Brownfields Reuse Strategies Working Group Report - Cuyahoga ...

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission deeply appreciates the generous financial support 

provided for the Working Group's activities by the following: 

The George Gund Foundation 

Centerior Energy Corporation 

East Ohio Gas 

The Cleveland Foundation 

Also, the Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing Program graciously made its facilities available for 

numerous Working Group meetings, for which the Planning Commission is truly grateful. 

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 

Commissioner James M. Petro, Chairperson 

Mayor Thomas J. Longo, Vice Chairperson 

Mayor Edward J. Boyle 

Commissioner Mary O. Boyle 

Mayor George J. Chandick 

Mayor Thomas J. Coyne 

Mayor Wallace D. Davis 

Commissioner Timothy F. Hagan 

Mayor David M. Lynch 

Mayor Michael Ries 

Mr. William Denihan for 

Mayor Michael R. White 

Cuyahoga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

The Report of the Brownfields Working Group 

to 

The Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners 

Timothy F. Hagan, President 

James M. Petro 

Mary O. Boyle 

July 13, 1993 

The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Brownfields Working Group Staff 

Paul A. Alsenas, Director 

Robert Jaquay, Manager, Program Division 

James Kastelic, Manager, Community Planning Division 

Virginia Aveni, Project Manager 

Judith Bohanek 

Gary Ellsworth 

Theresa Garsteck 

Claire Kilbane 

Tracy Kulikowski 

Carol Malave 

Cindy Petkac 

Jeffrey Rink 

Samantha Smisek 

Beverly Scipio 

Martin Sokolich . 


CUYAHOGA COUNTY BROWNFIELDS WORKING GROUP 

Commissioner Mary O. Boyle, Chair 

TEAM LEADERS: 

Mr. Arthur V.N. Brooks, Strategic Action Plan Team 

Baker and Hostetler 

Mr. James Alexander, Regulatory Issues Team 

The Illuminating Company 

Ms. Kathryn Jaksic, Community Strategies Team 

S1. Clair Superior Coalition 

Mr. J. Duncan Shorey, Financing Issues Team 

Oglebay Norton Company 

Mr. Rodney Beals 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Mr. Tom Bier 

Cleveland State University 

Levin College of Urban Affairs 

Mr. Robert Bowes 

Society Bank 

Ms. Maureen Brennan 


Ms. Mia Buchwald 

Environmental Health Watch 

Ms. Pat Carey 

Cleveland Area Board of Realtors 

Mr. Tom Cox 

Neighborhood Progress, Inc. 

Mr. William Coyne 

Office of the County Prosecutor 

Stephanie Tubbs Jones 

Mr. Joseph Ditchman 

Ostendorf-Morris, Inc. 

Mr. Jack Dowd 

Squire, Sanders, and Dempsey 

Mr. Cy Field 

Cleveland Neighborhood Development 

Corporation 

Dr. Michael Fogarty 

Case Western Reserve University 

Weatherhead School of Management 

Mr. Jack Freeman 

Bank One Cleveland 

Mr. Steve Gage 

Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing 

Program 

Ms. Jane Goodman 

League of Women Voters of Cleveland 

Mr. Alan Gressel 

Research Oil Company 

Mr. Brian Hurtuk 

National Association of Industrial & Office 

Parks 


Mr. Walter Jackson 

BP America, Inc. 

Mr. John James 

Cleveland City Council 

Mr. Christopher Johnson 

Midtown Corridor, Inc. 

Mr. Mike Kalstrom 

Cuyahoga County Department of 

Community Services 

Mr. Roy Knapp 

Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority 

Mr. Jack Licate 

Build Up Greater Cleveland 

Honorable Thomas Longo 

City of Garfield Heights 

Honorable J. Timothy McCormack 

Cuyahoga County Auditor 

Ms. Janice McCourt 

Office of Senator Howard Metzenbaum 

Ms. Fran Migliorino 

Office of Governor George V. Voinovich 

Ms. Jennifer O'Donnell 

Ohio Citizen Action 

Mr. Tim Pace 

City of Cleveland Department of Economic 

Development 

Ms. Kay Powers 

Office of Representative Jane Campbell 

Dr. Norman Robbins 

Case Western Reserve University 

Department of Neuroscience 

Mr. Richard Shatten 

Cleveland Tomorrow 

Mr. David C. Strayer 

Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 

Mr. Mike Sweeney 

Office of County Treasurer Francis Gaul 

Ms. Jennifer Tiell 


Mr. H. Jeff Turner 

The Carpenter-Turner Group, Inc. 

Ms. Marilyn Weiner 

Office of Congressman Louis Stokes 

Mr.John Wilbur 

East Ohio Gas Company 

Other Participants 

Ms. Deborah Alex-Saunders 

Minority Environmental Association 

Mr. David Beach 

EcoCity Cleveland 

Mr. Patrick Campbell 

North Cuyahoga Valley Corridor, Inc. 

Mr. Herb Crowther 

Golder Associates 

Ms. Janice Cogger 

Collinwood Community Center 

Mr. Todd Davis 

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff 

Cuyahoga County Brownlields Reuse Strategies

Ms. Diane Euchenhofer 

Greater Cleveland Growth Association 

Ms. Tamzin Kelly 

City of Lakewood 

Ms. Dana M. Lovelace 

Office of Representative Jane Campbell 

Mr. Tony Love 

Near West Housing Corporation 

Mr. Jim Mueller 

Earth Sciences Consultants, Inc. 

Ms. Sharon Newman 

Kahn, Kleinman, Yanowitz & Arnson 

Councilman Edward W. Rybka 

City of Cleveland 

Mr. Daryl Rush 

Neighborhood Progress, Inc. 

Glenville Enterprise Center 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION .... 

REGULATORY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

FINANCE ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS . ,. 

COMMUNITY STRATEGIES ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

STRATEGIC PLAN ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

APPENDICES 

A. Brownfields Reuse: The National Experience . 

B. Regulatory Team Mission Statement 

C. Finance Team Mission Statement .. 

D. Community Strategies Team Mission Statement 

E. Strategic Action Plan Team Mission Statement 

F. Resource People . 

G. Inventory Data . . 

1 

5 

10 

23 

44 

50 

52 

57 

59 

61 

63 

65 

67 

Cuyalwga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

. j

1 



2 


This Brownfields Working Group Report presents 75 recommendations which collectively provide 

a systematic response to the obstacles which inhibit the redevelopment of brownfield sites. 

In the Report. the Working Group recognizes the too long ignored need to place the challenge of 

brownfield reuse at the forefront of the county's, the state's, and the nation's agenda. Moreover, 

the Report proposes far reaching and strategic changes in regulations, financing mechanisms, and 

local community action that must occur to transform Cuyahoga County's economic and physical 

landscape. 

The Working Group's deliberations suggest that the Cuyahoga County community is no longer 

willing to: 

• Neglect tens of thousands of acres of the county's land at a time when this, the nation's 

17th largest county, is in fierce economic competition with other metropOlitan areas across 

the country and the world; 

• Expose the county's residents to potential serious health and safety hazards, leave our 

environment in a degraded condition, and tolerate a physical appearance of neglect and 

hopelessness in some areas; and 

• Allow admittedly difficult institutional, technical, financial , and legal problems to paralyze 

our will and diminish our ability to respond as a "Community to strategiC needs. 

I WHAT'S STANDING IN OUR WAY? 

The Working Group identified more than 20 barriers to brownfields redevelopment, especially the 

following: 

Regulatory Barriers 

1. Uncertainty in site clean-up standards 

2. Uncertainty of costs 

3. Uncertainty as to time 

4. No finality to the process 

5. No clear right of contribution 

Cuya}wga COllnry Brownfields Reuse Strategies

3 

6. Lack of public involvement 

7. Lack of intergovemmental coordination 

Financial Barriers 

1. High assessment and remediation costs 

2. Lack of private sector development financing 

3. Lengthy additional development time 

4. Public funding programs not oriented to brownfields reuse 

5. Lack of public funding 

Community Action Needs 

1 . I nventories of sites 

2. Technical assistance program 

3. Pollution prevention programs 

4. Public health analysis and outreach 

5. Brownfields land use planning and zoning methods 

I WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? 

The 75 recommendations and findings which are detailed in this Report are presented with the 

belief that traditional approaches or simply tweaking the current system are not working. Having 

leamed from the experiences of other communities, the Working Group's proposals include a 

mix1ure of new approaches tried elsewhere and solutions designed by the Working Group. 

The major recommendations are: 

• Establish a new division at the Ohio EPA, the Voluntary Action Program, to encourage 

private parties to clean up sites; 

• Expand the authority of the Ohio EPA to take action against generators and transporters 

of hazardous waste and hazardous substances; 

• Establish security exemption liability limitation mirroring USEPA rule; 

• Standardize risk assessment procedures; 

• Set standards based on future site use; 

Cuyalwga county Brown/ields Reuse Strategies

4 

• Create a county revolving loan fund to be used for site assessments and cleanups; 

• Expand the use of Issue 2 funds for environmental purposes; 

• Expand the use of Ohio Water Development Authority funds for site cleanups; 

• Recommend an Environmental Bond Fund for cleanup of major sites; 

• Expand Land Banking Programs; 

• Establish training and information resources for community groups; 

• Develop method for local planners to prioritize sites for cleanup and development; and 

• Establish a local Health AdviSOry Group of medical and environmental health specialists 

to inform the public on health risk. 

All of the recommendations are described in the Report sections which follow. Each section also 

includes a chart which depicts the issues, recommendations, type of change required to be made, 

and suggests the level of govemment most suited for taking action. 

I HOW WILL THE JOB GET DONE? 

Upon presentation of the Report to the Board of Commissioners of Cuyahoga County and the 

community at large, the staff of the County Planning Commission will weave the recommendations 

into an integrated strategic management framework, propose actions, and identify needed resources, 

organizational changes and implementation timeframes which will create a blueprint for 

local, state and federal action. 

Finally, the Working Group recognizes that the Report is only the beginning point for action. 

Assumptions need to be tested. The proposals need to be formulated with greater clarity and 

precision. Other important perspectives will be presented. But the work is underway. 

CuyaJzoga County Brownjields Reuse Strategies

5 

INTRODUCTION 


6 

INTRODUCTION 

Compliance with environmental regulations is the latest challenge to those engaged in local 

economic development. As in the past, projects often hinge on the ability of local govemments to 

provide gap financing, make infrastructure improvements or assist in land assembly. Yet, there is 

growing realization among development officials that traditional development programs are not 

always effective in dealing with situations involving clean-up of environmental contamination. 

The term "brownfield" has recently been coined to describe property, both land and structures, that 

has been previously used for a commercial or industrial purpose and may require remediation. 

Opposite in meaning to "brownfield" is the term "greenfield," which describes a site which has never 

been developed or is documented as free from the need for environmental clean-up. 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. 42 U.S.C. § 9607 

(A), often referred to as "CERCLA," is at the heart of this latest challenge to local redevelopment. 

Enacted by Congress in 1981 , CERCLA creates a broad category of individuals or entities 

potentially liable for payment to clean up hazardous sites. Sites targeted for clean-up include dumps, 

off-site treatment or disposal facilities, storage facilities, and manufacturing plants. 

Focus on reuse of brownfields is one effort by the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission to 

counteract the sprawl of our urban region. An ongoing study of the various forces which affect the 

pattems of development within not only Cuyahoga County but the entire regional area reveals that: 

1. The Northeast Ohio region is projected to remain stable or experience nominal growth in 

terms of population and jobs in the next two decades. 

