ralph Isnorst
                 Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃJ                 &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - Risk sharing in Partnerships
      • City Modell: The city takes the complete risk. All
        partners get only money for their work.
      • Investment Modell: Every partner shares the risk
        belonging to his investment capital.
Bilateral Working Group           „ , , T ,
                      Ralph Isnorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              ซG/                 xexEPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - Jobs done buy the Private Partner
       • Buying the site inclusive financing of the
        complete costs (in thes projects we normally get
        communal credits, which is the most reasonable
        way to get money).
       • Arranging the planning and the revitalization of
        the site.
Bilateral Working Group          Ralph ^^
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃJ                 &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - Jobs done buy the Private Partner
      • Planning and building of infrastructure
      • Marketing of the site
Bilateral Working Group          n 1 i T i
                     Ralph Isnorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+F
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - Examples
      • GKA Hilden
      • Because the State-Property Fund worked in the
        first years only in the central Ruhr-Area the town
        of Hilden had to find a solution for the future
        development in Hilden by themselves.
Bilateral Working Group           „ , , T ,
                      Ralph Isnorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f               \ฃ/                  &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies


 •  Public-Private Partnership
    - Examples
       • So together with us they founded a small company called
         ,,GkA Hilden". The risk in this company is completly on the
         site of the city, but now after 20 years of work we can say
         that there is no big risk in the company. The company
         makes every year a small profit. For the next years a profit
         of about 1.000.000 $ is planned.
Bilateral Working Group            „ , , T ,
                        Ralph Isnorst
                    Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f              \ฃJ                  &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
    - Example
       • Sites developed by the GkA Hilden:
       • Mannesmann             265.000 m2
       • Forstweg                 46.430 m2
       • Schlieper & Laag            32.540 m2
       • Muhlenbachweg            41.447m2
       • Marie Curie Str.             3.900 m2
       • Giesenheide              250.000 m2
Bilateral Working Group           Ralph ^^
                   Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃJ                 &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - Example
      • For the development of these sites we received
        partly public funding, but we have to pay it back
        now, because we made every year a small profit
        with these sites.
Bilateral Working Group          „ , , T ,
                     Ralph Isnorst
                  Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f             \ฃJ                &EPA
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
   - Example
      • Kerpen
      • For the development of this site we have a
        contract and haven't founded a company.
Bilateral Working Group          n 1 i T i
                     Ralph Isnorst
                 Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 PPP Development and finance strategies
   Public-Private
   Partnership
    - Example
       • Kerpen
                    TIEFGARAGEM 1:750
                    SCHNITTA-AM1:500
                    WWH 00/14 WOHNPARK WALDWEG / KBRPEN - HORREM
ARCOPLAN
Bilateral Working Group
                         Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 PPP Development and finance strategies
   Public-Private
   Partnership
    - Example
       • Kerpen
Bilateral Working Group
                    LAGEPLANTIEFGARAGEM 1:750
                    SCHNITTA-AM1:500
                    WWH 00/14 WOHNPARK WALDWEG / KBRPEN - HORRffl
ARCOPLAN
                         Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 PPP Development and finance strategies
   Public-Private
   Partnership
    - Example
       • Kerpen
                    LAGEPLANM 1:750
                    SCHNITTA-AM 1:500
                                           3QOBC
                    WWH 00/14 WOHNPAFIK WALDWEG / KERPBJ - HOFIREIVI
ARDOPLAN
Bilateral Working Group
                         Ralph Ishorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
   bmb+f
 PPP Development and finance strategies

 •  Public-Private Partnership
    - Summary
       • For the future PPP-projects will be very important for both
         the public and for the private partner when they
       • have an exact contract with a good description of the
         targets of the project
       • have an exact sharing of competence and work
       • and a high involvement of all partners.
Bilateral Working Group            „ , , T ,
                         Ralph Isnorst
                     Monday, November 11, 2002

-------
Ken Cornell - Abstract

This presentation identifies the environmental liability issues associated with brownfield redevelopment and how they can be
overcome.  The existence of these liabilities can delay or prevent certain transactions from taking place, even within the
framework of the new common sense brownfield regulations promulgated by the federal government and many state
governments. The presentation describes how environmental insurance can be used as a tool to overcome environmental
liability problems in transactions. Examples of how insurance was utilized in transactions are also provided.

-------
   E an ik sm in i stern IT
   iiir |i >d liny
>>EPA
            German Case Studies
      The OKAL Site in Titisee Neustadt
Bilateral Working Group

-------
       BimteOT in literal IT
       liif BrtdunL]
       mid ForSChung
                                           &EPA
                                            Betriebs- und
                                       0*teil gungsgeselIschaft
                                            Dr. Eisele mbH
        I n gerซ eirge ael scti aft
        (IT Um*tattt*cf'rtt unt
                     •
        I ngtr* etr IJB selbchaft

        mbH
                                            •
                                             Geandw
                                             ^Unc
   :ซ-f*aปij
_ I >HปHllปlf IK
     t.,ป,_ vnj
 GcB*Mhc I ปoor*nป-
    tot
.   S^Tป>Mog^h^
  -
          -
                                Unternehmensgruppe Dr Eisete
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Ilir Sibling
   Jitct Fwsclwu
&EPA
 The OKAL-Site: Aerial photograph
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    •hir Billing
 The OKAL Site - Contaminations
                       r/EPA
   90 years  of  wood
   processing.
   Groundwater and
   soil massively
   contaminated with
   mercury and
   arsenic.
   Fish in the river
   Gutach found with
   traces of mercury.
.••.--- ,^x>  \/
Bilateral Working Group

-------
OKAL
                             Teimelmann
Untern
                    ensqruppe Dr. Eis
                                 t Environment
                              authorities
                                            &EPA
Bilateral Worh Edeka & Aldi

-------
      
-------
Privately funded initial investigations: 500,000

 *  Entrepreneurial Risk includes funding of:
    - waste evaluation
    - creation of remediation plan
    - preliminary investigations for development
      scheme
    - legal fees for urban development contracts
    - cost estimation and planning of dismantling
    - cost estimation and planning of surface modeling
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    mi a tarschung
*ปpซ              E^A^S               4>E"PA
Governmental funded Investigations: 400,000

 •  Investigations of health risks and danger to
   Public Order, primarily to determine the
   extent of:

   - soil contamination
   - groundwater contamination
   - Pollution offish in the Gutach river
 Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                             4>EPA
 Development measures

 •  Dismantling of the industrial buildings
 •  Modeling of the terrain to obtain a planed subgrade
 *  Public development measures (traffic circle,
   sidewalks)
 •  Construction of new private  and public sewers.
 •  Cleanup according to the remediation plan.
 *  15% of entire investment went towards remediation
Bilateral Working Group

-------
iJLk I Bunfte-smmiHteriiKTi              ^f
  ItfrMNvq
                                              DA
                                             ^•liTซ
 Cleanup measures
   Cleanup measures required for the entire site.
   Long term ground water remediation
   Long term monitoring programs
   Hot spots excavated for offsite remediation.
   Former industrial waste dump secured.
   Approx. 60,000 tons of material removed.
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Future use of the site
 kii I 8iirnlซmiซiHteiiiirn.             J*-^^w^ =i
   ss^              \K /                v>EPA
   Edeka and Aldi revive previous plans for
   supermarket and department store.
   Remaining property zoned for industrial use.
   Remediation goals limited to industrial use.
Bilateral Working Group

-------
      iiir Piling
      .1113 FHJI achiing
r/EPA
Bilateral Working Group

-------
      •flir B>Wiinij
      un0 Fur seining
&EPA
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     Hijr B
     jpd F/jrschung
>>EPA
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                          ฃEPA
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   .maForschurx]
                &EPA
 Main Characteristics of the OKAL
   Unspecified
   contamination was the
   greatest hindrance to
   redevelopment

   public health was
   seriously endangered

   All the governmental
   agencies were highly
   motivated to find a
   solution.
Initial governmental
funding of investigations
was considerable but
concerned solely with
public health hazards

Uncomplicated
conditions of ownership.

Previous attempts to
resolve the problem had
failed
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     BundssirnnifiteriiJin
     !lir
                &EPA
  Critical Steps
            How can long term financial
            security be guaranteed ?
Is governmental funding
of initial investigations
needed ?
         Long term risks
Location development
                               Cleanup measures
                     Initial investigations
            Long history of failed attempts
 Bilateral Working Group

-------
Deutsch Amerikanischer Workshop, Economic and Finance Tools for Brownfield Redevelopment.
12 - 13 November 2002
Michael Konig, Unternehmensgruppe Dr. Eisele (Dr. Eisele Group)

 Abstract: The OKAL Site in Titisee-Neustadt, Black Forest as an example for Brownfield Redevelopment in middle-
                                                       sized Communities.
The Dr. Eisele Group consists of three engineering companies and one company for planning and project development (PPE). The PPE company
acts as an investor in brownfield Redevelopment projects. The structure of the group reflects the liability risks inherent in Brownfield projects.
Redevelopment works effectively only if one person is responsible for the project. In this sense, Dr. Eisele Group serves appears as a coordinator
of all necessary investigations and steps and develops all necessary contacts with the involved authorities. The group organizes projects with tight
schedules and a pattern of option contracts to reduce the required equity capital.
The  OKAL  Site,  in the  outskirts of the city, includes about 14 hectares,  with the northern bordering on the small river Gutach. Two wood
processing companies were resident  on the property for about 90 years.  As a consequence, the area is contaminated with  heavy metals, in
particular, mercury and arsenic.  Contamination includes soil and groundwater.
In this example, the Dr.  Eisele Group acted as an investor to solve the problems. Two critical steps involved in the  redevelopment process are
financial and liability risks. At the beginning of the projects, as a first step, all investigations are funded by the Dr. Eisele Group. At the end of the
project, liability for remaining risk is a critical point. Governmental funding in Baden-Wurttemberg should  be improved to close these funding
gaps so that more projects of this  type would be possible.  The first step of Brownfield  development project investigation is to check the
feasibility of co-financing by government funds.

