Revitalizing Southeastern Communities
State Voluntary Cleanup Programs
Following is a quick primer on State voluntary brownfields cleanup programs or "VCPs":
Voluntary cleanup programs are state-level initiatives that have been put into place to encourage the
voluntary cleanup of contaminated sites. These response programs address the sites that are not
contaminated enough to meet U.S. EPA's criteria for placement on the National Priorities Superfund
List, or federal criteria for emergency removal of contamination. These sites come under state
control, and the VCPs aim to address those sites. Currently, 49 states have VCPs in place.
Voluntary programs differ from other, more regulatory environmental programs because they provide
a way for owners or developers of a site to approach the state or commonwealth voluntarily to
cooperatively work out a process by which the site can be cleaned up appropriately, and made ready
for new uses. VCPs aim to make it easier and more predictable to bring contaminated sites back to
productive use. They do this by establishing a recognized and predictable process for determining
"how clean is clean" at any given site, and what steps need to be taken to achieve this.
Most State VCP programs provide a clear process for brownfields cleanup, clear standards for those
cleanups, and mechanisms such as certificates of completion, "no further action" determinations, and
covenants-not-to-sue to protect parties from liability once those cleanups are complete. Common
VCP characteristics across states are noted below. Many voluntary programs are targeted specifically
to overcome the barriers associated with brownfields activity and to better link cleanup and
redevelopment activities that may be needed at a site. In addition, because most VCPs allow
consideration of future land use in deciding on cleanup plans, cleanup costs might be lower.
State voluntary programs are particularly effective because they allow private parties to initiate
cleanups and work cooperatively with state agencies to avoid some of the costs and delays that would
likely occur if the sites were subject to Superfund or other enforcement-driven programs. Since
voluntary programs involve a cooperative effort with regulators, as opposed to the adversarial nature
of enforcement-driven cleanup programs, actual clean-up and state approval of the cleanup process can
take less time - sometimes months less. This time savings can be valuable to someone considering
taking on a brownfield site, and it can be a critical factor for new users who may be thinking about the
site for a redevelopment project.
Liability protection is a critical component of the VCPs. Although most brownfield sites do not rank
high among government concerns in terms of risk due to environmental exposure, there is still a
significant concern among lenders, prospective site purchasers, and even adjoining property owners
that they could be held liable for any number of unpredictable reasons. Therefore, a key part of the
federal Brownfields Law is the "finality" that the law conveys to people who participate in state
programs. A brownfields cleanup conducted under a State VCP program will not be subject to future
over-filing or second-guessing by the federal government under the Superfund/CERCLA law, absent
extraordinary circumstances not present at most brownfields.

-------
Characteristics of State Voluntary Cleanup Programs
49 programs in place today
•	These are new initiatives - more than half adopted in the past seven years
•	A dozen older programs changed significantly since 2000
•	They seek to provide predictability and finality to the brownfield process
Eligibility
•	Typically, open to any contaminated site not being cleaned up under another
program, such as Superfund, or sites subject to corrective action (notably
RCRA and LUST)
•	Most permit more types of contaminants than defined in Superfund
•	Most do not let parties responsible for past pollution participate
Oversight
•	State oversight varies by level of cleanup required, type of site (i.e., orphan or
prospective purchaser); many programs use "privatized" approaches with
participants using contracted private oversight or "licensed remediation
specialists"
Liability Protection
•	States offer several liability protections including covenants not to sue,
certificates of completion, and no further action letters
•	The Brownfield Law includes protection for participants in state VCPs,
innocent landowners, and prospective purchasers
Financial assistance/incentives, with the objectives to:
•	Reduce lender's risk
•	Reduce borrower's cost of financing
•	Ease the borrower's/site user's financial situation
•	Provide direct financing help
•	13 states offer direct grants or loans

-------
Working with Region IV States
Overview
Now more than ever, the success of locai brownfields initiatives will depend upon the strength and
capacity of state brownfields programs, and the ability of localities to partner with their states. Most
states have well established voluntary cleanup programs (VCPs) that provide a combination of cleanup
procedures and economic incentives for brownfields projects. These state programs will continue to
grow in importance, because the users of state VCPs will usually receive some protection from Federal
enforcement, and because the U.S. EPA is providing substantial funding (up to $50 million annually) to
expand and improve state VCPs.
States are well situated to promote the cross-sector cooperation needed for brownfields success
because most states have environmental, economic, planning, transportation, infrastructure, and other
departments that can integrate these efforts and direct incentives toward local brownfields projects.
States are also key brownfields partners because they can help build and sustain the capacity of local
government brownfields programs, and because states are in the best position to connect the issue of
brownfields revitalization to the larger issues of sustainable growth across local boundaries and
regions. In most cases, state programs work best when a locality is pro-active in partnering with the
state and attracting state brownfields resources and assistance. Localities should join forces with their
states by:
¦ Inviting the State environmental
department's brownfields officials to the
community, and involving the State
brownfields team on your brownfields
advisory council. Ask the state for technical
assistance and outreach to brownfield
stakeholders. Invite a state official to do a
year-long work detail in your community.
" Encouraging state officials to form a cross-
sector team of state officials to provide
assistance on brownfields, including officials
from environmental, economic development, infrastructure, planning, transportation, and other
key state programs.
" Tapping state resources for local brownfields revitalization, including brownfields assessment
and cleanup funds, economic development programs, Clean Water State Revolving Funds, tax
incentives, and other resources.
COMMON GOALS OF VOLUNTARY
CLEANUP PROGRAMS
•	Make it easier arid more predictable to
bring contaminated sites back to productive
use
•	Offer liability relief to bring certainty and
finality to the cleanup process (significantly
stronger now, with the new federal
brownfields law)
•	Expedite the brownfield financing process

-------
¦ Learning about the state's voluntary cleanup program, and translating that information to local
brownfields site owners, prospective purchasers, and potential investors.
See the Toolkit folder for your state to learn specifics about your state program.
An additional Toolkit resource is "State Brownfield Tools and Financing" report by the Northeast-
Midwest Institute. This report describes notable examples of successful state tools and strategies for
filling capital gaps in brownfield cleanup and redevelopment projects.

-------
Revitalizing Southeastern Communities
Underground Storage Tank Programs
States play a primary role in regulating underground storage tanks, and ensuring the cleanup of
petroleum contaminated brownfields or "USTfields." Currently 34 states and the District of Columbia
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have underground storage tank programs that are approved by
EPA, and serving as the lead regulatory program for USTfields. Of the states in Region 4, only Florida
and Kentucky do not have "approved" state programs. Owners and operators in states that have an
approved UST program do not have to deal with two sets of statutes and regulations (state and
federal) that may be conflicting.
Once their programs are approved, states have the lead role in UST program enforcement. In states
without an approved program, EPA will work with state officials in coordinating UST enforcement
actions. In addition, every state but Idaho has a comprehensive set of UST leak prevention and
detection regulations and a program to implement those regulations, and all states have cleanup
programs for leaking underground tanks. Even for states without EPA authority to run UST regulatory
programs, EPA enters into grant/cooperative agreements with the state programs, and in nearly all
cases the state program is designated as the primary implementing agency.