2. Mounting evidence demonstrates that "Greater Cleveland" is geographically expanding. 

Greater portions of the population, jobs and economic investment are located at the 

perimeter of Cuyahoga County and in areas adjacent. 

3. This geographic spread is a function of a growing commuter population resulting from land 

availability in suburban counties. Govemment investment in radial infrastructure, especially 

highways but also including sewers, water lines and transit routes, has opened up 

land on the outskirts of the urbanized area for development where greenfields are 

abundant. 

4. Given the finite number of area residents, firms and jobs, a consequence of geographic 

expansion has intensified competition for tax base among local jUrisdictions. 

In 1990, for the first time in the area's history, less than half of all new residential units constructed 

in the Greater Cleveland market were located within Cuyahoga County. If new development within 

Cuyahoga County is to take place in the future, at a sufficient scale to maintain the value of the 

county's tax base, we must look inward for opportunities. Successful brownfields reuse strategies 

are imperative for the county. 

Cuya/wga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

I BROWNFIELDS SYMPOSIUM 

With these considerations in mind, on October 3D, 1992, the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission 

convened a Brownfields Symposium conference, "Brownfields Reuse Strategies: A Local 

Development Symposium." The symposium was the cornerstone of the Planning Commission's 

examination of how contaminated property encourages outmigralion to suburban and rural counties 

at the expense of the urban core and inner-ring suburbs. 

The symposium was attended by about 250 conferees; planners, attorneys, developers, neighborhood 

organizers, elected officials and regulators. A recommendation for follow-up to the symposium 

was made by the participants, particularly recommending follow-up by the Planning Commission, 

with more extensive proposals and action to address the problem. 

7 

I BROWNFIELDS WORKING GROUP 

The Board of County Commissioners acted on this recommendation and, together with the eight 

municipal members of the Planning Commission, directed staff to organize a strategic planninn 

committee, the Brownfields Working Group. 

A forty-two member stakeholders committee, the Brownfields Working Group was appo. 

identify the barriers to reuse and redevelopment, examine alternative strategies for remedYIi . _ .,. 

situation, and recommending action to remove the barriers. 

Cuyahoga COlinty Brownfields Reuse Strategies

8 

FRAMEWORK FOR WORKING GROUP DELIBERATIONS 

I MISSION STATEMENT 

Consistent with the expressed mission of the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission to provide 

for wise "land use and physical development" and to "anticipate and to respond pro-actively to 

rapidly evolving economic, social, cultural, and demographic changes"; and, consistent with the 

recommendation of the Brownfields Symposium that the County Planning Commission provide the 

leadership and plan for action to reuse and redevelop brownfield sites in Cuyahoga County, the 

Brownfields Working Group's purpose is to develop strategies for both short term and long term 

action by the elected and appointed officials, business and development organizations, neighborhood 

representatives, and environmental advocacy groups in the County. The product of the 

Working Group will be a report of findings and recommendations to be delivered to the Board of 

Cuyahoga County Commissioners. 

I OPERATING PRINCIPLES 

The principles and policies which the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission espouses and the 

Working Group adopts are: 

• Promotion of job creation and commerce through long-range development programs 

• Preservation of a stable tax base to support quality services 

• Protection of human health and the environment through minimal risk exposures 

• Conservation of land and natural resources through waste minimization 

• Aggressive cooperation and advocacy among public and private entities, including the 

state and federal regulatory agencies 

• Continued support for the "polluter pays" principle inherent in the CERCLA and its 

successor, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, (SARA), of 1986. 

Cuyahoga COllnty Brownfieldr Reuse Strategies

9 

I GOALS 

To develop specific policy recommendations that can be implemented by local, state or federal 

governments to facilitate the reuse of unused or under-utilized contaminated land resources in 

Cuyahoga County. 

To have Cuyahoga County selected as a demo;·,stration area I' ·l ew remediation and redevelopment 

techniques or programs in keeping with the mission of tt- 1wnfields Working Group. 

I KEY ISSUES 

The Brownfields Working Group shall focus on several key aspects of the redevelopment problem, 

including: 

• Local, state and federal legislation and policies. 

• Brownfields inventory and clean-up priorities. 

• Economic development and marketing strategies. 

• Alternative financing and tax incentives. 

• Risk assessment and risk management. 

• Community needs, education and public involvement. 


10 . 

REGULATORY ISSUES AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

CuyaJwga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

11 

OVERVIEW 

The Working Group focused primarily on the legal framework that supports the Superfund law and 

the work of the Division of Emergency and Remedial Response (DERR) within the Ohio EPA. The 

Group found that there is a lack of authority and responsibility for private transactions on sites which 

require assessments and that there is presently no responsibility on the part of the Ohio EPA to 

review these assessments. 

A Voluntary Action Program would encourage owners and operators of properties to demonstrate 

that sites are safe by voluntarily providing the Phase I and Phase" assessments to the Ohio EPA. 

The Program would ensure that: 

1. Quality control and assurance would be performed through: 

a. Standardization of the assessments by standard-setting protocols. 

b. Training and certification procedure for contractors and consultants performing 

the assessments. 

c. Oversight by the Ohio EPA through plan approvals and audits of the projects 

on a sequential basis. 

2. Projects passing the Phase I audit or Phase" study requiring no removal or remediation 

would receive a Certificate of Release. 

3. Where soil would need to be removed and/or permits required, Ohio EPA would approve 

the plan of action. When the remediation action is complete, it would receive, upon 

submittal of acceptable documentation to the Agency, a "No Further Action" letter and, if 

requested, a "Covenant Not to Sue" on the plan and approvable actions under the plan. 

(It should be noted that the "Covenant Not to Sue" covers only the terms of the plan. If 

new areas of contamination are discovered subsequent to the remediation effort or 

information is not disclosed in the plan which would need remediation, the Director of the 

Ohio EPA is not bound by a "Covenant Not to Sue"). 

4. That there would be changes in the law with regard to exemption from liability of a lender 

and protection of other fiduciary interests. 

It is expected that most of the transactions would be privately negotiated and financed, 

but staffing support for agency standard-setting, auditing, oversight, and management 

would be necessary, and a budget-support item from the General Assembly should include 

capability to staff the program until fees could be collected from applications for participation 

under the Program. 

Cuyahoga County Brownfields Reuse Slrategies

12 

Cuyahoga County has several sites which are not on the Superfund list but which require action for 

which local government has neither the investigatory capability nor funds for cleanup. It is also 

recommended that Ohio EPA be given appropriate authority to pursue the principal parties in all 

actions requiring emergency remediation and response. This would include generators and 

transporters of hazardous substances. as well as hazardous waste. 


13 

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

I ISSUE I: 

Cleanup Standards are Uncertain. Cleanup goals or objectives are established within the regulations 

and procedures under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980, commonly referred to as the "Superfund" Law or CERCLA, and its successor, 

the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, 1986 (SARA). Guidelines for remediation 

incorporate standards from other environmental laws, or ARARs, including the Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1981, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Toxic 

Substances Control Act, and possibly others. In many situations, standards are not established in 

the regulations. ARARs only address a discrete number of chemicals specific to each law, and in 

many cases the presence of numerous contaminants present situations where chemical specific 

standards are not protective. For soils, Superfund has not established chemical specific clean-up 

standards. In these cases, a risk assessment is computed using site specific exposure scenarios. 

However, risk assessments promote conservative cleanup goals that are often perceived to be 

unrealistic or cost prohibitive for economic redevelopment to occur. 

Recommendations: 

Local: 

None 

Timeframe Implementation 

State: 

Federal: 

Require standards for brownfield sites to be based on 

future use of the site. 

Standardize risk assessment procedures to more accurately 

account for the site "use" and exposure scenarios. 

Establish numerical standards for soils through rule-making 

to give a certainty to the site assessment and cleanup 

standards which must be attained. 

Determine risk, using standards based upon structural 

solutions (e.g. containment solutions), legal controls (e.g. 

deed restrictions), or institutional controls of land use zoning. 

Authorize USEPA to recognize state voluntary programs, 

"Certificates of Release," and "Covenants Not to Sue." 

1 Year 

1 Year 

3 Years 

3 Years 

1 Year 


14 

I ISSUE II: 

Uncertainty of Cost. The cost question deals with the lack of certainty of the total problem. How bad 

is the contamination; how long will ittake to complete the assessment; how many soil or groundwater 

samples need to be taken to complete the assessment process; how much will the cost or 

remediation be, i.e., soils removal, treatment in place, etc. 

Uncertainty of cost is related to the problem of borrowing money because of the potential liability 

issue for lenders. 

• Lack of definite cleanup standards. (See Issue I) 

• Lack of established qualifications of consultants/contr tors conducting assessments 

and remediation work. 

• Lack of standardization of assessment procedures: 

• Lack of flexibility in technology for remediation plan. 

Recommendations 

Local: 

Training program for neighborhood people, local businesses, 

local officials. 

1 Year 

State: 

Develop standards as described in Issue 1. 

Federal: 

Require certification of contractors/consultants through establishing 

requirements for training, professional credentials 

and experience. 

Establish assessment protocols based on models recognized 

by standard-setting organizations. 

Encourage innovative technology and performance standards. 

Provide a Security Exemption from environmental liability 

for lenders where interest is acquired through foreclosure, 

fiduciary capacity, extension of credit, or financial control 

or oversight pursuant to extension of credit. 

Encourage standardization of assessment procedures by 

USEPA. 

Support research and approval of innovative technology. 

Provide training for consultants/contractors. 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

Ongoing 

Cuyahoga COllnty Brownfields Reuse Strategies

15 

I ISSUE III 

Uncertainty as to Time. There is no state or federal program for review or sign-off on cleanups that 

are driven by private actions, i.e., current owners ornew owners of contaminated property voluntarily 

cleaning up their sites for reuse or redevelopment. Consequently, there is no legal authority or 

responsibility which requires either a management approach or a regulatory oversight of these 

properties. Other states have adopted both Voluntary Action Programs and state superfund laws 

to encourage voluntary cleanups and to give their environmental departments tools for state 

sign-offs on past liabilities for the properties. 

Completion of assessments and plans for remediation may be lengthy process, including delays 

related to repeated iterations in the process. 

Agency staff may delay in signing off on a plan for remediation, causing further delays in completion 

of the process. These delays may be caused by several factors: 

a. Lack of communication on the part of consultants or agency staff. 

b. Lack of information or lack of documentation (inadequate work by consultants). deficient 

or slow tu m-around of lab samples, etc. 

c. Lack of adequate staff at the agency to review plans. 

d. Lack of standard protocols. 

e. Lack of consistent cleanup standards. 

f. Lack of regulatory authority to deal with specific problems, i.e. landfills, properties on the 

Master Sites List and any properties with hazardous substances not covered under 

"hazardous waste" definition. 


Local: 

Develop technical capability and information base, i.e., inventories, 

data bases, protocols at city and county levels to 

support planners, economic and community development offices 

as well as private development interests. 

Provide manuals and guides on how to do assessments, how 

to choose a contractor, how to work with the Ohio EPA. 