-------
   B unties/Til mam i LIT
   •fiir Bid line)
                                                xvEPA

Economic Tools and Finance for Brownfield Redevelopment

                        Workshop

        November 11 and 12, 2002 - Charlotte, North Carolina
               German Case Studies
       Duisburg - "The Inner Harbor Project"

                    Martin Linne
                 City of Duisburg
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Ijjr
rxEPA
                     The city of Duisburg
                 Central position in West-Europe
                                   .    .
                              *      T
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     Bunfc-CTin latent! in
     •iir
?/EPA
                       Duisburg on the Rhine
           the Logistic and service center of european standard
           with approximately 512.000 inhabitants (No. 12 in Germany) has

           Europes largest inland port with sea port opportunities, free
           port, a terminal for multi-modal traffic ...
           25 junctions linking to 6 national motorways
           more than 100 Highspeed Train stops daily
           and only a few miles to The International Rhine-Ruhr-Airport-
           Dlisseldorf-the position  two airport in Germany
           is an important part of MetroRapid (magnetic Highspeed Train)
           planning through the Rhine-Ruhr-Area
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    fiir
    Outstanding traffic facilities in Germany, Europe
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                  &EPA
             and naturally - in Duisburg ...
                                      ... as a basis for the
                                      economical
                                      development of the
                                      city.
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     •ir Piling
     ma FJJI acliunt!
&EPA
                 Duisburg on the Rhine ...
     • ...is now as ever the most modern steel location in
      Europe (e.g. Thyssen-Krupp-Stahl-AG)

     • ... develops in cooperation with the industry and the
      university to a future orientated material location

     * ... catches up substantially within the service sector, after
      decades of the dominance of the  large-scale industry. In
      the sector of call center services there has been created
      approximatly 4000 new jobs in the last two years.
     • .... today tries to get more benefit out of the outstanding
      geographic position in one of the most important
      conurbations in Europe
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    B unite j/nmiBtemi ir
    liir g.^urig
    uno Forscfoung
               Duisburq Inner Harbor
EPA
               today already a success story
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    UBS Rurschufi<3
x>EPA
           Aerial view and location plan
                Size: -9(1(1.000 sqft over u length of about 1 miles
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     Mr
S EPA
                             History
    Until 1960 the 'Granary of the Ruhr region'
    Until 1970 flourishing grain and timber trading
  Inner I [arbor around
Bilateral Working Group
                                                          \
                               Timber and urn in tradinir - Inner Harbor around
                                        c       t..
                               1910

-------
   JBd
             Development strategy
 *  An increase in functionality and attractiveness by
   means of public investment on the basis of the
   1991 master plan of Sir Norman Foster - the result
   of an international planning competition

 *  Implementation of concept and marketing by the
   establishment of a project company IDE -
   in co-operation with the IBA (International
   Building Exhibition) and the City of
   Duisburg in 1993
Bilateral Working Group

-------
1
       liir grid liny
        SEPA
The Result of an international planning competition
        Mini it a
                           I tin her llarhor
Ulylmay
  V -10 - A
                                            a lit ours
   Bilateral Working Group

-------
    B unites™intstemi IT
    Hiir fi^ung
    iii a Far si-fin tig
&EPA
           Central, attractive location provides
       additional incentive for new development
          Scliwaiicntor/Swans (iate- gateway to the Inner Harbor
Bilateral Working Group

-------
  *ซ*
    iiir R idling
    iiiiaRarschung
NvEPA
          Development stimulus and enhancement
                        by public investment
Historical city \\nll
• Built at the end of the 12th century
• Demolition of the city gates
 1815-1833
• Reconstruction N6(i
* Public funding 19X6:
f I  million
                         1 Public funding: approx.: C 2 million
                         1 after JL*IIKป|UII>II of uiUNo
                         1 knd out by DDIII KaiLnan in
                         1 Inclusion of warehouses released for
                         demolition
                                                   Museum iil'C'ulturr and Civic History
                                                  built yt ihc- end of the Nth centurv
                                                  • U.seasa mill until I'MD
                                                  * Conversion to a museum in IซMW-
                                                  • Fund inn: € 4 million
Bilateral Working Group

-------
aim Fwsohung
                                                                                                &EPA
{•radik'ii and apartments

3 tinichten with public
subsidies of approx..:
i 75 million
 Bilateral Working Group
                                            Marina, IN! construction phase:
                                            constructed: 2(MM)Oซ>2
                                            Public Rinding - appn>\,: t 6 million
                                                                                                struct tin1')
                                                                                •Built IW5-1W6
                                                                                • New link
                                                                                 between SclnlTerstr. and
                                                                                 Philosophenweg embankment
                                                                                 structure
                                                                                • Additionally dams up the eastern
                                                                                 harbor b:Mn for ecoloyical
                                                                                 u'ater niunayeinent
                                                                                Public funding;
                                                                                 .i|ปl>m\, €5.5 million

-------
      Sunilesministerinnv
      ^ir Haling
      niifl Farachuitg
                              S-EPA
                   2 examples of the exemplary combination
                   of private investment and public funding
Alljjcmeine \\arehniisi'

• Built m IL)JI(-> as a Kt- story silo grain warehouse
 of the company of Rheiwnia .\IIgcnicinc AG
• A 'modern buildinu with the old outer shell
 uasobuiined in 11>1>1> after investments by
 'Kolbl Prqjekterrtwicklungen1 (project development
 company! !<' 15 million t \\ ith support from
 urban development promotion funds (€ 3 million i

Bilateral Working Group
Kiippcrsmiihlo Museum

• Constructed in l<>ox- IMI:
• C'omplete curetta^e and conversion l'>'>7 - ll>w
• ln\ estors: I lans Grothe and Ciebag - Gememniitzi^e
 stiidtische BaiiL-oollschuft (Municipal construction
 company)

• Investment volume: i IX million (62% promotion
 funding for the museum)

-------
    lir 5 t^j iiny
&EPA
                 Private Investment
    as a consequence of meaningful urban development
                       promotion
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     Bundevninmteriiinv
                 Private Investment:  Faktorei 21
                                                                       v>EPA
Bilateral Working Group
MS-^M; Conversion by the LEG (Regional development
      corporation)
2002: 45U(i nv of office space ha\e been I on % let in the building
      \vliich is under ;i preservation order as a histonail buildiny.

-------
       id nog
                     alltours travel center 2001
&EPA
                    2001 - 2002: Construction of the ul I lours headquarters in
                              the Inner Harbor with a staff of about 350
                              Investment volume: 20 million euros
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     lljr 81Idling
     jit a Far sen iiitg
                Kolbl project developments 2001
v>EPA
     Office building with about 150 work places and a
     private investment of approx. t 12 million
Bilateral Working Group

-------
               Private housing construction
                                                     &EPA
                 in attractive surroundings
Bilateral Working Group
more than 400 units.

-------
                                                        &EPA
                Current construction projects
                                         Central Police Services for
                                         North Rhine-Westphalia.

                                         • Construction time: 1090 - 2002
                                         • Approx. 500 work places

                                         • Investment volume:
                                          approx.: ฃ 50 million
Bilateral Working Group

-------
      ilir 9<
                       Current construction projects
     \Vehrhan warehouse: IS^ft Constructed by the Cohen family
                             After the Cohen family had Fled from the Nazi,s the
                             \\aiehoiNe is taken oxer by the company of Rhemische
                             Mlihlenwerke \\ehiliuhn
                             Closure
                           I^ Completion of the office complex uith yiwronomy (Business
Bilateral Working Group        Office ;is \\oll as the c hildron's Museum 'Atlantis'

-------
     mflF-urachiinQ
vxEPA
      Implementation incentives for private investment

   prepared public environment

   partly tax relief (10% of the investment over 10 years) by

   o    special depreciation in accordance with preservation of historical monuments

   o    in particular depreciation in accordance with the Urban Development Promotion Act

   partly relatively favorable real property terms - what is known as business
   promotion discount (max. 30 % of the current market value as a local act)

   optimized moderation and co-operation between the investor, IDE -  Inner
   Harbor Development Agency and the city

   special location marketing
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Hik Bud ling
         >>EPA
                    Investment pattern so far
              400.00
              300,00
        Mio€ 200,00
              100.00
                0.00
                              in Mio €
                   1985 1989 1993  1997 2001
                              Jahr  /Year
Private
Investitionen
Offentliche
Investitionen
/ privat
investment
 public
investment
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 *fป
liir
                  Project financing by
       Public investment - in particular for
       infrastructure and cultural institutions -
       financed by various programs of the European
       Union (EU), the state (Land) of North Rhine-
       Westphalia (NRW) as well as the City of
       Duisburg

       Private investment in specific above-ground
       construction projects as well as a rnarina
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     ifir (t.id ling
     tind F-urschunci
r/EPA
              Planned construction projects for 2003
             Vktna-H2 Office
             Modern building for offices and sen-ices
             Construction time: 2002 - 2004
             Investment volume: (: 50 million
Bilateral Working Group

-------
      lur
        Farscimng
                               Kolbl - Tive  boats'
PxEPA
                   Marinu - UtTico, leisure jud roiail trade by the "liinher Harlxn1
                   Kolhl u. Kruse Projetoentwiddungen
                   Planned investment: (. 45 tnillinn
Bilateral Working Group

-------

      Far sen iing
                     Further impressions
SrEPA
Bilateral Working Group
                                    The Werhan Mill

-------
     Mr Billing
     jnd Borschunc;
                                   rxEPA
Bilateral Working Group
Old city center park by night

-------
    Wr P ltd iirtg
c/EPA
Bilateral Working Group
                              Jewish Community Center

-------
    itif
&EPA
Bilateral Working Group
                                      The Marina

