Revitalizing Southeastern Communities

, flftr -f

Working with Universities

Universities cart play a prominent role in local brownfields initiatives. Universities often have the
means not only to research, but to implement brownfields cleanup and redevelopment plans.
Universities often have the scientific knowledge and equipment to assess possible contamination and to
plan and complete revitalization projects. Universities also can provide training for residents of
communities affected by brownfields, to facilitate cleanup of sites and to prepare trainees for future
employment in the environmental field.

Universities are eligible to apply for federal and state grants and can assist in the coordination of
redevelopment efforts with local governments. A university may also cleanup and redevelop
brownfields on neighboring sites. Universities can work closely with local governments throughout the
cleanup and revitalization process, from grant application to drawing up redevelopment plans. More
importantly, universities may be able to utilize a former eyesore by integrating it into their grounds as
open space or needed buildings.

University Finance Centers

The EPA funds nine regional university finance centers that provide technical assistance and training to
maintain and improve environmental conditions. Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities
(TAB) and Technical Outreach Services for Communities (TOSC) are two programs that link
communities with professors and environmental specialists at the Hazardous Substance Research
Centers (HSRCs). Based at universities within each region, the HSRCs provide assistance with the
support of EPA grant funding.

In Region IV, the EPA funds two finance centers at the University of Louisville and the University of
North Carolina Charlotte. The EPA also funds Environmental Finance Programs at the University of
Southern Maine, Syracuse University, University of Maryland, Great Lakes EFC at Cleveland State
University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, California State University at Hayward,
and Boise State University.

The Center for Environmental Policy and Management Brownfields/Smart Growth Research Group at the
University of Louisville (Center) works to develop more environmentally and economically sustainable
alternatives to unmanaged growth in order to improve the efficiency of environmental infrastructure
service delivery.

The Center has prepared resource and practice guides for state and local officials who are interested
in brownfields, smart growth, and environmentally sensitive but economically efficient land use and
development policies. In addition, two of the Center's current projects focus on the use of
environmental insurance for brownfields cleanup and public sector-led brownfields redevelopment.


-------
University of Louisville practice guides are available within the Toolkit. Learn more about the Center
at http://cepm.louisville.edu.

The Environmental Finance Center at the University of North Carolina assisted the City of Charlotte in
implementing its brownfields revolving loan fund for brownfields cleanup (BCRLF). As part of the
partnership, the EFC held a planning charrette with the City of Charlotte on July 22, 1999. EFC issued
a report on the charrette and its outcomes.

See www.efc.unc.edu/ for more information about the Environmental Finance Center at the University of
North Carolina.

Other examples of partnerships with universities include:

The City of Homestead, Florida, a 2005 brownfield cleanup grantee, is working with the
University of Florida to remediate a brownfield site. A team of scientists from the University
will use phytoremediation to clean contaminants from the soil.

Deborah Gallagher, a Nicholas School faculty member at Duke University, was awarded one of
six two-year $150,000 EPA Brownfields Training, Research, and Technical Assistance (BRTRA)
grants. BRTRA grants fund projects that measure environmental and human health conditions in
primarily low-income communities. Gallagher will examine ways to increase public participation
in brownfields decision-making in socio-economically disadvantaged communities.
http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/news/ns-gallaghergrant.html

The University of Hawaii in Honolulu received a 2005 EPA job training grant. Honolulu
Community College will train sixty students on the handling of hazardous materials,
environmental health and safety, and the hazards present at hazardous waste sites. In-class
instruction will be followed with on-the-job experience under the supervision of potential
employers. Learn more about this partnership at
http://tech.honolulu.hawaii.edu/oesm/brownfields.html

North Carolina's Forsyth Technical Community College, Wake Forest University, and Winston-
Salem University, in conjunction with local environmental practitioners, were awarded an EPA
Pilot grant to design and implement a Job Training Program. Winston-Salem's Liberty Street
Corridor was once home to a booming manufacturing center, centered around R.J. Reynolds,
one of the world's largest manufacturers of tobacco products. After World War II, however,
industries expanded elsewhere, leaving many unemployed. The unemployment rate for area
residents reached 83 percent, with 91 percent living in poverty. The course provided technical
and safety training, which prepared students for employment in the waste management, private
or public infrastructure, construction, demolition, and environmental consulting and contracting
industries. For more information contact: U.S. EPA Region 4 at 404-562-8660 or
http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/success/winston_salem.pdf.

Website

www. e pa.gov/ efi n page/efc. htm


-------
Revitalizing Southeastern Communities

, flftr -f

Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities and Technical Outreach

Services for Communities

Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities (TAB) and Technical Outreach Services for
Communities (TOSC) are two free programs that can help community groups with cleanup and
redevelopment of contaminated sites. Both programs link communities with professors and
environmental specialists at the Hazardous Substance Research Centers (HSRCs), which provide
assistance with the support of EPA grant funding. The South and Southwest Regional Center
represents a consortium of Louisiana State University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Rice
University, and Texas A&M University. TAB and TOSC can provide valuable resources to small
communities that otherwise lack access to this type of expertise.

Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities (TAB)

The Technical Assistance to Brownfields Communities program was established as part of EPA's
Brownfields Initiative to help communities address issues of brownfield redevelopment. TAB's
specialists provide leadership training, procedural guidance, and technical expertise on "environmental
assessments, land-use planning, environmental engineering, environmental law and policy, and
sustainable development." TAB can review environmental site assessment reports for a particular
property, in addition to field sampling data plans and sampling results. In Jackson, Mississippi, for
example, TAB provided technical review and comments on Phase I assessment reports for several
properties the City was interested in purchasing. TAB also assists with data management through
geographic information systems. In addition, TAB can offer customized technical outreach materials,
including seminars, workshops, educational materials and technical reports and web-based information.