In conjunction with technicians in the field , Ohio EPA, ASTM, 

CAMP, Tri-C and CSU, provide local training for small businesses, 

neighborhood development and corporations, city 

development officials to assure greater technical capability. 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

State: 

Adopt a Voluntary Action Program for site reuse which would 

create a system for performing site assessments and, if necessary, 

remedial actions resulting in a "Certificate of Release" 

1 Year 


16 

and/or "Covenant Not to Sue" by the Ohio EPA. The 

program would provide limited liability for owners whose 

plans and actions meet the requirements for the certification. 

Federal: 

Require minimum qualifications for consultants/contractors 

who perform assessments and remediation of sites 

through certification. 

Require training for consultants/contractors. 

Develop policy regarding future use of land and risk assessment. 

Require certification for laboratories doing testing for site 

assessment and remediation work. 

Provide necessary staff at the Ohio EPA to give technical 

assistance, perform audits and conduct necessary oversight 

for assessment and remediation plans. 

Require OEPA to meettimetable for plan review to streamline 

approval of voluntary cleanups. 

Require OEPA to coordinate issuance of permits through 

a "one-stop shopping" program to expedite completion of 

the process. 

Require clarification of existing state law to compel polluters 

to clean up environmental priority sites. 

Establish statutory deadlines for remediation. 

Provide for USEPA recognition of state "Covenants Not to 

Sue" and "Certificates of Release" for sites where state 

Voluntary Action Programs are in-place with adequate 

oversight capability. 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

Protocol 

1 Year 

3 Years 

3 Years 

3 Years 

3 Years 

1 Year 

1 Year (Rules) 

I ISSUE IV 

No Finality to the Process. Since the state has no voluntary cleanup program, nor does it have a 

state superfund law, there is no authority for the state to give a Certificate of Release. Neither is 

there protection under federal law should a third party choose to file an action under CERCLA. The 

only "sign-off" which gives protection to a property owneris through an enforcement and compliance 

action or judicial decree by the respective regulatory agencies. 


17 


Local: 

None 

State: 

Federal: 

Establish numerical standards. 

Require the OEPA to issue Certificate of Release upon 

approval of site assessment. The procedures for sign-off 

and release will be established through rule-making. 

Require the Director of Ohio EPA to issue a No Further 

Action Letter followed by a "Covenant Not to Sue" upon 

completion of the site plan. 

Allow principal parties to leave process at any time. 

Adoption of provision under CERCLA for Voluntary Action 

Program and/or acknowledgement of state authority. 

3 Years 

1 Year 

3 Years 

1 Year 

3 Years 

I ISSUE V 

No Clear Right of Contribution. There is no provision for a property owner to seek contribution and 

indemnification for cleanup of a site under current state law. 


Local: 

None 

State: 

Federal: 

Change the Ohio Revised Code to give clear Right of 

Contribution under the Voluntary Action Program and give 

the right to recover costs for cleanup to either an innocent 

landowner or responsible party who chooses to take voluntary 

action. 

None 

1 Year 

I ISSUE VI 

Lack of Public Involvement and Education. Where serious environmental problems have required 

extensive cleanups, the affected officials and communities leam the complicated process very well, 

but small businesses, cities, and neighborhood residents have little capability of mastering the 


18 

technical and legal issues involved in properties affected by the Superfund law. Many larger banks 

have specialists on environmentally affected property, but others have no background in the 

technical and legal issues involved. . 

All of the experts making presentations to the Brownfields Symposium and to the Working Group 

stressed the essential component to successful cleanups have involved the early participation and 

involvement of both local government and the neighborhood community interests. 


Local: 

Same as under Issue III, i.e. Community education, training, 

data bases, inventories, manual of voluntary process. 

1 Year 

State: 

Public notice on all sites. This would include notice to 

identified local interests as well as legal notices 

Require a 30-day comment period together with public 

hearings on request where there are soils treatment or 

removal. 

Require Ohio EPA and local governments to provide inventory 

data, training, and manuals. 

Establish a Public Advisory Group to the Ohio EPA consisting 

of stakeholders, representatives of business and 

utilities, environmental groups, lenders, neighborhood 

groups, developers, local government officials or planners, 

contractors/consultants, to review and respond to program 

development, guidance and management. 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

1 Year 

I ISSUE VII 

Lack of Intergovernmental Coordination. Local governments have little experience in dealing with 

state and federal environmental regulations. Regulators need to understand the constraints on local 

govemment in managing and financing cleanup costs. Development departments which provide 

financing tools for local governments also lack experience with environmental regulations. 

Local land use and institutional controls should be recognized in regulations as part of future use 

for standard setting pu rposes. 


Local: More communication and training with local officials by 

federal and state regulators. 

Create a local advisory committee and coordinator for 

brownfield actions. 

1 Year 

1 Year 

Cuyahoga County Brownfield! Reuse Strategies

19 

State and 

Federal: 

Federal: 

Have the Ohio EPA and USEPA recognize the use of 

institutional controls, such as zoning and deed restrictions. 

Support of financing local cleanup projects through: 

SR 299, Land Reuse and Recycling Act of 1993 

SR 773, currently only federal voluntary cleanup bill 

3 Years 

3 Years 

3 Years 


· . 

I 

, i

REGULATORY BARRIERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

f 

., 

ir 

c 

~ 

~ 

b) Standardize risk assessment procedures. X X X 

c) Establish numerical standards for site assessment and clean-up standards. X X X I X 

d) Determine risk using standards based upon legal. engineering, and institutional factors. X X X 

2. Uncertainty of costs 2. a) Provide training for consultants/contractors, community leaders, businesses and local 

~ officials. 

I I X I II X· I X I X 

'" ~ 

b) Develop standards as described in #lC. 

'5, 

~ c) Standardization of assessment protocols. 

flo 

~ d) Require certification of contractors/consultants. X 

'" ~ 

'" 

~ 

e) Encourage innovative technology and performance standards. X X 

~ Q Provide security exemption from environmental liability for lenders. X X 

~ 

~ . g) Support research and approval of innovative technology. X I X 

3. Uncertainty as to time 

b) Provide manuals and guides on "How to do Assessments", etc. 

c) Provide local training for small businesses, neighborhood development corporations, and 

city officials to assure greater technical capability. 

d) Adopt a voluntary program to streamline site assessment and remedial actions. X X 

e) Require minimum qualifications for consultants/contractors through certification. X X 

Q Require training for consultants/contractors. X X 

I\) 

0

k) Require Ohio EPA to coordinate issuance of permits through a ·one-stop shopping" 

I X 

program to expedite completion of the process. I II I X 

f 

m) Establish statutory deadlines. 

6" 

X 

~ 

n) Have USEPA recognize ·Covenants Not to Sue" and · Certlficates of Release" In states 

~ with Voluntary Action Programs. 

II I X I 3 

" 

~ 

4. No finality to the process. 4. a) Establish numerical standards. 

to 

I X II X 

~ 

~ 

b} Require the Ohio EPA to Issue a "Certificate of Release" upon approval of site I X 

 

~ e) Adopt under CERCLA a provision for Voluntary Action Program and/or acknowledgement I X I I II I I X I 3 

J: of state authority. 

~. 

5. Provide for right of contribution in Ohio Revised Code. I X I II I X 

6. Lack of public involvement and 16 

education of: 

a) consultants doing site 

assessments 

b) Agency personnel who willi d) Require the Ohio EPA and local government provide inventory data, training, and 

audit site assessments 

manuals for target audiences. 

e) Establish a Public Advisory Group to the Ohio EPA consisting of stakeholders, X 

representatives of business, environmental intorests, lenders, neighborhood groups, 

utility representatives, developers, local government officials and planners, and 

contractors/consultants to review and respond to program development, guidance, and 

management. I II 

I\) 

....

f ., 

~ 

(;> 

• 

~ 

r 

'5, 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~. 

a) local and state 

b) federal and state 

c) Have the Ohio EPA and USEPA recognize the use of institutional controls,l.e. zoning 

restrictions, deed restrictions, etc, 

d) Support financing of local clearrup projects (SR 999 - Lane Use and Recycling Act of 

1993). 

e) Recognize State Voluntary Action Program (SR 773). 

X 

X 

X 

IIXI X 

II 

X 

X 

3 

3 

N 

N

23 

FINANCE ISSUES AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 


24 


A fundamental component of the Brownfields Working Group's recommendations is to identify ways 

to improve the funding of environmental assessments and remediation and assure redevelopment 

as an outcome. 

Just as in the regulatory arena, the financing of brownfield redevelopment by either private or public 

sector entities confronts a set of barriers which inhibit their reuse and must be overcome. 

I BARRIERS TO PRIVATE INVESTMENT 

In addition to all of the usual difficulties in securing investment funds for private sector development 

projects, brownfields projects present these special problems: 

1 . The high costs of site assessment and remediation. 

These costs vary dramatically from site to site and can range from a few thousand to tens 

of millions of dollars. For example, a routine underground storage tank removal could be 

as little as $5,000, while the average Superfund site cleanup is $30 million. Generally, the 

costs are conSiderable, especially in comparison to customary greenfield site development 

costs. 

2. The lack of private sector development financing. 

In many instances, as a result of CERCLA and subsequent court decisions such as Fleet 

Factors, lenders will not lend because of potential joint and severable liability for cleanup 

and/or future health effects on employees, tenants or neighbors. Even if the potential 

investment in a brownfield site looks promising in all other respects, and even if the investor 

or lender had no previous involvement in the site, the actual or perceived risk of lender 

liability has ground to a virtual halt normal investment activity across the country and in 

Cuyahoga County. . 

3. The additional time required to assemble the financing, perform assessments, complete 

remediation, and get regulatory closure. 

Another dimension as important as the actual dollars is time, particularly in market-driven 

investment decisions. The elapsed time to prepare a site for development and begin a 

productive use or generate a revenue stream usually far exceeds the equivalent time 

required for greenfield development. 

Cuyalwga County Brown/ields RelLSe Strategies

25 

These barriers, among others, manifest themselves especially at times when a change of use is 

contemplated as part of an investment decision; e.g. the expansion of an existing use or a new use 

involving a change of ownership. A useful framework for thinking about brownfields reuse financing 

is to focus on the transaction which results in the redevelopment project. 

Transactions normally occur between private or public sector parties. The Working Group has 

adopted the terms P1, P2, and P3 as its shorthand to describe the continuum of these transactions. 

The term P1 (single party) describes the situation when a change of property usage or alteration 

of existing usage occurs without a change of property interest. 

A P2 (private-private) transaction occurs when property is transferred from one private entity to 

another. 

A P3 (private-public-private) transaction is one which includes public sector involvement. Typical 

circumstances requiring this involvement include: (1) the public foreclosure for non-payment of 

taxes and land banking followed by transfer to not-for-profit or for-profit organizations for redevelopment; 

(2) purchase by public entities for brownfield sites for remediation and subsequent private 

sector redevelopment; and (3) temporary public ownership to allow publicly financed improvements 

to be made. 

I BARRIERS TO PUBLIC SECTOR INVESTMENT 

There are also significant barriers to participation by the public sector in financing brownfields 

redevelopment. In addition to all of the barriers to private investment already indicated, public 

entities confront their own set of unique issues. 

1. Traditionally, contaminated properties have been regarded as an environmental or public 

health regulatory matter, not as an issue of community and economic development. 

Due to the hazards posed to human health and the environment from contamination, the 

primary public sector intervention on brownfield sites has been in the role of regulator to 

protect public health and safety. Only recently has the importance of brownfields been 

recognized by public decision makers in terms of the economic opportunity costs which 

they represent and the vital role brownfields may play in the revitalization of our urban 

core. As a result, brownfield remediation has not been a routine part of public sector 

economic development programs or funding schemes. Furthermore, the rule of "polluter 

pays" has been a longstanding and fundamental principle of public policy and state and 

federal law, and continues to be the guiding principle forthe Working Group's deliberations. 