-------
      r Billing
StiPA
Bilateral Working Group

-------
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Bunil*5mntistenurปi
But allthough we are close to the end
of the Inner Harbor Project, we are
not at the end of our urban development....:
Bilateral Working Group
                                    Martin Unite
                                   City of Dilisbury

-------
    mi fl
             r/EPA
     Stadtebauliches Rahmehl^onzept
     RheinPark
           Ei
We want to do a new
redevelopment project,
directly located at the
river Rhine ,
Bilateral Working Group
         Martin Linne
         Citv of Duisburq

-------
     BurHJevnmisteiium
     "iiir flri^Liri
     >>EPA
                                               ... with mixed uses,
                                               widely open green
                                               spaces as a part of the
                                               federal gardening
                                               exhibition 2011,
Bilateral Working Group
 Martin Liiwc
City of Duisbury

-------
    liir (1 ltd ling
    jnsFtirsehiing
     r/EPA
                                               ... so I hope that I
                                               will be able to tell
                                               you something new
                                               about another
                                               success story in 3 or
                                               4 years.
Bilateral Working Group
 Mart in Unite
City of DuisLuirg

-------
                     ฃ
                                          r/EPA
 Thank you very much for your attention
                        Martin Linne
                         City of Duisburg
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                 BMBF - EPA Meeting
                                          Charlotte - North Carolina - 2002
                                                    Workshop Report
                                                 Duisburg Inner Harbor

The City of Duisburg:
The City of Duisburg currently has 510,000 inhabitants - a declining population trend has been occurring for more than 15 years. Duisburg lies
at the edge of the conurbation on the Rhine and Ruhr - consisting of 17 cities - with more than 5 million inhabitants.

The economic peak for the city was during the period between 1950 and 1965. Since the mid-1960s, the importance of coal mining has declined
throughout the entire region. Ten years later, the same decline began to occur in the steel industry.

In Duisburg, today, only one pit and two large steelworks are still in operation. However, the steelworks (Thyssen-Krupp) have a high
productivity, and, because of the excellent transport infrastructure (port - rail freight - highway network) and the intense concentration process
of recent decades, a strengthened market position.

Since 1980, the City of Duisburg has been undergoing profound structural change. During this period, on balance, more than 120,000 jobs were
lost, while only about 50,000 new jobs were created.

The redevelopment of Duisburg is being supported by the excellent transport infrastructure within the largest European inland harbor, the
international airport in Diisseldorf (only 20 minutes away from the city center), and national and international high-speed rail links, as well as
the  location linked to six highways.

After many reactivation measures on relatively small Brownfields since the mid 1970s, towards the end of the 1980s the first major
revitalization projects of derelict industrial and business areas were tackled. Today, all of the large urban development projects - whether in
the  inner city area or the other areas of the city of Duisburg - are located on former production/transport areas of the steel industry, the national
rail  company, and/or manufacturing industries.

-------
                                           The Example for a City Center Extension



                                             Duisburg Inner Harbor Service Park

Pre-history:

The Duisburg Inner Harbor, until into the 1970s the most important regional place of transshipment for wood and grain, is only a few hundred
meters away from the city center . For the site, about 25 years ago there were already classic (commercially oriented) considerations for reuse,
sparked by a steep decline in transshipment activity.  However, for financial reasons, these could not initially be implemented until 1989.
(Annotation: there have not been large areas of polluted soil, but there have been a lot of "useless" buildings and dock facilities, which should
become very important for the future character of the site.

-------
New goals:

The start of a comprehensive revitalization was made in 1989 - after more than 10 years of inactivity - within the scope of the International
Building Exhibition, Emscher Park.  The urban space situation, the Inner Harbor was now to be used for a high-quality extension of the city
center.
At the beginning of 1991, an international planning procedure was implemented in which the team centering on Sir Norman Foster, London, came
to the fore. On the basis of his master plan, the Inner Harbor was developed during the last decade, with the involvement of further renowned
architects and artists, to form a versatile and attractive city quarter.
The main task was here - because of the previous use - not the correct and proper remediation of contaminated soil, but to make appropriate use
of the dock equipment which in itself was Valueless' for the new uses, as well as to use at least parts of the old buildings - grain mills, silo units,
warehouses - and plants - quay facilities, water areas, cranes  - for the new uses and to thus enable an identification of the population with 'their'
city quarter.

-------
The Conception:
In his master plan, Sir Norman Foster developed a successful mixture of old and new allowed the Inner Harbor to become a top address in the
region today. An 'integrated conception was produced, with use being made of reusable but also 'useless' buildings and dock facilities only having
a design-related effect. The future master plan of Sir Foster has been the foundation for  project realization during the last 10 years. It has been
adapted and respectively modernized in the details of several steps but not changed in its character.

For the implementation of the overall project, in 1992, the 'Duisburg Inner Harbor Development Company' (Innenhafen Duisburg
Entwicklungsgesellschaft) was founded, which was financed half each by the city of Duisburg and the State of North Rhine-Westphalia.
From 1993 forward, most of the preserved warehouses by the waterside were converted to create more than 2,000 (in 2001) new, jobs in the
service sector. At the same time, several museums were established:

•   The Museum for Cultural and Urban History
•   The Museum of Modern Art of the Swiss Architects Herzog & de Meuron, who also converted the London Tate Gallery
•   A Children's Museum that currently is being organized in an old mill building

At newly laid out, ecologically oriented water areas ("grachten"), more than 400 new housing units were built. The whole of this is supplemented
by special housing provided for elderly people, kindergarten in old office buildings, various restaurant possibilities, a Jewish community center
designed by the famous Israeli architect Zvi Hecker, as well as an "Altstadtpark" (old city center park) designed by the Paris-based artist Dani
Karavan.

In particular the design of this old city center park initially sparked a lot of discussion, because Mr. Karavan integrated lots of remains of earlier
use (staircases, foundations, and heaps of rubble, for example)  into the design, creates an enormous city-center park rich in contrast and
excitement. Further design highlights are a moving, rising pedestrian bridge and the yacht marina, which opened this year in the old harbor basin.

With the Inner Harbor Service Park, the goal of an attractive extension of the city center at a high level has already been surpassed, about 2 to
3 years before project conclusion.  Reintegration of water into the city and the mixture of modern jobs, cultural facilities, attractive housing, and
opportunities for leisure activities  have been outstandingly successful.

-------
Finance:

Over all, there has been a public financed "pre"- investment for the new technical infrastructure, the "old city center park", and a museum of
nearly Euro 60ฐmillion.
In the early years and until 1996, only a small portion of financing was from private investment.
But in 1997 private investment increased for new buildings and modernization of old grain mills etc. Today, after approximately 80% of
realization, a private investment of about Euro 250ฐmillion has been realized. At the end of the realization there will be a private investment of
Euroฐ350 to 400 million.

The public investment has usually been financed through different programs by the City of Duisburg, the State of North-Rhine Westphalia and
the European Community. The portion of city financial contribution has been between 10 and 30 percent of public support.
The real progress in this project has been the integrated, supplement  financing of some projects with different programs during the period of the
International Building Exhibition.

-------
The result:
As a qualitative result, a new address, an attractive location as city-center expansion, (well known at the supra-regional level and greatly
sought after), has emerged, which has had a positive influence on downtown Duisburg in its entirety.
From a quantitative point of view, it is the case that following initially relatively high use of public funds which was necessary to ensure quality
standards-with public capital expenditure of about Euro 60 million - an investment ratio of 1:4/1:5, and in the end of nearly 1:7, has been
reached. This means that through every portion of preliminary public capital expenditure, about seven portions of subsequent private capital
expenditure were triggered. In a regional comparison this is an outstanding figure.
In summary, as a result of the Inner Harbor project, such companies currently are considering a location in Duisburg by the Inner Harbor or in the
nearby city center, who, only a short time ago, would never have seriously considered the City of Duisburg as a business location. Therefore this
project is not only in itself to be rated a success, but it has contributed considerably to new, better positioning of the City of Duisburg in regional
competition.

-------
The author / contact:

Martin Linne
Stadt Duisburg - Stadtentwicklungsdezernat
Leiter des Amtes fur Stadtentwicklung & Projektmanagement
(City of Duisburg-Department of Urban Development
Director of Urban development & Projectmanagement)
Friedrich Albert Lange Platz 7
D 47049 Duisburg
Phone:+49 (0)203 283 3366
Fax:+49 (0)203 283 3666
Mail:

-------
      Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed
                     by
               Charles Bartsch
          Northeast-Midwest Institute

-------
                   Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed
      The legacy of the nation's past is evident in communities all across the country.
Often abandoned, usually contaminated industrial sites dot the cityscape. They pose
significant challenges for local elected officials and economic development agencies.
Redeveloping these "brownfield" sites can be a costly proposition. The complicated
process and legal hurdles of acquiring, cleaning,  and reusing these sites can be
expensive in terms of site preparation expenses and fees, and costly in terms of time
delays.  Site evaluation processes, testing, possible  legal liabilities, and other factors
serve to deter private participation in activities to  bring  old industrial sites back to
productive use. In  many situations, the private development and  financial sectors are
not able or willing to act on their own to ensure that the full economic potential of site
reuse will be achieved.


      Critical funding gaps are, in fact, the primary deterrent to site and facility reuse.
The financing situation is especially gloomy for start-up firms or small companies with
little collateral outside the business.  Clearly, local governments can find creative
ways to help enterprises overcome the obstacles that environmental contamination
brings to the ecpnomics of the site reuse process; such actions range from regulatory
clarification for liability stemming from loan workouts to direct financial assistance
programs. For decades, local governments have used or sponsored public finance
mechanisms to stimulate economic activity in certain geographic areas or industries.
Now, publicly-driven economic development initiatives are reaching into new sectors
and incorporating new concerns,  such as environmental  improvement.  Brownfield
reuse strategies and techniques are rapidly evolving.