-------
Revitalizing Southeastern Communities
, flftr -f
State Funding & Financing Tools
States have been in the forefront of creative brownfield financing efforts, and 22 states have put
programs in place that have provided critical funding resources to overcome brownfield barriers. As
you can see from the following box, these programs fall into four broad categories.
Increasingly, states are stepping up to meet the challenges of brownfields reuse. This includes financing
site assessment and cleanup, and financing the more complicated planning and transaction costs that
brownfield typically require. They recognize that no specific type of public-private partnership - and
no single approach - fits
the financing needs of
all brownfield projects.
State approaches
include:
(I) Tax credits,
abatements, and other
tax incentives for
brownfield projects.
These programs help
with a project's cash
flow, by allowing
revenue to be used for
brownfield purposes
rather than for tax
payments. This can help
site re-users get the
cash together to deal
with some of the site
preparation costs that
contamination involves.
This cash flow cushion
from a tax break can
also make a project
more attractive to
lenders. State and
federal tax incentives
historically have been
used to channel
investment capital and
promote economic
development in areas of need, and brownfield targeting is a natural evolution of this type of program
State Innovations in Brownfield Financing
Tax incentives 22 states, including
•	Georgia's brownfields tax incentive allows prospective
purchasers to exclude value of cleanup from property value
•	Mississippi's tax credit equal to 25% of the remediation costs
•	Florida's voluntary lax credit allows up to 35% of cleanup costs
to eligible applicants
•	North Carolina's tax incentives gives a five year exclusion for
property improvements
Targeted Economic Development Assistance 19 states, including
•	Florida's loan guarantees/loan loss reserves
•	South Carolina's Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund is
available to parties that participate in the VCP
•	Brownfield/environmental G.O. bond issues in Ohio ($200
million); Michigan ($255 million); and New York ($200 million)
Initiatives supporting brownfield financing 10 states, including
•	Florida's Redevelopment Bonus gives a $2,500 refund for each
new job created by a project and sales tax credit on building
materials
•	Pennsylvania's "Key Sites" initiative - funds contractors to do
site assessments and prepare cleanup plans
•	Massachusetts Access to Capital Program - includes $15 million
to cover a portion of environmental insurance premiums on
state-negotiated policies.

-------
tool. Most brownfields tax incentives are targeted to offset cleanup costs or to provide a buffer
against increases in property value that would raise tax assessments before the site preparation costs
are paid off.
(2)	Economic development programs that can be targeted to promote brown field reuse.
Capital gaps remain the biggest barrier to brownfield reuse, and more than half the states have worked
to address this issue by putting financing incentives in place, such as loans or grants. These programs
meet several objectives. They are targeted to help finance specific parts of the project, such as site
preparation. They can be used to increase the lender's comfort with these projects, by offering
guarantees to limit the risk of potential losses. Or, they can ease the borrower's cash flow by plugging
certain capital holes or offsetting the extra up-front costs of site cleanup.
(3)	Direct financing efforts. These are the programs that cut to the chase, and match resources to
needs, usually in places where the private sector may fear to tread. Nearly one-third of the states have
decided to dedicate resources to directly finance brownfield activities that the private sector avoids,
such as site assessment and cleanup. Most often, this involves bond issue proceeds or dedicated state
revenues for this purpose.
(4)	Innovative programs to support brownfield financing by helping to level the economic
playing field between greenfield and brownfield sites. These types of state activities build on very
real and practical opportunities to promote linkages across programs and leverage additional resources
more easily. About half a dozen programs do this in various ways, by limiting risk or offsetting critical
costs such as those for site assessments. Most of these programs were enacted as a way to attract
private investment while limiting public spending. For example, Cal. Code Chapter 1016, passed into
law last year, requires California to establish state infrastructure priorities and budgets that "support
infill development and redevelopment, cultural and historic resources, environmental and agricultural
resources, and efficient development patterns." Likewise, the State of Maryland will not provide state
infrastructure funding for roads, sewer and water facilities, schools, or other community infrastructure
unless those facilities are constructed in and for designated growth zones. These growth zones
typically include a significant number of brownfield properties.
Websites:
www.nga.org/center - National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices
www.astswmo.org - Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials

-------
State Brownfield Financing
Tools and Strategies
by
Charles Bartsch
and Barbara Wells
Northeast-Midwest Institute
www.nemw.org
April 2005

-------
State Brownfield Financing Tools and Strategies
Because capital gaps remain the biggest barrier to brownfield redevelopment, more than
half the states have created some type of brownfield financing program. Direct financial
assistance, such as loans and grants, and indirect financing tools, such as tax abatements and
credits, meet several objectives. They can target specific parts of the project, such as site
preparation. They can increase the level of comfort among other lenders that finance these
projects by providing loan guarantees that limit their potential losses. They also can ease the
borrower's cash flow by plugging certain capital holes or off-setting some up-front costs of site
cleanup. These state incentives recognize that no specific type of public-private partnership or
single financing approach can meet the needs of every brownfield project.
This report describes some notable examples of successful state tools and strategies for
filling capital gaps in brownfield cleanup and redevelopment projects. They include:
Targeted Financial Assistance
•	Connecticut: Dry Cleaner Remediation Fund
•	Florida: Loan Guarantees
•	Illinois: Flexible Terms Under Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
•	Indiana: Revolving Loan Fund
•	Massachusetts: State Brownfields Redevelopment Access to Capital (BRAC) Insurance
•	New Jersey: Project-Based Coordination of Financing Tools
•	Ohio: Environmental Bond Issues
•	Ohio and Pennsylvania: Water Pollution Control Loan Fund
Tax Incentives
•	Colorado: Cleanup Tax Credit
•	Florida: Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credit and Tax Refund for Job Creation
•	New York: Cleanup, Real Property, and Insurance Tax Credit
•	Wisconsin: Cancellation of Delinquent Taxes
Planning, Assessment, and Cleanup Programs
•	Michigan: Local Brownfield Redevelopment Authorities
•	Wisconsin: Brownfield Site Assessment Grant Program
Infrastructure Development
•	Massachusetts: Transportation Construction
1