Consequently, public programs and funding sources to assist brownfield remediation and 

reuse have not evolved. 

2. There is a lack of local public resources available for addressing brownfields. 

The financial magnitude of the problem is daunting; for example, using just the 123 

properties on the national Master Sites List, which are located in Cuyahoga County, and 

applying the average national Superfund cleanup cost, suggests that for these sites alone, 


26 

the cleanup bill could be as high as $3.7 billion. 

Based on known state enforcement activity and mandated incident reporting, it is estimated 

that the total number of cleanup situations in Cuyahoga County could be in the range of 

8,000-10,000. 

Based on land use information, it is estimated that approximately 40,000 acres, or 14% of 

the county's area, have historically been devoted to the kinds of industrial and commercial 

activities which could result in environmental contamination. 

When the needed amounts of funding are compared to the available revenue base and 

are matched against other critical public priorities, it is not surprising that the public sector 

has not implemented broadly based programs to assist remediation. 

Although much can be done at the local level to manipulate land assets orto fund low cost 

remediation projects, the scale of the remediation financing "load" is too great in Cuyahoga 

County to be done with local resources alone, without impairing other public services. Only 

the state and federal governments can yield sufficient debt capacity to appreciably affect 

the problem. 

I NEEDED: A NEW APPROACH TO BROWN FIELDS FINANCING 

Under present circumstances, the mere presence of contamination on a brownfield site is a barrier 

to its development, just as the lack of public infrastructure such as roads, waterlines, drainage 

facilities, and sanitary sewers is a barrier to the development of a clean site. 

In both cases, the development potential of the site is related to the public and private costs to 

eliminate the barriers which apply to brownfield or greenfield situations, respectively. 

I n the case of development of greenfield sites, public bodies have historically been willing and often 

eager to tax, borrow and spend funds for public works to foster community development. The same 

willingness exists to tax, borrow, and spend public revenues to assist economic development, 

including tax abatement, worker training subsidies, business loans, and so on. 

At this point in the nation's and the county's history, when a sizeable percentage of the county's 

land is well served by public infrastructure and public services but is environmentally contaminated 

with no prospect of reuse through market mechanisms alone, it is time to treat sites requiring 

remediation on the same plane as other public infrastructure in our pOlicies, laws and assistance 

programs. 

If state and local officials were to adopt this view, in very short order the powerful capabilities which 

have evolved over decades to produce public infrastructure and to foster economic development 

could be applied to brownfields redevelopment. 

If the ambit of existing public works and economic development programs were merely expanded, 

creating a plethora of totally new public programs and funding sources would not be necessary. 


27 

Moreover, the federal, state and local governments have created ihe specific means to address 

human health, environmental and pollution problems, such as the environmental protection agencies 

and health departments, each with its respective funding sources, regulatory authorities, and 

statutory powers. 

It will require the combined capacities of traditional infrastructure management and pollution 

abatement organizations directed at brownfield sites, to begin to reconcile (1) the scope of the 

redevelopment problem in Cuyahoga County, with, (2) the magnitude of private and public 

resources which are needed to meaningfully address the problem. 

Therefore, it seems appropriate to integrate existing public infrastructure, economic development, 

and pollution abatement funding mechanisms in order implement local strategies to redevelop 

brownfields and revitalize Cuyahoga County, particularly the core urbanized area. 

Additionally, the following considerations shaped the Working Group's recommendations: 

1. All funding ultimately depends on the legal authority and political willingness of public and 

private institutions to use their credit to capitalize remediation and development. The ability 

to use public credit is determined by constitutions and statutes which proscribe the actual 

funding mechanisms and limit the entities which can benefit from the credit. 

2. An important way to analyze funding issues is to separate the (1) securing of funds to 

accomplish the actual assessment. remediation and redevelopment, from (2) the ways in 

which investments in the these three phases can be repaid to the original source or a 

reduction in the cost of economic activity on redeveloped sites; i.e., increase present value 

by reducing future outlays. 

3. Furthermore, in an era of state fiscal crises and federal budget deficits, the ability of the 

public sector to borrow or otherwise raise revenues sufficient to capitalize these strategies 

is also limited. In partnership with the federal and state government, the vast reservoir of 

private capital and credit should be tapped to make significant progress in financing 

brownfields reuse. An analogy is the FHA Fannie Mae program, whereby a multi-billion 

dollar private sector secondary credit market has been created to promote the public policy 

of home ownership. 

In summary, there is a need to implement changes which remove barriers to private sector 

investment in thousands of potential cases in Cuyahoga County, as well as to create a program of 

systematic public involvement backed by significant flows of capital affecting hundreds of sites in 


I RECOMMENDATIONS 

The financing options matrices which follow are a summary of the potential universe of methods 

for financing brownfields reuse transactions and strategies, including sources of capital and future 

cost reduction techniques. 


28 

These methods include traditional infrastructure funding sources, economic development financing 

sources and incentives, revenues derived from judicial decrees in environmental cases, private 

sector capital traditionally expended for economic development and/or environmental purposes, as 

well as methods which use land or other assets as a means to apply non-monetary assets to the 

implementation of brownfields reuse strategies. Each of these sources of capital are described in 

the following section. 

At the outset, it should be emphasized that the Working Group strongly recommends and expects 

continued reliance on traditional private sector capital sources (commercial banks, savings and 

loans, mortgage brokerages, institutional investors, investment pools, corporate funds and so on), 

which have historically served real estate development, business expansion and other similar 

purposes to provide the vast majority of funding for remediation and reuse. 

All of the methods indicated in the matrix could support brownfields reuse strategies. However, the 

recommendations outlined below indicate the preferred ways in. which the public sector can 

strategically intervene to remove financing barriers and facilitate projects whose implementation 

promotes public purposes. 

1. Creation of a County Revolving Loan Fund 

The Board of Cuyahoga County Commissioners should establish and 

administer a revolving loan fund for the reuse of brownfields. 

1 Year 

The capitalization of the fund should be from all sources available to the 

county from federal and state programs, such as Community Development 

Block Grants (CDBG) and (Urban Development Action Grant 

(UDAG) repayments, and from local revenue sources, such as real estate 

transfer fees , the general fund, reserve accounts, as well as grants and 

borrowing from the Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA), State 

Revolving Loan Fund, and other sources described below. The terms and 

conditions of repayment should be established by the Board, including the 

rate of interest, term of the loan, collateralization requirements, and so on. 

The administration of the loan program would be by the Board of Commissioners, 

or contracted with a local lending institution. The original 

capitalization of the Cuyahoga Brownfields Redevelopment Revolving 

Loan Fund would be $20+ million. 

The primary purpose of the Fund would be to facilitate P2 transactions, 

particularly to expedite the projects by trading public dollars for a shortening 

of time required for development. This Fund would be the primary 

mechanism for short term, dynamic redevelopment situations, as well as 

medium and longer term projects which are important to strategiC local 

objectives. In this way, brownfields redevelopment would be made more 

comparable to greenfields development. 

It is unclear at the present time whether the Board of Commissioners has 

the statutory authority to establish a revolving loan fund for this specific 

purpose. 


29 

Brownfields reuse and redevelopment is a matter of statewide concem. Additionally, the state, with 

a larger revenue base than Cuyahoga County or its constituent municipalities, should be viewed 

as a primary funding source. The recommendations which follow address financing options to be 

implemented by the General Assembly and state government. 

Further, the Working Group recognizes that lender liability issues need to be resolved, as indicated 

elsewhere in this Report, in order to allow the county, municipal, and state govemment to fully 

participate in brownfields project financing. 

2. STATE REVOLVING LOAN FUND 

Similar to the county revolving loan fund, the State Revolving Loan Fund, 

currently administered for wastewater treatment and non-point pollution 

control, should be expanded in scope to make the remediation of brownfield 

sites eligible. 

1 Year 

The Fund should be augmented by federal sources for which the state is 

eligible, as well as state sources such as the state capital budget, state 

reserve investment funds, and so on, in the additional amount of $100 

million. 

At present, the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) can be 

used for implementation of non-point source pollution management programs 

and estuary conservation and management programs. The remediation 

of brownfield sites is generally consistent with these purposes, 

requiring only minor amendments to the program's management which is 

through the Ohio EPA. A renamed fund, the Ohio Pollution Control Loan 

Fund would serve all of these purposes. A change in statute would be 

required to implement this recommendation. 

Furthermore, the OWDA currently provides fiscal management of these 

funds. This responsibility should be continued, and augmented as indicated 

below. 

3. OHIO WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 

The OWDA currently provides financing to Ohio communities for drinking 

water, wastewater and solid waste facilities, and tax-exempt financing for 

qualified solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. The Working Group 

recommends that this authority be augmented to include brownfields 

remediation. As in the case of the administration of the WPCLF, the 

OWDA has a history of effective financial assistance to public entities, to 

which brownfields remediation should logically be added. A change in 

statute would be required. The issuance of debt should be increased by 

theOWDA. 

1 Year 

4. STATE ISSUE 2 PROGRAM EXPANSION 

The anticipated reauthorization of the State Issue 2 Program, by a 

state-wide ballot in 1996, will provide an opportunity to modify the existing 

program as set forth in the Ohio Constitution. Currently, the Issue 2 

3 Years 

GlCyalwga county Brownfields Reuse Strategies

30 

Program provides financial assistance in the form of grants, loans or local 

debt support to local subdivisions for road, bridge, water supply, wastewater, 

storrnwater detention and solid waste facilities. 

The essential elements of the Issue 2 program are already in place for 

brownfield applications: the regular issuance of bonds, awarding and 

disbursement of the funds to the communities, the creation of a revolving 

loan fund and the administration on both the state and county level, through 

the Ohio Public Works Commission and the District One Public Works 

Integrating Committee, respectively. Therefore, a minor amendment, including 

brownfields assessment and remediation, should be included in 

the categories of infrastructure eligible for financial assistance. 

5. ENVIRONMENTAL BONDING AUTHORITY 

Through a vote of the electors of Ohio, the Ohio Constitution should be 

amended to authorize the Ohio General Assembly to issue debt for 

environmental management purposes, primarily for remediation of brownfields. 

The Ohio EPA. together with the Ohio Development Department, 

should manage the grants awarded from this bond issuance, using the 

same criteria for project selection and administration as the Ohio Pollution 

Loan Fund, Issue 2 and the OWDA. The debt authority should be in the 

range of $100 million per year for ten years. 

3 Years 

6. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS 

The State of Ohio issues Industrial Development Bonds (lOB), pursuant 

to Federal taxation law and Ohio statutes establishing economic development 

projects as a public purpose for issuance of debt and tax incentives. 

Because lOBs are already used to expand or establish new facilities, the 

goal of redevelopment would be served by allowing remediation activities 

to be included as an eligible project cost in I DB projects. 

1 Year 

The lOB program is administered by the Ohio Development Department, 

with local approval by the Cuyahoga County Improvement Corporation 

and the Board of Commissioners. 