-------
                   Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed
Redeveloping Contaminated Sites - Barriers in Brief
      Lack of process certainty and finality. The Superfund law and its attendant
regulations guide public officials and private parties as they cope with contamination
at any site. The problem is widespread and significant; even though only about 1,200
sites have been classified as "Superfund sites," more than 500,000 sites nationwide
show evidence of at least some contamination that could trigger Superfund rules and
deter their owners from selling the site, securing financing for cleanup, or proceeding
with reuse. Prospective site reusers need a clear, recognized, and expedited
process to determine how clean is clean for any given situation.  Today, some 47
states have launched "voluntary cleanup programs" to provide a mechanism to
address these issues.
      Uncertain liabilities. Liability is a critical concern. Superfund imposes liability
on those who generated or arranged for the disppsal of hazardous waste, and on
landowners and operators of contaminated facilities.  Current owners and operators
are identified first - even if they did not cause the contamination. Moreover, liability
is retroactive to past actions that cause present problems.  The prospect of liability
drives prospective site reusers away, and keeps cpmpanies from being able to
borrow enough to clean up properties and modernize operations. Faced with the
spectre of liability, some companies have simply mothballed obsolete, unused
facilities. As a result, not only does no new economic activity occur, but no
environmental cleanup is undertaken, either. As a first step to address some of these
concerns, Congress in September 1996 adopted language to clarify lenders' liability
responsibilities at contaminated sites, where their only involvement was making the
loan  itself.

-------
                  Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed
      Cost of environmental cleanup.  The legal and procedural steps necessary
to test, clean, acquire, and reuse contaminated sites is expensive and time
consuming.  The costs of preparing financing packages have tripled since 1980
because of environmental requirements.  In practice, whether sites are cleaned and
reused or not boils down to one of dollars and cents; even if an old industrial facility
has only small amounts of contamination, site assessment and cleanup add
considerably to the cost of a redevelopment project, making its economics much
harder to justify.
      Lack of redevelopment finance.  In mpst areas, adequate private financing to
carry out both cleanup and redevelopment  activities is simply not available. Even with
lender liability addressed, financiers are still concerned about the impacts of
contamination on collateral value and the ability of borrowers to repay their notes.
These risks have made lenders wary, and this fear makes them reluctant to provide
the resources needed to carry out site reuse projects.
      Therefore, lenders have changed the way in which they deal with projects that
even remotely involve hazardous wastes in response to these risks - real or
perceived. This, in turn, affects the reuse potential of specific sites as well as the
broader economic development climate in many areas. In practice, financial
institutions grappling with concerns over environmental liability  and contaminated
project sites are:
Sharply curtailing their level of lending, especially to manufacturing companies;
Cutting off financing for certain types of businesses, such as those that routinely
handle toxic substances - service companies such as dry cleaners and auto body
shops, as well as manufacturers such as high technology metal fabricators,
semiconductors, and  tool and die shops;

-------
                   Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


Significantly increasing transaction costs by requiring thorough
environrnentaassessments (which can cost $50,000 or more, depending on the size
of the site and the nature of prior activity on it), and demanding that cleanup be done
as a condition  of loan approval; and
Restricting their interaction with and advice to a borrower, to reduce their exposure to
liability.

Promoting Reuse:  Goals of Public-Sector Incentives
      In many cities, few needs are more pressing than that of restoring abandoned
buildings and brownfield sites to useful life. Their continued deterioration will only
worsen existing environmental problems and further weaken the local economic
base. Therefore, in  spite of the difficulties of brownfield projects, communities  have
little choice but to promote their reuse; the benefits of returning these sites and
structures to productive reuse outweigh  the option of inactivity.  City agencies and
local development organizations, as well as private interests, are beginning to
successfully confront the obstacles, however daunting.
      The public sectpr can do much to help level the  economic playing field between
greenfield and brownfield sites.  Creatively crafted and carefully targeted incentives
and assistance can  help advance cleanup and reuse activities.  Such strategies must
recognize, however, that brownfield projects differ considerably in terms of barriers to
investment and opportunities to redevelopment. Therefore, no one "best" public-
sector approach will fit all needs. Clearly,  a variety of incentives can make the  most
effective use of public-sector assistance, as well as improve the climate that invites
private investment in brownfields. These incentives, used separately or in
combination, should be able to meet several goals, including:

-------
                   Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed

Reducing the lender's risk, making capital more available by providing incentives or
legal clarification for lending institutions to help companies or projects at sites
deemed riskier because of their prior uses;


Reducing the borrower's cost of financing, for example, by making capital more
affordable by subsidizing the interest charged on brownfield loans, or by establishing
policies that reduce loan underwriting and documentation costs; and


Easing the developer's or site  user's financial situation by providing  incentives, such
as tax credits, that can help improve the project's cash flow.


      State and local governments, in many respects, are the innovators.  Typically,
brownfield success stories are found in places that have  adopted their own site
characterization and reuse tools and creatively built on the foundation provided by
federal programs and policies.
      Yet as important as these initial successes are, the potential exists for even
greater activity.  Many jurisdictions are starting to explore ways to help prospective
re-users overcome the difficulties that contamination can bring to the redevelopment
process, setting up finance programs to ease the cost or terms of borrowing,
augmenting  private funds, or filling funding gaps that the  private sector will not bridge.
Moreover, public-sector support does not have to be limited to helping specific
companies; other related activities can be financed that help improve the broader
brownfield investment climate.  For example, localities can assume some of the
responsibilities for site preparation and clean up, recovering some of their costs
during subsequent site sale or development. And, jurisdictions can support such
activities by earmarking tax revenues, loan repayments from other programs, and
other sources of funds to pay for necessary project activities, such as site testing or
soil removal.

-------
                      Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
                Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


Local Brownfield Initiatives: Emerging Financing Tools
         New missions for old workhorses. Practically speaking, the benefits of
   bringing new business activity to established city locations has been outweighed by
   the risks accompanying the acquisition of brownfield sites.  Environmental
   assessment and even small-scale cleanups remain significant costs that channel
   investment away from previously used facilities to greenfield sites.  In many
   instances, local governments have begun to explore a variety of financial incentives
   to offset some of these  risks.  Many of these efforts will involve placing a new
   brownfields "spin" on long-time, tried-and-true financial assistance tools.
         Tax Increment Financing. The TIP mechanism, available in nearly 40 states,
   has traditionally been used for numerous types of economic revitalization efforts,
   usually in economically distressed or abandoned areas - the typical brownfield
   location. The TIP process uses the anticipated growth in property taxes generated by
   a development project to finance public sector investment in it. TIFs are built on the
   concept that new value will be created -- an essential premise of most brownfield
   initiatives - and that the future value can be used to finance part of the  activities
   needed now to create that new value. The key to TIP is the local commitment of
   incremental tax resources for the payment of redevelopment costs.
         TIP bonds are issued for the specific purpose of redevelopment - acquiring
   and preparing the site, upgrading utilities, streets, or parking facilities, and carrying
   out other necessary site improvements.  This makes them an ideal financing tool for
   brownfield projects; in fact, many cities with brownfield success stories helped bring
   them about with TIP financing. TIP programs are easily used with other types of
   funding, such as grants or loans.

-------
                  Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


      However, many jursidictions have been hesitant to use TIP mechanisms for
brownfield projects; if projected development fails to materialize or unanticipated
complications arise, it can be difficult to retire the bonds.  Some local economic
development practitioners also cite the complexity of many TIP initiatives as a
practical disadvantage; they can require a lot of time to put into place, and high levels
of technical expertise and negotiating savvy to move a project from concept to
implementation, especially one made more difficult by environmental concerns.
      Tax Abatements.   Tax abatements are commonly used to stimulate
investments in building improvements or new construction in areas where property
taxes or other conditions discourage private investment.  States must usually grant
local governments the authority to offer tax abatement programs, and most allow only
certain areas to participate, such as economically distressed communities or
deteriorating neighborhoods -- typical brownfield locations.
      Tax abatement programs must be carefully designed to target intended
beneficiaries without offering unnecessary subsidies, a feat often difficult to
accomplish. Because of this, tax abatement programs have numerous critics. Yet
the key advantage of tax abatements is that they give local governments a workable,
flexible incentive that helps influence private investment decisions.  This can be
important in efforts to promote brownfield reuse.
      Community Development Block Grant "Float".  Generally,  CDBG recipients
are unable to use their entire block grant allocations in the year received; long-term,
larger projects (such as infrastructure construction) approved for funding take more
than  a year to plan and carry out.  According to HUD rules, funds not needed to meet
current project costs remain in the federal treasury until the city actually needs them;
it is not unusual for CDBG funds awarded one year to be drawn down a couple of
years later as big capital  projects move towards completion.

-------
                   Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


      When a city can show that previously awarded CDBG funds will not be needed
in the near term, it may tap its block grant account on an interim basis -- using what
HUD calls a CDBG "float" - to finance short-term, low interest construction financing
for projects which create jobs. Any developer, not-for-profit agency, or private
company which can obtain  an irrevocable letter of credit from a lender is eligible to
apply for such financing.  (The letter of credit satisfies HDD's concern that the funding
will be available for its originally planned purpose.)
      Proceeds may be used to pay all costs for the purchase of land and buildings,
site and structural rehabilitation - including environmental remediation - or new
construction. Float funds can also finance purchase of machinery and equipment.
Maximum loan size is determined by the amount of funds in a jurisdiction's CDBG
account available to cover the float.  Float loans can not be extended for more than
two years; the interest rate  is limited to 40 percent of the prevailing prime rate. A few
municipalities, notably Chicago, have financed brownfield cleanup activities via the
CDBG float mechanism.
      General Obligation  Bonds.  Virtually all communities can issue G.O. bonds
for (in the terms of one city attorney) "any proper public purpose which pertains to its
local government and affairs." Economic development practitioners can make a
strong case that a bond pool  to  support brownfield cleanup and reuse projects could
create jobs and enhance the  local tax base, which are appropriate public purposes.
Cities traditionally issue G.O. bonds for acquiring  land, preparing sites, and making
infrastructure improvements - key elements in a brownfield redevelopment strategy.
Moreover, the city's ability to  repay this bond debt would be enhanced by the growth
in property tax revenues as more brownfields are brought back to productive uses.