-------
Targeted Financial Assistance
Connecticut: Dry Cleaner Remediation Fund
Thanks to a 1 percent sales tax on dry cleaning services, every clean shirt in Connecticut
supports brownfield financing. The tax supports the Dry Cleaner Establishment Remediation
Fund, which provides grants of up to $50,000 a year for three years, totaling up to $150,000, to
dry cleaner business operators to deal with the unique environmental problems caused by dry
cleaning solvents and chemicals. The grants may be used for site cleanup, containment, and
mitigation of pollution from releases of tetrachloroethylene, Stoddard solvents, and other dry
cleaning chemicals, and also for the prevention of such pollution and to provide potable drinking
water when necessary.
To be eligible for the funding, applicants must prove that at least two banks have refused
to provide them with conventional financing on reasonable terms or in reasonable amounts.
They also must currently operate the establishment, be current in filing all state and federal taxes,
and certify that they are involved in no outstanding litigation proceedings. Grant applications are
evaluated based on risk to public health, magnitude of the problem, cost and environmental
effectiveness of the proposal, and the availability of funds. So far, the state has awarded grants
totaling up to $3 million to about 40 applicants. About 10 sites are in the monitoring stage and
will complete remediation within the next two years.
Contact: Dimple Desai, Program Manager, Connecticut Department of Economic & Community
Development, 860/270-8151.dimple.desai@po.state.ct.us.
Florida: Loan Guarantees
Florida's Brownfield Area Loan Guarantee Program targets primary lenders that finance
brownfield redevelopment, providing coverage of up to 10 percent of the original loan balance or
the outstanding balance, whichever is less. The program covers losses from default due to
environmental and other causes for up to five years, but the council that approves applications
may consider a request to renew or issue a new guarantee for up to five additional years for loans
and/or projects that demonstrate continued prospects for ultimate success.
Although the program shows promise for resolving a small project funding gap, only one
developer has used the guarantee to date. It appears that for most projects, the coverage of 10
percent is not enough. The program may be amended to increase the maximum coverage during
Florida's legislative session beginning on March 1, 2005, when the state's entire brownfield
program will be reviewed.
Contact: Mary Helen Blakeslee, Executive Office of the Governor, OTTED, 850-922-8743,
marvhelen.blakeslee@myflorida.com.
2

-------
Illinois: Flexible Terms Under Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Illinois' federally funded Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund has provided $1.5
million in loans to municipalities, with almost $1 million more in the works, thanks to very
flexible terms that make the loan payment contingent on the redevelopment of the property.
After launching the program, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
realized that many municipalities could not use the loans, despite interest rates as low as 2
percent, because local regulations required the municipalities to establish a repayment stream.
For most brownfield sites, a repayment stream cannot be assured because there is no guarantee a
developer will purchase the remediated site. In fact, often municipalities gift brownfield sites to
developers, realizing no profit but spurring economic growth. In response to this barrier, IEPA
negotiated with EPA Region 5 to amend the loan rules.
Under the rules, the loan agreement specifies that if during the agreement period (up to
15 years) the site or a portion of the site is sold or the title transfers, or if the site or portion of the
site is leased, traded, or developed, the borrower will repay a portion of the loan. Repayment is
based on profit or cash flow realized by the municipality. These terms not only enabled
municipalities to apply for the loans, but also freed Illinois EPA from having to pursue inaction
on loans that municipalities cannot repay. To date the terms have been well worth the risk; two
developers are interested in the first site to be cleaned up using $425,000 in program funds.
Contact: Steve Colantino, Manager, Illinois Office of Brownfields Assistance,
Steve.Colantino@epa.state.il.us.
Indiana: Revolving Loan Fund
Indiana's State Environmental Remediation Revolving Loan Fund (the Brownfields
Fund) supports key funding for brownfield site assessments and cleanup. Created by the state
legislature in 1997, the fund is administered by the Indiana Development Finance Authority
(IDF A) in cooperation with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).
The law provided $10 million over three years to eligible cities, towns, and counties;
grants for assessments approved by IDFA and IDEM; and loans for IDEM- and IDFA-approved
assessments or remediation (including demolition). Today the program is funded at $1 million
per year. Applicants are evaluated according to several criteria, including the ability to repay,
their available matching funds, and their economic development potential. About half of the
funding was allocated to jurisdictions with fewer than 22,000 people.
Each year the Brownfields Fund sets aside $50,000 for Just In Time Funding—available
outside the normal grant rounds—for Phase II site assessments that are needed for immediate
economic development project needs. A city, town, or county must match these grant dollars
one for one and certify that a company or developer is imminently interested.
3

-------
Legislation added $5 million to the Brownfields Fund in 1999 for forgivable loans. For
projects that meet economic development goals determined by the community, 20 percent of the
loan may be forgiven. Priority is given to former gas station or UST sites, or facilities located
within one-half mile of a child-care center or school. Brownfields Fund applicants may partner
or apply with private entities that did not cause or contribute to any contamination, and loan
recipients may re-loan the money to an eligible private entity with the same provisions for
forgiving 20 percent.
The fund also supports five brownfield incentives:
•	Site Assessment Grant Incentive : Provides grants of up to $7,500 for Phase I assessment
or $50,000 for Phase II assessment (per applicant, per funding round) to cities, towns, and
counties. Private parties may be co-applicants. The grants pay for environmental
investigation at identified brownfield sites, including asbestos and lead-based paint
surveys.
•	Low Interest Loan Incentive: Provides loans of up to approximately $700,000, with
interest rates of 2.5 percent to 3.0 percent, to cities, towns, and counties for the cost of
remediation or demolition at brownfield sites. Eligible activities include: soil and
groundwater cleanup, demolition activities, asbestos and lead paint abatement, and
additional investigation.
•	Petroleum Remediation Grant Incentive : Provides grants of up to $250,000 per applicant,
per funding round, for cities, towns, and counties to clean up petroleum at brownfield
sites. Eligible activities include underground storage tank removal, preparation of
corrective action plans, IDEM-approved remediation, and monitoring.
•	Voluntary Remediation Tax Credit. Offers a credit against Indiana tax liabilities to
persons or entities for conducting voluntary cleanup at eligible brownfield sites. The
maximum amount of the credit equals the lesser of 10 percent of the remediation cost or
$100,000.
•	Federal Grant Matching Incentive : $2 million is available through calendar year 2005 for
matching grants of up to 20 percent of a local government's federal brownfields award.
No application process required, but applicants for federal brownfield funding must
notify IDFA of pending application through a letter of intent.
Contacts: Sara Westrick Corbin, Indiana Development Finance Authority,
swestrick@idfa.in. gov: Michelle Oertel, Indiana Department of Environmental Management,
moertel@dem.state.in.us. Web page: www.idfabrownfields.com.
4