The second category of recommendations concems the techniques of providing assistance to 

brownfields redevelopment, not for capitalizing the up-front cost of remediation, but by providing 

public finance mechanisms to either recover ·over time the public or private investments in 

remediation, or to use other non-monetary approaches to create developable land. The Working 

Group recommends the following: 

7. LAND BANKING 

Independent of the brownfields situation, the county and its municipalities 

have engaged in land banking programs, particularly in relation to tax 

delinquent parcels. 

1 Year 

At the county level, the Govemment Action on Urban Land (GAUL) 

program, initially created as a way of reducing the growing tax delinquency 


31 

of the county, has evolved into an effective and innovative way of aggregating 

parcels for development. This program is both the model for public 

sector community-based collaboration for brownfields development and 

is the specific mechanism for removing from the tax delinquent rolls an 

inventory of potentially developable land. 

It is recommended that the Cuyahoga County land bank program, as well 

as municipal land bank programs, be expanded to include brownfields 

parcels. In conjunction with municipalities, local development corporations 

and private sector developers, it is recommended that these parcels be 

remediated and redeveloped using the financing options currently available 

and to be established in the future. 

8. TAX ABATEMENT 

Tax abatement, or the full or partial exemption from taxes (tangible 

personal property and/or real estate) on new investment, has been a 

traditional public incentive to encourage development. In its original form, 

tax abatement was intended to give tax exemptions in "blighted" areas 

using criteria related to economic distress. 

1 Year 

It is the recommendation of the Working Group that tax abatement 

authority in Ohio Statutes be extended to include tax abatement for 

increased real estate value due to environmental remediation and subsequent 

redevelopment. Additionally, tangible personal property taxes on 

redeveloped brownfield sites should be eligible for abatement. 

9. ENTERPRISE ZONES 

It is the recommendation of the Working Group that eligibility to grant tax 

abatement in enterprise zones should be expanded by the Ohio General 

Assembly to include environmental distress in addition to economic distress. 

"Environmental distress" would be defined as contamination as 

presently described in federal and state laws and regulations. 

1 Year 


FINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS 

f 

is 

Traditional and newly emerging private sector financing sources, including 

banks. S&L's pension funds, brokerages, finance companies, etc .• should 

continue to supply the overwheldming proportion of funding for brown fields 

remediation and development. Upon implementation of the regulatory 

I recommendations. it is assumed that private sector financing activities will 

County Revolving Loan Fund 

The revolving loan fund would be established and administered by the Board 

Q 

'" 

of County Commissioners for the use of brownfields. The capitalization of 

~ the fund would be from all sources available to the county from federal and 

• 

state programs and local revenue sources. Original capitalization should be 

~ 

for $20+ million. The primary focus of the fund would be on P2 transactions 

'" a 

for short-term dynamic redevelopment situations and also medium and 

~ 

longer-term projects . 

.g, 

~ 

!l- 

~ (SRF) provides low-interest rate financing to communities for wastewater treatment 

" and non-point source pollution control. Augumentation of the current 

~ programs to include brownfield sites would assist Pl. if public. and P3 

~ transactions that need funds for the assessment and remediation of sites on a 

~ 

~ 

~. 

X I X I X I X I 1 year 

State Revolving Loan Fund The State Revolving Loan Fund. or Ohio Water Pollution Control Fund. X I X I I X I 1 year 

short-term to long-term basis. Projects would be selected by the Ohio EPA 

Director from a prioritized list. An additional $100 million should be sought 

from federal sources. 

(OWDA) wastewater and solid waste facilities. and tax-exempt financing for qualified ORC X 

solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. Augmentation of the program to 6121 .01 

include brownfield sites would assist Pl . if public. and P3 transactions. The 

amount of debt issued by OWDA to fund the projects should be increased. 

Water Development I The OWDA currently provides financing to communities for drinking ater. 

I 

State Issue 2 Program 

IThe State Issue 2 Program provides financial assistance in the form of grants. 

and local debt support to communities for infrastruture projects. The o Const 

program should be amended at the time of reauthorization to include 

VI12SK 

brown fields remediation as an eligible project to assist Pl. if public. and P3 ORC 

transactions. Projects would have to compete on a local level for the $13 164.01 

million county allocation. 

I I X I I X I 1 year 

X I X I X I X I I 3 years 

Co) 

I\)

o Canst. 

f 

~ 

~ 

to 

a 

~ 

'5, 

~ 

f 

>;> 

~ 

~ 

~. 

Industrial Development Bonds 

(lOB) 

Land Banking 

Tax Abatement 

Enterprise Zones 

State of Ohio issues lOBs to expand or establish new facilities. The goal of 

redevelopment, would be served by allowing private (Pl) developers to 

remediation activities as an eligible proiect cost. 

ICUyahOga County and some of jts municipalities have started land banking of 

tax delinquent parcels to reduce tax delinquency and compile parcels for 

development. The county's program should be expanded to include brownfieldsl 

that they can be remediated and offered for redevelopment either 

or with contiguous parcels. 

I 

abatement, the full or panial exemption from taxes (tangible personal 

property and/or real estate) on new investment is used to encourage 

development in blighted areas. The use of abatement should be expanded to 

include the increased value of real and personal property due to environmental 

(P 1). 

Enterprise zones provide local government with an economic development tool 

to encourage new businesses to modernize and expand or attract new 

businesses by allowing communities to offer tax abatement on new investment.J 

The statutory definition of enterprise zone should be expanded to include 

"environmental distress" as a criteria for enterprise zone designation of private 

x 

X 

ORC 5709 

ORC 5703 

X 

ORC 5709. 

61-66 

x 

x 

x 

1 year 

1 year 

1 year 

S = Statutory 

R = Regulatory 

M = Management 

L = Local 

S = State 

F = Federal 

Co) 

Co)

34 

SOURCES OF CAPITAL 

I REVOLVING LOAN 

A permanent source of funds that can be loaned for a variety of purposes. As loan monies are paid 

to the fund, they are loaned out again for other projects. Revolving loans are established for clearly 

specified purposes (i.e. short-term loans for environmental clean-up of properties) and therefore 

restrict the use of funds. 

I GRANTS 

Grants, or intergovemmental transfer payments, are gifts from one govemment to another to 

achieve a specific purpose. Qualifying guidelines are established to determine eligibility. 

I STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) 

The State Revolving Fund (SRF), or Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF), was created 

in the Water Quality Act of 1987 as a permanent replacement for the USEPA Construction Grants 

Program. The WPCLF provides ongoing, low-interest rate financing to communities responsible for 

municipal wastewater treatment and non-point source pollution control. The Ohio Water Development 

Authority (OWDA) provides fiscal management for the funds and invests and disburses the 

moneys in the fund . 

WPCLF consists of moneys credited to it from all capitalization grants received from the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act, all matching moneys credited to the fund arising from nonfederal 

sources, all payments of principal and interest for loans made from the funds and all investment 

eamings on moneys held in the fund. Matching funds equal to at least 20% of the quarterly 

capitalization grant payment must be provided by the State of Ohio. In 1991, the OWDA competitively 

bid a bond issue to provide the State's matching funds. This was the first time that bonds were 

issued to provide the State's match, previous matches were made with general revenue funds. 

The WPCLF is dedicated in perpetuity, and is used and reused for the following purposes: 

1. Construction of publicly owned wastewater treatment works by municipal corporations, 

other pOlitical subdivisions and interstate agencies having territory in the state; 

2. Implementation of non-point source pollution management programs; and 

3. Development and implementation of estuary conservation and management programs. 


35 

The OEPA Director develops a state priority system and list ranking the publicly owned treatment 

works projects principally on the basis of their relative water quality and public health benefits and 

the need of the applicants for financial assistance. The financial assistance is limited to projects on 

the priority list and are awarded based on priority sequence and the applicanfs readiness-to-proceed. 

In addition, the OEPA Director, enters into the agreement with the applicant which establishes 

the terms, conditions, and the amount of financial assistance offered. 

The WPCLF funds can be used in the following manner: 

1. To make loans at or below market rates of interest, including interest free. Payments of 

principal and interest are due no later than one year after completion, with full amortization 

in 20 years. The recipient of the loan must establish a dedicated source of revenue for 

repayment; 

2. To purchase or refinance at or below market rates of interest, debt obligation incurred by 

municipal corporations, other political subdivisions or interstate agencies; 

3. To guarantee or purchase insurance for debt obligations when it would improve the 

borrower's access to credit markets or reduce the interest rate paid; 

4. As a source of revenue or security for the payment of principal and interest on general 

obligation or revenue bonds or notes issued by this state; 

5. Provide loan guarantees for revolving loan funds established by municipal corporations 

and other political subdivisions that are similar to the WPCLF; 

6. Earn interest on moneys credited to the funds; and 

7. Pay the reasonable costs of administering the fund. 

I INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS (lOB) 

Industrial Development Bonds are issued by a state, county or municipal corporation forthe purpose 

of providing moneys to acquire by purchase, construct, reconstruct, enlarge, improve, furnish, or 

equip one or more projects. 

I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) are used to assist eligible local governments in the 

development and revitalization of local communities. The projects awarded CDBG funds must deal 

with fixed assets related to commercial, industrial or infrastructure. The maximum grant to a small 

city or non-urban county on behalf of a business project is currently $400,000. 

Cuyahoga County Brownfields Reuse Strateg ies

36 

I UDAG REPAYMENT FUNDS 

Businesses in the City of Cleveland that received UDAG assistance must pay back the funds with 

interest. These funds are kept in a special account managed by the City of Cleveland's Economic 

Development Department, which also evaluates the projects requesting the repayment funds. 

Currently, over $1 million a year is collected. The fund is expected to last between 15-20 years. 

I OHIO WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (OWDA) 

The Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA) provides financing to Ohio communities for 

drinking water, wastewater and solid waste facilities, and tax-exempt financing for qualified private 

drinking water, solid waste and hazardous waste facilities. 

The OWDA issues water development revenue bonds and notes of the state in principal amounts 

that, in the opinion of the OWDA, are necessary for the purpose of paying any part of one or more 

water development projects. Proceeds are used to fund the: 

1. Regular planning and construction program, which makes loans to govemmental agencies 

for the acquisition or construction of water development projects; 

2. Hardship Drinking Water Program, which provides below market rate financing to economically 

distressed communities that must make modifications to meet safe drinking; 

3. Research and Development Program, which was initiated to help local govemments 

develop innovative projects that have the potential to provide environmental solutions to 

other Ohio communities. Currently, projects eligible for funding are solid waste, water and 

wastewater treatment facilities. Local govemments must provide 50% cash match and the 

project must address a general need in Ohio. 

4. Solid Waste Facilities Program, which allows privately-owned solid waste facilities to 

obtain tax-exempt financing through the OWDA. The OWDA sells bonds for each project, 

the credit of the State and the Authority is not pledged in the bond issue. The credit of the 

company involved must be sufficient to secure the bond sale. However, the bonds are sold 

as a tax-exempt issue and reflect an overall financial savings to the company. Eligible 

projects are: recycling facilities and centers, composting facilities, incinerators and landfills. 

I STATE ISSUE 2 PROGRAM 

The State Issue 2 Program (SI2P) is financed by the net proceeds of obligations issued and sold 

by the treasurer of the State of Ohio for the purpose of financing or assisting in the financing of 

capital improvement projects of local subdivisions (counties, municipal corporations, townships, 

sanitary districts or regional water and sewer districts). The investment eamings on moneys in the 

fund are retained by the fund. Approximately $120 million in obligations are sold each year. 