-------
                  Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


      Refocussing existing local development programs.  Every local
government already uses a variety of financial assistance programs and incentives to
promote economic and business development; like federal and state programs, local
offerings can be more explicitly packaged and prompted for potential developers and
lenders to use to clean and rehabilitate brownfield sites. A growing number of cities
are examining ways to do this; alternatives being considered in some places include:


Earmarking water, sewer, and waste water charges for brownfield cleanup activities;
Earmarking some portion of grant, loan, or loan guarantee program funds to
applicants proposing site characterization or cleanup projects;
Developing a municipal "linked deposit" program targeted to brownfield borrowers;
Channeling some portion of loan repayments from existing city programs to
brownfield projects;
Devoting  monies raised from fines or fees to a brownfield financing pool; or
Using small amounts of public funds to "seed" a private, shared-risk financing pool
devoted to brownfield redevelopment.


      In addition, cities can explore other low- or no-cost techniques to stimulate the
flow of capital to promising brownfield redevelopment undertakings. For example,
Chicago and Cleveland are considering ways to more easily convey tax-delinquent
properties to new owners with viable reuse plans. Other cities are contemplating
modifications in their zoning requirements in specific cases to provide developers with
the opportunity to earn a greater return on their investment and offset more site
preparation costs.

-------
                   Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
             Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


      New types of local brownfield finance initiatives. Many brownfield sites
have the potential to become economically viable, hosting new business activity and
jobs.  However, many of these sites require some level of public investment to
achieve this viability. Federal and state resources will not be sufficient to address all
the prospective site cleanup and reuse possibilities identified by jurisdictions across
the country; the large number of applicants for the handful of EPA brownfield pilot
sites designated to date is testimony to that.   Existing local programs can meet some
of this need, but clearly can not meet all financing gaps in many areas. Therefore,
communities must consider establishing new brownfield incentive programs of their
own.  These could help with site characterization and cleanup costs, or development
costs, or both types of activities.
      Competing  public needs and objectives, as well as limits to public resources,
are facts of life in every community; recognizing this,  local officials could consider two
approaches to promoting brownfield finance.  First, they should identify and set-aside
public sources that can be mostly self-sustaining, stable overtime, and relatively
isolated from changing political tides.  Given the inherent limits of public funding,
some type of cost recovery is essential to the sustainability of local public financing of
brownfield projects. Against this backdrop, local programs can ~ as they evolve and
become more established - enhance their own flexibility by offering forgiveable
loans, recoverable grants, lengthy repayment terms, recovery  upon property transfer,
and similar conditions.
      Second, public resources should be marshalled in the context of an explicit,
strategic brownfields approach.  Generally, local officials should give sites with
greater development potential priority as they reach decisions  on financial assistance.
In many cities and towns, this may mean supporting several smaller sites in a
declining area rather than the one big abandoned  plant that has come to signify

-------
                  Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed


"brqwnfields" to the community. Momentum for brownfield cleanup and reuse - and
justification for public sector involvement in it -- can be created and maintained with
visible successes, even at small sites. Moreover, smaller brownfield projects are
more manageable and often more significant in  terms of real benefits than a single
large, more contaminated site.


The Challenge to Local Governments: Confronting Environmental and
Economic Issues Affecting Site Redevelopment
      Underused or abandoned industrial facilities are a national concern — with
jocal immediacy in many instances.  Confronting the environmental and economic
issues affecting site reuse requires a deliberate, multi-dimensional approach that
often does not neatly fit with the rules and procedures of federal, state, or local
economic development or environmental programs.  Financing has emerged as a key
barrier to brownfield reuse. Site assessment and cleanup requires financial
resources that many firms lack and find difficult to secure. And without financing,
private reuse projects cannot go forward, even if their proponents want them to. This
further undermines efforts to revitalize the distressed areas that are home to so many
abandoned, contaminated sites.
      Yet in spite of the barriers, brownfield reuse opportunities are real. Scores of
diverse projects have  been documented, ranging from an old Soo Line railyard in
Minneapolis that is being redeveloped as a light industry park, to a metal valve
fabricating plant in Bridgeport, Connecticut converted into a minor leage baseball
park — and which attracted more than 300,000  people during its inaugural year to
what had been an abandoned industrial wasteland adjoining downtown. These
projects have been carried  out in a way that makes economic sense,  and that builds

-------
                  Financing Brownfield Reuse Projects:
            Emerging Local Tools - and Why They Are Needed

on the competitive advantage that specific sites boast.  Such success stories suggest
that liabilities can be worked out, that financing can be secured, and that cleanup can
be accomplished - in short, that brownfield redevelopment can be achieved.
     The challenge that local governments face now is to provide the tools that
make the economics of redevelopment projects work. At the same time, it is
important to emphasize that incentives can make a site economically viable, but that
the public sector alone can not carry the brownfield reuse load. Redevelopment on a
wider scale can  only be achieved if public policies and programs foster a climate that
invites private investment in these projects.

-------
  liir
 US GERMAN BILATERAL WORKING GROUP
  ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABLE
    BROWNFIELDS REDEVELOPMENT

    PORTLAND, OREGON MODEL SITES
       Douglas C. MacCourt, Esq
           Ater Wynne LLP
Bilateral Working Group

-------

                                   &EPA
 PORTLAND, OREGON MODEL SITES
 • Two Case Studies
   - North Marine Drive
   -Yards at Union Station
 • Focus on Economics/Project Finance
 • Illustrate Successful Application of
  Brownfield Finance Tools to Achieve
  Sustainable Development
 • Compare to German Economic Models
  and Finance Tools
Bilateral Working Group

-------
Brownfields & Smart Growth
   The Willamette River:
   - Oregon's oldest, largest industrial, shipping,
     transportation and commercial center
   - Brownfields concentrated along Portland's
     urban waterfront
   - Industrial properties served by major rail,
     highway, air and deep-water port facilities
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   in flFw acli mi g

 Planning/Land Use Strategy
xvEPA
Regional land use
framework: inside the
Urban Growth Boundary
Focus on growth: jobs,
infrastructure, access to
labor and markets
Private sector investment
Portland Brownfield
Initiative
Livable Community
Showcase Project
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   lir fifil
   jia
v>EPA
 Union Station Yards - Circa 1912
Bilate

-------
   iiir
rxEPA
 Site History
 Wetlands and small
 lake prior to 1890

 Filled in with more
 than 3,000,000 cubic
 yards of Willamette
 River dredge spoils

 Active passenger rail
 station and railyard
 for more than 110
 years
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Recent Site History
   • 1987 - Property purchased by Portland
     Development Commission

   * 1987 - All railroad tracks within The Yards
     removed

   * 1987 to 1997 - Restoration of historic Union
     Station Building

   • 1995 - GSL Properties selected as site developers
     through a competitive RFP process
Bilateral Working Group

-------
  utifl Parsed iing

&EPA
Union Station Yards - Circa 1988

-------
   BundesnmiisterBiir
   -liir B Jung
 Discovery of Environmental Impairment

   *  During geotechnical exploration, last
     geotechnical boring encountered petroleum in
     soil

   *  Discovery of oil led to further assessment, which
     resulted in discovery of pervasive contamination

   •  Discovery of contamination and PDC's inability to
     provide indemnification from third-party liability
     led to withdrawal of GC and lender

Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                        EPA
Exploration Plan
LEGEND
•*t u wrnnifr 'JBJ. K*^ AMC ซJTHZ*UTE LTCMBM _
__J] 	 - 	 	
J

^-T^F
1 -^
t _-^_^-^ ? '
	 -I i^ ^— i 	 "
if
•^•r
^i


ET _*J^
4-
JH^^

JOB,
BF
•
^
i
itl— it^iaj - r
H3\
h-T~i\ T * J
[— r
— •—
l\s
-V
tm
                                              /

-------
 Regulatory Framework
     Site received priority oversight from State of
     Oregon Voluntary Cleanup Program

     Remedy stipulated by DEQ within three months of
     discovery of contamination

     Prospective purchaser agreements were
     negotiated with DEQ to ease developer and lender
     concerns regarding environmental liability
Bilateral Working Group

-------
     ilir Slid ling
     ma
  Environmental Impairment
&EPA
Oil in Soil
*  Area Affected -
  5,000 square
  feet of site
•  Corrective
  Action -
  Approximately
  3,000 cubic
  yards of oil-
  containing soil
  removed
 Bilateral Working Group

-------
   iiit B id uny
   tin d For BE hung
&EPA
 Remediation of Petroleum Contamination
Bila

-------
    fir
&EPA
 Environmental Impairment
Lead, Arsenic and
  Fuel Hydrocarbons
  in Soil
•  Area Affected -
  Entire 6.1 acre site
*  Corrective Action -
  Surface capping
  and institutional
  controls
 Bilateral Working Group
     .