-------
Massachusetts: State Brownfiehls Redevelopment Access to Capital (BRAC) Insurance
The Massachusetts Brownfield Redevelopment Access to Capital Program (MassBRAC)
makes low-cost environmental insurance available to parties that clean up or redevelop
brownfield sites anywhere in the state. Projects that qualify for the program obtain state-of-the-
art policies provided by AIG Environmental. In addition to pre-negotiated, below-market pricing
for coverage under the program, the state further subsidizes the cost of program policies at the
rate of 25 percent of the policy cost, up to a maximum of $25,000 per policy.
Available coverage includes cleanup cost cap (stop-loss) protection for those involved in
an active remediation project, and pollution legal liability coverage to protect parties from
unknown or unidentified contamination on brownfield sites that are being redeveloped. Lenders
to projects involving the or redevelopment of a brownfield site also can obtain protection through
a no-cost endorsement to a borrower's pollution legal liability policy. The policy automatically
transfers all coverage to the lender in the event of a loan default/foreclosure.
Applying for insurance under the MassBRAC Program is no different from applying for
any environmental policy, and the program has developed simple and streamlined procedures for
obtaining program and subsidy approval as well. Since the program's inception in 1999, it has
provided coverage for over 240 brownfield redevelopment projects in Massachusetts and nearly
$5 million in state-funded insurance premium subsidies.
The program is administered by Massachusetts Business Development Corporation
(MassBusiness), a state-monitored private development company that also provides loan and
investment capital to businesses in throughout Massachusetts. As of June 2004, BRAC had
assisted 227 projects, leveraging $133 million in cleanup funds and $1.7 billion in private
investment.
Contact: Thomas Barry, Vice President, Massachusetts Business Development Corp. and
Director, Brownfields Redevelopment Access to Capital, 781-928-1106, tbarry@mass-
business.com.
New Jersey: Project-Based Coordination of Financing Tools
The New Jersey Brownfields Redevelopment Interagency Team (BRIT) offers
brownfield project developers, municipal officials, and others engaged in brownfield
redevelopment projects coordinated information and access to a full range of state resources in
more than 24 agencies. Coordinated by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs'
Office of Smart Growth, the team convenes to review specific projects and identify the particular
mix of resources best suited to assessing, cleaning up, and developing the project, emphasizing
the application of smart growth principles in the plans and design.
5

-------
Since its inception in 2003, the
BRIT has fully reviewed 50 brownfield
projects and provided additional
consultation at another 50 sites. The BRIT
also creates special task groups to find
ways to improve brownfield policies and
programs when its work points to specific
needs. These issues are collaboratively
explored by the BRIT and the NJ
Brownfields Redevelopment Task Force,
created by statute pursuant to the state's
Brownfield and Contaminated Site
Remediation Act of 1988 (N.J.S.A58:10B-
1 et seq). The task force then makes policy
recommendations to the governor and
legislature.
Typically the municipality or entity
seeking to redevelop a brownfield site—or
an entire redevelopment area that includes
brownfield properties—contacts Frances
Hoffman, chair of the BRIT, for guidance
in accessing state technical and financial
assistance. If a site seems to require the
attention of just one or a few state agencies,
Hoffman connects the project contact with
the appropriate agencies. However, for
complex brownfield sites that require the involvement of more than four or five state agencies,
Hoffman visits the site for a preview and then convenes the BRIT to identify and weave together
the resources needed for addressing legal issues, planning, environmental requirements,
infrastructure development, and financing.
The BRIT draws on numerous state financing tools in various agencies, such as:
N.I Economic Development Authority
•	Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Loan and Grant Program: provides loans and
grants to private, municipal and applicants for assessments, remedial investigation, and
remediation, following approval by DEP.
•	Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Remediation Upgrade and Closure Program:
provides loans and grants to business owners, homeowners, and municipalities to
upgrade, close, and remediate discharges associated with underground storage tanks.
Partial List of Agencies and Programs in the BRIT
Board of Public Utilities
Department of Agriculture
Department of Community Affairs
Council on Affordable Housing
Housing and Community Resources
Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency
Office of Smart Growth
Redevelopment Authority
Department of Education
Department of Enviromnental Protection
Green Acres
Historic Preservation
Enviromnental Infrastructure Trust
Office of Brownfield Reuse
One Stop Permit Coordination
Site Remediation and Waste Management Program
Bureau of Contract and Fund Management
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Law
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Commerce and Economic Growth Commission
Economic Development Authority
Brownfields Redevelopment Office
Schools Construction Corporation
New Jersey Transit
Department of Labor
6

-------
•	Revenue Allocation District Funding: available to assist municipalities in encouraging
revenue-generating development projects in a revenue allocation district as part of a
locally approved redevelopment plan.
•	Redevelopment Area Bond Financing: provides long-term, low-interest bonds for
infrastructure improvements and other predevelopment costs, including demolition and
remediation. Sites must be in formally designated redevelopment areas, with an
agreement for payments in lieu of taxes between the municipality and the site owner.
•	Fundfor Community Economic Development, helps finance feasibility studies and other
pre-development costs to determine if real estate-based economic development projects
involving profit or nonprofit organizations are viable.
•	Brownfields Redevelopment Loan Program: provides low-cost interim financing for
brownfields remediation costs for business owners and developers with a signed
brownfield reimbursement agreement with the New Jersey Commerce and Economic
Growth Commission and Treasury.
N.I Redevelopment Authority
•	Bond Program: provides qualified small-issue bonds for acquiring, constructing, and
renovating capital facilities.
•	NJRA—Urban Site Acquisition (NJUSA) Program: provides funds for the acquisition, site
•	assembly, and redevelopment of properties that are part of urban redevelopment plans.
•	NJRA Loan Guarantee Program: provides credit enhancements through loan guarantees
for projects unable to obtain conventional bank financing.
N.I Commerce and Economic Growth Commission
•	Brownfields and Contaminated Site Remediation Reimbursement Program (in
cooperation with the state Department of the Treasury): allows for qualified developers
to obtain reimbursement of up to 75 percent of authorized remediation costs incurred
during the redevelopment process. Reimbursement funds come from the generation of
new taxes associated with a completed, approved project.
•	Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ): revitalizes the local, regional, and state economies by
funding economic development projects-including infrastructure improvements,
economic development planning, and brownfield remediation-in the state's designated
urban enterprise zones in the state.
7

-------
N.I Department of Community Affairs, Office of Smart Growth
•	Smart future planning grants: provides funds for planning initiatives that meet smart
growth objectives, including more livable and sustainable communities, and are
consistent with statewide and regional planning precepts. Matching funds are not
required, but applicants are encouraged to seek multiple sources of funding, including
offerings of in-house staff time.
N.I Environmental Infrastructure Trust
•	Low-interest loans: financing at half the market rate or better to public agencies and
private water purveyors for the construction of infrastructure that benefits water quality
and drinking water safety, including acquisition, cleanup, and project completion.
N.I Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency
•	Market-oriented Neighborhood Initiative: financing for the development of market-rate
and mixed-income homeownership units in urban areas and neighborhoods that need
revitalization and redevelopment.
•	Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits: for developers of qualified rental properties to
reduce their federal tax liability, with awards of eligibility points for brownfield projects.
•	Midtifamily Housing Loans: permanent take-out financing, construction-only loans, and
construction loans that convert to permanent financing.
Contact. Frances Hoffman, Chair, Brownfields Redevelopment Interagency Team, Department
of Community Affairs, Office of Smart Growth, 609/292-3096, fhoffman@dca.state.nj .us, Web
site: www.nismartgrowth.com.
Ohio: Environmental Bond Issues
A major environmental bond issue approved by Ohio voters in November 2000 provided
$200 million for brownfield cleanup. The following year, the Ohio Legislature created two
programs that use the bond funds, allocating 80 percent to the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund
(CORF) and 20 percent to the Clean Ohio Assistance Fund (COAF). In consultation with the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), the Ohio Department of Development
(Ohio DOD) Office of Urban Development administers the programs with a unique emphasis on
managing costs as well as budgets. As a result, many projects have been completed under
budget, including a recent project that saved $800,000.
CORF is a statewide, competitive grants program governed by the Clean Ohio Council.
It provides grants for brownfield site acquisition, demolition, remediation, and limited
8