Technical Outreach Services for
Communities (TOSC)

TOSC provides university educational and
technical resources to communities affected
by hazardous substance contamination,
whether or not the site is a brownfield. To
support community efforts, TOSC sponsors
workshops and short courses on
environmental science, regulatory, and
policy topics. Additionally, TOSC creates
technical assistance materials and works to
inform communities about existing technical
assistance materials. TOSC provides

In Davie, Florida, TOSC helped community leaders
understand technical issues at the Florida Petroleum
Reprocessors contamination site. Millions of gallons of
waste oil were processed at the facility, resulting in
significant groundwater contamination. TOSC was
enlisted by the Southwest Coalition of Civic Associations
to help residents understand environmental issues and
possible remediation scenarios. TOSC participated in
several community meetings, in addition to presenting a
community workshop on regulations, terminology,
hydrology science, and site activities. TOSC also reviewed
reports and workplans, commented on several models
and remediation scenarios, and provided reference
material on the proposed remediation methods.


-------
independent technical support and offers scientific opinions when these activities serve an educative
function.

South and Southwest Regional Contact:

Bob Schmitter

Georgia Institute of Technology
888-683-5963

bobschmitter@gtri.gatech.edu

Other HSRC Websites:

South and Southwest Regional Website:
http://www.hsrc-ssw.org

Western Regional Center (Oregon State University and Stanford University)
tosc.oregonstate.edu/

Rocky Mountain Regional Center (Colorado State University and the University of Montana)
www.engr.colostate.edu/hsrc/outreach.html

Midwest Regional Center (Kansas State University, Michigan State University, Haskell Indian Nations

University, and Purdue University)

bridge.ecn.purdue.edu/~mhsrc/page_outreach


-------
The Charlotte Charrette on
Sustainable Urban Environments:
Implementing a Brownfields Cleanup

Revolving Loan Fund

efc

1 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund : efc@unc


-------
The Charlotte Charrette on
Sustainable Urban Environments:
Implementing a Brownfields Cleanup
Revolving Loan Fund

For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sustainable Urban Environments Initiative

Held at
Charlotte's
Government
Center

July 22, 1999

By the Environmental Finance Centers
at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (efc@unc)
and the University of Maryland

Report by Richard Whisnant, Director

efc@unc
September 1, 1999

3 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
Table of Contents

Summary	5

Goals of the Sustainable Urban Environment Charrettes	6

Policy arena: Charlotte arid the Browrtfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund	6

Understanding the policy arena	7

The charrette process	7

Preparation for the Charlo tte charrette	7

Participants and panelists	7

Materials	8

Problems raised	10

Site Management	10

Financial Structure	10

Geo graph]/ and Community	10

Recap of discussion	10

Introductions and process	10

City's background and statement of issues	10

IRM presentation on national issues	11

EPA presentation on BCRLF	11

General discussion	11

Recommendations	13

1.	Flexibility	13

2.	Integration	14

3.	Streamlining	15

4.	Adapting to local culture and approaches	16

5.	Other	16

Conclusions, implications and further research directions	18

About the efc@unc and the Environmental Finance Center Network 19

Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund


-------
Summary

Implementing a BCRLF and other complex.
Lessons Learned innovative, intergovernmental programs

Beau
Mills

For policy makers trying innovative ways of service delivery across different government levels, especially
from the federal to the local level'.

•	There is great value in integrating with existing local programs to the maximum extent
possible.

•	Success requires some flexibility in front-line, new program administration.

•	Be mindful of the need to streamline and simplify grants and loans that will ultimately be
just one piece of a user's larger funding package.

•	All implementers derive value from negotiating maximum funding flexibility at the
outset, and this flexibility can be important in assuring early successes.

•	There is a need to honor the history and unique way of doing things of loc alities and
communities that are involved with the program.

•	There is great value in simple, succinct program information from the outset.

For current and future participants in EPA's Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) program'.

•	The legally driven exclusions and paperwork as well as the current funding levels for the
BCRLF program make it a difficult challenge to administer.

•	The required site management responsibilities may force localities to look for outside
help in program administration, thus adding to the complexity.

•	The volume of paperwork involved in a given BCRLF loan suggests the need to increase
loan size from what appears at first as a program suitable for small sites.

•	Integrating the BCRLF loan program with other brownfields and redevelopment
assistance may make it more attractive to potential borrowers and developers.

Bob Cooper.
Leslie Stewart a
the other panelists
and participants
discussing the
presentations

5 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
Goals of the Sustainable Urban
Environment Charrettes

In the 1990s, the importance and special challenges
of sustainable urban environments became
increasingly apparent to those concerned with
environmental protection. Continued progress on
core environmental problems in air, water and waste
required more attention to patterns of urban growth.

In 1999, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) teamed with the
Environmental Finance Center Network to hold a
series of charrettes on sustainable urban
environments. Each charrette planned to focus on a
specific environmental management problem. The
overall goals of the charrettes were both to help
solve these problems in particular cities and
programs and to increase EPA's understanding of
the ways its national policies affect local growth
patterns. The twin objectives of the charrettes were
to understand

•	How local governments were attempting to
restore and retain urban core economic and
environmental vitality, and

•	How EPA polic ies were helping or hindering
these local efforts towards urban sustainability.