-------
                    flp
                                      >>EPA
 Surface Capping
Bilat

-------
   •fik Ri
-------
   jioFarschufiy
v>EPA
 Phase A Housing
  •  Project groundbreaking March 1997.  Project
    completed in March 1998

  *  Consists of 158 units of housing. Half of units
    reserved for persons earning <50% of median
    income, and half reserved for persons earning
    <60% of median income

  •  Phase A Housing currently near 100%
    occupancy
Bilateral Working Group

-------
  fii
  JIB
Phase A Housing

-------
   Bun to 5.71 m is term IT
 Phase B Housing
  •  Project groundbreaking September 1998.
    Project completed in January 2000

  •  Consists of 321 units of housing. Forty percent
    of units reserved for persons earning <60% of
    median income, and the balance of units are
    market rate

  •  Phase B Housing currently near 100%
    occupancy
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   uitd Fซ seining
3 EPA
 Phase B Housing
Bila

-------
   lir Billing
   jiidForachung
                                      &EPA
Relative  Project Costs
                  The Yards At Union Station

                          3%
 Q Housing
 D Public Plaza
 • Env. Assess
• Infrastructure
D Ped. Bridge
n Env. Clean-Up

-------
 *
 Cost-Sharing Arrangements
  •  PDC able to negotiate and execute cost recovery
    agreement with prior owner. Indemnification for
    third-party liability also obtained

  •  Out-of-pocket cost to PDC for environmental
    assessment and remediation was $300,000 of
    $2,650,000

  •  No environmental costs were borne by
    developer or general contractor
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    •\m
&EPA
 Financing
Utilizing TIP, PDC
provided a $10 M
low-interest loan

The project received
10-year tax
abatement for all
site improvements

PDC funded the
public plaza and
pedestrian bridge
 Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Jiifl foiseniny
 Financing Plan
   Estimated costs $36.5 M
   Sources of funds
   - Bonds: $22M
   - City subordinated loan:  $5.4 M
   - Borrower capital: $1M
   - Tax Credit Equity loan: $4.4 M
   - Deferred development fee: $2M
   - Net operating income: $822,000
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Primary Uses of Funds
 *  Construction/rehabilitation:  $26.2 M
 •  Architecture & engineering:  $1.5 M
 *  Costs of issuing bonds: $ 1.275M
 *  Other financing costs: $870,000
 •  Reserves: $250,000
 *  Construction contingency:  $1 M
 *  Government fees: $750,000
 •  Developer fee: $2M
 •  Interest reserve:  $2.4M
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Ilir fl
   Jit a
SEPA
 Principal Public Benefits
 * Low Income Housing - project provides nearly
   300 units of low-income housing
 • Access to Jobs - the project is located within 3
   blocks of the City's bus mail, and within 6
   blocks of downtown
 • Regional Planning Goals - provides 10% of
   planned housing units within the River District
   Urban Renewal Area

Bilateral Working Group

-------
                 ^^s?
jna Farscnuf g
                   TO              &EPA
Pedestrian Access toTfansportation and
Downtown

-------
   Biimtes/rnnifiteriiJi1
                                           -_
                                           &EPA

 Principal Public Benefits
 * Low Income Housing - project provides nearly
   300 units of low-income housing
 * Access to Jobs - the project is located within 3
   blocks of the City's bus mail, and within 6
   blocks of downtown (the business hub of the
   City)
 • Regional Planning Goals - provides 10% of
   planned housing units within the River District
   Urban Renewal Area
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    •liir P tld ling
    uiidFarschun-g
&EPA
 River District Today
Bilateral

-------
 Principal Project Team
 •  Bond Financing:
   - Ann Sherman, Esq., Ater Wynne LLP
   - als@aterwynne.com
   -(503)226-1191
 *  Technical Consulting:
   - AMEC, Inc.
   - Contact: Leonard C. Fair, Jr.
   - 503-639-3400
   - email: leonard.farr@amec.com

Bilateral Working Group

-------
    Ilir
r/EPA
 Additional Project Team Members
 •  GSL Properties, Inc.
   2164 SW Park Place
   Portland, Oregon 97205
   503-224-2554
 *  Housing Authority of Portland
   135 SW Ash Street
   Portland, Oregon 97204
   503-802-8512
 •  Walsh Construction Co.
   3015 SW First Avenue
   Portland, Oregon 97201
   503-222-4375

Bilateral Working Group

-------
   Mr
   mm Fat seining
&EPA
 North Marine Drive- Oregon
 Project Summary
 *  Category: C
 •  Size: 3000 Acres
 *  Former Use:  Chemical Plant, Industrial Junkyard
 *  Intended Use: Industrial, Transportation, Open
   Space, Habitat
 •  Driver: Private
 •  Funding: Mix of federal, state, and local
   government funding
 *  Status:  Federal, State and Local Transportation
Bilateral Working Group

-------
Bilateral Working Group

-------
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                          &EPA
 North Marine Drive- Oregon
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    liir Rildiinrj
    jnaRnrechung
 North Marine Drive- Ore
>>EPA
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   I jซfl FJII eel tuiig
 North Marine Drive- Oregon
 Environmental Concerns and Technologies

 •   Pre-Development Conditions:
    - 9 of 17 parcels needed for expansion were
      contaminated; three seriously polluted
    - Chemical Plant: organic pesticides in soil and
      groundwater; land banned chemicals
    - Oil blending plant:  petroleum
    - Junkyard: RGB's
 *  Cleanup costs from primary project funding agent (federal
   transportation agency) were "Non-Participating"
 *  Project required sophisticated risk assessment based on
   pore water migration model analyzing impact of load on fate
   and transport of contamination in groundwater
Bilateral Working Grodp

-------
 North Marine Drive- Oregon
 Social Issues and Solutions
 •  NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Process
   identified publicly supported alignment through
   brownfields
 •  State's largest freshwater wetland and heron rookery, home
   to bald eagles, rare turtles and endangered salmon
 •  Build on NEPA EIS and support from residents and
   landowners
 •  Adjacent property owners involved in process from
   beginning, including sharing environmental information
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 North Marine Drive- Oregon
 Economic Barriers and Solutions
 •  Access to 2800-acre Rivergate Industrial Sanctuary
   impeded by two-lane road
 •  Brownfields along truck route discouraged investment
 *  Project stimulated private investment through
   transportation access
 *  Innovative road design, construction & long term controls
   to limit risks from contaminants
 •  Project changed US DOT policy on cost participation for
   contaminated projects

Bilateral Working Group

-------
    lir R fid ling
    .inaForscnurtg
vvEPA
 North Marine Drive- Oregon
 Critical Success Factors
 •  Coordination among local, state and federal agencies
 *  Close cooperation with private landowners
 *  Risk-based cleanup key to changing federal funding policy
 •  Long-term planning preserves industrial sanctuary, primary
   driver of brownfield development project
Bilateral Working Group

-------
    liir (Xklung
    jna farschung

 Costs
   $25 Million for roadway
    - $14.6 Million FHWA
    - $5.4  Million Oregon Dept. of Transportation
    - $2.6  Million Port of Portland
    - $2.6  Million City of Portland
   Environmental Costs:
    - Potential: $10-12 Million
    - Actual: $300,000
Bilateral Working Group

-------
 Uses of Funds
   Railroad bridge:  $ 5 M
   - $1.5 M for Railroad Union
   - Union actually saved costs
   Rail crossing:  $1.5M
   Bank stabilization: $1  M
   Right-of-way purchase: $2 M
   Road construction:  $12 M
   Environmental: Approximately $350,000
Bilateral Working Group

-------
   jna
 Impact of Project on Land Values

 •  Three years after the project, $316 M in private
   investment
 •  Land appreciation:
   - 1990:  $75,000/acre
   - 1993:  $86,500/acre
   - 1994:  $92,500/acre
   - 1995:  $125,000/acre
   - 1996:  $141,570/acre
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                           v>EPA
 Land Appreciation Following Project

 •  1997:  $206,910
 •  1998:  $185,130
 *  Due to land scarcity in Rivergate, Port adopts
   policy of only leasing remaining land
   - 2000: no sales
   - 2001: $206,910
   -2002: $206,910
Bilateral Working Group

-------
       "
 Project Impact to Land Sales & Leases
   Rivergate sales
   - 1963-1993: 508 acres, 17 acres/year
   - 1993-1996: 172 acres, 43 acres/year
   Sales and Leases
   - 1963-1993: 766 acres, 25 acres/year
   - 1993-1996: 237 acres, 60 acres/year
   - 1997-2002: 195.3 acres, 43.4 acres/year
Bilateral Working Group

-------
              Abstract for Portland Case  Study Presentation

                                   by Douglas  C. MacCourt

Portland, Oregon Case Studies:

Two successful case studies from Portland, Oregon will be presented, including North Marine Drive and the Yards at Union Station. These
case studies represent similar remedial action strategies in significantly different settings for industrial and residential uses. North Marine
Drive is one of Portland's first brownfield success stories and a case study which helped influence US Dept. of Transportation policy for
participating in brownfield expenses on federal transportation projects. North Marine Drive illustrates creative financial partnerships among
federal, state, regional and local governments to promote private-sector industrial development within and along Portland's Rivergate
industrial sanctuary. The project also demonstrates the benefits of good planning and strategic public involvement from environmental
regulatory agencies, landowners and the affected public. Habitat preservation and protection of sensitive adjacent freshwater fisheries was
accomplished through public involvement and careful siting conducted largely through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.
Finally, innovative investigation and remediation techniques were combined to minimize remedial action  costs and ultimately keep the
project within budget and on schedule.

The Yards at Union Station, a 2000 Phoenix award winning  project, illustrates how Portland is meeting its low-income housing needs on
contaminated rail yards in the vibrant Pearl and River Districts. When contamination was discovered on site, it caused contractors and
lenders to abandon the project.  With the determination of the Portland Development Commission (PDC), assisted by public finance tools
developed with the assistance of Ater Wynne LLP's Public Finance Group, PDC rescued the project and built a public-private coalition which
obtained regulatory approval in record time and found willing contractors, financial partners and public support.  Today the project is almost
completely occupied and new additions are underway.  The purpose of selecting these two  case studies is to highlight successful public
finance and transportation funding mechanisms for brownfield redevelopment that can be replicated across the country.