-------
infrastructure improvement. The projects are evaluated using a scored application based on
economic benefit and environmental improvement, focusing on Ohio's older communities that
deteriorated as cities and economic conditions changed. The maximum project award is $3
million, and applicants must provide a minimum match of 25 percent of total project costs. In
2002 and 2003, CORF awarded almost $80 million in grants for 34 projects, and an additional
$40 million will be awarded in 2005 and 2006.
COAF is a discretionary program, administered by Ohio DOD, which is available only to
cities and counties that have been designated as distressed based on their employment rates,
average wages, and poverty levels. COAF provides grants for Phase I and Phase II
Environmental Site Assessments, cleanup projects, and public health projects. The cleanup
grants are analogous to the CORF grants, but the public health grants are used for projects in
which cleanup will have no quantifiable economic benefit, such as cleanup of groundwater. The
grant requires no match. As of January 2005, 47 grants totaling more than $14 million had been
approved.
For both programs, ODOD seeks to control costs at the outset of the application process.
CORF uses a transparent application process in which applicants in effect grade themselves,
working to quantify exactly what will happen in the project. For potential COAF applicants,
ODOD first works with the distressed community to improve its projects and suggest various
approaches, and then considers funding them.
Once projects are underway, ODOD's efforts to control costs include the following
activities:
•	Requiring that applicants use their own established competitive procurement processes to
obtain the lowest costs for their services and materials.
•	Analyzing paid invoices from all applicants to determine median costs for specific
services and materials, which provide a reference point for estimated costs on future
applications. Applicants estimating higher costs for these services must obtain lower
prices or explain why their costs are higher than the median.
•	Performing front-end audits that require full documentation of all project invoices before
ODOD will pay for them.
ODOD obtains a full picture of the brownfield sites and verifies costs with the help of a full-time
staff member who makes site visits to monitor activities.
Contact: Amy Alduino, Brownfield Coordinator, Ohio Department of Development, 614/466-
0761, aalduino@odod.state.oh.us.
9

-------
Ohio and Pennsylvania: Water Pollution Control Loan Fund
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) can be an important source of funding
for projects at contaminated sites that threaten water quality. Ohio has been at the forefront of
these efforts, issuing loans for brownfield assessments and cleanups through its Water Pollution
Control Loan Fund (WPCLF). Administered by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), the fund makes loans available to both municipalities and private entities,
particularly those participating in the state's Voluntary Action Program (VAP). The prospective
WPCLF loan recipient does not necessarily have to be a participant in the VAP as long as the
work performed directly benefits surface/groundwater.
WPCLF loans for brownfields cannot exceed $3 million per project, and the loan period
cannot exceed 10 years. Eligible projects include Phase I and II assessment activities (e.g.
literature searches, site evaluation studies, sampling, monitoring, and laboratory tests) and
remediation. Like CWSRF programs in other states, Ohio's WPCLF offers loans at varying
interest rates and durations, with lower interest rates for small and disadvantaged communities,
short-term loans, and special projects dealing with municipal compliance maintenance, water
conservation, and construction of nonconventional technologies. Wastewater and nonpoint-
source pollution projects, including brownfields and USTfields, are both eligible for funding as
long as they benefit water quality and are listed in the state's Nonpoint Source Management
Plan.
Ohio EPA also offers linked-deposit loans to private organizations and individuals for
nonpoint source projects (especially agricultural best management practices), upgrading failed
on-lot wastewater treatment systems, urban stormwater runoff control, stream corridor
restoration, and forestry and land development best management practices. WPCLF loans can
enable businesses to expand on formerly contaminated property. For example, when Liniform
Services could not obtain private financing for a Phase II site assessment on property adjacent to
its dry cleaning facility, Ohio EPA provided a five-year WPCLF loan of over $60,000. With an
interest rate of approximately 3 percent, the loan financed Phase II investigation activities,
including soil and groundwater sampling. Once the assessment and subsequent cleanup were
complete, Liniform Services received a covenant-not- to-sue from Ohio EPA through the VAP,
enabling facility expansion to proceed. The loan was repaid using a revenue stream from
accounts receivable, with inventory and cash as extra collateral.
In Cleveland, the WPCLF funded a brownfield cleanup prior to site redevelopment.
Grant Realty purchased the 20-acre former Sunar-Hauserman Company site to build a centrally
located corporate headquarters, despite environmental assessments showing that soil and
groundwater had been contaminated with solvents. A $1.6-million WPCLF loan, at an interest
rate of approximately 4 percent, covered the cost of treating contaminated subsurface soil and
groundwater. The repayment source came from a tank-cleaning operation, with personal loan
guarantees and a second position mortgage as additional collateral. With assistance from the
Cuyahoga Brownfields Pilot Program, Grant Realty applied to Ohio's VAP for a covenant-not-
10

-------
to-sue and was issued a no further action letter.
The Hemisphere Corporation, a brownfield redevelopment company, obtained WPCLF
loans totaling approximately $3 million to assess and clean up a 27.5-acre brownfield site,
known as the Stickney West Industrial Park (SWIP), in the heart of an area undergoing extensive
redevelopment in Toledo. The site remediation will prime the parcel for redevelopment and
remove threats to groundwater and water quality in Sibley Creek and the Ottawa River.
Although Toledo boasts the fourth-largest port on the Great Lakes and one of the largest
railway centers, redevelopment of nearly two-thirds of the city's commercial and industrial real
estate has been hindered by environmental concerns. To encourage development, in 1997
Toledo obtained a $200,000-targeted brownfield assessment grant from U.S. EPA. Toledo used
part of the grant for a Phase I assessment on a 68-acre commercial/ industrial site surrounded by
three landfills, which identified soil contamination and threats to water quality in Sibley Creek
and the Ottawa River. In 1999, the Hemisphere Corporation purchased a portion of the property,
now known as SWIP, and agreed to conduct a Phase II assessment, clean up the parcel in
accordance with the Ohio VAP, and redevelop it.
In the spring of 2000, Hemisphere received a WPCLF loan of $500,000 to fund a Phase II
assessment that confirmed suspected surface soil contamination and, in accordance with the
VAP, determined the cleanup standards at a level that would allow industrial activities to resume
on the site. To fund the cleanup, Hemisphere received a second WPCLF loan of approximately
$2.5 million at an interest rate of about 4 percent over five years (extending to 10 years if the
loan is not in default). To cover additional costs and provide security for the WPCLF loans,
Hemisphere has worked with Toledo, Ohio EPA, and the Ohio Water Development Authority,
the secondary agency for the WPCLF that generally acts as a financial adviser to Ohio EPA for
CWSRF loans. Repayment sources for the loan include payment from the city for the soil
needed to cap its landfill, tipping fees from one of the landfills, rental fees from the completed
SWIP project, and settlements between the city and EPA for environmental liability related to
the site.
Despite these successes, Ohio EPA has received no new requests for loan assistance since
the creation of Ohio's brownfield grant programs in 2001. This may signify a preference among
applicants for grants over loans, and either grants are sufficient to meet the needs of current
brownfield entrepreneurs or prospective applicants are delaying seeking loans until possibilities
of receiving grants are exhausted.
Contact: Greg Smith, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, (614) 644-2798,
greg.smith@epa.state.oh.us. Web site www.owda.org/html/1 pans.asp.
The CWSRF program is a key part of Pennsylvania's efforts to protect the water
environment, promote community revitalization, and support economic development. The
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) works across state and federal
11