37 

Eligible capital improvements are: roads, bridges, wastewater treatment, stormwater collection, 

water supply and solid waste disposal facilities and includes, without limitation, the cost of 

acquisition, construction, reconstruction, expansion, improvement, planning and equipping of these 

structures. 

For purposes of allocating these funds, the eighty-eight counties in the State have been separated 

into nineteen districts. District integrating committees, comprised of public and private officials, have 

been formed in each district to oversee implementation of the SI2P program. The committees assist 

local subdivisions in the preparation and coordination of capital improvement plans, evaluate capital 

improvement projects submitted by local subdivisions using selection criteria set down in the 

implementing legislation, and recommend projects to the director of the Ohio Public Works 

Commission, the state agency charged with distributing the funds. 

The rehabilitation of existing infrastructure, rather than expansion or new construction is the priority 

of the SI2P. The three types of funding available are: 

1. Grants 

2. Local debt support/credit enhancement- The local debt support is used to pay for interest 

costs associated with a loan, from a public or private lender, or bond/note issuance. Credit 

enhancement funds can be used to improve a subdivision's crediVbond rating relative to 

its issuance of general obligation bonds. 

3. Loans - interest-free, low-interest, market-rate of interest, or blended-rate loans. 

All repayments of loans made to local subdivisions for capital improvements will be deposited in 

the State Capital Improvements Revolving Loan Fund (SCIRLF). These funds may be pledged as 

security for debt service on revenue bonds issued by the treasurer of the State to provide additional 

loans to local subdivisions for infrastructure projects. Amount of revenue obligations and the 

requirements for such loans shall be established by the General Assembly. 

Moneys obtained from federal or private grants, or from other sources, which are to be used for any 

of the purposes authorized by the Chapter 164 of the Ohio Revised Code, can also be deposited 

in the SCIRLF. These funds, together with any investment earnings of the state capital improvement 

fund which are available can be allocated each year to the districts. 

Current funding level in Cuyahoga County from the SI2P program is approximately $13 million per 

fiscal year. 

I ENVIRONMENTAL VOTED BOND 

The Environmental Voted Bond concept is similar to the State Issue 2 Program, whereby, through 

a ballot issue the voters would agree to change the Ohio Constitution to allow the General Assembly 

to issue debt for environmental purposes, including brownfields assessment and remediation. The 

funds would be available from the bond issuance to projects chosen by the state agency charged 

with the administration and distribution of the funds. 


38 

I TAX INCREMENT FINANCING 

Tax increment financing (TIF) is a method of financing capital improvements through bonded debt 

repaid with revenue from increased tax assessment occasioned by the new infrastructure development. 

TI F's are usually done within a carefully defined geographic area. The funds are raised by 

diverting part of the regularly assessed property taxes to special project accounts. The revenues 

equal to those raised from the base level assessment are deposited in the jurisdiction's general 

funds, then as property taxes rise incremental tax revenues, beyond those raised from the base 

value, are earmarked for special funds to finance infrastructure improvements within the TIF district. 

Kansas City established a TI F district that included areas of suspected contamination. The City 

assumed liability and then reduced property values in these areas to reflect market value after 

discovery of contamination. Once the tax increment is initiated and funds collected to pay for a 

portion of the costs property values and economic activity will increase.1 

I SECTION 166 

The State of Ohio is pooling the profits from a 10% tax on spirituous liquor into a fund that is used 

to distribute loans to businesses/developers, preferably industrial projects, for economic development 

(Le. land and building acquisition, expansion or renovation and equipment purchase). The 

program, administered by the Ohio Department of Development, assisted fourteen companies in 

1991 by providing $11.3 million in low-interest loans. 

I MINI-166 

The mini-166 is similar to the Section 166 program, but the loans are limited to $200,000 and are 

provided to small businesses only. 

I GENERAL FUND 

The general fund is the main operating fund of the County. The sales tax, levied on all goods sold 

in the County, is the primary source of support for county govemment activities. 

Glaser, Mark. "Environmental Policy by Local Government: Addressing the Threat of Superfund." 

Northeast-Midwest Institute Report, Page II, June 1991. 


39 

I DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 

Development impact fees are charges levied against new development to generate revenue for 

funding capital cost of providing major facilities (arterial roads, interceptor sewers, sewage treatment 

plants, regional parks, etc.) to that development. Impact fees are usually single payments and are 

required to be made at the time of development approval and are calculated to be the proportionate 

share of the capital costs to the development. The single payment system allows for the availability 

of the capital outlay at the time the major facilities are needed. 

I LIENS (SUPERFUND) 

A lien is a legal right to take or hold the property of a debtor as a payment or security for the debt. 

Congress, in the Superfund legislation, to prevent land rich but liquid asset poor owners from 

escaping liability required that "all costs and damages for which a person is liable shall constitute 

a lien upon" all site property. However, problems developed when the federal liens against a site 

exceeded the value of the remedied property, making the owner less cooperative during remedy 

and freezing the property in perpetuity once it had been certified.2 

I LIENS {BLIGHn 

It has been a long established principle in law that a lien could be placed on property to recover the 

cost of govemment action to remove a nuisance or blight. When a health hazard is identified, the 

cost of removal could be recovered in a lien action. 

I SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENTS 

Exactions (Assets) 

• 

Exactions are builder/developer charges to fund infrastructure necessitated by new development 

or changes and expansion of existing development. Negotiated exactions are monetary in-kind 

donations determined through negotiation, also called proffers. Proffers are determined at the time 

of development approval and may be used for capital costs of new facilities as well as land. 

2 Powers, Charles W. "Property and Land Use and the Key to Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste Sites." Superfund 

Working Papers. Pages 91-93. February 1992. 

CuyaJwga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

40 

FUTURE OPERATING COST REDUCTIONS 

I TAX ABATEMENT 

Full or partial exemption from tax for a defined period of time. Can be used for a variety of purposes: 

encouraging development, historic preservation, natural resource conservation, urban redevelopment, 

enterprise zones, or some other public objective. (Also, see ENTERPRISE ZONES, below). 

REAL ESTATE 

Tax abatement on real property would exempt owners of real property and land from paying taxes 

on the real property and land, all growing crops and the majority of buildings, structures, improvements 

and fixtures of any kind on the land. 

PERSONAL PROPERTY 

Tax abatement on personal property would exempt owners of personal property from paying taxes 

on this property. Personal property is defined as every tangible thing, which is subject to ownership 

and which is held in use and not for sale in the ordinary course of business. 

I TAX POLICY 

In state and federal tax laws and policy, credits, deductions, and exemptions are created that would 

legally free certain types of properties, sales or income from the general obligation to pay taxes. 

I ENTERPRISE ZONES 

) 

The Ohio Urban Jobs and Enterprise Zones Act of 1982 provides local govemments with an 

economic development tool designed to encourage the revitalization of distressed areas. The 

enterprise zone is used by communities to assist existing businesses to modemize and expand or 

to encourage new businesses to locate in the community. 

A community can grant tax abatements on new investment (tangible personal property) occurring 

within the enterprise zone. The tax abatement agreement states that a company will not have to 

pay the full amount of new taxes on a new investment for a designated time period if it commits to 

job creation or retention. Tax abatement can be for 75% on real and/or personal property for up to 

ten years in an unincorporated area and 100% on real and/or personal property for up to ten years 

in municipalities. 

Cuyahoga County Brown/ields Reuse Strategies

41 

Criteria for enterprise zone establishment is currently based on four distress criteria, one of these 

criteria must be met to qualify: 

1. Average rate of unemployment over the previous 18 months is at least equal to or greater 

than 150% of the average national rate of unemployment over the same period; 

2. Federal bureau of the census has determined that the area is low-income area; 

3. Population of all the census tracts making up the zone must have lost at least 10% of their 

population between 1970 and 1980 according to census data; and there are a substantial 

number of abandoned or demolished structures, or that taxes on a substantial number of 

structu res are delinquent; or 

4. At least 70% of the residents of the zone have incomes of less than 80% of the median 

income of the community. 

I OTHER FINANCING 

SEC DisclosurelFASB 

Federal Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) rules currently do not require corporations to fully 

disclose liabilities for environmental cleanup in corporate reports. Imposing such requirements and 

changing Federal Accounting Standards (FASB) would encourage corporate management to more 

effectively deal with such liabilities. Furthermore, changing internal corporate accountability for 

pollution as a direct cost of production would promote more responsible environmental behavior. 

Land Bank 

The purpose of the land bank is to pool enough contiguous parcels of land to attract major 

developers and entice them with inexpensive land. The Government Action of Urban Land Project 

has facilitated this project by collecting delinquent real estate taxes, stripping the vacant and 

abandoned property of its tax delinquency and placing the property into the City of Cleveland's Land 

Bank. The property is then available for marketing to individuals or entities for redevelopment. 


iKE vJ~i~i~~:I' .::.:::::::~:: 

FINANCING OPTIONS 

SOURCES OF CAPITAL OPTIONS 

:::::@:~n :~ : p: ;;:f~::~ iiiP,~I i'iiiP

FINANCING OPTIONS 

f 

{ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

." 

44 

COMMUNITY STRATEGIES 



45 

The financial and regulatory factors surrounding brownfields will be the "driving forces" that will 

influence the ability to clean-up hazardous sites and the financial resources available in Cuyahoga 

County to undertake such a massive undertaking. Another component of equal importance is that 

of community strategies. 

The Working Group seeks to encourage the inclusion of diverse publics in the brownfields planning 

process and anticipates concerns of neighborhood groups, local development corporations, grassroots 

organizations, and small business owners. 

ISSUE I: There is a need for an inventory or tracking system that 

compiles available public information about sites in Cuyahoga County_ 


1. An inventory system should be devised in Cuyahoga County using the land bank program 

as a model using existing information. 

2. Linkages should be established with Cleveland State University, Cuyahoga County, the 

City of Cleveland, CAMP, and other organizations. This should be done in order to utilize 

resources such as Geographical Information Systems that will help to facilitate the 

development of a comprehensive data base for the proposed inventory system. 

3. The inventory or tracking system will be based upon the "one-stop-shop" concept. Hence, 

it will be a time saving and cost effective method that will generate information needed 

about a particular parcel of land to developers or other interested parties. 

4. The data base would have the capacity to generate environmental information about 

properties such as, but not limited to: 

a) A current listing of contaminated sites. 

b) Soil analyses. 

c) Sites with chemical storage tanks. 

d) Sites with above ground storage tanks. 

e) Sites which are currently being sought for development. 

f) Sites which have complaints against them by agencies. 

g) Sites which are known to pose health threats in residential, school or playground 

areas. 

h) Sites which are projected to "become ripe" for development in the near future. 

Cuyahoga County Brownfieltis Reuse Strategies

46 

5. A prioritization system should be developed using input from community and economic 

development planning agencies. 

6: An organization should be identified that will house this inventory system as well as update 

the infonnation as required. This organization shall provide coordination of information and 

define appropriate uses of existing data bases. 

ISSUE II: Economic development and the reuse of brownfields in 

Cuyahoga County would be greatly supported by a pro-active technical 

assistance program structured to meet the needs of developers, neighborhood 

groups, or local development corporations. 


1. To establish a countywide up-to-date, public infonnation network about hazardous sites. 

2. To develop a mechanism for credible assessment of contaminants on hazardous sites 

which would be beneficial to developers, as well as community and local planning 

agencies. 

3. Growth sector industries should be identified and encouraged to view Cuyahoga County 

as a strong contender for relocation, resulting in the creation of new jobs and the 

strengthening of the county's economic vitality. 