-------
                                 EPA
       U.S. - GERMAN BILATERAL
           WORKING GROUP
        ECONOMIC TOOLS FOR
      SUSTAINABLE BROWNFIELD
          REDEVELOPMENT
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                     EPA
   "PUBLIC FINANCING OF BROWNFIELD
      REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS"
                Presented by

            Ann L. Sherman, Esq.
           Partner, Ater Wynne LLP
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                         EPA
                     ^s^
 I.  INTRODUCTION

 A.  What is a bond?
 B.  Why is this type of obligation used?
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                    EPA
II. OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE TOOLS

 A.     Tax Exempt Bonds
        1. Tax Exemption
            a.  Governmental Purpose
            b.  501(c)(3)
            c.  Private Activity
                 i.   Exempt facilities (airports, docks and
                     wharves, mass commuting facilities,
                     facilities for furnishing water, sewage
                     disposal facilities, solid waste disposal

Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                        EPA

II.  OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE TOOLS

 A.     Tax Exempt Bonds, Continued

                      facilities, facilities for local furnishing of
                      electric energy or gas, local district heating
                      or cooling  facilities, qualified hazardous
                      waste disposal facilities, high speed
                      intercity rail facilities, environmental
                      enhancements of hydroelectric generating
                      facilities), hazardous waste disposal
                      facilities, high speed intercity rail facilities,
                      environmental enhancements of
                      hydroelectric generating facilities)

Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                   EPA

II. OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE TOOLS


 A.    Tax Exempt Bonds, Continued

              ii.     Small Issuer Manufacturing Facilities
              iii.     Multifamily Housing Bonds
              iv.     Volume Cap

       2. Types of Issuers (Cities, Counties, Special Districts,
           Conduit Issuers, State Bond Banks, Tribes)
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                 EPA

II. OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE TOOLS


 A.    Tax Exempt Bonds, Continued

       3.  Security and Sources of Repayment for Bonds
          (Property Taxes, Revenues, Limited Tax, TIP, LID's,
          COPs, Credit Enhancement, Rural Development,
          Fannie Mae)
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                               EPA
 II. OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE TOOLS

 B.     Taxable Bonds
       1.  Taxable Tails

       2.  State Tax Exemption
       3.  Tax Credits
          a.  Low Income Housing Tax Credits
          b.  New Markets Tax Credits
          c.  Other Federal and State Subsidies
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                              EPA
 II.  OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC FINANCE TOOLS

 C.    Types of Projects (open spaces, parks, housing
      owned by governmental units, (501(c)(3) or
      private entities, golf courses, assisted living,
      hospitals, convention centers, libraries, mixed
      use)

 D.    Tax Credits in conjunction with Tax Exempt or
      Taxable Bonds
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                            EPA
  . MARKET DISCLOSURE ISSUES
 A.    Public offerings of municipal debt

 B.    SEC 15c2-12 continuing disclosure requirements
      and Rule 10(b)5 antifraud rules
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                             EPA
 IV. SPECIFIC BOND FINANCED EXAMPLES

 A.    City of Portland, Yards at Union Station
      (Affordable Housing Project on train station
      brownfield)
 B.    Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Bond
 C.    Oregon  Garden Project Revenue Bonds
 D.    City of Newport Wastewater Project
Bilateral Working Group

-------
                                                  Presentation Abstract
                                Public Financing of Brownfield Redevelopment Projects

                                                by Ann L. Sherman, Esq.
                                               Partner, Ater Wynne LLP
This presentation will cover the basic tools for the public financing of brownfields redevelopment. Particular emphasis will be placed on the use
of tax exempt bonds, tax increment financing, local improvement districts and tax credits. Examples of affordable housing projects, golf course
development and  other public-private  partnerships which have utilized the taxable and tax exempt securities market to finance brownfield
redevelopment will be discussed.

-------
    ia for Gauging the Success
                              t""""!""""r"""t™™i-
         "T""
t>Economic benefits and costs

^Economic impacts

-------

Economic Benefits
 <$> Net benefits = Change in the value
                                       ---•<---
   - change in
      Outputs:  more
cost of inputs
open space, cleaner air, reduced
n
      crime
      Inputs: resource costs to society (labor, 'external'

   Key criterion of success is efficiency, can the
   'winners' fully compensate the

-------
: 1 1


;



f
ill III
Economic Im
X"
t J
V.
;
;
i
;
;

;
;

;
;

;
;

;
•^ ป-*
[JO'
^~ f^

•*
!%"
>

j
II III
1 1 1 1 1 1
JL 1 J • • •
fjฃ\. uS ^^ฑ\ t ^^ i^ • ^P ^^. i^ • ^^ i
^Key cntenoi


•$>Who qains,
^\
i^^\ i i ^^ i^\ j
Jl ^
1 Wl \* III

; ;
^Indicators!
•
f\l i^ir\l l^ f\ K K^
output or it
| : : | | !
rf^^^^^^ ^ 1^ ^J 1^^
state ana 10
i i

i i
; ; ;
n of success is <

I

;
who
j ;



job
*ve
* W \m*
ical

;
;
1

lose
j ;

	 i 	 i. 	
>s creal
ir\ i i f\ f i
iue,
i
gover
; ^^

1
J
< j






: : :

j;






1 1 1
distn
*JI>JLI I


s, and by f
k j E k j E


tion, chanc
nancial im|
nments
|
to


1C
k


ut


>w
j



ioi

;
;

;
;

jes in
Dacts 1




7,,j-,,,,
| | 1








i


i 1

,, 	 4 	 E 	

hri
[O
] j

I
I I I I I I


|
rrr. rrr

I

-------
rxcLUi ly LU
r
V
;
;
i
;
;

;
;

;
;

;
;

;
ben<
^fifc j 	 i 	 I 	
Nil 1 Li.3
b> r i x
< 5 5
i i i
	 ] 	 Lr
L


j ;


1


1


1

ihange in t


j ;


I


1


I


LI Iv-* v


|

:he MI

"*


|

jlue c

change in the <
j i


i l'







j \


\
/
T^
I


|

\
f.

l
^^^ •j"
^ 1/^vV
JOl
— . . 	
i


I




I

)f OUt

rOQr (
LUDL V
j !

V
\
__ — J 	
>s cre<
Ul


|

puts
Df inp
"j
j ;


\
ition
...^>
	 	 — • —


| |
\ \
| |
ICL


|




i ire
Utb
j ;


I
^ 	 1 	
1


I

I


I





i |

,, 	 4 	 E 	


I


i


-------
         Presented at the U.S.-German Bilateral Working Group's workshop "Economic Tools for Sustainable Brownfield
                               Redevelopment", November 11 and 12, 2002 in Charlotte, North Carolina

                                                                 Abstract
                                   Criteria for Gauging the Success of Brownfield's Redevelopment

Assessments of the success of brownfield redevelopment often fall into the trap of conflating measures of economic impacts and social benefits.  Analyses of benefits
and economic impacts answer two different questions.  A benefits analysis addresses the issue of efficiency, assessing, in effect, whether the winners from a project
could compensate the losers ands still be at least as well off.  An economic impact analysis addresses the issue of distribution, asking the question of who wins, who
loses, and by how much.  Disentangling efficiency and distributional considerations is important to gaining a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the success of
a project and its sustainability.  For example, the number of jobs created, oft cited as an indicator of social benefits from a project, would actually show up as a cost in
a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis, given that every job created has some opportunity cost.


Colin Vance
U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
National Center for Environmental Economics
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,  NW (MC 1809T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
phone:  202.566.2301
fax: 202.566.2339
email: vance.colin@epa.gov

-------
Contact Information
NAME
Atlenbockum, Michael
Alvarez, Karl
Anderson, Louise
Argus, Roger
Bartsch, Charles
Barczewski, Baldur
Black, Paul
Carroll, Ann
Cornell, Ken
Costopoulos, Christine
D' Andrea, Larry
Donella, Dorris
Dosch, Dr. Fabian
AFFILIATION
Altenbockum &Partner,
Geologen
US Environmental
Protection Agency
International Economic
Development Council
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Northeast-Midwest Institute
VEGAS, University of
Stuttgart
Neptune & Co.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
AIG International
New York State Department
of Environmental
Conservation
US Environmental
Protection Agency
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
Federal Agency of Building
and Housing
TELEPHONE
011-49-241-912650
202-566-2749
202-942-9459
619-525-7188
202-544-5200
011-49-711-685-7018
720-746-1803
202-566-2748
212-458-6206 (cell 917-767-
3731)
518-402-9754
212-637-4314
703-390-0647
011-49-1888-4012-307
FAX
011-49-241-
9126519
202-566-2757
202-223-4745
619-525-7186
202-544-0043
011-49-711-685-
4631
720-746-1605
202-566-2757
212-458-6523
518-402-9722
212-637-4360
619-525-7186
011-49-1888-4012-
266
EMAIL
altenbockum@altenbockum
^e
alvarez.karl@epa.gov
landerson@iedconline.org
roger.argus@ttemi.com
cbartsch@nemw.org
barczewski@iws.uni-
stuttgart.de
pblack@neptuneandco.com
carroll.ann@epa.gov
ken.cornell@aig.com
cjcostop@gw.dec.state.ny.us
dandrea.larry@epamail.epa.
gOY
doris.donella@ttemi.com
fabian.dosch@bbr.bund.de

-------
Contact Information
NAME
Edelwirth, Michael
Eitel, Jan
Ferber, Dr. Uwe
Fidler, Tom
Forinash, Chris
Gatchett, Annettte
Gatica-Hebert,
Staci
Gerkens, Karsten
Gilland, Kenneth
Graumann, Doreen
Greenfield, Barbara
Hansen, Verle
AFFILIATION
GSF Forschumgszentrum fur
Umwelt und Gesundheit
GIU - Innovation, Enterprise
Support, and Land Management
Projektgruppe Stadt und
Entwicklung, Germany
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
U.S Environmental Protection
Agency
US Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
City of Leipzig
Center for Geosciences
Projektgruppe Stadt und
Entwicklung, Germany
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
TELEPHONE
49-89-651-08863
011-49-681-9762-141
011-49-341-48070-24 (-
26)
717-783-9472/7816
202-566-2842
513-569-7697
202-564-2321
011-49-341-1235410
919-485-2601
011-49-341-480-7026
214-665-3111
513-569-7362
FAX
08-965-108854
011-49-681-9762-
120
011-49-341-480-
6968
717-787-1904
202-566-2868
513-569-7620
202-565-2917
011-49-341-
1235412
919-541-8830
011-49-341-480-
6988
214-665-6460
513-569-7620
EMAIL
edelwirth@gsf.de
j.eitel@giu.de
projektstadt@t-online.de
tfidler@dep.state.pa.us
forinash.christopher@epa.gov
gatchett.annette@epa.gov
gatica-heb ert. staci@epa.gov
kgerkens@leipzig.de
krg@rti.org
doreen graumann@projektsta
dt.de
greenfield.barbara@epa.gov
hansen.verle@epa.gov