-------
agencies to identify opportunities to use CWSRF funds and coordinate funding efforts. In 2004,
PENNVEST extended the use of its funds to include the remediation of brownfields that pose a
threat to local groundwater or surface water sources, and U.S. EPA Region 3 approved the new
brownfield guidelines in July of that year.
The latest Pennsylvania Water Quality Assessment Report, conducted in 2002 under
Section 305(b) of the Act, identified industrial facilities, underground storage tanks, hazardous
waste sites, abandoned landfills, above-ground storage tanks, manure/fertilizer applications,
chemical facilities, and septic systems as major sources of groundwater contamination in the
state. By dedicating a portion of the 2004 CWSRF funds to brownfields, the program assists the
DEP Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management in implementing the Land Recycling
Program to clean up groundwater and brownfield sites.
PENNVEST sets aside 30 percent of its annual CWSRF funding to address brownfields,
totaling $48 million in 2004. Two of the state's 12 new CWSRF projects approved in 2004
involved brownfield remediation and received loans totaling $2.7 million at county cap interest
rates for a maximum term of 20 years. Under the program guidelines, loans to one municipality
may total up to $11 million per project, increasing to $20 million for projects that serve two or
three municipalities. PENNVEST currently has four brownfield projects using CWSRF funds
underway:
•	The Riverfront South Brownfields Remediation Project in Bensalem Township received a
$5.3-million loan to clean up a 26-acre industrial site along the Delaware River. The loan
has a two-year term and interest rate below 4 percent.
•	The Ashley Yard Project in Ashley received $795,650 for two years at an interest rate
below 3 percent to complete site characterization.
•	The Norristown Brownfields Remediation Project in the borough of Norristown received
$1.9 million for two years at a rate below 4 percent to conduct environmental assessment
and site remediation, trash and debris removal, building demolition, asbestos abatement,
and site preparation at a former asbestos manufacturing facility.
•	The Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development received a $1,75-million loan to
construct drinking water distribution lines, sanitary sewer collection lines, and
stormwater facilities to eliminate soil and groundwater contamination and support
commercial development on 4.5 acres of a 70-acre site at the City of Philadelphia Navy
Yard.
Contact: Beverly Reinhold, Project Management, PENNVEST, 717/783-6589.
12

-------
Tax Incentives
Colorado: Cleanup Tax Credit
Colorado passed a Brownfields Tax Credit in 1999 as part of the governor's smart growth
initiative, to make brownfield redevelopment more attractive and viable. Properties must be
located in a municipality with a population of at least 10,000 and be eligible for inclusion under
the state's Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act. The bill provides an income tax credit of
up to $100,000 per property to offset up to $300,000.
For any tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2000, and ending before December 31,
2005, applicants may obtain 50 percent of the first $100,000 spent on cleanup; 30 percent of the
next $100,000; and 20 percent of the third $100,000. To the extent the allowable credit exceeds
the net tax liability, the excess may be carried forward for up to five years. The Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment's Voluntary Cleanup Program reviews the site's
cleanup plan and associated costs to provide the certification required to obtain the tax credit
from the Colorado Department of Revenue.
By January 2005, 12 applicants had used about $1 million in tax credits. Because it takes
a few years for the public to become familiar with new tax credits, interest is expected to
increase. The state legislature will consider extending the credit beyond December 2005 this
year.
Contacts: Joe Vranka, Superfund and PA/SI Unit Leader, Colorado Dept of Public Health and
Environment, 303/692 3402, ioe.vranka@state.co.us; Dan Scheppers, Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division of CDPHE, 303/692-3398; Daniel.Scheppers@state.co.us. Web
site www, cdphe. state. co.us/hm/bftaxhowto. asp.
Florida: Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credit and Tax Refundfor Job Creation
The 1998 Florida Legislature created the Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credit to encourage
voluntary cleanup at brownfield sites in designated Florida Brownfield Areas and other specified
sites contaminated by dry cleaning solvents. One key to the program's success is that the credits
are transferable, so that local governments and nonprofit developers that cannot use the credits
may transfer them to businesses as an incentive to reuse brownfield sites or to mitigate costs
incurred to perform brownfield site rehabilitation.
The program provides tax credits to eligible applicants for up to 35 percent of the costs of
voluntary cleanup activities that are integral to site rehabilitation, not to exceed $250,000 per site
per year. Each year FDEP may grant up to $2 million in tax credits, which can be applied to the
state's Corporate Income Tax or Intangible Personal Property Tax in Florida. In fiscal 2003-
2004, the program awarded tax credits totaling $1 million for 16 sites. The Voluntary Cleanup
Tax Credit Rule (Chapter 62-788, F.A.C.) provides the administrative process, guidelines and
13

-------
forms for application for these tax credits.
Florida's Brownfield Redevelopment Bonus encourages redevelopment and job creation
in designated Brownfield Areas through a tax refund of up to $2,500 for each new job, or 20
percent of the average wage of the jobs created, whichever is less. Of the $2,500, $500 is a fully
optional match, so that the bonus often functions as a $2,000-job bonus. All tax refunds can be
applied to many tax categories, including corporate income, ad valorem, intangible
personal property, insurance premium, and sales and use taxes.
The refund is available to any business that locates at a brownfield site in a designated
Brownfield Area and qualifies under Florida's Qualified Target Industry (QTI) tax refund
program. This program provides a tax refund of at least $3,000 per job created to businesses in
targeted industries that create at least 10 jobs and pay an average annual wage of at least 155
percent of the local, state, or MSA average.
Applicants that do not qualify under the QTI program may still qualify for the brownfield
bonus by creating at least 10 jobs (with benefits) in a designated Brownfield Area and making a
fixed-capital investment of at least $2 million in mixed-use business activities. Applicants also
must show that the project will diversify and strengthen the local economy and promote capital
investment in the area surrounding the rehabilitated site.
Contacts: Patrick W. Kennedy, Incentive Manager, Enterprise Florida, Inc., 850/487-2157
pkennedv@eflorida.com; Roger Register, Brownfields Liaison, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, 850/245-8934, roger.register@dep.state.fl.us.
New York: Cleanup, Real Property, and Insurance Tax Credit
Effective in the tax years beginning April 1, 2005, New York State will offer tax credits
to participants in the Brownfield Cleanup Program and have entered into a brownfield cleanup
agreement with the Department of Environmental Conservation. The tax credits offset the costs
of site preparation, property improvements, on-site groundwater cleanup costs, real property
taxes, and environmental insurance premiums. Tax credit eligibility requires a certificate of
completion, issued by DEC, stating that remediation requirements that were set forth in the
brownfield cleanup agreement have been achieved. To claim the tangible property credit
(similar to an investment tax credit for development), the property must be placed in service after
the certificate of completion is issued. All the credits available under the Brownfield Cleanup
Program are refundable credits.
The state offers three types of credits:
• The brownfield redevelopment credit provides business tax credit consists of three
separate and distinct credits that provide a business tax credit of 12 percent or a personal
tax credit of 10 percent for the costs of site preparation, tangible property (i.e.,
14