This report summarizes the first EPA/EFC
Sustainable Urban Environment Charrette.

Policy arena: Charlotte and the
Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan
Fund

The City of Charlotte is widely recognized as an
innovator in enviromental remediation activities and
an active cultivator of community partnerships. The

City Within a
City

redevelopment
J strategy and a
Neighborhood
Development
Key Business
resource office
are tangible

products of Charlotte's community development
infrastructure. When EPA awarded Charlotte's
Employment and Business Services Division (EBS) a

Uptown
Charlotte

$500,000 Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
(BCRLF) grant in May 1999, the City's political and
administrative infrastructure already seemed to
have the core capacity to implement the revolving
loan program.

The BCRLF grant program provides seed funding
for a revolving loan fund dedicated to clean up
brownfields. The loan fund then gives developers
(possibly including die local governmental unit)
access to low- or no-interest loans. EPA's source of
funds for the BCRLF grants was the Superfund
program (CERCLA).1 Under current EPA
regulations for CERCLA, all federal funds from diis
source must be spent consistently with the "National
Contingency Plan" (NCP).2 The NCP was designed
to channel and control spending on cleanup of the
nation's most heavily contaminated sites.3 Further,
the use of CERCLA funding brings some statutory
exclusions to the program, such as the exclusion of
expenditures on clean up of petroleum
contaminated media. It was not designed to assist
brownfields redevelopment. Brownfields cleanup
normally involves the least contaminated, least
dangerous sites. Making die BCRLF funding meet
the requirements of the NCP, but also work
effectively to help brownfields cleanup, is thus not a
trivial task. It is, however, an important task, as one
element of the federal government's attempts to use
its resources to support sustainability and quality
urban environments. EPA has worked hard to make
its initial policies and guidance for the BCRLF
sensitive both to NCP requirements and to projected
actual program needs at the local level. But the
program is still quite new, and the Charlotte
Charrette provided one of the first chances to test
the likely success of EPA in walking the line
between NCP compliance and really helping
brownfields cleanups.

1.	Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 104(d), 42
U.S.C. § 9604(d).

2.	40 C.F.R § Part 300.

3.	More precisely, the NCP was developed under Section
311 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(d), to address
discharges of oil and hazardous substances into navigable
waters of the United States. It has been extensively
revised, amended and reorganized in its role as the plan
for Superfund

Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund : efc@unc

I


-------
Charlotte's EBS Division noted two problematic
issues at the outset.

•	First: how to implement the BCRLF program
while tailoring it to the needs of its target
audience, i.e., developers, lenders,
environmental consultants, and environmental
attorneys who work closely with brownfields
redevelopment?

•	Second: the EBS Division expertise lies in
revitalizing distressed neighborhood
communities through various strategies,
including brownfields redevelopment.

However, it had no technical expertise working
directly with federal cleanup regulations.

How could the EBS Division marry its focus on
neighborhood revitalization with this new
opportunity for environmental redevelopment in
those neighborhoods? Both of these issues needed
work before the EBS Division could propose a
workplan to EPA for implementing the BCRLF
program in Charlotte.

Understanding the policy arena

The charrette process

The charrette is a tool that the Environmental
Finance Centers have found useful for local
environmental problem solving and for revealing
policy problems that are important but
unarticulated, or that are not widely understood.
The process is essentially an intensive,\collaborative,
short-term application of expertise to a particular,
usually local, problem.

Preparation for the Charlotte charrette

Prior to receiving the grant award in May 1999,
the EBS Division talked with the Environmental
Finance Center at the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill (efc@unc) and with the state
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
about its concerns for BCLRF implementation. Those
conversations allowed the EBS Division to further
refine these issues into diree, distinct topic areas that
cut across both issues of loan implementation and
community revitalization:

•	site management

•	financial structure, and

•	geography and community involvement.

In light of EPA's interest in exploring sustainable
urban environments, the efc@unc offered to hold a
charrette on these issues. Charlotte's concerns about
the BCRLF were shared by many of the new BCRLF
grant cities. There was a close match between the
goals of the EPA/EFC Sustainable Urban
Environment
charrette
workplan and
the efforts of
BCRLF cities to
clean up
brownfields.

Charlotte agreed
with this
proposal and planning began.

The efc@unc conducted a phone survey of other
BCRLF grantees similar to Charlotte in size and
demographics to learn of their experiences with
revolving loan funds, environmental financing, and
environmental federal regulations. A guest speaker
from The Institute for Responsible Management was
invited to share its national perspective on
brownfields redevelopment and provide a context
for Charlotte's brownfields endeavors. The IRM has
a cooperative agreement with EPA to "conduct
research on and disseminate its findings ... to
determine what processes are needed to achieve
integrated cleanup and reuse of contaminated
properties." Although its prior scope of work for
EPA on brownfields did not include monitoring of
the BCRLF grants, IRM agreed to and was able to
quickly survey a sample of brownfield pilot
programs around to country to assess how well the
BCRLF was being implemented in its very early
stages.

During June, the EBS Division generated a
tentative agenda modeled after previous charrettes
held around die nation by the Environmental
Finance Center network. The charrette was limited
to one day to enable participation by panelists from
the private sector. The efc@unc contacted the
Environmental Finance Center at the University of
Maryland to confirm availability of charrette
moderator Dr. Jack Greer.