4. Partnerships should be cultivated with local chambers of commerce as well as the local, 

county and state departments of development in order to facilitate reinvestment in 


5. To encourage businesses that relocate to Cuyahoga County to provide access to job 

opportunities and training for local residents. 

ISSUE III: Businesses in Cuyahoga County should be encouraged to 

implement pollution prevention. 


1. Programs should be offered to help small businesses from contaminating and abusing 

their respected sites. Such programs would promote: 

a) the proper disposal of hazardous materials; 

b) the advantages of recycling and reusing materials; 

Cuya }wga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

47 

c) training opportunities for on-site personnel. 

2. Incentives should be offered to small businesses that take advantage of technical resources 

that prevent contamination. 

3. Firms that have instituted environmental policies in their businesses should be encouraged 

to view Cuyahoga County as an area receptive to businesses that are concemed about 

the health and well-being of its employees as well as the general community. 

4. Enact rigid performance standards regulating pollutants. 

ISSUE IV: There is a need for public health analysis and a Pilot Community 

Outreach Program in Cuyahoga County. 

1. The public in general and neighborhoods adjacentto potentially developable sites orthose 

specifically of interest to a buyer need to have an objective and scientifically sophisticated 

source of advice as to the level of health risk involved in different intended usages as well 

as the health implications of leaving a 'site undeveloped. This should also be the case 

during development with respect to intended use and the clean-up process. 

2. Health risk assessment if it is done by rote formulas may be inappropriate, e.g. on one 

extreme, it may underestimate health risk by not considering non-cancer risks, or on the 

other, by making assumptions which overstate health risk after a particular intended use. 

Some kind of peer review of the risk assessment is necessary. 

3. The health analysis is critical to the economic analysis in terms of the cost of remediation 

to a level which does not compromise public health. The same information is necessary 

for both the community and for the developer to assess the health risk of remediation. 

4. The degree of risk and the uncertainties in the analysis must be communicated to the 

surrounding neighborhood or public at large early in the site assessment in order to 

understand and respond to neighborhood concerns and to prevent polarization and 

suspicion. The results of health risk analysis must be translated in understandable 

language and with the participation of respected community leaders such as doctors, 

health workers, teachers and civic religious leaders, or local community organizations. 

5. A standing Public Health Advisory Committee somewhat similar to the medical advisory 

committee on lead pOisoning should be established. Expert members would be drawn from 

academia, private practice, and industry with independent leadership. In orderto maintain 

the participation of the voluntary members, a half- or full-time staff person with a MPH and 

background in urban policy or planning or activism would act as convener, organizer of 

Advisory and public meetings, and as the transmitter of information to the interested . 

communities orto intermediaries as mentioned above. Ideally, this would be a person who 

grew up in a similar community. The public health professional would also interface with 

local, state and federal officials. 

Cuyaiwga County Brownfields Reuse Strategies

48 

ISSUE V: Brownfields redevelopment should be incorporated into land 

use planning and zoning administration. 


1. Environmental factors relating to potential site contamination must become a component 

of the zoning review process. 

2. Zoning codes should include guidelines on reuse of contaminated sites for each land use 

type. 

3. Comprehensive planning should include the potential use and reuse of contaminated sites 

in Cuyahoga County. The creation of a countywide land trust concept in Cuyahoga County 

should be explored. 


COMMUNITY STRATEGIES ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Need to d evelop an 

inventory of brow nfield sites 

in Cuyahoga County. 

f 

~ 

~ 

~ 

to 

50 

STRATEGIC ACTION 


Cuyahoga Counly Brown./ields Reuse Strategies

51 


I ISSUE 

There is a need for a centrally-located coordinator to act as an advocate and resource for 

brownfields information, technical assistance and support to assessment and remediation efforts 

for the public and local govemment. 

I RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners designate a full-time staff 

person in the appropriate department, and that the person be provided with necessary 

salary, office support and information services to provide the technical assistance necessary 

to continue the development of brownfields remediation activities in Cuyahoga 

County. 

2. It is recommended that a "stakeholder" committee such as the Brbwnfields Working Group 

be constituted to serve as an advisory body to the Board of County Commissioners to 

support and monitor the brownfields project. 

CuyaJwga county Brownfields Reuse Strategies

52 

APPENDIX A 

BROWNFIELD REUSE: 

THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE 


53 

BROWNFIELDS REUSE: THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE 

Many other states and urban communities throughout the country are also faced with the dilemma 

of how to clean-up contaminated sites and the burden of determining who should do the clean-up. 

Each of the locales listed below have faced the problem of having previously valuable land now 

sitting idle and neglected due to massive environmental contamination. However, there is no single 

or "cookie-cutter" solution that could be applied to address these sites. Each case involves multiple 

parties, both advocates and adversaries, to the process and obstacles, regulatory, statutory, 

financial , etc., to overcome. 

Some states have adopted sweeping mandates to deal with the question of liability for the 

contamination and responsibility for the cleanup. 

NEW JERSEY's Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act holds the seller responsible for removing 

or disclosing contaminants before a property can be sold. In addition, regulators are developing 

generic clean-up standards to replace site-by-site determinations of clean-up goals to give landowners 

a better idea of what are acceptable levels of contaminants after a clean-up. 

CONNECTICUT's Transfer Act requires that notification be given when companies handling 

hazardous wastes are sold or transferred. The seller is not required to have a state-approved 

clean-up plan before final sale, but buyers proceed at their own risk with development plans. 

CALIFORNIA requires that prior to sale, notification of past releases of hazardous substances must 

be given, but no site assessment or clean-up is required. 

ILLINOIS has the Responsible Property Transfer Act, which requires that properties for sale with 

past industrial uses disclose these activities, but does not require clean-up. This information is 

attached to the deed to ensure that all future owners are aware of the condition of the property. 

MICHIGAN's Environmental Response Act makes those responsible for toxic releases liable, while 

limiting the liability of developers willing to redevelop a contaminated site. The state also awards 

grants and loans to communities to clean and reuse old industrial properties. 

MINNESOTA also relieves developers from liability if they clean and use a contaminated site. 

PENNSYLVANIA awards grants and loans to communities to clean and reuse old industrial 

properties to generate new economic activity. 

WASHINGTON's Model Toxic Control Act requires that all transfers of commercial property include 

an assessment of environmental hazards under a liability clause "due diligence prior to purchase." 

On an individual basis, communities are coming up with different solutions, unique to their economic 

and political landscapes, to redevelop contaminated land for productive use. Many of the projects 

Cuyahoga COllnty Brown/ields Reuse Strategies

54 

are performed solely by the local govemment with assistance from state agencies. Others are done 

through public-private partnerships, with the private partner being either the former owners or the 

future landholders. 

WICHITA, KANSAS has embarked, on its own, on a $20 million clean-up of its downtown business 

district to avoid Superfund designation of the site. The City assumed liability and responsibility for 

the clean-up and in retum local banks have resumed lending to businesses in the downtown area. 

Clean-up funds were raised by implementing a tax-increment financing plan involving the entire 

contaminated area and obtaining compensation from the primary polluters. 

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, through its Minneapolis Ught Industry Land Acquisition Program, 

has established a policy of redevelopment of contaminated industrial sites. The City spends about 

$5 million a year, obtained from a tax-increment financing plan, to buy contaminated industrial sites 

and assumes the liability for clean-up. The City also provides up to $6 million in low-interest loans 

to developers of the sites. 

DAVENPORT, IOWA has bought and cleaned property, through Rejuvenate Davenport, a private 

nonprofit redevelopment organization, in order to improve the economic climate and spur new 

investment in the downtown area. For example, initial demolition costs for the new site of the Quad 

City Times newspaper, were collected through extensive fund raising drives; however, as costs 

soared Rejuvenate Davenport, which had assumed responsibility for the cleanup, worked with the 

city council to establish a tax-increment financing district. 

DENVER, COLORADO and one of its suburbs worked together to cap a Superfund site and turned 

it into protected open space. 

WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS city officials, the USEPA and state officials have worked out a plan 

that tumed over land in a Superfund site to a custodial trust, Industri-Plex Remedial Trust, consisting 

of current and former owners of the land. Representatives of the Trust, the USEPA and the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection are monitoring the remediation process. 

A Boston-based consulting firm is preparing a redevelopment strategy for the land while working 

in collaboration with the Superfund clean-up. 

WYANDOTTE, MICHIGAN city officials, working with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

were able to have regulatory Changes implemented that allowed for long-term remedial 

actions that did not require encapsulation. Previously, contaminated sites were encapsulated and 

no future site development was allowed. Further collaboration between city officials and BASF, the 

owners of a contaminated site, resulted in a jOint task force to consider redevelopment options. As 

a result, the city maintains ownership of one-third of the property under a long-term lease 

arrangement and BASF is contributing $2 million towards the construction of public access facilities 

on the land. 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS' Chinese American Development Corporation (CADC) and the Santa Fe 

Railway Corporation, respectively the buyer and seller of contaminated property entered into 

negotiations with the Illinois EPA to determine acceptable remediation activities. At the conclusion 

of the negotiations, CADCagreed to increase the purchase price of the property and to accept deed 

covenants obligating it to follow a set of environmental guidelines that restricted site developments 

to assure that any future contamination discoveries would be treated properly. Sante Fe Railway 

agreed to pay for site clean-up costs up to four times the initial estimate. 

Cuyahoga COllnty BrownJields Reuse Strategies

55 

COMMERCE, CALIFORNIA's Redevelopment Agency purchased a 35-acre vacant site for redevelopment. 

The agency hired environmental consultants to conduct a formal site investigation, 

which confirmed the presence of toxic substances in the soil and buildings on the site. To avoid 

strict state oversight, two Los Angeles County regulatory agencies, the Departments of Health 

Services and Public Works took the lead in supervising the clean-up. The Commerce Redevelopment 

Agency has spent over $23 million on the clean-up, including a grant received from the 

Economic Development Administration. Some cost recovery was made through lawsuits filed in 

federal and state courts. 

MEADVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA county and city redevelopment authorities are working together to 

restore the site of a former synthetic fiber manufacturing plant. Under a deed, the county pu rchased 

only the site structures and parcels that were not contaminated. Through the issuance of bonds 

and the receipt of a grant from the Economic Development Administration, the county was able to 

renovate the buildings and make improvements to the infrastructure. The city redevelopment 

agency has leased the buildings for 15 years and has accepted responsibility for removing PCBs 

and asbestos. 

WATERLOO, IOWA city officials and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources reacted swiftly 

and collaboratively when two underground storage tanks containing a hazardous gas were 

discovered while digging the foundation of a art gallery, paid by private contributions. The officials 

contacted Iowa Public Service (IPS), the local gas and electric utility, and through negotiations, had 

IPS assume responsibility for the clean-up, even though the parties knew of no industrial activity 

on the site. 

FOND DU LAC, WISCONSIN city and county governments, reluctant to foreclose on abandoned 

contaminated property for fear of becoming a responsible party, lobbied state legislators and the 

governor to work with the Fond du Lac officials to release the city as a liable party. 

EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN officials, working with the buyer and seller of a contaminated site, were 

able to negotiate an agreementthat required the sellerto pay for groundwater monitOring equipment. 

A "hold-harmless" provision was granted to the buyer, which released responsibility for site 

reclamation but kept responsibility for future environmental problems. The City accepted responsibility 

for cleaning a closed municipal landfill next to the site which was contributing to the 

contamination. 