-------
development), and on-site groundwater remediation. These percentages increase by 2
percent for sites cleaned up to unrestricted condition, and increase by 8 percent if at least
half of the qualified site is located in an area designated as an environmental zone by the
commissioner of economic development.
•	The remediated brownfield credit for real property taxes provides a tax credit based on
the real property taxes imposed on a qualified site. The credit is available for 10
consecutive years, beginning in the year a taxpayer is issued a certificate of completion.
The credit is for 25 percent of the eligible real property taxes imposed on the site,
multiplied by the "employment number factor"-a percentage based on the number of
people employed by the taxpayer or his lessee. If the entire qualified site is located in an
environmental zone, the percentage for purposes of calculating the credit increases from
25 percent to 100 percent. There is no limit on the total amount of this credit allowed for
a qualified site, which is determined by multiplying $10,000 times the number of
employees at the site. If the taxpayer also is eligible to claim the HEZE real property tax
credit, he or she must make an irrevocable choice between the two.
•	The environmental remediation insurance credit provides a one-time credit for up to
$30,000 or 50 percent of the premiums paid for environmental remediation insurance,
whichever is less. Such insurance is required for one or more of the following: on-site
cleanup of pre-existing pollution; third-party claims (for bodily injury or property
damage); cost of each policy covering on-site cleanup of pre-existing pollution
conditions; cost-coverage; and re-opener coverage.
Contact: Chris Costopoulos, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
518/402-9711, cicostop@gw.dec.state.ny.us.
Wisconsin: Cancellation of Delinquent Taxes
In 1999, Wisconsin's legislature adopted tax provisions that can help local governments
achieve the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated, tax-delinquent properties. For many
brownfield sites—especially where the local government has used various grant programs to
complete preliminary assessments of contamination—the provisions have removed the combined
barriers of contamination and tax delinquency that prevented developers from acquiring them.
The provision for cancellation of delinquent taxes (s. 75.105, Wis. Stats.) enables
counties and the City of Milwaukee to cancel all or a portion of unpaid property taxes on a
contaminated property, provided that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has
approved a written agreement with the party receiving the tax benefit to investigate and clean up
the contamination. This party can be the current property owner or a third party proposing to
acquire the property or work with the current owner.
To develop a tax cancellation agreement, the dialogue starts with the local taxing
15

-------
authority to determine the extent to which the authority is willing to reduce or eliminate the
delinquent taxes (discretionary authority). Then an agreement is prepared with the DNR that
details the investigation and cleanup required in exchange for canceling the taxes. In many
cases, the party receiving the tax benefit develops a separate agreement with the local taxing
authority regarding tax, schedule, and redevelopment issues. If for any reason the tax
cancellation agreement is not implemented, the cleanup agreement with the DNR is nonbinding.
By January 2005, taxes were cancelled at eight brownfield properties, and several had
been cleaned up and redeveloped. Examples include the former Pingle Oil bulk plant property
in Ashland, which has been redeveloped as a towing service/auto repair business, and a
contaminated property on 1420 State Street in Racine, which has been redeveloped as a large
supermarket and adjacent parking.
Another tax provision (s. 75.106, Wis. Stats.) enables counties and the City of Milwaukee
to foreclose on tax-delinquent brownfields and assign the foreclosure judgment to a new owner
for redevelopment. The party requesting assignment of the foreclosure judgment must have a
written agreement, approved by the DNR, regarding cleanup of the contamination. Before the
law was enacted, municipalities had to take ownership of foreclosed property and assume the
liability for cleaning it up and selling it. Fearing the costs of remediation, cities often chose not
to pursue ownership of abandoned properties.
This provision has been used at six brownfield sites, and other sites are under
consideration. A notable example is the Sherman Perk coffee shop, located in a formerly
vacated gas station, which became a pilot case for the new foreclosure provision. By 2000, the
Sherman Perk building had been vacant for 10 years, tax delinquent for nine, and scheduled to be
razed by city order because of structural deterioration and fuel contamination. At that point, Bob
Olin became interested in developing the property and began negotiating an agreement with the
city and DNR, under the new tax provisions, to acquire it through foreclosure and clean it up.
The foreclosure process began in October 2000 and concluded five months later in March
2001, with finalization in court on April 9. As a small, community-based developer, Olin faced
critical financial hurdles in getting his project underway. He worked with a variety of public
agency partners, obtaining $30,000 in grants from the city and county of Milwaukee to help
cover the costs of site cleanup, and $100,000 from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce
Brownfield Revitalization Program to help finance redevelopment.
In addition, ESV, LLC, used the foreclosure provision to redevelop the former Wisconsin
Waste Paper property on Newhall Street in Milwaukee into a new small animal hospital, and
Ralos, LLC, redeveloped the former Solar Paints and Varnish property into a new manufacturing
plant for construction equipment.
Contact: Dan Kolberg, 608/267-7500, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
kolbed@dnr.state.wi.us. Web site http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/financial/del taxes.html.
16

-------
Planning, Assessment, and Cleanup Programs
Many brownfield projects have particular difficulty getting financing together for three
specific activities:
•	early-stage site assessment,
•	defining a site remediation plan (which the owner needs if he wants to get take the site
through a state voluntary cleanup program in order to get some finality on liability
concerns); and
•	carrying out the cleanup itself.
A growing number of states are stepping up to help remove the major stumbling block this
financing gap creates. New financing incentives and creative use of existing programs advance
brownfield projects as a logical extension of the states' traditional economic development
mission.
Michigan: Local Brownfield Redevelopment Authorities
In 1996, Michigan authorized cities and counties to establish Brownfield Redevelopment
Authorities, which have TIF and bonding authority. Structurally, they are based on the widely
recognized and popular development authority entities, which increases their acceptance among
communities and private entities that might be uncomfortable with a strictly environmental
program. The authorities can adopt brownfield plans that identify the eligible activities to be
conducted on an eligible property and provide for the use of TIF to capture property taxes to
reimburse the costs of the eligible activities.
TIF is based on the tax increment of a brownfield site: the tax revenues it generated the
year the property was included in the brownfield plan. When cleanup and redevelopment of the
property increases its value, and thus the tax revenues it generates, the increased tax revenues
(captured taxes) are used to pay the cost of eligible environmental response and redevelopment
activities at the site. Tax increment revenues that are eligible for capture include all property
taxes including taxes levied for school operating purposes (with approval from the DEQ
or MEGA). Taxes already captured as part of an existing tax increment financing plan
(under other state laws) and taxes levied to pay off specific obligations are exempt.
Under the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, 1996 PA 381, as amended (Act
381), only a BRA can capture new property tax value from a redeveloped eligible property and
use the captured funds to reimburse those who incurred eligible expenses on that property. The
BRA may also establish a Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund from eligible tax capture to
cover eligible expenses on other eligible properties within the BRA's jurisdiction.
17