Participants and panelists

Charrette invitees categorized as "Panelists" provide
external perspectives to the "Participants" who are
directly involved with the implementation issues.
The Charlotte Charrette assembled a diverse group
of participants and panelists. Charlotte has already

7 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
laid an excellent foundation for discussions like the
charrette through its Brownfields Partners, a long-
standing effort to involve and inform all the
community stakeholders with interests in
brownfields development.

The EBS Division generated a list of invitees
based upon the roster of cooperative partners
included with their BCRLF proposal. The target
number of invitees was 25-30 panelists and
participants. The Charlotte Charrette Participants
were the City of Charlotte (EBS Division) and the
U.S. EPA as grantee and grantor of the BCRLF grant
program, respectively. Panelists included
community stakeholders, financial partners, other
City professionals from environmental planning and
development, State EPA, environmental consultants,
City Attorney's office, City Manager's office, and
environmental attorneys.

Materials

The efc@unc assembled materials for a Charlotte
Charrette information notebook to provide
background material on Charlotte's brownfields
efforts and the BCRLF rules. Notebooks were
express-mailed to all invitees prior to die charrette.
The invitees were asked to familiarize themselves
with the brief overviews and summary material in
the first two sections of die notebook.

On July 22,1999, the City of Charlotte hosted
"The Charlotte Charrette: Making a brownfields
cleanup revolving loan fund work for Charlotte,
North Carolina." The accommodations for the
charrette included a large room with tables aligned

of U.S EPA rules, interpretati
BCRLF, an U"S. EPA Headquar
unable to attend die-chairette used a speakerphone
to provide a perspective on the genesis of the BCRLF
program and answer questions.

Dynatech Industries, a
Charlotte brown field

Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund : efc@unc


-------
Participants and panelists in the Charlotte BCRLF Charrette, July 1999

Moderator

Dr. Jack Greer

Environmental Finance Center, University of Maryland

Participants

Tom Warshauer

City of Charlotte, EBS Division

Barbara Bassuener, via phone

U.S. EPA-HQ

Linda Rimer

U.S. EPA-HQ

Alecia Crichlow

U.S. EPA-HQ, EFP

Vera Hannigan

U.S. EPA-HQ, EFP

Robert Cooper

U.S. EPA-IV, Planning

Panelists

Fran Hoffman, guest speaker

The Institute for Responsible Management, Inc.

Richard Whisnant

Director, efc@unc

Leslie Stewart

efc@unc. Office of Economic Development

Ellen Rogers

Centura Bank

Beth Gray

First Union Bank, Environmental Policy Office

Jerry Vaughn

Self Help Credit Union

Richard Bargoil

City of Charlotte, Office of Business Services

Jude Starrett

City of Charlotte, City Attorney's office

Tom Flynn

City of Charlotte, City Manager's office

Keith Carpenter

City of Charlotte, Engineering and Property Mgt.

Kevin Hall

City of Charlotte, Planning Commission

Bruce Nicholson

State of N.C. Superfund section

Beau Mills

U.S. EPA-HQ, on IPA to N.C. Governor's Office

Preston McLean

Northeast Enterprise Community

Ted White

West Enterprise Community

Louise Shakleford

Wilmore Community

Mike Fiori

Altura Environmental, environmental consultants

Charles Lee

HDR Engineering, Inc., environmental consultant

Chris Bozzini

Malcom Pirnie, environmental consultants

Mark Looney

SECO, developer

Chris Wannamaker

UNC-C Urban Institute, conservation representative

Rick Morton

Kilpatrick Stockton, environmental attorney

9 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
Problems raised

Charlotte's pre-charrette work led it to focus on
three areas of potential problems. The City wanted
input on each of these areas from the charrette.

Site Management

EPA guidelines for the BCRLF grant establish a
three-part structure for the BCRLF: Lead Agency,
Site Manager, and Fund Manager. The BCRLF
grantee must submit a workplan to EPA for
approval detailing the operational relations between
these three elements before BCRLF money can be
disbursed.

The Lead Agency can include any governmental
unit but must include the grantee - Charlotte's EBS
Division. The Fund Manager, either a public entity
or private contractor, must be capable of
maintaining and disbursing revolving loan funds
upon approval by the Lead Agency. The Site
Manager, who fulfills the NCP-required role of "On
Site Coordinator," must be an employee of a
governmental agency. This role is typically filled by
an environmental specialist who oversees the
cleanup funded by the BCRLF loan and ensures
regulatory compliance. Charlotte wanted the
BCRLF to help clarify by whom and how the Site
Manager duties would be fulfilled.

Financial Structure

The BCRLF grant provides an opportunity to
brownfields developers for brownfields cleanup
through low- to no- interest loans. EPA provides
discretion for BCRLF loans to be used as a
leveraging opportunity for additional cleanup
borrowing or as environmental insurance. The
usefulness of the BCRLF leveraging capacity
depends direcdy upon the ability to coordinate
BCRLF loans with other loan sources, such as
private lending. Other financial structure issues
such as loan terms, rates and collateralization are
critical to successful marketing of BCRLF loans.
Finally, there are structural decisions to be made on
issues such as loan size and planned number of
loans.

Geography and Community

Brownfields redevelopment can bring job creation
and neighborhood revitalization through cleanup
and reuse of abandoned, contaminated properties.
Developing brownfield sites requires generating

development interest secured by the assurance that
the neighborhood community will not challenge the
brownfield redevelopment, causing the developer to
incur additional costs to defend the investment. The
target BCRLF program geography and the
surrounding community are critical elements in the
success of the loan program.