AKRON, OHIO Canal Place is on the site of the former BF Goodrich Tire Complex. Purchased by 

a development firm, the site was cleaned by the BF Goodrich Company. In place of monetary 

assistance, the City of Akron provided low-cost power to the project from its trash-burning plant. 

However, the complex adjacent to Canal Place still lies abandoned because the developer could 

not obtain financing due to the high cost of hazardous waste removal. 

ERIE COUNTY, NEW YORK cities and towns, together with the Niagara Frontier Transportation 

Authority, entered into an intermunicipal cooperation agreement forming the Horizons Waterfront 

Commission to address the reuse of the sites along the Erie County shoreline which had experi' 

enced a decline in economic activity and employment. An important part of the Horizons Waterfront 

Action Plan is the remediation and redevelopment of contaminated properties. 


56 

SOURCES: 

Horizons Waterfront Action Plan, Executive Summary, Horizons Waterfront Commission, Inc. 237 

Main Street, Suite 1600, Buffalo, New York, 14203. 

"Developing the Decontaminated City," Governing, December, 1992, pp. 44-47. 

Northeast-Midwest Institute. "Revival of Contaminated Industrial Sites: Case Studies" 1992. 


57 

APPENDIX B 

REGULATORY TEAM 

MISSION STATEMENT 


58 

REGULATORY TEAM MISSION STATEMENT 

The mission of the Regulatory Team is to develop recommendations for regulations at the local, 

state, and federal levels of govemment which promote timely and economic reuse of environmentally 

contaminated properties, while protecting human health and the environment. 

I POLICY GOAL 

1. To reduce barriers to reuse and redevelopment from legal regulations in an environmentally 

sound manner, consistent with future use of the site. 

2. To facilitate a community-wide effort to support environmentally-responsible federal, state, 

and local laws and regulations, while supporting the reuse and redevelopment of contaminated 

property. 

I OBJECTIVES 

1. To identify legal barriers in enVironmental, banking and other regulations. 

2. To evaluate and recommend changes in local, state, and federal laws to facilitate reuse 

and redevelopment. 

3. To assess adequacy of information on health factors in the process to protect public health 

and the envi ronment. 


59 

APPENDIXC 

FINANCE TEAM 


Cuya/wga County Brown/ields Reuse Strategies

60 

FINANCE TEAM MISSION STATEMENT 

Develop recommendations for identifying methods and sources of funding for reusing and redeveloping 

brownfield sites, particularly the assessment, remediation or other costs related to environmental 

contamination. 

CuyaJwga County Brown./ields Reuse Strategies

61 

APPENDIX D 

COMMUNITY STRATEGIES TEAM 



62 

COMMUNITY STRATEGIES TEAM MISSION STATEMENT 

The mission of the Community Strategies Team is to link brownfields reuse and redevelopment to 

community development through environmental clean-ups, job creation, and community enhancements. 

I GOAL 

To recommend methods for prioritization of properties and means for reuse and redevelopment of 

community sites. 

Objectives 

1. To recommend creation of inventory for prioritization of sites. 

2. To identify and evaluate community resources for reuse and redevelopment. 

I GOAL 

To involve community groups in determination of environmental risks, clean-up methods, technologies, 

and benefits of clean-ups for future use. 

Objectives 

1 . To identify compatible uses for brownfield sites. 

2. To develop linkages for attracting new businesses. 

3. To create a dialogue of community interests in reuse. 

4. To develop an information bank on brownfields. 

5. To facilitate expansion of existing businesses. 

6. To promote awareness of contamination issues among existing businesses. 

Cuyahoga County Brownfields Reuse Strateg ies

63 

APPENDIX E 

STRATEGIC ACTION TEAM 



64 

STRATEGIC ACTION TEAM MISSION STATEMENT 

To propose an overall One, Three, and Five Year County Brownfields Action Plan, incorporating 

the recommendations of the other three teams and other relevant information. 

I GOAL 1 

To review, adopt, reject or amend recommendations by three action teams as consistent with 

. problem definition and mission statement for County Brownfields Working Group. 

I GOAL 2 

To adopt and recommend final report and recommendations to the Cuyahoga County Commissioners 

and the respective organizations represented in Brownfields Working Group. 

I OBJECTIVES 

1. To identify "target markets" for reuse and redevelopment. 

2. To review current planning and implementation programs, e.g., Govemment Action on 

Urban Lands project, in which brownfield strategies may be coordinated or integrated. 

3. To relate brownfields agenda to county development agenda. 


I 

I

65 

APPENDIX F 

RESOURCE PEOPLE 


66 

RESOURCE PEOPLE 

Mr. Rodney Beals 


Mr. Thomas Bier, Ph.D. 

Cleveland State University 

Mr. Arthur V. N. Brooks 


Ms. Sandra Buchanan 

Citizen Action 

Mr. Joseph Ditchman 

Ostendorf-Morris 

Mr. Martin Doster 

New York State Department of Conservation 

Mr. Michael Gargas, Ph.D. 

McLaren-Hart Environmental Management 

Corporation 

Honorable Francis E. Gaul 

Cuyahoga County Treasurer 

Ms. Jane Goodman 

League of Women Voters 

Mr. Michael Kalstrom 

LEPC, Cuyahoga County 

Ms. Jennifer Kwasniewski 


Dr. Richard Lewis, M.D., M.PH 

Case Westem Reserve University 

Mr. Joseph Marinucci 


Mr. Robert H. Maynard 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease 

Mr. James Mueller 

Earth SCiences, Inc. 

Mr. Timothy Pace 


Mr. Charles W. Powers 

Resources of Responsible Site Management 

Mr. Douglas Sarno 

Clean Sites 

Mr. Evan Stoddard, Ph.D. 

Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh 

Mr. Robert D. Swartz 

Wayne State University 

Ms. Jennifer Tiell 


Mr. Christopher Warren 



1 

I

67 

APPENDIXG 

INVENTORY DATA 


68 

INVENTORY DATA 

The Cuyahoga County Planning Commission has undertaken a survey of the types and uses of 

property which potentially face problems in acquiring financing for site improvement, reuse · or 

redevelopment due to the nature of their production facilities. 

The survey is not site specific. It is not a site assessment or environmental audit. Instead it is an 

attempt to quantify the scope of the problem, the possible number of properties which must be 

considered impacted by the liability for remediation under CERCLA. Some of the facilities will be 

included under more than one program. A manufacturing plant may have a treatment and storage 

permit under RCRA as well as air permits and effluent discharge permits under the Clean Water 

Act. 

The state and Federal environmental programs which identify production processes of environmental 

concern include the following: 

I THE CLEAN AIR ACT 

Over 12,000 sources of air pollution emit hydrocarbons, metal particles and potentially toxic 

contaminates which may require remediation of buildings and/or soils. 

Control of air sources under the Clean Air Act is administered by the City of Cleveland Division of 

Air Pollution Control under contract with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 

I RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT 

Two major hazardous materials and waste control programs fall under RCRA: 

1. Regulated waste activity is delegated by USEPA to the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency. Facilities are identified by a USEPA identification number. Additionally, treatment, 

disposal, and storage facilities have special permits for handling of hazardous waste. 

Transporters of hazardous materials are licensed and permitted by the Public Utilities 

Commission of Ohio. 

Over 2500 facilities are involved in the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of 

hazardous waste in Cuyahoga County. 


69 

2. Underground storage tanks which store petroleum and hazardous substances are regulated 

under the Bureau of Underground Storage Tanks Division in the office of the State 

Fire Marshall. The program requires the eventual identification of all underground storage 

tanks and requires that they be retrofitted or replaced pursuant to standards. 

Over 1500 underground storage tanks in Cuyahoga County are registered under BUSTR. 

Five hundred have had corrective actions taken, i.e., remediation actions taken over the 

last five years. 

I 

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE AND COMPENSA 

TION LIABILITY ACT, CERCLA 

The Master Sites List, MSL, was created in 1988 for the listing, tracking, prioritization and reporting 

of "unregulated" sites by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. The majority of sites listed on 

the MSL by the Division of Emergency and Remedial Response are a result of past referrals from 

USEPA's CERCUS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 

System) database. Ohio EPA evaluates sites using state standards before adding them 

from to the MSL from the CERCUS. Some sites listed on CERCUS may not be listed on the MSL, 

and vice versa. Prioritization is as follows: 

High - Sites where there is evidence or it is suspected that hazardous waste has been managed 

and there is evidence of a release of hazardous waste which may present a substantial threat to 

public health or safety. The 1993 MSL lists in Cuyahoga County 9 High Priority Sites. 

Medium - Sites where there is evidence or it is suspected that hazardous waste has been managed 

and there is the potential for a release of this hazardous waste which may present a substantial 

threat to public health or safety; or there is evidence of a release of hazardous waste which may 

cause or contribute to or threaten to cause or contribute to air or water pollution or soil contamination. 

The MSL lists 35 Medium Priority Sites in Cuyahoga County. 

Low - Sites where there is evidence or it is suspected that hazardous waste has been managed, 

and there is the potential for release of hazardous waste which may cause or contribute to or 

threaten to cause of contribute to air, or water pollution, or soil contamination. The MSL lists 91 low 

priority sites in Cuyahoga County. 

Zero - Sites where there is evidence or suspicion of hazardous waste, but there is no potential for 

release of hazardous waste. MSL lists 14 sites in Cuyahoga County. 

Blank - Sites where no priority has been assigned. The MSL lists 18 sites. 

I TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY 

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was included as Title III of 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act as passed by Congress in 1986. Title III Section 

C''Yahoga County Brown./ields Reuse Strategies

70 

313 requires notification to the EPA of the amounts of chemicals released into the environment, 

both routinely and as the result of accidents. The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) includes over 300 

chemicals and chemical categories selected for their potential health and environmental effects. In 

Cuyahoga County a copy of the inventory is maintained at the Cuyahoga County Division of 

Emergency Management. To identify property impacted by the releases, the reports must first be 

inspected and follow-up remediation measures evaluated. 

I WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 

The Clean Water Act regulates two classes of dischargers: facilities discharging wastewater directly 

into the lakes, rivers and waters of the United States; and facilities discharging wastewater into 

municipal or other publicly owned treatment works which discharge into waters ofthe United States. 

Almost 200 facilities discharge to publicly-owned treatment facilities. 

The discharge permits which specify limitations and standards are the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The Planning Commission has not yet included the NPDES 

list into its data base. 

USEPA promulgates pretreatment limitations for pollutants which may interfere with, bypass, or be 

incompatible with the publicly-owned treatment works into which it discharges. Though industrial 

discharger need not obtain a permit under Federal law, there may be a requirement for a local 

permit or agreement with the public facility. 

Spills of hazardous substances are subject to reporting requirements to the USEPA under Clean 

Water Act regulations. Any person in charge of a facility must report a harmful discharge immediately 

to the USEPA or the Coast Guard and clean up or mitigate the effects of the spill. 

For purposes of a county inventory, the list of dischargers often overlaps with air source locations 

and RCRA facilities as well. 

I SOLID WASTE UNITS 

Operating and closed landfills, construction and demolitions dumps and solid waste units on 

industrial facilities all constitute property with environmental impacts which must be considered 

subject to assessments and audits before they can be considered available to reuse and redevelopment.

Brownfields Reuse Strategies Working Group Report - Cuyahoga ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?