-------
The property owner also may apply for a Single Business Tax Brownfield
Redevelopment Credit for eligible investments made at an eligible property, if it is included in a
brownfield plan. This credit can total 10 percent of any innocent party's development (not
cleanup) costs, up to $1 million. In urban communities that have created an Obsolete Property
Rehabilitation District, property owners can receive an abatement of up to 100 percent of real
property taxes for a brownfield site for up to 12 years.
By October 2004, some 225 cities and towns and 11 counties had set up authorities that
provide one-stop shops for information, technical assistance, and resources. They have proven
especially helpful in small towns, where they have spearheaded redevelopment projects in towns
with as few as 1,500 people.
Contact: Darlene Van Dale, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 989/705-3453,
vandaled@michigan.gov. Web site http://www.michigan.gOv/deq/0,1607,7-135-
33114110_23246-63521-,00.html.
Wisconsin: Brownfield Site Assessment Grant Program
Wisconsin's Site Assessment Grant Program (SAG) helps local governments conduct
initial activities and investigations at contaminated sites, awarding $1.7 million in grants in its
third year (2004-2005). The grants may fund Phase I and II environmental assessments, site
investigation, demolition of any structures or buildings, asbestos abatement (if it is a necessary
part of demolition activity), and removal and proper disposal or treatment of abandoned
containers, underground hazardous substance storage tank systems,
or underground petroleum storage tanks.
In each application round, a local government may submit only one application for a
large grant and one application for a small grant for a single property, but may request funds for
more than one property in each round or submit a grant application covering multiple,
contiguous properties. Eligible sites or facilities are abandoned, idle, or underused, where
expansion or redevelopment is hindered by actual or perceived environmental contamination.
Applicants must use the grant for one or more properties with known or suspected contamination
and may not be the party who caused it. A local government does not have to own the property
to qualify for the grant, but it must have access to the site within 60 days of a grant award to
carry out the grant activities. The grants also require a match of at least 20 percent of the grant
request in the form of cash, in-kind services, or a combination of both, but recent changes to the
program allow the match to be provided by any local government—not just the applicant.
To prepare to apply for a SAG, local governments do the following:
•	locate eligible sites or facilities;
•	determine what activities need to be performed;
•	obtain cost estimates for activities from a qualified professional;
18

-------
•	get access and/or ownership;
•	collect information on the history of the site, occupants and cause of contamination;
•	budget for the match; and
•	create and approve a municipal resolution in support of the project.
Since 1998, SAG has received 374 applications and awarded 212 grants totaling $6.56
million to investigate and clean up 742 acres of land. The grants have paid for 72 Phase I
environmental site assessments, 119 Phase II environmental site assessments, 149 site
investigations, the demolition of 261 structures and buildings, and the removal of 197
underground storage tanks.
Brownfields addressed through SAG include tax-delinquent or bankrupt properties that
formerly received funding through Wisconsin's Brownfield Environmental Assessment Program
(BEAP). This U.S. EPA brownfields pilot program, which operated from 1996 to 2000,
provided U.S. EPA funding for the state department of natural resources to conduct Phase I and
II assessments and other investigations at tax-delinquent or bankrupt properties nominated or
acquired by their city or county. Because the BEAP was a U.S. EPA brownfields pilot,
properties also qualified for a federal tax incentive.
The BEAP accepted 43 properties from 1996-2000. All of the 1996 properties and
several of the 1997 and 1998 properties have been redeveloped, have future use plans, and/or are
being cleaned up. The remaining properties are in various stages of redevelopment. Many of the
properties audited with BEAP resources were redeveloped with no further public subsidy.
Contact: Andrew Savagian, Remediation and Redevelopment Program, Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources, 608/261-6422, Andrew. Savagian@dnr. state, wi .us.
Infrastructure Development
Massachusetts: Transportation Construction
The Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction has invested
millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to facilitate brownfield reuse. One of the most
notable examples is the Lawrence Gateway project at the former Oxford Paper plant. Located at
the entrance of the Lawrence historic, the contaminated site original became the focus of cleanup
and redevelopment efforts in conjunction with a highway project that provided Massachusetts
Highway Department funds. Plans developed in 1994 called for demolition of existing Oxford
buildings, construction of road interchanges, and creation of a public park.
In its first two years, the Lawrence Gateway Project leveraged over $160 million in
public and private investment for Lawrence's historic district, including $4.5 million from the
Massachusetts Highway Department. However, despite promises of leveling the Oxford plant in
1995, by May 2000 it still hadn't occurred. State transportation secretary Kevin Sullivan helped
19

-------
to keep the project alive, working with the city to accept liability for possible contamination.
By 2003, the complex Lawrence Gateway Project was still underway. In the project's
Quadrant Area, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation and Construction (EOTC)
was connecting transportation enhancements to the redevelopment of two major brownfield sites:
Oxford Paper and GenCorp, Inc. EOTC invested $30 million in the reconfiguration of the Route
495/Marston Street interchange, constructing new off-ramps, realigning an intersection for easier
access, installing new traffic signals, and rehabilitating nine bridges and two walls. In addition,
EOTC is undertaking the Canal Street Realignment/Spicket River Bridge Replacement Project,
which will raise the entire roadway profile to span a new pedestrian walkway.
Because the Spicket River Bridge's substructure will occupy the footprint of one of the
old mill buildings on the Oxford Paper site, all five buildings on the site needed to be demolished
for the project to go forward. EOTC committed the resources needed for demolition and
cleanup, with the City of Lawrence expected to complete the remediation work in 2003 or early
2004. EOTC planned to begin bridge construction in 2003.
The estimated cost of cleaning up the Oxford site will total more than $13 million, with
$9 million in transportation funds contributed through 2002 by the Massachusetts Highway
Department and the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, GenCorp provided $636,973
for Oxford cleanup and is matching $100,000 for site assessment from Mass Development with
an additional $40,000. Cleanup of the Oxford site makes cleanup of the GenCorp site more
sustainable as well, because water flowing through an underground raceway connecting the sites
transfers contamination between them. The EOTC project will ensure that both sides are
stabilized at once.
Contacts: Joe D'Angelo, Massachusetts Highway Department, District Four, Phone: 781/641-
8409; Robert Devaney, Director, Environmental Engineering, GenCorp, Inc., Phone: 978/683-
7123.
20

-------