Charlotte's past work on brownfields had
focused on a fairly small area of the city. The city
wanted to expand this area for the BCRLF, but also
wanted to ensure that funding was going to
communities that need special help—where private
sector funding standing alone would be least likely
to overcome environmental stigma and where the
need for jobs and economic development was
highest.



Jack Greer
sets the stage
for the

The BCRLF rules require public meetings to be
held before approving a BCRLF loan. Clarifying
what geography and what neighborhood
communities are open to redevelopment with
BCRLF funding helps the program operate m ore
efficiently and helps assure its alignment with
overall municipal goals for growdi and
development.

Recap of discussion

Introductions and process

The charrette began with Dr. Jack Greer, moderator,
explaining the charrette process.

City's background and statement of issues

Tom Warshauer of the City of Charlotte and its
EBS Division explained Charlotte's situation and
interests with respect to brownfields and targeted
economic development. Charlotte's brownfields
redevelopment and community revitalization
programs fit well with the overall EBS mission. The
City applied for die BCRLF grant to extend that
mission. The City was flexible on the number of
loans and size of loans. The EBS Division's central


-------
question was how the site management role would
be structured, given:

•	the lack of city experience actually overseeing
cleanup projects and assuring compliance with
the NCP,

•	the uncertainty about the numbers of BCRLF
loans that would be made, and

•	that cleanup level decisions were outside the
control of the city.

IRM presentation on national issues

Fran Hoffman of the Institute for Responsible
Management, Inc. (IRM) presented the findings of
her recent scan of brownfield pilot cities for their
experience with the BCRLF. IRM's past work has
not been with the BCRLF pilots per se, but rather

awarded money for assessment and planning.
However, a significant number of those pilot cities
have either received or considered BCRLF grants,
and thus were in a position to give some early
feedback on the program.

In general, the first round of BCRLF pilots have
had difficulty getting the program going. As of the
date of the charrette, no BCRLF pilots had made any
loans. Ms. Hoffman reviewed a long list of reasons
offered by the pilots for the delay in getting the
program up and running.

EPA presentation on BCRLF

Barbarba Bassuener of U.S. EPA provided some
perspective on die expectations for the BCRLF
program in Charlotte.4 In response to Ms.
Hoffman's report about the first round of BCRLF
pilot cities, Ms. Bassuener noted that the first round
grants were awarded before the program guidelines
were really in place. There has, as yet, been very
little lime for actual planning and implementation in

4Ms. Bassuener could not be present in Charlotte due to
schedule conflicts, but was kind enough to call in. The,
panelists and participants listened and asked questions of
Ms. Bassuener by speaker phone.

die first round cities since the program guidance
documents were prepared. EPA expects the second
round grantees (of which group Charlotte is a
member) to be much better positioned to get the
BCRLF program running, in part because their grant
applications benefited from knowing how the
program would be structured. Ms. Bassuener
confirmed that EPA had and would continue to
work hard to make the program as useful and
flexible as possible, given the limitations imposed by
its funding source (CERCLA).

The Site Manager, while required to be a
governmental employee, can by contract look to
other expertise for regulatory compliance assurance.
(However, payments for this expertise count against
the administrative cost cap for the BCRLF).
Government partnerships are expected and
encouraged, so that the state role in setting cleanup
levels can, for example, be accommodated.

General discussion

For the remainder of the morning and early
afternoon, the panelists and participants raised
questions, offered suggestions, and refined their
understanding of the BCRLF problems and
opportunities.

One possible solution noted to the Site Manager
problem was to have the state Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) itself
fill that role. This could allow integration of BCRLF-
funded sites widi DENR's role in setting cleanup
levels and, conceivably, widi DENR's role as
gatekeeper for Brownfields Agreements under the
N.C. Brownfields Act. ITowever, there is
uncertainty about the need for and possible level of
this integration of state brownfields programs with
local BCRLF-funded sites. Further, the State of
North Carolina currently has no surplus staff Lime
available to commit to projects just for Charlotte.
The State's interest in playing such a role directly
would likely be increased if there were more
locations in North Carolina setting up BCRLF
programs, so that a staff person dedicated to site
management at the state level could work on
projects ill more than one location.

There were numerous concerns raised and hinted
at about responsibility and liability for Site
Managers. Given the inherent data gaps and
uncertainties about risk of cleanups and the
complexity of EPA's Superfund program, it is easy
to understand how a local official who does not
regularly work in the cleanup realm would be wary

with the original brownfields pilots to whom EPA

Fran
Hoffman
relates the
experience
of some
first round
BCRLF cities

11 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
of being held responsible for site oversight and
regulatory compliance. Similarly, for state and
federal officials, the further lliey are from the site
itself, the more concern there is about responsibility
for actions that take place at the site. Contractual
indemnification and, conceivably, other forms of
insurance may help bridge this gap. But clarity as to
die level of responsibility for the role is also
important.

One hopeful suggestion was that die continued
and inevitable oversight presence of EPA at BCRLF
sites, even if a very attenuated presence, could
conceivably be used to give comfort to borrowers
that there was minimal risk of future federal
intervention. This would give BCRLF-funded sites
some advantage over other brownfields cleanups
that rely either on state-only agreements or on no
governmental presence. However, this would also
require a degree of commitment by EPA that is not
yet evident in the BCRLF program.