-------
Contact Information
NAME
Henry, Evan
Huwe, Alphonse
Ishorst, Ralph
Konig, Michael
Linne, Martin
MacCourt, Douglas C.
Olexsey, Bob
Opper, Richard
Peoples, Lisa
Riley, GaryJ.
Schock, Sue
Schrenk, Volker
Sherman, Ann
AFFILIATION
Bank of America
LESG Leipzig
West German Real Estate
Bank
Dr. Eisele Group
City of Duisburg
Ater Wynne, LLP
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Foley & Lardner
U.S. Housing and Urban
Development
California Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
VEGAS, University of
Stuttgart
Ater Wynne, LLP
TELEPHONE
714-734-2070
(0341) 9927760
011-49-211-90101-550
011-49-7661-9319-0
011-49-203-283-3366
503-226-1191
513-569-7861
619-685-6445
202-708-0614
510-622-2462
513-569-7551
011-49-711-685-7017
503-226-1191
FAX
714-734-2086
(0341) 9927741
011-49-211-
90101-559
011-49-7661-
9319-77
011-49-203-283-
3666
503-226-0079
513-569-7620
(619) 234-3510
202-401-2231
510-622-2460
513-487-2513
011-49-711-685-
4631
503-226-0079
EMAIL
evan.c. henry (g),bankofamerica.co
m
lesg.gf@,t-online.de
r.ishorst@westgka.de
michael.konig@iut.de
m.linne@stadt-duisburg.de
dcm@aterwynne.com
Olexsey.bob@epa.gov
ropper@foleylaw.com
lisa peoples@hud.gov
gir@rb2 . swrcb . ca.gov
schock.sue@epa.gov
schrenk@iws .uni-stuttgart.de
als@aterwynne.com

-------
Contact Information
NAME
Smith, Terri
Steffens, Kai
Stockton, Tom
Tomerius, Stephan
Vance, Colin (replacement —
Rich lovanna)
Vega, Ann
Yasenchak, Leah
AFFILIATION
New Jersey
Department of
Environmental Health
PROBIOTEC GmbH
Neptune & Co.
German Institute for
Urban Development
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
City of Trenton
TELEPHONE
609-984-3122
011-49-2421-6909-
46
505-662-0707 ex. 17
0049-030-39001-
299
202-566-2280
513-569-7635
609-989-4238
FAX
609-777-1914
011-49-2421-6909-
87
720-746-1605
0049-030-39001-
241
202-566-2339
513-569-7620
609-989-4243
EMAIL
tsmith3@dep.state.nj.us
steffens@probiotec.de
stockton@neptuneandco.com
tomerius @difu . de
Iovanna.rich@epa.gov
vega.ann@epa.gov
yas enchak.leah@epa.gov

-------
                                                      Presentation Abstract
                                          US/German Bilateral Working Group Workshop
                                                        November 12, 2002
                                                   US Case Study:  Trenton, NJ
                                                         Leah Yasenchak

This presentation will cover Trenton's aggressive approach to brownfields redevelopment, from planning and investigation to acquisition,
remediation and redevelopment.  It will also include a brief discussion on Trenton's partners and funding sources. The presentation will then
highlight two particular projects, the Magic Marker site and the Assunpink Creek Greenway; both of which have been selected by the US/German
Bilateral Group as projects for case study research.

-------
     TRENTON'S APPROACH TO BROWNFIELDS

                REDEVELOPMENT

  Leah Yasenchak, EPA/City of Trenton


ITRC US/German Bilateral Working Group
                                If

         November 12, 2002

-------
•   IS
               •r             J|   ^L   ^* -     ^ ^.  f ^1
              Magic Marker Site prior to demolition:

                      n Industrial Wastemnd

-------
Phases of Brownfield Redevelopmen
          Planning
          Investigation
          Acquisition
          Remediation
          Redevelopment
  ^       77777/

-------
                   r m I
          I
        PLANNING


> Master Land Use Plan
   •Neighborhood by neighborhood evaluation of
   needs of community
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
Open Space Plan
'Individual Site Plans
'Community Involvement


-------
         INVESTIGATION
•All properties go through the Voluntary Cleanup
Program

•HDSRF funds many of the investigations of City-owned
properties

•A targeted reuse or high potential for redevelopment is
in place prior to initiating an investigation
V

-------
  •s->f

**<**!*
*i^ *T

        .-
           •
KM
                ACQUISITION
Tax Foreclosure



Purchase
           .


Condemnation
            .
                    .ssunpink Creek Greenway

-------



           REMEDIATIO
                            •Escrow acquisition price
                            •EPA/DEP Removal actions
                            •USTfields
                            •NJRA Brownfields
                            Remediation Initiative
                            •Negotiations with PRP
                            •Property Trusts
                            •BCRLF
The Old Trenton Water Works



                                                  ,

-------

V
       REDEVELOPMENT
         Crane Site - HOW the US Route 1 Commerce Center

-------

    JMrK^^Mwl   V^^L^^^L $   iv^^f/)
        PARTNERSHL „,
               TT            %O
  COMMUNITY
  BEST COMMITTEE
  FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
  STATE GOVERNMENT
  COUNTY GOVERNMENT
  REDEVELOPER
  INTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN THE CITY
-rr-      7   T    7      ^7       T
        y!        '.A\               
-------
                 V
        Case Studv:  'he Magic Marker Site

• Seven acre former battery manufacturer; lead contamination
present
• Strong community presence
• Adjacent to a site targeted for a new school
• Site of early phytoremediation field test (results inconclusive)
• City owns property; worked with responsible party to do initial
investigation; RP now in bankruptcy (not because of this site!)
• Site targeted for housing and open space
• Site of new New Jersey Area Wide Brownfield Initiative


-------

-------


-------
-.

-------

-------
•,-
    -*>
                                                                 Communty

                                    School  *'
^r^
                                             =ff^ff^ff—i.
                                             3G3. vM^-i



-------
0
Case Study: The Assunpink Creek Greenwav
     • 60+ acres of heavy industrial use
     • Property consists of multiple brownfield sites contaminated
     with heavy metals, PAHs, PCBs etc.
     • Located along a creek in the floodway
     • Reuse vision is a park and greenway along the creek
     • City owns a portion of the property; working with a
     multiple partners to fund the architectural, environmental,
     and engineering work required
     • Employing innovative field technologies, dynamic
     workplan, and triad approach to the extent feasible.
        T^

                        TT


                                                             ,

-------

    illHftYv^^L.^AH0fU        [^JbMj^^^^l
Greenway Conceptual Plan

                    •**.,,.

                                       tat,
                                        I.:
                       	— _,.*_;._i.,_





                                            ,

-------
'•-.
t

 *.
 .




-------

3

-------

-------
TRENTON'S APPROACH TO BROWNFIELDS
            REDEVELOPMENT
         >*.*•'ii-"-ป">' ; ปw

-------
                                                     GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Brownfields - 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

Environmental Justice - The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people, including
racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal,
and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

Greenfields - A piece of usually semi-rural property that is undeveloped except for agricultural use, especially one considered as a site for expanding urban
development

Greenway - A corridor of undeveloped land, as along a river or between urban centers, that is reserved for recreational use or environmental preservation.

HVB-Group - (GERMAN) The second largest private commercial bank group in Germany
and the leading real estate financer in Europe.

Phytoremediation - The use  of plants and trees to remove or neutralize contaminants, as in polluted soil or water

Smart Growth - In communities across the nation, there is a growing concern that current development patterns ~ dominated by what some call "sprawl" ~ are
no longer in the long-term interest of our cities, existing suburbs, small towns, rural communities, or wilderness areas. Though supportive of growth,
communities are questioning the economic costs of abandoning infrastructure in the city, only to rebuild it further out. Spurring the smart growth movement are
demographic shifts, a strong environmental ethic, increased fiscal concerns, and more nuanced views of growth. The result is both a new demand and a new
opportunity for smart growth.

USTFields - Applies to abandoned or underused industrial and commercial properties where reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental
contamination from federally-regulated underground storage tanks (USTs).

Voluntary Cleanup Program - More than 35 States now have voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs) under which private parties that voluntarily agree to clean
up a contaminated site are offered some protection from future State enforcement action at the site, often in the form of a "no further action" letter or "certificate
of completion" from the State. Such State commitments do not affect EPA's authority to respond to actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances under
CERCLA.

X-Urban - adj. development at a density less than traditional suburban development but in a more structured manner than traditionally viewed as rural, or ad
hoc, development

-------
                                      ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BCRLF      Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
                                                                      LID
                                                                      Local Improvement District
COP         Certification of Participation
                                                                      NJRA       New Jersey Redevelopment Agency
DEP         Department of Environmental Protection
                                                                      PAH        Poly-aromatic Hydrocarbon
EPA        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                      PCB        Polychlorinated Biphenyl
EU
European Union
                                                                      PPP         Public-Private Partnership
GA
Federal economic regeneration fund (German)
                                                                      PRP         Potentially Responsible Party
HDSRF      Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund
                                                                      RLF         Revolving Loan Fund
LEG NRW    State Development Agency of North-Rhine Westphalia
(German)
                                                                      SEC         Security and Exchange Commission
                                                                      TIF
                                                                      Tax Increment Financing
                                                                      US
                                                                      United States

-------