With respect to financial structure and
collateralization, repayment of die loans is expected.
But if the BCRLF loan fails, the sense of
panelists'comnients was that the EPA won't "hunt
you down," so long as reasonable efforts are made
to ensure payment, sites are secured, and EPA is
notified of progress on loan performance.

As for uses of the loan funds, the BCRLF is
intended for non-time critical removals. These are
actions that can be performed within a 12-month
period. Where state and federal brownfields rules
overlap, the BCRLF requirements establish the
minimum standard that can be applied.

The BCRLF program in Charlotte needs to
operate efficiently to integrate with private financing
and to be useful to developers. If the BCRLF-funded
site brings widi it delay and onerous paperwork, on
top of its restrictive eligibility requirements, no one
will bother seeking the loans. The private banking
perspective still starts with apprehension for
financing brownfields development without cleanup
estimates, available alternative funding, contingency
plans, environmental insurance, and a site-specific
definition of "clean." Impediments thrown up by
onerous conditions on public financing will not help
overall development financing at sites. In many
instances, the feeling of the lenders and developers
present was that private insurance, contractual

Louise Shakleford
discusses her
community's response
to Charlotte 's
brownfields program

arrangements between buyers and sellers, and
creative collateralization mean that deals tiiat have
good economics to begin are going to happen
without the BCRLF. This raises the question of what
niche the BCRLF-sites fill and what demand there is
likely to be for that type of site.

The community perspective asks: what is their
involvement in site development? How will they be
informed about site decisions? What is the degree of
neighborhood benefit from the project? The BCRLF
loan program requires the community organizing
and informational meetings to occur prior to final
approval of the loan. How will those concessions to
neighborhood revitalization be captured and
measured? Marketing the site will be instrumental
to bringing jobs and money into the neighborhood
and will also require community input on the nature
of target site uses.

Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund : efc@unc


-------
Recommendations

In the final phase of the charrette, the panelists and participants compiled a substantial
list of recommendations. Some recommendations were directed to Charlotte, others to
EPA, and others to the relationship between Charlotte and EPA in setting up the
Charlotte BCRLF. Most of the recommendations fell into four areas, and are grouped
that way in the following list.5

1. Flexibility	

Many recommendations urged that Charlotte and EPA retain maximum flexibility in the
BCRLF workplan in order to accommodate future learning about the program.

Flexibility makes sense in light of the newness of the BCRLF program and the
uncertainty over demand for BCRLF loans, as well as the uncertainty over how best to

structure site management issues.

1.1 City/State Team Approach - A
Site Manager team approach offers
some promise for solving several
problems. By having a team of
persons available to serve as and
advise the site manager, the actual
oversight structure for any given site
could be adjusted to reflect the risks,
knowledge and experience, and regulatory complexity that site presents. For example,
the team might include a member of the Charlotte engineering department, the EBS
division, the city attorney's office, a representative of the State Superfund section,
conceivably a representative from Region IV of EPA, one or more private
environmental consultants, attorneys and lenders. Then on a site by site basis, the
person actually serving as designated Site Manager (and thus responsible for signing
documents in that capacity) could draw on different sources of expertise as needed to
get an adequate level of comfort with the activities at the site. Since it is not known at
present—ahead of the time that loan applications are actually being received—how
complex any given site will be to manage, it is useful to have a flexible management
structure that can be adjusted onCe actual sites are in the program.

1.2 Encourage and assist the State of North Carolina to be designated as a Site Manager
for BCRLF purposes in any location across North Carolina that enters the BCRLF
program. This would require discussion within DENR as to the level of commitment
possible, and between EPA and DENR as to the state's role in these removals. But it
would add considerable potential value to the team approach recommended above,
especially for sites that seem to merit consideration under the State's brownfields
program, or that otherwise require some interaction with the state regulatory structure
(a high likelihood for most sites).





Richard Baraoil
notes some
possibilities and
realities about
integration of city
programs

!

n

-i





5 The recommendations that follow generally track all the advice given at the charrette. They do
not represent fully-elaborated consensus or the positions of any particular charette participants,
including the efc@unc and the Environmental Finance Center Network.

13 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
1.3	Keep the dialogue open among key players (e.g., the city, the state, the EPA, the
community, other stakeholders). The "team" approach could help here. Improve
information flow from analyses of the program now underway.

1.4	Access U.S. EPA's Excellence in Leadership (XL) program for variances in BCRLF
program, to streamline and simplify brownfields rules and requirements wherever
possible.

1.5	Do one loan to start the BCRLF as quickly as possible so as not to bottleneck the
process. The kinks will be ironed out that way. Not enough is known about the costs
and benefits of the program or about ideal management structures and the only way to
gain that knowledge is to go ahead and "pilot" a loan.

1.6	Encourage the funding and cleanup of a "test site," which could then be used as a
success story for marketing the program.

1.7	Explore basing loan rate and fee structures on the ability of the borrower to pay.

1.8	Aim for flexibility, in terms of the borrowers, the Sites themselves and the funding
parameters, to encourage participation. Focus on recipient (the client), not the
program.

1.9	Consider waivers of some constraints and use of Enterprise Community status to
get maximum regulatory flexibility. The program geography appears to allow tapping
Enterprise Community benefits for many potential sites.

2. Integration	

BCRLF funds are likely to be only a portion—perhaps a small portion — of a given
site development's funding. Thus the program must fit well with other funding
mechanisms, or risk delaying and threatening the overall project. Other integration
issues arise at state and federal regulatory levels. The widespread energy and
enthusiasm for brownfields approaches among federal, state and local agencies could
result in a confusing mass of programs that hinder, rather than support, each other.

2.1 State as Site Manager - A
cooperative agreement with the
EBS Division to help fund the
position would allow the State to
offer Site Management as an
additional item on their service
menu. This would also allow the
State to position itself to expand
the Charlotte BCRLF program, if
successful, throughout the State.
U.S. EPA's Region IV under a

2.2 Place the brownfields revolving loan fund program under the Removal Cooperative
Agreement (with the state)

Bruce
Nicholson
explores
possibilities for
State assistance on

tho tonvvi

F

This could be proposed as a state pilot program to
cooperative agreement.

Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund : efc@unc

14


-------
2.3	Consider the analogy of a "General Permit concept" in facilitating approval of
redevelopment projects, where varying requirements and programs could be
integrated, creating useful synergies and efficiencies.

2.4	Tie the revolving fund program to grant money for assessment (e.g., for small
business or minority business programs) This would link assessment (which is not
covered by the brownfield revolving loan program) to cleanup (which is).

2.5	Examine the "capacity" at EPA HQ, Region IV, and at the city and state level to
operate and manage a comprehensive brownfields program (e.g., the need for more
staff). The use of IP As could help here, as could other outside help, e.g., the Army
Corps of Engineers. Interested parties should make known, e.g., by writing letters, the
need for additional staff. "Do whatever it takes" to strengthen the brownfields
program infrastructure.

2.6	Designate partial and/or shared assignments (i.e., "parts" of people) to mix and
match expertise (and negotiate beyond the 15% cap on administration if necessary).

2.7	Consider the 'bundling" of sites to minimize paperwork for a given loan—attractive
and robust business sites could be bundled with less attractive sites in order to achieve
some of the City's equity-based goals.

2.8	Remember to keep focused on the most important and relevant problem (e.g.
distressed communities) and to operate in the context of the overall goals of Charlotte
and the state of N.C., fitting with existing programs wherever possible.

2.9	Explore direct tie-ins with other relevant initiatives including legislative initiatives
focused on inner city and rural communities (as now underway at the Federal level).

3. Streamlining

The biggest hurdle that the BCRLF must overcome may well be the paperwork and
process requirements that come with the money. The recommendations consistently
agreed that everything possible must be done to streamline this, so that the borrowers, if
not the City itself, face the minimal possible paperwork and minimal possible delay.

3.1 Consider the City's funding of
the revolving loan process (this
would help enable and
encourage the awarding of low-
or zero-interest loans).

3.2	The City of Charlotte could
also create its own revolving loan
program, which could be less
constrained by statutes,
regulations and process.

3.3	Continue to streamline the process. The time issue is extremely important, both to
clients (e.g., developers) and to lenders, who must be concerned about due diligence.

15 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------
3.4	The process should not be tied to a bank's commitment because of the timing issue
(e.g., 12 months). That is, assessment and review would be stale by the time approvals
are received, and the lender's analysis would have to take place all over again.

3.5	Couple more closely the assessment process and the loan process in order to
streamline effort and shorten timeline.

4.	Adapting to local culture and approaches

An important sense of the Charlotte charrette is that Charlotte has evolved its own brand
of problem solving for issues in its urban environment. This will be true of many local
governments that are functioning with high levels of success in local projects. There will
be overlap in local approaches, to be sure, and there may even be recognizable "types" or
"classes" of approach among United States municipalities, counties and other local units
of government. (An ad hoc classification of Charlotte's particular local genius might be
"maximize the unleashing of private sector energy and civic pride on any given
problem.") Still, the special needs and approaches of individual communities will
inevitably vary. Taking stock of tiiese variations and making concessions or allowing
flexibility for them is a major, critical, difficult challenge for EPA, as for any federal (and
state) agency. To note but two difficulties: variation in program implementation means
increased administrative complexity for the oversight unit, and also requires a degree of
intergovernmental trust that often does not exist. Charrette participants and panelists
recommended:

4.1	Maintain close connection with communities as you proceed with brownfields
redevelopment; address both environmental justice and economic development issues,
and focus on the "impact" programs will have on the community.

4.2	The program has to take account of
Charlotte's own way of getting civic things
done—which is to encourage the private
sector to take responsibility and push as far
as possible, with government involvement
minimized and only present to help with
particular situations the private sector is
inadequately addressing. Private solutions
are being found for many contaminated
properties that might previously have been
deemed hopeless—through insurance,
creative collateralization, etc. This program needs to work within that overall local way
of doing things.

5.	Other	

Several other important recommendations do not fit neatly in categories and are set

out below:

5.1	Hold a Developer Roundtable to articulate ways in which builders and others could
join in enhancing this effort and making it work. This could be tied to a statewide
group of stakeholders such as the listserv recently developed by the University of
North Carolina (efc@unc).

5.2	Environmental Czar - Charlotte has enough environmental issues as a city that it
might consider creating a position, the "Environmental Czar." Such a position would
have authority to respond to brownfields remediation efforts with multiple source

Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund : efc@unc

16


-------
funding. The Site Manager job will not be full-time and so if the Czar is a City
employee they can be kept busy with other projects. This approach was noted as an
alternative to the "team" concept for site management. However, some participants
felt this approach was contrary to Charlotte's preference for using the private sector;
although noting that private consultants and attorneys come at a great cost.

5.3	Sliding scale loan fees according to size of development would provide BCRLF
revenue for administration.

5.4	Developer support should be organized to provide financial support for more
brownfields workers.

5.5	Given its nature and goals (e.g., to support urban sustainability and aid distressed
communities) this program should offer the most incentives possible (e.g., zero interest
loans)

5.6	Focus on small sites—the larger sites are more likely to receive funding from and
capitalization from traditional sources.

5.7	Improve and emphasize marketing, making use of success stories to illustrate the
value and effectiveness of the program. Also provide more helpful information, such
as a fact sheet on "frequently asked questions."

5.8	Call for constructive changes in the National Contingency Plan (NCP/Superfund)
in response to c lient and community needs. This is a big challenge, and will depend on
actions taken by Congress as well as the Executive Branch.

Brownlield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Eligible Geography


-------
Conclusions, implications and further research directions

The BCRLF program is an effort by EPA to use
funding under CERCLA to clean up sites that have
not historically been viewed as high priority,
"Superfund" sites. The participants and panelists in
the Charlotte charrette seemed to recognize and
appreciate both the positive message this sends—
that EPA is interested in helping out at the
community level with funding that potentially
supports other community development
programs —and also the significant challenges it
presents. On the EPA side, for example, there are
administrative challenges in making sure the funds
are properly used and accounted for.

But the ultimate message of the Charlotte
charrette is that it would be very easy for this
program to go unused, given (1) the substantial
number of sites excluded by the CERCLA petroleum
exclusion, the removal cleanup criteria and the
limited program geography; (2) the paperwork and
delays involved in authorizing funding; and (3) the

fact that the private
sector is already
creatively working
to find cleanup
money and
approaches for
sites that clearly
have the right
economics.

Therefore, if the BCRLF is to make a difference at all,
it will have to be as flexible, stream lined and well-
integrated with existing programs as possible. One
particular suggestion towards this end that bears
further research is the possible use of the EPA "XL"
program to add flexibility where needed.

Several concrete suggestions for site management
emerged. The panelists and participants seemed
most supportive of a "team" approach to site
management, at least in the early stages when all the
institutions involved are still learning how to make
the program work.

The financial structure of the loans themselves
was discussed, with the majority of comments
suggesting that the City do everything possible to
price the loans as cheaply as possible, even to the

Rimer

consider
the XL
program













L '&• kJ

extent of subsidizing the interest or charging no
interest. Given the likely paperwork involved in
any given loan, the recommendations suggested
either bundling loans or looking to a smaller
number of larger loans as the way to lower average
administrative costs per loan.

The geography of the program suggested by the
City received some support, in the form of
suggestions that the City look to Empowerment
Community status for further regulatory flexibility
and possible financing. There were no criticisms or
concerns voiced about the City's proposed
geography.

In terms of further research, the preliminary
findings presented by Ms. Hoffman were well-
received by the group. There was substantial
support for further efforts to collect and disseminate
the learning from these BCRLF pilots across the
country. That is one clearly identified further
research task. Another research task that emerged
was examination of the State's cooperative
agreement with EPA to see whether some state-wide
integration of site management responsibilities with
state-lead brownfields agreements might be
possible. There is need for some particular program
evaluation for the Charlotte BCRLF after the
workplans are put in place and the program has had
Lime to be marketed and to make some loans for
cleanup of brownfields in Charlotte. Finally, there is
much to be learned about the capacities of different
governmental units to carry out environmental
programs targeted at relatively small areas, and
about the intergovernmental challenges raised by
attempts like the BCRLF. The need for greater
understanding in this area is clearly and tangibly
manifested by new requirements for "federalism
analysis" at federal6 and state7 levels It would be

6	See Exec. Order 13132, Federalism (Aug. 4,1999).

7	See N.C. Admin. Proc. Act, G.S. § 150B, art II, part 5
(rulemaking and consultation requirements for rules with
local fiscal impact) and Exec. Order 49 (1995) (same).


-------
useful to have data on the attitudes and expectations
(e.g., the stereotypes) that different stakeholders in a
complex intergovernmental environmental effort
have towards each other. It would also be useful to
have a way to keep persons working at different
governmental levels, on the same environmental
problems, apprised of the roles and capacities of
each other. There may be no frequent or long-term
history of work between such individuals, making
them poor judges of the capacities and constraints
faced by the other person.

The Charlotte Charrette on sustainable urban
environments represents one approach to bridging
this gap in knowledge of attitudes, expectations,
capacities and constraints. Building better bridges—
"intergovernmental infrastructure" — is a
prerequisite to successful implementation of
complex, innovative, intergovernmental efforts like
the BCRLF.**

Richard Whisnant
Chapel Hill, N.C.

About the efc@uric and the Environmental Finance Center Network

Richard
Whisnant

The Environmental Finance Center at UNC-Cliapel Hill (efc@unc) is one

of a group of university-based centers that concentrate on problems in the		

financing of environmental services. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency originally established the centers
in order to bring the work of researchers in the universities directly to bear on local environmental problems. For
more information on the Environmental Finance Center network, see:
www.epa.aov/efin.

The efc@unc was begun in 1998 as a joint venture between the Institute of Government and the Office of
Economic Development, both at UNC-Chapel Hill. Faculty and students working with the efc@unc concentrate
on helping improve the financing and delivery of environmental goods and services by local governments.

For more information, see www.unc.eclu/clepts/efc

Or call Richard Whisnant, Director of the center, at (919) 962-9320.

19 efc@unc : Sustainable Urban Environments


-------